IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/inecol/v28y2024i1p59-73.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Embodied carbon quantification of luminaires using life cycle assessment and CIBSE TM65 methodologies: A comparison case study

Author

Listed:
  • Irene Mazzei
  • Ruth Saint
  • Alistair Kay
  • Francesco Pomponi

Abstract

The European legislative landscape on sustainability is steadily growing to meet objectives to reach net zero targets by mid‐century. In this context, companies and manufacturers may soon be legally required to provide quantification of the environmental impact of their products and services. A key challenge is applying a consistent and robust methodology that ensures comparability between assessments made by different companies, as there is still fragmentation among environmental impact reporting methodologies. The objective of this study is to analyze and compare the results of two different methodologies for the calculation of the embodied carbon in lighting products using the cradle‐to‐grave approach. One is the globally known life cycle assessment (LCA) method, and the other is Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers Technical Memorandum 65's (TM65) mid‐level calculation methodology, which has been specifically tailored to building services. The two were applied to six different luminaires to evaluate their differences. Results show that the values of the embodied carbon calculated with TM65 are higher than those calculated with LCA and that the weight of the products plays a crucial role in creating discrepancies between the two methodologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Irene Mazzei & Ruth Saint & Alistair Kay & Francesco Pomponi, 2024. "Embodied carbon quantification of luminaires using life cycle assessment and CIBSE TM65 methodologies: A comparison case study," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 28(1), pages 59-73, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:28:y:2024:i:1:p:59-73
    DOI: 10.1111/jiec.13449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13449
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jiec.13449?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:28:y:2024:i:1:p:59-73. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1088-1980 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.