Matt Waring

Preserve and Protect

Will Salter, Senior Designer at dpa lighting consultants discusses the importance of designing lighting for museums that preserves the artefacts on display, as well as enhancing the visitor experience.

The purpose of museums and galleries is to collect, preserve and display objects of cultural, artistic, or scientific significance for the education of the public. However, finding a balance between the two key objectives; display and preservation, is often hard to achieve.

This is because when a decision is made to exhibit an object it may be detrimental to its visual and physical integrity, cause ageing or fading of its materials or impact the significance or value of the piece. Therefore, it is imperative to understand the environment of the space the object will be displayed in, so that it can be exhibited under ‘safe’ gallery conditions while optimising the visitor experience.

Lighting is essential and plays a crucial role. A considered lighting scheme helps to create an atmosphere that complements the artwork, making it more engaging and immersive for visitors. Additionally, lighting can be used to highlight specific aspects of the artwork, such as colour, texture, and detail, making it easier for visitors to appreciate and understand the work.

Today, great thought and consideration is given to elements such as humidity, temperature, air quality and lighting to create a suitable environment for displaying objects to the public. Each has its own set of guidelines that museums follow during the installation and then continue to monitor during the entire time objects are on display.

The current lighting conservation guidelines for sensitive artifacts groups display objects in to three categories. These are: Sensitive Collections (works on paper, photographs, textiles) 50 lux max; Less Sensitive Collections (oil paintings, wood, leather) 150 lux max; Least Sensitive Collections (metal, ceramics, stone, glass) 300 lux.   

Currently, there is an assumption that when the museum opens, the lights turn on and when the museum closes, they turn off. This means, for the most part, that the artwork on display is lit to the same lux level all day, every day – and then sometimes for longer due to out of hours events and viewings.

Display objects are assigned annual light exposure levels. An example of how this is measured is by calculating the usual opening hours of a museum, seven hours a day for six days a week over 52 weeks, therefore resulting that an item can be exposed to light 2,184 hours a year. This figure is then multiplied by the recommended light intensity to give the lux hours. So, a sensitive item with a maximum of 50 lux will have a rough total of 100,000 lux hours.

Some institutions have already started to rethink their approach to object rotation to reduce the total time of exposure to light. These include rotating items from storage or turning pages of books or manuscripts on display.

The most effective strategy in reducing light damage is to reduce illuminance and time of exposure. The longer you leave an item exposed to light, the more damage it will do.

An example of this is at The Edvard Munch Museum in Oslo, where there is an installation displaying three versions of ‘The Scream’: a painting, a print, and a drawing. To protect the works only one is displayed at any one time, whilst the other two are covered. It is programmed to automatically rotate hourly to reduce exposure (lux hours) to each piece whilst creating a sense of mystery and intrigue at the same time.

A similar approach should become more widely adopted in museums because when implemented in this way it does not only benefit the artwork but also the visitor.

Using lighting control systems linked to sensors and timers will reduce total exposure time as the display object will only be illuminated when someone is in the gallery or viewing the display object. Turning off or dimming luminaires that are illuminating artworks will also reduce the energy consumption of galleries throughout the show, therefore not only protecting the works but also resulting in lower energy consumption.

Another benefit from the advances in lighting control technology is the use of digital controls, such as smartphones, tablets, and computers, to manage lighting systems remotely. This allows lighting designers to adjust lighting levels and colours from anywhere, making it possible to tailor lighting to specific needs and preferences. Also, it allows curators or gallery assistants to recall pre-programmed scenes that could, for example, raise the light level on a particular artwork whilst giving a talk or tour.

Perhaps with the recent technological improvements within the lighting industry, such as the seamless incorporation of digital motion sensors, timers, and in particular smart control systems, a case can be made to encourage museums to begin to adopt such elements. Along with the move away from halogen light sources, is it now time for the lighting conservation guidelines for sensitive artifacts to be re-written?

www.dpalighting.com

---

by Matt Waring

Changing light, not build, to create more sustainable exhibition spaces

Pippa Nissen, Director at Nissen Richards Studio, discusses the role that lighting can play in creating more sustainable exhibition spaces.

When we’re designing a new exhibition or gallery, we have to think about how to transform a space as much as possible for maximum impact. We’re constantly under pressure to create something new for repeat visitors, so that each time they come it is a different experience. For temporary shows, the accent is on value for money, while a blockbuster show needs to come complete with ‘selfie moments’ and visually rich displays.

In the past, exhibition design was notoriously wasteful, with every aspect effectively new-build. As we face the future, we are rightly being asked to design more sustainably and also take more responsibility ourselves for thinking laterally and questioning the sustainable credentials of everything we specify. We are thinking increasingly about how to change the appearance of something without adding much in the way of a physical build – and how lighting and graphics can help us achieve this. The aim is for minimal build, but with the ability to change the way it looks and feels throughout a day, or even during a single visit. We can add colour and graphic surfaces, which are easy ways to create dramatic effects, but it’s even better if we can pair this with a clever lighting kit to enable multiple layers of change.

Over the years, I have enjoyed working with lighting design that empowers change and can adapt. I have also been drawn to working with theatre consultants, who have a history of storytelling, which draws from my studies and work in theatre, using light to tell a story and imply all sorts of things – another place, memory, emotion, or idea. I have worked a lot over the last 20 years with Zerlina Hughes, founder of Studio ZNA. We first met on a theatre project all those years ago and I enjoy how she seems to feel the spaces and responds in a very creative way to creating dynamism through light.

A really early project we worked on together perfectly encapsulated lighting’s transformative power. It wasn’t a museum project, but a bar called Liquorish in East Dulwich, where the brief was about adapting through the day from the space being a cafe for young mothers in the morning, to hosting business lunches later and then transforming in the evening into a nightclub vibe with a DJ and dancing. We developed a shifting series of lights on a scene set, that accomplished just that. During the day, we used linear lights paired with windows, and long new roof lights, with smaller interior windows within the spaces. Later on, these lights became stronger, and started to take over from the natural daylight through the windows. Another set of light bulbs were designed to be closer to the tables to give the flattering feeling of candle light. A larger installation of lights in a double height space then became a feature, and achieved a pin-point effect – almost like a still night sky. At a certain time, deep colours started to emerge as lines of colour throughout, with gelled lights on edges of windows and in niches starting to shine, so that the whole space became filled with coloured light. Lighting alone permitted a seamless transition to totally different atmospheres.

Since then, the first bit of kit I now always ensure appears in our cost plan is a lighting control system. It’s fairly pricey, but it means that the space is adaptable to different modes and situations. I am always interested in lighting that considers surfaces, colour, and movement, rather than in the fittings per se. In reality, I rarely use visible fittings, unless bespoke or picking up on shapes or materials we’re using elsewhere in the architecture. I want to think about how a space feels and can adapt. We encourage lights that are small and hidden – and that can change and complement stories. We create troughs and niches to hide lights and conceal fittings.

A more recent project, as a permanent gallery space where the client wanted repeat visitors and the ability to easily adapt, but without large additional costs, was Opplyst at the National Library of Norway. Again, change was achieved to a large degree through lighting, making the space feel magical via a dynamic control system. Coloured, gelled lights shift really slowly across the space, creating a subtle shift between warmer and cooler moods. As you enter, the first experience is a series of light boxes that are pure white, creating a visual ‘reset’ break from outside. Each object is then spot-lit, encouraging visitors to feel as if the only thing they are looking at is each object, with interpretation hidden within the showcases, or subtly placed on light sheets alongside. The beauty of light sheets, when used with a perspex diffuser, is that many different materials can be placed on top with a printed text, and dimmed right down so that, like a kindle, it appears just lit. The text can be reprinted easily but always looks good.

For us light is a boost to give more impact, and also an emotional connection to our build – as a way of enhancing and changing people’s experiences and creating a theatrical twist. So, my tip would be, when thinking about a new exhibition project, to consider carefully how much of a theatrical change can be made through pairing lighting with architectural moves, and then allowing different effects to be revealed slowly through time, so that the space isn’t still and one-dimensional, but has a dynamic and changing appearance. This feels like value added to the client, while visitors feel that they are in an ‘experience’ and the client ends up with a more flexible space that can be used in different ways. They can even add a party mode to the scene setter, so that spaces can be used by corporate or private clients in a different way as a revenue stream. No extra build, but a completely different atmosphere. This feels like the future – and a sustainable one too.

www.nissenrichardsstudio.com

---

by Matt Waring

David Morgan review: Simes IP System

Since its launch at Light + Building last year, the IP System from Simes has been causing a buzz among the lighting design community. Here, David Morgan takes a closer look at the range to see what all the fuss is about.

It is exciting and unusual to review a lighting system that combines a unique combination of features. The IP system from Simes is such a system. It combines an exterior rated silicone encapsulated diffuse linear lighting system with an exterior rated track system for projectors and accent lighting luminaires that can be added or removed along the length of the system.

Simes is based in Franciacorta, in the Brescia region of Italy north of Milan. The current firm was founded in 1973, although the origins of the company date back to 1957, when Edigio Botti started a metals machining company at his home. The company expanded and, in 1972, purchasing the Bruno Magnani company that specialised in exterior lighting. The company name was changed to Simes a year later and the first new product launched was a redesigned die cast bulkhead luminaire that was offered in a range of bright colours.

Under the management of Edigio Botti’s son, Roberto Botti, who has run the firm since 1990, the company has continued to grow and now employs 120 people. With sales distribution in more than 60 countries, around 70% of sales are outside Italy. All of the company’s components are designed in-house, and most are sourced from trusted local suppliers in the region.

The company has worked with a variety of high-profile designers to create new products since 1986. In 2016, I reviewed for arc magazine the innovative Simes Ghost concrete integrated range, designed by Marc Sadler.

The latest development from Simes is the IP System, which was unveiled at Light + Building in 2022 and has received an enthusiastic response from the lighting design community.

The original concept for an exterior IP rated track system was developed by Roberto Botti over many years. The eureka moment was apparently revealed in a dream when he realised the opal silicone used to encapsulate exterior linear lighting systems could also be used as a gasket in a waterproof track system. The Simes in-house design team got to work and quickly developed a working prototype to prove the design approach.

At the heart of the IP System is a custom flexible LED tape fitted with tight pitch LEDs. This produces the light output for the linear diffuse lighting system branded as the Highlighter by Simes. Running either side of the LED circuit are two additional copper conductor strips, which are used to power the plug-in projectors and other luminaires. The side conductors have a separate power supply from the central LED strip enabling each circuit to be independently controlled. A complex dual material silicone extrusion provides the diffusion for the LEDs and aims to seal the tape from water ingress.

The electrical connections between the plug-in luminaires and the conductive copper strips are made with sharp pins that pierce through the silicone diffuser without leaving space for water ingress. The silicone extrusion is housed in an aluminium extrusion, which gives the system it’s strength and rigidity. The plug-in luminaires snap onto the aluminium extrusion with stainless steel clips. Extruded aluminium side panels are then clipped onto the body extrusion to give a clean, finished appearance.

The Highlighter is available in both surface mount and ceiling recessed versions with lengths up to four metres. The system can be cut to a 50mm module, but this has to be done by Simes during production and cannot be undertaken on site. The Highlighter without any additional snap-in luminaires is rated at IP65. When the snap-in luminaires are first added, the IP rating remains at IP65 but once these luminaires are removed and then moved to a new position the rating for the whole system drops to IP54. I assume that the puncture holes in the silicone extrusion do not completely heal and may provide a water ingress path to the LED tape.

The snap-in luminaire installation is a little more complicated than I expected and requires the use of a patented, moulded jig to ensure that the contact pins pierce the silicone extrusion perfectly perpendicular to the surface. To protect the contact pins and ensure they are not distorted, a specially designed moulded cover is provided for each snap-in luminaire. Removing the luminaires from the track is also slightly difficult as the stainless-steel clips are an aggressive fit yet seem to allow the projectors in particular, to wobble slightly. It helps to remove the side panels before removing and repositioning the snap-in luminaires. For the ceiling recessed version this would mean removing the system from the ceiling before moving any of the snap in luminaires.

The sample I was given to test worked well with the caveat that there is a knack to getting the snap-in luminaires to make contact through the silicone extrusion. The lit effect from both the linear Highlighter and the snap-in luminaires was good with attractive, clean distributions.

The maximum wattage for all the snap-in luminaires per circuit is 60W, which may be limiting in some situations.

The range of plug-in luminaires includes two sizes of adjustable projectors: 5.4W and 8.6W. The larger size incorporates a zoom lens. Both sizes can be aimed and locked with grub screws. Snoot versions are also available.

In addition to the adjustable projectors, the IP System includes two styles of fixed downlight. A rectilinear wide flood type design in two sizes rated at 4.2W and 8.4W, and a radius end type with narrower optics rated at 4.2W.

A cylindrical 4.2W pendant available in flood and wide-flood distributions completes the current range of add-on luminaires.

The design of the system is well-detailed from an appearance point of view. However, construction of the luminaires involves the use of hard setting resins, which will make servicing, reuse, or recycling of the die cast and machined aluminium components problematic at the end of life, so the system does not fit into a circular economy model particularly well. It will be interesting to see how the system copes with high levels of heat and moisture in challenging environments over the long term.

The IP System is another example of the innovative and quite daring Simes design approach to luminaire development and the initial positive reaction from specifiers indicates that it will prove to be a commercial success.

www.simes.it

---

by Matt Waring

GLA: Regulation and legislation of the Circular Economy

The GreenLight Alliance speaks to several members about the obstacles and opportunities to push towards a circular economy within lighting.

The lighting industry has begun to lean into its environmental responsibilities. It has far to go, but it’s happening. What more can be done? When the topic comes up, very often it is followed by a discussion on the associated legislation. This month we enquired of a few GreenLight Alliance members how they feel on the subject of legislation, asking “where are the obstacles and opportunities in terms of accelerating transition to a circular economy within our industry?”

Nigel Harvey, CEO, Recolight

Many companies within the lighting industry are undoubtedly starting to adopt circular economy principles. That is being driven by a growing awareness of the need for real sustainability which goes beyond energy efficiency, and embraces material efficiency as well. Many manufacturers, specifiers, and end users are now building circularity within their products. But to enable us to go further and faster, we undoubtedly need legislation and enforcement to drive the change.

That legislation should incentivise manufacturers and end users to do the right thing, and should also include mandatory requirements for products that are more “circular”.

Incentivise reuse and remanufacture

The easiest way to apply circularity in almost any situation is to keep existing product in use for longer, but with component upgrades to maximise energy efficiency. And although there is now significant interest in remanufacture within the lighting industry, it still only comprises a few percent, at best, of the total market. Government is already giving consideration to amending the WEEE regulations to recognise and reward remanufacture – possibly via a reduction in the WEEE financing obligations. But that should be extended to include fiscal measures that make reuse and remanufacture even more attractive to end users.

Incentivise ecodesign

Designing new products to embed greater longevity, durability, and upgradeability is also important. The government is currently considering incentives that could “ecomodulate” WEEE costs – with lower WEEE fees for “good” products and higher fees for “bad” products. The system is not without its challenges, but may well have merit.

Changes could also include product standards with a mandatory percentage of reused materials – particularly plastics. The painful reality is that unless recycled plastic is used in the manufacture of new products, the need for recycling at all comes into question.

Standardise the metrics

The industry is awash with a multiplicity of environmental product declarations, life cycle assessments, and similar. Knowing which to adopt is undoubtedly a challenge for all in the sector. Government could provide much needed direction and focus by encouraging or mandating a few methodologies.

Packaging

Defra has already legislated to make producers responsible for the full costs of collection and recycling of consumer packaging waste. For companies selling packaged consumer products, this will mean a significant increase in compliance costs next year. This will act as a strong incentive to reduce the amount of packaging used. Options should also be explored to extend this to commercial packaging.

Enforcement

New legislation is only effective when it is enforced. For far too long, there has been an underbelly of non-compliant product sold within our industry. With the continued growth of online marketplaces, that underbelly has swollen hugely in recent years. It is totally unacceptable for UK based manufacturers and sellers to comply with legislation that is flagrantly ignored by those based mainly in the Far East, but whose products are frequently stocked within the UK and sold via online marketplaces. Any new legislation must make online intermediaries responsible for demonstrating the compliance of product sold via their platforms. Such approaches have already been implemented for some legislation in France, Spain and Germany. The UK should do likewise.

Tim Bowes, Head of Lighting Application, Whitecroft

Over the last three years, I have gained new qualifications, learned new skills, educated and learned from peers within the lighting and wider construction sector, forged new relationships, and contributed to presentations and guidance documents within the field of circularity. Many of the conversations have been inspiring, with the enthusiasm and realisation by many of the opportunity that the circular economy can bring to our sector. However, many of these activities and solutions proposed by our industry continue to happen on the fringe of current market activity.

If we are to remove the obstacles and create opportunities to realise the potential to move from a linear economy to, as Ellen Macarthur said in 2013, “an industrial economy that is restorative by intention and design” at scale, transformational change is needed.

There are many obstacles to the adoption of the circular economy, such as financial constraints, timeframes, lack of infrastructure, cultural, and current business practices. For some, the only way to make this change is through legislation.

Governments are in a position where they are both one of the actors and a key enabler to delivering this change. However, their opportunity to influence others goes far beyond simply legislation. Below are some examples of the ways governments at all levels can support change at scale and address some of the obstacles outlined above.

Provide a test bed

Alongside policy frameworks and legislation, governments can create the market, provide clear leadership, foster partnerships, provide financial support, and support learning. When you consider 14% of all EU spending is from public procurement, and 25% within the UK, they could provide a space for many in the built environment to work and demonstrate how the circular economy can work at scale.

Taxation

Whether the motivation is social, economic, or environmental, one of the highest sources of value creation identified by the Ellen Macarthur Foundation (see Figure 1) is to maintain and prolong what you have. Today most refurbishment work in the UK incurs a VAT rate of 20%, whereas most new build work attracts a 0% rate of VAT. Campaigns, such as ‘RetroFirst’ launched by the Architects Journal back in 2019, are in place to encourage Governments to cut VAT on refurbishment, repair and maintain to 5% or less. A similar taxation is already in place in Sweden.

Rather than simply change a single policy, a policy mix can be used to amplify any change. Working in tandem with preferential taxation, could the ‘retro-first policy’ proposed recently by the City of London, support the growth in not just the re-use of structural elements but the services that are already in the building, such as lighting?

Urban Mining

Typical LED production contains up to 96 rare earth elements, five processes, and four different factories. In addition to this, 27% of the emissions for an LED occur at its disposal. With risks around geo-political events, growth of low carbon technologies, cost volatility, demand to reduce embodied carbon and inevitable increase in LED waste, will there be a need, desire and opportunity to move towards urban mining? This change would not be easy, and current infrastructure and financial models do not make this viable. Could governments therefore take a lead in identifying LED as a new form of e-waste, and alongside other low carbon technologies. put in place the investment and reverse logistics needed to make the re-use of these materials feasible?

Material Banks

Of the 200 tonnes of waste produced in Great Britain, 60% is produced by the construction industry. In a recent article published by the NLA, it was highlighted that although 90% of materials are recycled from construction sites, only 1% is re-used. While there is some work being done by the likes of Recolight to create material banks for lighting, government intervention and implementation of technological innovation could work alongside a change in the way we design and build in supporting the structural and systemic changes needed to connect those who want with those who have at scale.

While governments will play a key role in the delivery of the circular economy, if we are to make the existing model obsolete, we cannot rely on legislation alone to do this. We all have a part to play in breaking down the barriers and realise the opportunity of the circular economy. Perhaps this will require us all to embrace change, collaborate, listen and inform others and challenge what we know and want to do today to change tomorrow.

Bob Bohannon, Head of Policy & Academy, The LIA

When trying to create change it’s frequent for people to say: “you should change this and here’s why”. I’m guilty of this myself, but on the whole, this approach doesn’t work. In reality, it’s all about motivation and incentives. Introducing circular economy regulations will certainly act as a motivation, but it does bring other important questions into play. Circular Economy is not just about repairability: it’s about maximising the utility of extracted natural resources, keeping them at their highest value for the longest time. So, it’s also about durability.

Lighting is complex, we are not a white goods industry with a limited range of product types, we have hundreds of product types used in hundreds of different applications – how does regulation turn that complexity into simplicity and good law? The Lighting Europe team are trying to do precisely this, and it’s not easy.

You then have the level playing field question: lighting is already highly regulated, if additional circular economy regulation is introduced then there must be an effective market surveillance mechanism in place, and I don’t see any evidence that government has that. Any regulation that places a burden on competitiveness, with no mechanism for market surveillance, does not pass government’s own test for better regulation. Poor regulation disadvantages the law-abiding and does not touch those who flout the law.

I might be sounding negative, but that is not the case. As an industry, we must move away from CAT A fit-outs, or products value engineered so far that not only do they not last, but they are irreparable when they fail. This might be economically sustainable for those involved, but it is not environmentally sustainable – so we either need the industry to adopt self-regulation, for example, TM66 (lent further credibility by its third-party LIA/CIBSE certification under TM66 Assured), or accept the inevitability of government regulation, and hope that it is good regulation without unintended consequences (MEPS is an example of how not to do it).

TM66 is an excellent example of a self-regulating scheme that combines motivation and incentives. The motivation is to improve your product’s circularity by engaging with its assessment. Those using it all report that the moment they start getting their first scores, the first question they ask is ‘how do I get a better score?’ This is exactly what a sustainability metric should be, a transition tool that helps plan and report on the transition and direction of travel.

The incentive is that as TM66 is a cross-industry initiative, its adoption by specifiers is also growing the demand for circular products.

Circularity is inevitable, we lived in a circular world for generations, the move to a disposable economy has been far more recent and the negative effects are all too clear. We have a good self-regulation tool in TM66, and I would not stand in the way of regulation but with the two caveats that it must be good and be supported by effective market compliance – the LIA would be happy to work with DEFRA and DESNZ on both.

Dr. Irene Mazzei, KTP Associate, Stoane Lighting

In March 2023, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finalised the Synthesis Report for its sixth assessment, in which data suggests that humanity is still quite far from limiting global warming to 1.5 °C – or even 2°C by 2030. Figure 2, taken from the report, shows that if no changes are made to currently implemented policies, the Greenhouse Gas emissions will keep increasing, causing global warming to reach 3.2 °C by 2100, with catastrophic effects to Earth’s ecosystems and society.

Industry produces up to a third of the net anthropogenic GHG emissions, with steel, concrete and plastic manufacturing being major contributors. The introduction of more sustainable corporate practices, such as replacing materials with more environmentally-friendly alternatives, switching to renewable energy providers and limiting or repurposing manufacturing waste, associated with the application of the principles of the circular economy, can help substantially reduce emissions deriving from industrial activities.

The lighting industry is starting to adopt several of these strategies; however, at present, positive actions are mostly driven by internal inputs in companies that want to take steps towards greener business strategies. Looking at these internal inputs, it is also possible to identify opportunities in using and promoting sustainability assessment strategies. Quantifying environmental impacts is the first step for a company to understand where the emissions come from and what to change to reduce them. From simpler assessments, such as quantifying the embodied carbon of products or their circularity (see TM65 and TM66), to more complex Life Cycle Assessments leading to Environmental Product Declarations, being able to communicate clearly and transparently the emissions associated with products is definitely an advantageous skill for a company.

However, in addition to internal initiatives, a greater “push” could be provided by external inputs coming from policymakers. In the European landscape, the last piece of the “Circular Economy and Consumers Package” puzzle was added on 22 March with the adoption of the directive on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims. The directive – now being discussed by the EU Parliament and Council – has the objectives of: empowering consumers with more trustworthy environmental claims on products; rewarding businesses that take genuine positive actions in improving their company’s sustainability, as opposed to those who use green claims to “greenwash” their unsustainable agendas; and establishing common rules and practices for assessing and reporting environmental information of products. Other key points of the circular economy packages include the European Commission’s ESPR proposal, the Eco-design and energy labelling working plan, and the “right to repair” directive proposal. The latter consists of a proposal recommending repair practices over total replacement of products (when practically and legally possible), especially if the costs for replacement are higher than or equal to the costs of repair.

An important requirement of the publication of environmental information as an EPD, is the application of Product Category Rules (PCRs) and/or Product Specific Rules (PSRs) to the LCA. A robust and comprehensive set of rules specific for luminaires is provided by the Program Operator PEP Ecopassport. Their lighting PSRs make sure to cover all relevant aspects of these products so that environmental impacts are evaluated in a complete and consistent way.

The progress made by the industry in the field of sustainability is undeniable, no matter if coming from internal initiatives or necessitated by incoming policies. However, some challenges still stand in the way of sustainability, some of them affecting the entire sustainability and life cycle assessment practice and not only the lighting industry. To mention just a few examples, harmonisation and data sourcing are two factors playing an important role. Using a number of different sustainability assessments – that produce results that are not comparable with each other – does not help the cause. In addition to this, using the same methodology but collecting data from different sources will also produce results that shouldn’t be compared, as stated in article 4(1), paragraph (a) of the Green Claims proposal. The introduction of rules to promote a more systematic and consistent approach within the industry – as done, for example by the PEP Ecopassport PSR initiative – will help reduce the variability of results in the future, leading to more harmonised practices and a “level playing field” for businesses in the industry using sustainability assessments.

Finally, a higher level of alignment within the industry would be beneficial to the actors asking questions and those providing the answers on sustainability matters, such as circularity. This is why it’s important to communicate transparently on what the environmental and performance objectives are and ask/provide environmental assessments of products accordingly.

In the responses from the contributors, we see we have a circular economy assessment metric, we have embodied carbon assessment methodologies, product specific rules for LCA of luminaires, business model developments to embrace circular economy opportunities, companies and organisations to assess and validate claims, industry led work on standardisation of remanufacturing processes for luminaires and so much more.

The industry is showing encouraging initiative and striding out ahead. If one looks at assessment of products for circularity as a broad catch-all there is one good methodology, TM66, we now also see narrowed focus on durability, lifetime and repairability separately within circularity. Within impact assessment we see measurement of different impacts, embodied vs whole life carbon as an example. We also see parallel, sometimes overlapping methodologies in impact assessment. With such progress in the lighting industry and built environment the challenge facing us is to hone approaches, select preferred methodologies and through groups such as the GreenLight Alliance and industry associations make proposals to policy makers on regulation that works for the industry and delivers on the objectives to deliver meaningful sustainability improvements in our industry. Encouragingly, this is happening already.

www.greenlight-alliance.com

---

by Matt Waring