Reusing and Regearing Lighting: A Practical Route to Reducing Embodied Carbon

Is replacing lighting always the sustainable choice?

On a recent refurbishment project, we explored reusing the existing light fittings. The carbon case was compelling — but the project didn’t proceed.

Here’s what we learned about when lighting remanufacturing works… and why it often doesn’t (yet).

Why this matters now

As refurbishment becomes the dominant mode of development, attention is shifting beyond structure and envelope to the embodied carbon of services and fit-out. Lighting is often overlooked in this conversation.

While lighting typically contributes a smaller proportion of whole-building embodied carbon, it represents a highly repeatable and scalable opportunity to reduce impact across portfolios.

At the same time, increasing pressure to demonstrate circular economy outcomes is prompting clients and design teams to reconsider whether replacement is always the default approach.

The opportunity: reuse over replacement

Regearing or remanufacturing existing light fittings involves retaining the primary housing and upgrading internal components such as drivers, light engines and controls.

This approach offers three key advantages:

Retention of high-carbon materials

Many legacy fittings contain substantial quantities of aluminium and steel, particularly in heat sinks and housings. These materials are carbon-intensive to produce but highly durable in use. Retaining them avoids the need for new primary manufacture.

Meaningful embodied carbon savings

Project evidence demonstrates that remanufacturing can significantly reduce product-stage emissions. Savings of 70 kgCO₂e per fitting have been demonstrated in practice. Equivalent large-scale projects have achieved 149 tCO₂e reduction through reuse strategies.

Extending asset life

While lighting is often assumed to have a 15–20-year lifecycle, the physical lifespan of luminaire housings can be significantly longer.

Reuse strategies enable these assets to remain in service while upgrading performance to current standards.

What we’ve learned in practice

Atelier Ten recently explored this approach as part of a refurbishment project alongside EGG Lighting.

A Pre-Redevelopment Audit identified a large volume of existing fittings, with three luminaire types accounting for approximately 90% of installations.

This presented a clear opportunity to test whether reuse could be delivered at scale.

Technical feasibility is often strong

Assessments of existing fittings showed:
• Robust construction with high metallic content
• Minimal performance degradation in reflectors (2.5–5%)
• Good potential for upgrade with modern LED components

In many cases, existing luminaires provide a high-quality “shell” for reuse.

So why isn’t this standard practice?

Despite clear environmental benefits, remanufacturing was not taken forward on this project. The reasons highlight some key challenges.

Cost is not yet aligned with carbon

Initial assessments suggested potential savings, but as the design developed:
• Remanufacture costs increased.
• New product costs reduced or became better defined.
• Additional component and prototyping costs emerged.

The result: remanufactured fittings became more expensive than new alternatives.

Design evolution can undermine reuse

Lighting design is rarely fixed early in a project. Changes such as the below can quickly reduce the viability of reuse strategies:
• Reduced fitting quantities
• Increased performance requirements
• New features (e.g. colour-changing, controls)

Comparison is difficult

A key industry challenge is the lack of consistent data:
• New products are often supported by independently verified EPDs.
• Remanufactured options rely on TM65.2 estimates, using generic data.

These are not directly comparable, making it difficult to clearly evidence carbon benefits.
Procurement routes are not set up for it

Procurement routes are not set up for it

Remanufacturing typically requires:
• Early contractor engagement
• A prototyping phase
• Iterative testing and validation
This does not always align with conventional procurement programmes or risk profiles.

Warranty and perceived risk

Warranty has historically been a concern when considering reused or remanufactured lighting, particularly in comparison to standard manufacturer-backed products.

In practice, this gap is narrowing. Many remanufacturing providers now offer warranties on regeared fittings, typically aligned with the lifespan of newly installed components (often comparable to new product warranties). There is also a shift toward more flexible approaches, including component-based or “dynamic” warranties, where coverage can be refreshed as drivers, light engines or batteries are replaced over time.

This reflects a broader transition from product-based procurement toward service-based and maintainable lighting systems, supporting longer-term asset performance.

Early-stage feasibility is improving

One of the historical challenges with reuse has been the difficulty of assessing viability early in the design process, often requiring site surveys and physical inspection.
This is beginning to change. Emerging tools, including image-based AI-assisted analysis, are enabling early-stage feasibility studies to be undertaken using limited information, in some cases from site photography alone.

Alongside developments such as digital product passports, this is improving the ability to:
• Identify suitable fittings for reuse.
• Estimate material retention and carbon benefit.
• Screen options before detailed design begins.

These tools have the potential to make reuse a more accessible and lower-risk option at concept stage, where it can have the greatest impact on project outcomes.

Where it does work well

Evidence from industry case studies shows that remanufacturing is most successful where:
• Large-format fittings (e.g. panels, trays) maximise retained material.
• Repetition and scale justify prototyping investment.
• Design intent is stable early.
• Clients prioritise circularity alongside cost.

In these scenarios, remanufacturing can deliver strong outcomes across carbon, cost and performance.

Moving forward: what needs to change

To unlock this opportunity at scale, several shifts are needed:

Earlier decision-making

Reuse needs to be considered at concept stage, not as a late-stage value exercise.

Better benchmarking

Simple early indicators (e.g. % material retention, indicative carbon savings) would support faster decision-making.

Aligned performance briefs

Clear definition of required outputs, controls and compliance standards reduces redesign risk.

Improved data consistency

Greater alignment between EPDs, TM65.2 and circularity metrics (e.g. TM66) will enable more robust comparisons.

A practical takeaway

Reusing lighting is not yet a default solution — but it is a credible and increasingly viable strategy.

Where the right conditions exist, it can:
• Reduce embodied carbon.
• Extend asset life.
• Support circular economy targets.

The key is identifying those opportunities early and approaching them strategically.

How Atelier Ten can help

We support clients in:
• Identifying viable reuse opportunities through audit and optioneering
• Interpreting carbon and circularity data
• Coordinating between design teams, contractors and manufacturers
• Developing evidence-based strategies aligned with project priorities.

For further information, please contact:
Sarah Peterson, Director – sarah.peterson@atelierten.com
Sam Patterson, Embodied Carbon Assessor – sam.patterson@atelierten.com