GO FOR GREEN

GO FOR GREEN

Moving to a genuine circular economy approach, in particular embracing tools such as CIBSE’s TM66, can involve challenging your client to think in new ways. But it is something we’re going to have to get used to

By Simon Fisher

In writing this article, I have assumed –and sincerely hope – that anyone reading this is now aware of the principles of a circular economy and understands that moving away from a linear, take, make, waste economy is an objective worth delivering.

Globally, embracing a circular economy that changes the traditional model of production and consumption by sharing, leasing, reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials contains many challenges, most of which require both a systemic and individual mindset change which many will find challenging.

It is a task so vast that, if one stops and looks at the challenge in its entirety, one would be tempted to consider it too large to tackle.

The lighting industry is responding to the needs of a circular economy, developing tools and metrics that aim to promote and support keeping products, materials, equipment and infrastructure in use for longer, thus improving the productivity of these resources.

As has been reported previously in Lighting Journal, in late 2021, CIBSE and The Society of Light and Lighting (SLL) launched a ‘beta’ release of TM66, A Circular EconomyAssessmentMethod (CEAM) for lighting products [1]

This methodology is specifically targeted towards circular economy principles, and is rapidly becoming a key metric for specification and manufacturing in the future.

In TM66, the CEAM is designed to turn a complex subject into an easy-to-understand

scoring system, giving manufacturers and specifiers targeted, useable, independent metrics to compare products and strive for improvement.

To recap, there are two parts to the document:

1. Circular Economy Assessment Method – Specify

This is a triage tool for lighting designers, specifiers and engineers, allowing the quick comparison of two or more products. This will inform the specifier to make and maintain lighting project specifications based on a circularity metric, alongside energy efficiency, lighting quality and consistency and, of course, cost.

2. Circular Economy Assessment Method – Make

This is a comprehensive tool allowing original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) fully to engage with the depth of detail required to create a fully circular economy-capable product.

This image and following. Images from the Recolight workshops (with Simon Fisher third from left)

First, full disclosure, however – I am something of an evangelist here! I have been credited as a contributor to TM66, I sit on the LIA’s technical committee for the circular economy, I’m part of the European CENELEC working group (TC34 WG02) for circular economy and part of the author group for British Standard BS8887, the standard being developed for the remanufacture of luminaires.

I’ve worked with Recolight to curate and deliver one-day CPD-registered workshops on ‘Lighting product design for a circular economy’, which have been delivered to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) across the UK and Europe. F Mark is also partnered with The Regen Initiative ( www.theregeninitiative.com ), which works to create scalable circular lighting projects by remanufacturing old product to contain new LED sources.

Having said that, and while acknowledging that this document is still at beta release, I firmly believe we now have found a tool that very much can be utilised as a benchmark for analysis between two products.

WORKING TOWARDS A FULL-RELEASE ASSESSMENT MODEL

TM66 is a self-assessment tool and, as such, will always be open to misrepresentation by OEMs, who may ‘flex’ the response to a question to gain as good a score as possible.

To help mitigate this, there are now also schemes in development which will provide third-party assessment and verification of the scores calculated to provide enough market surveillance to keep everyone honest (or honest enough!).

It’s worth pointing out, too, that a working group has already been established to capture early feedback from the beta release and develop TM66 to a full-release model. Like the circular economy, the outcomes will only improve over time.

Moreover, TM66 has very much captured the imagination of our specification community. It feels like there is an eagerness to ‘do the right thing’ with regards to lighting specification and supply.

Product designers are being challenged by lighting designers; lighting designers are being challenged by consulting engineers; consulting engineers are being challenged by architects; architects are being challenged by building owners. And, ultimately, UK plc has to demonstrate a path to net zero by 2050.

It would seem, therefore, that product design is like the plankton of the lighting industry. Embedding circular principles at the earliest stage will help develop and strengthen circular resilience throughout manufacturers, specifiers, architects, countries and the entire world.

In the EU’s ‘Green Week’ in 2021, a statistic was published stating that 80% of the environmental impact of any product is determined in its design phase [2]

As a product designer to the lighting industry, I have realised that, whilst I had always designed responsibly and sustainably, I now feel a further obligation to minimise waste and pollution, keep products and materials in use and help regenerate natural systems where possible. And TM66 has allowed me to do that.

CIRCULAR PATHWAYS

I can create circular pathways in the development process and clearly demonstrate the cause and effect of design decisions that affect circularity.

For starters, I no longer design a ‘single use’ lighting product. That, in itself, is a huge shift in thinking and requires buy-in on a companywide level. For my clients, this requires a wider-angle lens to be fitted to the design and marketing efforts of the company.

Design decisions no longer relate to just a single product being designed in isolation but have the potential to link to multiple product platforms which contain common components, features and principles.

I can start with a blank sheet of paper (100% recycled, of course!) and develop a product for multiple uses, with components that are intended for use in multiple products.

For some of my clients, this will be the first time they have been challenged to think this way.

For instance, I can demonstrate the cause and effect of decisions relating to many factors, such as:

• Material specification for component production

• The type of production method for each component

• Material marking so that, at the end of a use phase, they are easily identified for reuse, repurpose or, ultimately, recycling

• If I use plastic (this is not a plastic-bashing article, we cannot escape the need immediately!), which plastic do I use to minimise the environmental impact?

• Can I use bioplastics instead of oilbased products?

• Where I procure components

• The method of assembly

• Whether I embed controls and diagnostics

Whilst circular principles can be embedded in the product design phase, these can very easily be eroded as the product is developed and moves through the engineering and manufacturing phases and onward to full commercialisation.

LET’S JUMP BEFORE WE’RE PUSHED

I am not suggesting that there is some malevolent force at the heart of every manufacturer trying to avoid circularity. It’s a fact that embracing circularity is disruptive and will impact every facet of a business.

I have repeatedly seen that the traditional key metrics for success, departmentally, within a business are at odds with each other and the principles of circularity.

Changing a supply chain model from a global to a local, challenging suppliers to embrace closed-loop manufacturing, embracing late-stage configuration locally in each geographic region of sales, changing packaging from plastic to bio solutions, even reconfiguring CapEx (capital expenditure) approval processes to pay for it all will all be challenged and will have to evolve.

And why should we bother? All sounds like a bit of a faff really, doesn’t it?

Well, the simple fact is that we will be forced to do it! We have seen the first raft of regulation come into effect in 2021. The EU’s Ecodesign regulations are forcing manufacturers to state whether light engines and drivers are replaceable in luminaires. And this is just the beginning.

• Ecodesign will expand to include requirements to demonstrate circularity

• Carbon emissions will have to be calculated and stated

• Consumers will have the ‘right to repair’ products

• We will all have to substantiate green claims and demonstrate a path to net zero

• We will be taxed if we remain carbon intensive

• It will cost more to handle harmful waste and recycle materials

So, in summary, the sooner we embrace the circular economy, the better!

Simon Fisher is founder and director of the UK-based design consultancy F Mark

[1] TM66, A Circular Economy Assessment Method (CEAM) – ‘Specify’ and ‘Make’ – 2021, https://www.cibse.org/knowledge-research/knowledge-portal [2] ‘Sustainable Product Policy’, European Commission, https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/scientificactivities-z/sustainable-product-policy_en; ‘EU Green Week 2021 achieves wide-scale mobilization for healthier people and planet’, June 2021, https://environment.ec.europa. eu/news/eu-green-week-2021-zero-pollution-conclusions-2021-06-04_en