Harmonising the way to Lighting EPDs In this issue, members of the GreenLight Alliance and LightingEurope discuss the latter’s work with PEP Ecopassport on LCA PSR0014 ed.2, and how it will impact the lighting industry.
GREENLIGHT ALLIANCE
Those of you who have been following the GreenLight Alliance’s journey since we set out our objective to “…work together to help everyone in the lighting sector understand their role in adopting and promoting the circular economy, working towards industry standards that are universally recognised, trusted and sought-after”, will be as excited as we are to learn of LightingEurope’s work with PEP Ecopassport on LCA PSR0014 ed.2 and its recent advocation of it as the preferred methodology. Could we finally be looking at the beginning of true harmonisation? In this issue some of the team involved in the process kindly took the time to share their thoughts with us. Introduction Dr Irene Mazzei - Stoane Lighting, Sustainability Lead Recently, decarbonisation and sustainability goals have been at the forefront of most companies’ business strategies to meet Net Zero and other sustainability targets. Products belonging to the Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing (MEP) sector have been found to account for a substantial proportion of the total embodied carbon emissions of buildings, with contributions between 15% and over 70%, depending on the type of building [1], [2]; the proportion of impact associated with lighting within MEP is generally minor, but can also vary greatly across building categories. The significance of the environmental impacts of MEP products is not only evident for embodied carbon, but also considering other environmental impacts. However, the availability of environmental impact data of MEP products is scarce, especially in the form of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs). Recent statistics from OneClick LCA reported that MEP products only account for 3% of their entire construction product-EPD database [3]. Regarding lighting products, despite progress being made, the results are also often obtained following varying methodologies, assumptions and Life Cycle
118 / 119
Assessment (LCA) approaches, ultimately undermining the possibility to compare results for decision-making. A recent study carried out applying LCA rules from four different European EPD programmes to the same product (a triple glazed window) returned results which varied by more than 10% from a baseline scenario [4]. This variation was significant and dependent on the modelling differences contained in the Product Category Rules (PCR) provided by each EPD programme. Therefore, the conclusion was that, despite these results all being valid (i.e. they were all obtained applying legitimate rules), the impacts calculated for the same product were ultimately not comparable. Considering the complexity of MEP products one can speculate that the variations associated with different rules and assumptions will be even more profound: how can the lighting industry model complex electronic systems with compatible and aligned energy-consuming use scenarios and waste treatment of multiple materials contained in the same product? In this context, the definition of a harmonised assessment procedure that can be used for lighting product LCA and EPD publication would provide the necessary conditions to ensure comparability of EPD data. With this in mind, LightingEurope [5] decided to endorse and support the efforts of French programme operator PEP Ecopassport [6], focused on the update of its Product Specific Rules (PSR) for luminaires [7]. This was achieved through a LightingEurope-led task force, which had the objective of identifying relevant and necessary changes to make to the first version of the PEP Ecopassport luminaire PSR. This article will provide an overview of these changes and illustrate how this initiative contributes to support the advancement of harmonisation of LCA practices in the lighting industry.