If the lighting industry is serious about environmental goals, then it should emphasize “net zero” over “carbon neutrality,” the latter of which is open to greenwashing. The two phrases might sound like the same thing, but in the often bewildering lexicon of eco claims, they are not.
That was one of the main takeaways at the Net Zero Lighting Conference in London last week, where vendors, designers, consultants, and a smattering of end users gathered to share insights on everything from the broad aspects of energy supply, material use, and “circular” practices of their operations to the nitty gritty of efficient packaging and pallet use.
Organized by The Lighting Industry Association — the U.K.’s trade body — and by Croydon, England–based lighting reuse specialist Recolight, the largely British event packed detailed sessions into a full day exploring the many and often complicated facets of “green” practices and their costs, with plenty of debate over what truly defines “sustainable.”
No matter what the subject, though, the theme of “net zero” versus “carbon neutrality” threaded through the proceedings.
So what’s the difference? In generally accepted definitions, “net zero” aspires to eliminate carbon emissions. “Carbon neutrality” is more lenient in that it involves the practice of “offsetting” carbon emissions through various means, such as planting trees or purchasing carbon credits, to use two well-known examples.
Questions of neutrality
While “carbon neutral” achieves plenty of positive results, it has also sometimes been suspected of misfiring. In cases outside of the lighting industry, for instance, critics last year questioned the veracity of rainforest-related carbon offsets granted by Washington, D.C.–based certifier Verra. Likewise, the tree planting claims of Scottish beer maker BrewDog have come under scrutiny.
Irregularities such as those prompted one conference participant to ask a panel of environmental assessment experts whether they thought the industry should stop using the phrase “carbon neutral” altogether, and instead emphasize “net zero.”
A specialist with a leading U.K. sustainability consultancy weighed right in.
“I would recommend not using the word, or the approach of carbon neutrality,” said Steph Schlipper, principal consultant with London-based Bioregional.
She encouraged lighting companies to “inset” rather than “offset” their carbon emissions. In insetting, a company takes measures to eliminate carbon emissions from within its value chain, rather than going outside its orbit where it can have less control of results. An example might be for one company to help pay for solar panels on the roof of a supplier’s or partner’s facilities. Insetting does not necessarily require an entity to fund another; it can take the form of a customer choosing a supplier based on the supplier’s green credentials, for instance.
“Focus on insetting rather than offsetting,” Schlipper said. Even more to the point: “We should all be talking about net zero and reducing our emissions as much as possible before looking to inset or offset,” she added.
The ideal versus the reality
There was plenty of general agreement on this theme, even if achieving it is a huge challenge.
“Carbon neutrality shouldn’t be the ultimate goal, net zero should be,” said Laurie Wood, U.K. and Ireland Sustainability Sector Lead in The British Standards Institution’s (BSI) Assurance group.
“Carbon offsets have got a bit of a bad name,” he noted.
Having said that, Wood added, “I think that there is a place for carbon offsetting. Every organization will have certain emissions that they can’t do anything about. You can convert your factory to fully electric and put up a wind turbine and solar panels and have no emissions through your use of electricity, but you’re still going to have emissions through your supply chain, through logistics, through the use of the product. It’s impossible for an organization to get to absolute zero. There is always going to be some residual emissions that needs to be offset.
“The important thing … is that it’s done in a credible way using credible credits and only when the organization really has done everything they possibly can to bring their emissions down,” he concluded.
Irene Mazzei, sustainability lead at Stoane Lighting based near Edinburgh, Scotland, concurred.
“When we talk about net zero from the perspective of a company, we are talking about ‘avoidable’ versus ‘unavoidable’ emissions,” she noted while presenting on Stoane’s approach to net zero. “So best practice in the industry right now is to reduce avoidable emissions as much as possible while trying to get as close as possible to true zero. Obviously, that is literally not possible, so we’ll still have some unavoidable emissions.” Therefore, she said, an offsetting strategy is in order. “Even if it’s a really controversial topic,” she noted that it is the way “to start the journey to net zero.”
Still, some vendors reported progress on insetting. CEO Nigel Harvey of Recolight, the reuse specialist, noted that his company looks for green practices when it chooses suppliers and partners. That type of selection pressure was a factor in recycler Balcan Engineering installing solar panels to power operations, Harvey said.
Likewise, London-based design and specification firm Nulty is declining to use lighting manufacturers if they fail to provide data about their circular practices under the TM66 scheme devised by the LIA, said Nulty director Gary Thornton.
“As we consider our path toward net zero, it’s essential to grasp the full implications of what ‘net zero’ really means for us in the lighting industry,” implored LIA CEO Ayça Donaghy. “Each component of our industry, from production to product and end of life, must be reevaluated for its environmental impact…. I truly believe that today we stand at pivotal moment in the lighting industry.”
Indeed, as “sustainability” begins to bump “beyond lighting” out of the industry’s rallying cry (more on that business transition another time), last week’s conference served as a clarion call to action. Watch for more stories on this theme, on the London gathering, and on “zero heroes” from LEDs Magazine.
MARK HALPER is a contributing editor for LEDs Magazine, and an energy, technology, and business journalist ([email protected]).
Follow our LinkedIn page for our latest news updates, contributed articles, and commentary, and our Facebook page for events announcements and more. You can also find us on the X platform.
