LED lighting - The Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Philine Jörgensen, Katharina Ros
Edited by:
Last updated: May 20, 2026

Executive summary

LED lighting (solid-state lighting) has rapidly replaced incandescent and compact fluorescent lamps because it delivers much more light per unit of electricity and lasts far longer. Technically, LEDs use semiconductor p–n junctions to convert electrical energy into photons, and advances in materials and phosphor conversion enabled efficient white light and broad color performance for general lighting.
From an organizational perspective, the strongest economic case comes from declining LED costs, high energy savings, and reduced maintenance. Life-cycle cost analyses typically favor LEDs over incandescent and CFL options, often yielding short payback periods for retrofits in buildings. In outdoor and street lighting, LEDs also reduce operating costs substantially, and additional savings may come from design choices such as mesopic-aware lighting and better controls.

Ecologically, LEDs can have higher impacts during manufacturing because they contain semiconductor chips, drivers, heat sinks, and valuable or critical materials. However, most studies find that the use phase dominates life-cycle impacts for lighting. Because LEDs use far less electricity and last many times longer than legacy technologies, they generally reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental indicators over their full life cycle—especially where electricity remains carbon-intensive. As grids decarbonize, organizations increasingly need to manage embodied impacts through durability, modular design, repairability, and effective end-of-life collection and recycling.

Socially, LEDs support productivity and well-being by providing reliable, affordable lighting and enabling applications such as off-grid solar lighting and specialized health-related uses. At the same time, poorly designed deployments can contribute to light pollution and potential health and biodiversity impacts, particularly from high blue-content lighting at night. Responsible programs therefore pair LEDs with good lighting design (appropriate color temperature, shielding, and targeting) and smart controls that reduce unnecessary illumination.

Policy and regulation have played a decisive role in accelerating adoption through efficiency standards, phase-outs of inefficient lamps, labeling, public procurement, and incentive programs. For organizations, the practical implication is clear: LED upgrades deliver cost and emissions benefits, but the best outcomes come from combining efficient products with quality specifications, smart controls, and circular procurement requirements that address supply-chain and end-of-life impacts.

1 Description and history

In 2006, incandescent light bulbs were the predominant technology used for lighting domestic spaces in most countries.¹ However, this light source had low luminous efficacy and a short lifespan, which had a significant impact on the environment. At the same time, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) became increasingly popular as a seemingly more energy-efficient alternative. Because of their high lumen loss over their lifetime compared to LEDs, they also required relatively frequent replacement and had additional environmental disadvantages due to the use of mercury.²^,³ In order to meet the growing global energy demand, inefficient light sources had to be replaced by more efficient and sustainable light sources.¹^,²^,⁴ One such alternative was the light-emitting diode (LED) technology, which, especially during its development and primarily as solid-state lighting (SSL), reduced global electricity consumption from ~18 % (2005) to ~12 % (2024), while increasing lighting capacity to ~80 %.⁴

1.1 LED technology

Light-emitting diodes, commonly referred to as LEDs, consist of semiconductor diodes that are designed to efficiently release energy in the form of photons and thus emit light when a forward voltage is applied.²^,⁵^,⁶ Electroluminescence drives this process, which describes the recombination of charge carriers. A p-type semiconductor layer, which has an excess of positive charge carriers, is joined to an n-type semiconductor layer, which contains an excess of negative electrons. During the p-n transition, the injected electrons merge to form electron-hole pairs, which then release the previously applied electrical energy from the semiconductor diodes.²^,⁵ The chemical composition of the semiconductor material used is decisive for the wavelength and color of the light emitted.² The light visible to humans ranges from a wavelength of 400 nanometers (nm), which corresponds to the color violet, to 700 nm, which corresponds to the color red. Blue light has a shorter wavelength and ranges from 440 to 460 nm.⁵^,⁶ In addition to wavelength, the operating temperature of the LED is also decisive for the light quality, as the wavelength is not completely static but is influenced by increased temperatures.²

1.2 History of LEDs

The historical development of LEDs is characterized by slow and gradual improvements, which are the result of an innovation process in which no single organization drove the LED innovation, but rather many. Research and development projects were stimulated on the one hand by potential markets and on the other by the perceived technological potential.⁶

The development of light-emitting diodes began with the first observations of electroluminescence in 1907 and the discovery of the first semiconductor p-n junction, which, together with solid-state band theory in the 1940s, created the physical framework for light-emitting devices.⁵^,⁶ In the 1950s, researchers discovered that certain III-V alloys emit infrared light. In 1962, the first milestone in LED development was reached, marking the beginning of visible LED technology. Nick Holnyak Jr. demonstrated the first visible red GaAsp (gallium arsenide phosphide) LED.⁶ By the end of the 1960s, the technology was already being used in calculators, wristwatches and test equipment.²^,⁶

The development of more complex semiconductor alloys and epitaxial growth, the technique used to produce semiconductor layers, made it possible to expand the LED color palette in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. By the end of the 1970s and into the 1980s, high-brightness red, orange and yellow LEDs could be used in brake lights and indicators due to the start of mass production of semiconductor structures.²^,⁵

Another milestone was achieved in the early 1990s, in which solutions to problems with p-type doping from 1974 were researched for the previously undervalued technology of gallium nitride (GaN).⁶ This technology enabled the development of powerful blue GaN LEDs, as well as violet and green GaInN LEDs based on the GaN technology.⁵^,⁷ By the mid-1990s,, LEDs were available that covered the entire visible color spectrum. In the summer of 1996, this led to a new era in which the production of white light using LEDs became possible. White light was produced by combining the three primary colors red, green and blue. After numerous tests, the phosphor YATG: CE (cerium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet phosphor) was identified. This absorbs blue light and emits red and green light. The process proved to be more efficient and simpler than other previously identified processes and therefore established itself under the name of the „partial conversion concept“ for the production of white LEDs.⁷ Since then, the LED technology has established itself as the dominant light source in almost all areas of Modern lighting due to its high efficiency and reliability.⁵ The diffusion of LEDs in the general lighting market picked up speed at an impressive rate, which is explained in more detail in the next chapter.

2 Economic performance

The economic performance of LED lighting is a key factor in the context of renewable energy management, as lighting accounts for approximately 19 % of global electricity consumption.¹ and is responsible for about 5 % of global CO₂ emissions.⁸ The annual cost of lighting services amounts to roughly USD 360 billion, representing nearly 1 % of global GDP.¹ The following section analyses the development of LED technology costs in comparison to alternatives as well as market developments in the industry, taking into account life cycle costs and sales.

2.1 Development of technology costs and comparison with alternatives

The economic appeal of LEDs stems from a sharp decline in costs, which is described by Haitz´s Law.⁹ According to this law, the cost per lumen per decade falls by a factor of 10, while the light output per LED package increases by a factor of 20.¹^,¹⁰ A metric for evaluating this trend is price per kilolumen (USD/klm). While white-light LEDs (WLEDs) still cost around USD 100/klm in 2005, the US Department of Energy forecasts a decline to as low as USD 0.030/klm by 2035.¹¹ Empirical regression analyses confirm learning rates of 18 % to 25 % price reduction per doubling of cumulative production.¹⁰^,¹² This indicates that LED prices fall significantly faster than those of incandescent or fluorescent lamps, which exhibited historical learning rates of around 14 % to 15 %.¹⁰ To assess long-term economic performance, discounted Life Cycle Costs (LCC) are utilized. The following figure illustrates the lower LCC of LEDs compared to conventional incandescent bulbs and CFLs over a period of 10 years.

In street lighting applications, LED investment costs typically represent 27 % to 52 % of total costs, while electricity costs are reduced to a range of 28 % to 63 %.¹³ In comparison, electricity costs for conventional HPS solutions can account for up to 79 % of total ownership costs.¹³ Leading commercial LED products now achieve efficacies exceeding 200 lm/W.⁸, lowering operating expenses. Payback periods for building retrofits are typically between 1 and 4 years.¹^,⁸ In outdoor applications, accounting for mesopic effect can provide additional energy savings of 10 % to 15 %.¹³

2.2 Development of the LED industry and market sales

The global lighting market is currently undergoing a structural transformation characterized by the transition from mere ´LEDification`, which is also known as the third lighting revolution, toward comprehensive digitization and connectivity, often described as the fourth industrial revolution of lighting.⁸

The global lighting revenue reached approximately EUR 130 billion in 2021, with projections indicating a steady growth trajectory supported by a CAGR exceeding 10 % through 2025.⁸ Within this market, general LED lighting dominates with a 79 % share.¹¹ While the market penetration of LED-based systems was estimated at only 5 % in 2013, it surpassed the 50 % threshold in 2021 and is anticipated to exceed 85 % by 2035.⁸^,¹¹ This development is further supported by the solid-state lighting (hereinafter SSL), which is growing at an 8 % CAGR.¹¹

Figure 1: Historic evolution of LED technology penetration in the global Lighting Market (own illustration based on⁸)

The industrial ecosystem is characterized by significant regional concentration, with the Asia-Pacific region controlling over 70 % of global manufacturing capacity and a market share of 44 % to 45 % in 2025.¹¹ China remains the primary revenue contributor, sustained by government subsidies and incentives that have driven the prices of standard LED lamps down to a range of USD 3 to 5 per unit.¹¹ Other regional focus areas are in Europe, with around 20 % to 25 % of the market share, and North America. The European market is predicted to grow from around USD 19.6 billion in 2024 to around USD 38.6 billion by 2032 (CAGR 8.8 %). Demand in Europe and North America is increasingly driven by strict regulatory frameworks, such as the EU Ecodesign Directive, which mandates the phase-out of inefficient fluorescent and halogen lamps, thereby serving a policy driver for the SSL-transition (Chapter 5).¹¹

A growth engine for the next decade is the integration of Smart Lighting and the Internet of Things (IoT), a market projected to exceed EUR 90 billion by 2030.⁸ While the technological switch to LEDs alone contributes to energy reduction, connected lighting systems (CLS) can achieve more than 40 % additional energy savings through sensors and adaptive controls according to studies.⁸ This is economically vital to mitigate the rebound effect, where falling costs might lead to increased usage, potentially reordering total energy gains by 2065.¹¹

In addition, the industry is shifting from product-oriented transactions to service-oriented models, most notably Light-as-a-Service (LaaS). This model eliminates high upfront capital expenditures in the CAPEX for end-users, transferring maintenance risks to providers. For municipal sector, LaaS adoption is expected to grow a CAGR of 44.8 %.⁸ Furthermore, distribution channels are evolving. The eCommerce for lighting products is rising with a forecast CAGR of 11.2 % between 2022 and 2032 and already accounts for approximately 33 % of the total LED market with a volume of USD 25.2 billion in 2023.⁸

Despite short-term disruptions from the COVID-19-pandemic, where the initially feared 40 % revenue drop was overestimated, the market has recovered fast. Current geopolitical tensions, as the war in Ukraine, serve as a catalyst for modernization. Constrained energy sources and high electricity costs have strengthened the economic motivation for governments and businesses to accelerate the replacement of legacy systems with high efficient SSL solutions.⁸^,¹¹

In summary, the strong cost degression and market growth underscore the superior economic performance of LEDs, especially in renewable energy management.

3 Ecological performance

In the context of renewable energy management, it is particularly relevant to consider the ecological performance of LED lighting, as lighting generally accounts for a significant proportion of global electricity consumption and thus of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions.¹⁴ In addition to energy efficiency during operation, upstream processes such as raw material extraction, production, transportation and the downstream value chain must also be taken into account for a holistic view. The following section examines the ecological performance of LED lighting in comparison to conventional technologies such as incandescent and CFL throughout its life cycle and shows how this performance has improved over time.¹⁴^,¹⁵

3.1 Ecological performance of LED lighting compared to alternatives

For the following ecological comparison between traditional incandescent bulbs, CFLs and modern LED bulbs, a distinction is made between the manufacturing phase and the usage phase.¹⁴^,¹⁵^,¹⁶

Comparative LCA studies show that LEDs have the largest ecological footprint in the manufacturing phase, which is mainly due to the high complexity of production and the materials used.¹⁴ LEDs contain semiconductor chips, complex driver electronics and aluminum heat sinks. Material analyses of end-of-life LED lamps also reveal significant amounts of valuable metals such as gold, silver and rare earths, but also potentially problematic elements such as arsenic, which underlines the potential and necessity of specialized recycling processes.¹⁷

CFL lights are somewhat less complex in comparison.¹⁴ However, unlike LEDs, CFL lights contain toxic mercury and rare earth elements in their phosphors, which means that the of use of mercury already poses increased risks during production.¹⁶^,¹⁴ In contrast, classic incandescent bulbs consist primarily of glass, tungsten and steel base. They are therefore less complex and consist of materials that are considered to be largely uncritical.¹⁶^,¹⁴ When comparing the energy consumption during production, the classic incandescent lamp has the lowest consumption at approximately 0.15 to 1 kWh per lamp. The production of a CFL lamp requires approximately 0.28 to 49 kWh. At 10 to 86 kWh per lamp, the production of an LED requires around.¹¹ to 3 times as much energy as a CFL – and thus the most of the three technologies.¹⁵ From an ecological perspective LED Lighting therefore initially appears to be less advantageous in terms of manufacturing.¹⁵^,¹⁴ However, studies show that for all three technologies, the usage phase is the decisive factor, accounting for around 81 % to 99 % of the ecological balance.¹⁴^,¹⁸^,¹⁹

A comparison can be made based on light output. A classic incandescent bulb converts only about 1-10 % of the energy into light, which corresponds to an output of about 15 lm/W.¹⁶ CFL bulbs are significantly more efficient, converting around 45 % of the energy into light, which corresponds to a luminous efficacy of around 55 to 68 lm/W.¹⁶^,²⁰ Nevertheless LEDs are significantly more efficient, with a luminous efficacy of 65 to over 134 lm/W.¹⁴^,²¹ Another significant discrepancy can be seen in the service life of the light sources. While a classic incandescent bulb only shines for around 1,000 to 1,500 hours and a CFL lamp for around 8,000 to 12,000 hours, an LED lamp has a service life of 25,000 to over 50,000 hours.¹⁵^,²⁰

This assumption can be confirmed by looking at various case studies. An LCA-based analysis of a commercial facility reports that the use of LEDs reduces annual CO₂ emissions by around 170 tons of CO₂ equivalents compared to incandescent bulbs, while also delivering significant energy and cost savings.¹⁹ Further comparative LCAs show that replacing incandescent bulbs with LEDs reduces most environmental indicators (e.g. climate change, acidification, primary energy demand) by a factor of 3 to 10, while substitution with CFLs is also beneficial, but the reduction is slightly lower.¹⁸^,²² An LCA of comparable office luminaires also show that LED luminaires reduce global warming potential by 41-50 % compared to CFL luminaires, mainly due to lower power consumption during the use phase.²³ The leads to the assumption that, despite their higher footprint in the manufacturing phase, LEDs have the best ecological performance over their entire life cycle compared to incandescent bulbs and CFLs due to their high efficiency and long service life.¹⁸^,²⁰

3.2 Change in LED lighting technology over time

The ecological performance of LEDs has improved drastically over the last two decades.¹⁵ For example, a study cited in the specialist literature distinguished between ´LED O´ (old) with a luminous efficacy of 95 lm/W and a service life of 10,000 hours and ´LED N´(new) with a modern performance of 134 lm/W and a service life of 25,000 hours in order to quantify technological advances in efficiency and longevity.²⁰ The increase in luminous efficacy and service life has direct ecological consequences for the manufacture of light sources. Since higher efficiency means less energy is converted into waste heat sinks, whose primary extraction is particularly critical from an ecological point of view, can be significantly reduced in size, thereby reducing production-related resource consumption.¹⁴ Furthermore, positive economies of scale can be observed in manufacturing. The transition to larger wafer diameters (e.g. from 2 to 6 inches) in chip production reduces waste and optimizes the use of process chemicals and precious metals.¹⁴ At the same time, the increased service life reduces the need for replacement lamps and thus the environmental impact of manufacturing, transport and disposal over the entire period under consideration.¹⁵

Another key factor in the environmental assessment is the increasing decarbonization of the electricity grid¹⁸^,²⁰ that rely heavily on fossil fuels (e.g. Australia), the use phase dominates the ecological balance with up to 99 %, which is why increasing efficiency (lm/W) is a top priority here.²⁰^,²¹ However, with ongoing decarbonization towards ´green grids`like in Norway or New Zealand, the relative influence of the usage phase is decreasing.¹⁸^,²⁰ In this context, the manufacturing phase, specifically the embodied carbon, becomes the focus of assessment. This increases the relevance of durability, sustainable resource management and circular design strategies in order to reduce the now dominant ecological backpack` of production.¹⁸^,²⁰

This causal relationship is reflected in a paradigm shift in research, which is moving away from a pure focus on efficiency towards the circular economy.²⁴ This change can be divided into three phases: While between 2005 and 2015 sustainability was primarily equated with energy savings, from 2015 to 2020 systematic life cycle analyses (LCA) based on the cradle-to-grave principle became established as the standard. Since 2020, research and design have increasingly focused on circular business models such as ´lighting-as-a-service` as well as repair and recycling concepts.²⁴

Within this new paradigm, modularity is coming to the fore. Since it is often not the LED itself but the driver electronics that fail, modular designs allow individual components to be replaced instead of disposing of the entire luminaire.¹⁸^,²⁴ In addition, research aims to reduce the use of critical materials such as gold, silver and rare earths and to improve the recycling of aluminum heat sinks and copper in order to reduce dependence on environmentally intensive primary production.¹⁸^,²⁵^,²⁶

In summary, it can be said that the ecological superiority of LEDs can no longer be determined solely on the basis of efficiency. Rather, it must be confirmed by their ability to function as a long-lasting and resource-saving economic asset in a decarbonized and circular environment.¹⁸^,²⁴

4 Social impact

As mentioned in section 2.2, the global LED market is undergoing dynamic development and is expected to achieve a market penetration of over 85 % by 2035.¹¹^,⁸ However, in the early stages after 1996, the acceptance of LEDs for general lighting applications was limited by their poor light quality.²⁷ Numerous concerns were raised, particularly by the lighting industry. In addition to the narrow beam angle, the poor color rendering and overall light output were considered impractical for general lighting applications.⁷ Additionally, the first commercial LEDs only produced cold white light. This did not correspond to the usage habits of many consumers, who were primarily accustomed to the warm light of incandescent bulbs in residential areas.²⁷ In 2008, the New York Times expressed its skepticism and described the LED technology as hype.⁷ At that time, LEDs had primarily been accepted in areas where their efficiency and durability were more important than their color rendering.²⁷ Despite initial skepticism, the lighting market shifted and the global market for incandescent bulbs experienced a significant decline.²⁸^,²⁹ A crucial factor here was the implementation of legal regulations, which will be discussed in more detail in the next Chapter 5.

The broad social acceptance of LEDs was achieved largely through improvements in consumer experience metrics. Through a series of innovations in phosphors, LEDs with a high color rendering index and adjustable color temperatures, such as warm white, could be produced.²⁷ In addition, manufacturers and industry players took into account the knowledge they had gained from the introduction of CFLs and placed their focus on product quality and marketing when introducing LEDs to the market.³⁰ The perceived environmental friendliness or „Greenness“ of LEDs due to their efficiency was a key selling point in marketing to increase acceptance among various consumer groups.²^,³¹ Another major barrier to wide market adoption was the high purchase cost of LEDs, which, however, as already explained in chapter 2.1, was overcome by an annual price reduction of 28 % through a combination of „learning by doing“ and economies of scale among manufacturers.²⁷^,³²^,³³ This made LEDs affordable not only for consumers but also for manufacturers.²⁷

4.1 Positive social impact

In addition to the technological breakthrough, the introduction of LEDs has a positive social impact. On the one hand, the widespread market penetration of the technology enables measurable and far-reaching energy savings potentials, as can be read in Chapter 3.2. Haitz et.al. predicted a global reduction potential of more than 50 % if the technology achieved complete market penetration. This would reduce CO₂ emissions by 200 megatons per year.³⁴ LED technology therefore makes a significant contribution to climate protection.⁷

The introduction of artificial light detached human activities from the time of day and increased productivity in the long term.³⁵ LED technology represents the current peak of this development, as its efficiency exceed that of incandescent bulbs tenfold.² This has brought about fundamental social changes, as modern lighting is now a basic necessity for the welfare and productivity of society, enabling activities such as reading or studying late into the night.¹ Beyond pure luminosity, LEDs also operate as „enabling devices“ facilitating new forms of work and digital communication, for example LED systems for data transmission using light intensity modulation.⁵^,⁶^,⁷

Furthermore, the technology has a significant impact on health. LEDs offer a sustainable alternative to kerosene and biomass lighting.²⁷^,³⁶^,³⁷ In rural areas, electricity relieves women and children from time-consuming biomass collection and thus protects them from hazardous smoke emissions.³⁷ Also, according to a 2015 study by Ortega et al., completely replacing kerosene lighting with LEDs could have prevented up to 12.723 deaths in East Africa.³⁶ Due to their combination of durability, high efficiency and low purchase costs, LED-based solar systems enable social participation even in rural communities without an electricity grid and contribute significantly to improving the quality of life in remote areas.¹^,²⁷ In addition, LEDs are used as an effective form of therapy for various health conditions, such as depression, dementia, skin diseases and muscle complaints.⁷^,³⁸

4.2 Negative social impact

Although LED lighting is a more energy-efficient alternative to conventional light sources, it is closely linked to the global increase in light pollution.¹^,³⁹ Light-Pollution describes the increase in photon concentration above natural night-time levels, which is rising around 6 % annually.³⁹ The widespread and improper use of LED lighting can have negative health and environmental consequences, as almost all organisms develop under a natural light-dark cycle.⁴⁰^,⁴¹ The use of cold white LEDs in particularly in the evening suppresses melatonin production, which delays the onset of sleep, reduces sleep quality and disrupts circadian regulation.⁴¹^,⁴² Night-time illumination also disrupts the orientation and behavior of animal populations, which can lead to a decline in nocturnal pollinators as well as impaired hunting conditions and communication between species.³⁹ To mitigate these effects, lighting concepts based on the „bright days, dark nights“ principle are recommended, which involve the use of warm white LEDs in the evening, cut-off luminaires to minimize light spill, and intelligent control systems with sensors and timers.¹^,³⁹^,⁴²

Another negative impact of LED lighting involves the production of its components, particularly in regions where raw materials are mined and components are manufactured.²⁵ There are significant social risks along the supply chain, including inadequate sanitation, corruption in the public sector and restrictions on trade union rights. A key goal for the coming years is therefore to transform LED technology into a circular economy in order to expand its positive social impact. Planned measures include the establishment of take-back systems and the introduction of leasing services. In this way, responsibility for the flow of materials remains more strongly with the manufacturers, while at the same time a more diverse group of stakeholders along the value chain can benefit from production.²⁵

5 Political and legal aspects

The global spread of LED technologies was driven not only by market, but also significantly by a complex interplay of regulatory requirements, financial incentives and government research initiatives.³³ Politically induced technological changes are distinguished between ´technology-driven` and ´demand-driven` The supply-side technology-push-approach focuses on government funding for research, development and demonstration (hereinafter RD&D) in order to drive technological breakthroughs and reduce the marginal costs of efficiency improvements. On the other hand, policymakers can use of a ´demand pull policy`- i.e. demand induction. This includes measures aimed at stimulating market demand and overcoming barriers to market entry. Specific measures include regulatory requirements such as minimum efficiency standards and regulatory bans on inefficient technologies, known as phasing-out. Furthermore, economic incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks and discount programs can be put in place to help reduce the ´first-cost-barrier`.¹^,³³ Both mechanisms interact closely and have been proven to be among the triggers of the significant increase in patent applications for LED technology.³³

The demand-pull for LED technology was primarily realized through the introduction of legal regulations in various countries.²⁷ China, for example, combines a strict command-and-control policy with industry subsidies.⁴³ Since 2012, China has gradually banned the import and sale of incandescent light bulbs, starting with a ban on 100-watt bulbs and extending to 15-watt bulbs in 2016. In addition, China´s Greenlights program aims to achieve market transformation through a combination of technological push factors, and demand-pull factors, such as raising awareness and stimulating demand among end consumers. Furthermore, LED manufacturers are specifically supported by government subsidies and tax breaks, which has made China the world´s largest producer and exporter of LED products.⁴³ The USA focused on energy efficiency and labeling programs. In 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act set strict efficiency standards, which led to the end of conventional incandescent light bulbs with a power rating of between 40 and 60 watts between 2012 and 2014.³³ The voluntary Energy Star endorsement label also guarantees high quality standards for the service life and light color of LED lights, thereby contributing to increased market acceptance.¹ Furthermore, as part of the Federal Energy Management Program, the US government used its purchasing power as the largest consumer by requiring federal agencies to procure highly efficient lighting, which acted as a market lever.¹ The European Union pursued an integrated approach as part of its 20-20-20 target. The aim was to reduce greenhouse gases by 20 %, increase renewable energies and achieve 20 % more efficiency by 2020.⁴⁴ The Ecodesign Directive (Regulation 244/2009) regulated the gradual phase-out of inefficient technologies and was continuously tightened to replace halogen lamps with more efficient alternatives such as LEDs.⁴⁵ UJALA introduced in India in 2014, is an innovative policy model for demand aggregation. The government-sponsored program set a target of replacing 770 million incandescent light bulbs with LEDs. A joint venture between four state-owned energy supply companies served as the central instrument. Through competitive tendering, they were able to leverage economies of scale and thus drastically reduce the purchase costs for LEDs. As a result, sales figures rose 130-fold between 2014 and 2018, and LEDs achieved an increase in market share from.³ % to 45 % within five years.³ Japan implemented the technology push approach as early as 1998 with the ´Light for the 21st Century project. The project brought together 13 companies and universities to increase the quantum efficiency of SSL devices to 40 % and promote innovation in UV LEDs and phosphor systems.¹^,³³ China also advanced the technology-push approach by the ´National Solid-State Lighting` program in 2004. More than 50 companies and 15 research institutions were tasked with developing luminaires with an efficiency of 150 lm/w in order to replace 40 % of incandescent bulbs.¹

It became clear that promoting research and development, i.e. the ´technological push`, can strengthen the technological basis of LED lighting and national competitiveness in the long term. At the same time, it is associated with increased financial risk, and studies have shown that the research funding primarily has a national impact and has a very limited influence on global investment cycles compared to legal standards.³³ Legal regulations for LED technology offer a high degree of certainty, as they drive inefficient or less sustainable products out of the market, thereby enabling measurable energy savings.¹ Such laws act as powerful ´demand-pull` instruments, stimulating industrial investment in mass production, which in turn has a positive effect on low prices through learning and economics of scale.²⁷ However, an overly strong regulatory focus on low prices in tenders can jeopardize product quality and inhibit R&D, as companies have to operate at the lower end of the standards.³ In addition to potential welfare losses for consumers with specific preferences, strict bans always carry the risk of being criticized as state paternalism.⁴⁶ While government subsidies can help offset increased acquisition costs and promote acceptance of the technology itself,³³^,⁴⁷ they always come with a high fiscal burden. In addition, they carry the risk of windfall effects and market flooding with inferior products.⁴⁶ The use of labels, as it is the case in Germany, contributes significantly to reducing information asymmetries and thus promoting rational purchasing decisions.¹ At the same time, this measure is not strong enough to promote the diffusion of LED lighting, as customers often pay insufficient attention to future energy costs.⁴⁴^,⁴⁶ Another risk is the rebound effect.⁴⁵, whereby consumers increase their lighting usage so much due to the cost reductions resulting from increased efficiency that the theoretical energy savings are negated partially or completely.³⁵^,³⁹ In this context, alternatives such as labeling systems, demand aggregation and technology push measures, have proven effective. These create transparency of information and transform the market through performance and voluntary agreements with industry, without bans.³^,¹

This overall comparison illustrates that isolated measures are often insufficient to resolve the paradox of slow diffusion despite profitability in the lighting industry.⁴⁶ While government research funding in the form of technology push remains essential for fundamental innovations, studies show that demand-side measures of demand-pull policy, such as minimum efficiency standards, have a significant impact on global markets.³³ Based on scientific findings, an integrated policy mix that combines technical standards with economic incentives and transparent information, and thus also takes into account possible rebound effects, appears to be an effective path for a sustainable energy transition in the lighting sector.

References

1
International Energy Agency. Light’s Labour’s Lost: Policies for Energy-Efficient Lighting. (OECD, 2006). doi:10.1787/9789264109520-en.
2
Nardelli, A., Deuschle, E., De Azevedo, L. D., Pessoa, J. L. N. & Ghisi, E. Assessment of Light Emitting Diodes technology for general lighting: A critical review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 75, 368–379 (2017).
3
Kamat, A. S., Khosla, R. & Narayanamurti, V. Illuminating homes with LEDs in India: Rapid market creation towards low-carbon technology transition in a developing country. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 66, 101488 (2020).
4
Bardsley, J. N. et al. Securing Additional Energy Savings in SSL: an International Lighting Technology Roadmap. in 2024 IEEE Sustainable Smart Lighting World Conference & Expo (LS24) 1–2 (IEEE, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 2024). doi:10.1109/LS2463127.2024.10881402.
5
Dupuis, R. D. & Krames, M. R. History, Development, and Applications of High-Brightness Visible Light-Emitting Diodes. J. Light. Technol. 26, 1154–1171 (2008).
6
Sanderson, S. W. & Simons, K. L. Light emitting diodes and the lighting revolution: The emergence of a solid-state lighting industry. Res. Policy 43, 1730–1746 (2014).
7
Cho, J., Park, J. H., Kim, J. K. & Schubert, E. F. White light‐emitting diodes: History, progress, and future. Laser Photonics Rev. 11, 1600147 (2017).
8
European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Update on Status of Solid-State Lighting & Smart Lighting Systems: Assessment of Latest Energy Efficiency Progresses and World Market in Solid State and Smart Lighting. (Publications Office, LU, 2023). doi:10.2760/223640.
9
Haitz, R. & Tsao, J. Y. Solid‐state lighting: Why it will succeed, and why it won’t be overtaken. Opt. Photonik 6, 26–30 (2011).
10
Gerke, B., Ngo, A., Alstone, A. & Fisseha, K. The Evolving Price of Household LED Lamps: Recent Trends and Historical Comparisons for the US Market. LBNL-6854E, 1163956 http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1163956/ (2014) doi:10.2172/1163956.
11
European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Update on the Status of LED-Lighting World Market since 2018. (Publications Office, LU, 2021). doi:10.2760/759859.
12
Gerke, B. F., Ngo, A. T. & Fisseha, K. S. Recent Price Trends and Learning Curves for Household LED Lamps from a Regression Analysis of Internet Retail Data. (2015).
13
Davidovic, M. & Kostic, M. Comparison of energy efficiency and costs related to conventional and LED road lighting installations. Energy 254, 124299 (2022).
14
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Energy Efficiency Office. Building Technologies Office, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States), Scholand, M. & Dillon, H. Life-Cycle Assessment of Energy and Environmental Impacts of LED Lighting Products. Part 2: LED Manufacturing and Performance. BT0301000, PNNL–21443, 1044508 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1044508 (2012) doi:10.2172/1044508.
15
Tähkämö, L., Puolakka, M., Halonen, L. & Zissis, G. Comparison of Life Cycle Assessments of LED Light Sources. J. Light Vis. Environ. 36, 44–54 (2012).
16
Elijošiutė, E., Balciukevičiūtė, J. & Denafas, G. Life Cycle Assessment of Compact Fluorescent and Incandescent Lamps: Comparative Analysis. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 61, 65–72 (2012).
17
Zamprogno Rebello, R., Weitzel Dias Carneiro Lima, M. T., Yamane, L. H. & Ribeiro Siman, R. Characterization of end-of-life LED lamps for the recovery of precious metals and rare earth elements. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 153, 104557 (2020).
18
Ferreira, V. J., Knoche, S., Verma, J. & Corchero, C. Life cycle assessment of a modular LED luminaire and quantified environmental benefits of replaceable components. J. Clean. Prod. 317, 128575 (2021).
19
Xu, Z., Mim, N. K., Franchetti, M. & Kumar, A. A Facility Lighting Comparison Based on Energy Savings and Efficiency, Pollution Prevention and Life Cycle Assessment. Environ. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 5, 229 (2016).
20
Bertin, K. 05/05/2020 Life Cycle Assessment of Indoor Residential Lighting.
21
Wu, Y. & Su, D. LCA of an industrial luminaire using product environmental footprint method. J. Clean. Prod. 305, 127159 (2021).
22
Shahzad K. et al. Comparative life cycle analysis of different lighting devices. Chem. Eng. Trans. 45, 631–636 (2015).
23
Principi, P. & Fioretti, R. A comparative life cycle assessment of luminaires for general lighting for the office – compact fluorescent (CFL) vs Light Emitting Diode (LED) – a case study. J. Clean. Prod. 83, 96–107 (2014).
24
Chen, H., Yeboah, S. K., Dawodu, A., Dodoo, J. K. & Zou, T. A systematic review of circular economy of artificial lighting and global sustainability. Energy Build. 347, 116314 (2025).
25
Wang, S., Su, D. & Wu, Y. Environmental and social life cycle assessments of an industrial LED lighting product. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 95, 106804 (2022).
26
Liu, L. & Keoleian, G. A. LCA of rare earth and critical metal recovery and replacement decisions for commercial lighting waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 159, 104846 (2020).
27
Weinold, M. P., Kolesnikov, S. & Anadón, L. D. Rapid technological progress in white light-emitting diodes and its source in innovation and technology spillovers. Nat. Energy 10, 616–629 (2025).
28
Incandescent Lighting Product 2026-2034 Analysis: Trends, Competitor Dynamics, and Growth Opportunities. 124 https://www.datainsightsmarket.com/reports/incandescent-lighting-product-898092?tab=summary (2026).
29
Exploring Consumer Shifts in Incandenscent Light Bulbs Market 2025 – 2033. 105 https://www.marketreportanalytics.com/reports/incandescent-light-bulbs-391735?tab=summary (2026).
30
Kelly, K., Gl, D., Rosenberg, M. & Gl, D. Some Light Reading: Understanding Trends Residential CFL and LED Adoption. ACEE Summer Study Energy Effic. Build. (2016).
31
Cowan, K. R. & Daim, T. U. Understanding Adoption of Energy Efficiency Technologies: Applying Behavioral Theories of Technology Acceptance & Use to Understand the Case of LED Lighting for Commercial, Residential, and Industrial End-Users. PICMET Portland Int. Cent. Manag. Eng. Technol. Proc. 1–9 (2011).
32
Rubin, E. S., Azevedo, I. M. L., Jaramillo, P. & Yeh, S. A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies. Energy Policy 86, 198–218 (2015).
33
Kim, Y. J. & Brown, M. Impact of domestic energy-efficiency policies on foreign innovation: The case of lighting technologies. Energy Policy 128, 539–552 (2019).
34
Haitz, R., Kish, F., Tsao, J. & Nelson, J. THE CASE FOR A NATIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ON SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHTING. (2000).
35
Hicks, A. L., Theis, T. L. & Zellner, M. L. Emergent Effects of Residential Lighting Choices: Prospects for Energy Savings. J. Ind. Ecol. 19, 285–295 (2015).
36
Ortega, N. et al. Health and environmental impacts of replacing kerosene-based lighting with renewable electricity in East Africa. Energy Sustain. Dev. 63, 16–23 (2021).
37
Asghar, N., Amjad, M. A., Rehman, H. U., Munir, M. & Alhajj, R. Achieving sustainable development resilience: Poverty reduction through affordable access to electricity in developing economies. J. Clean. Prod. 376, 134040 (2022).
38
Vetter, C. et al. A Review of Human Physiological Responses to Light: Implications for the Development of Integrative Lighting Solutions. LEUKOS 18, 387–414 (2022).
39
Hölker, F. et al. The Dark Side of Light: A Transdisciplinary Research Agenda for Light Pollution Policy. Ecol. Soc. 15, art13 (2010).
40
Schulte-Römer, N., Meier, J., Söding, M. & Dannemann, E. The LED Paradox: How Light Pollution Challenges Experts to Reconsider Sustainable Lighting. Sustainability 11, 6160 (2019).
41
Rider, G. The pros and cons of different approaches to LED street lighting. (2023).
42
Martinsons, C. et al. Solid State Lighting: Review of Health Effects. 4e Energy Effic. End-Use Equip. (2024).
43
Ji, Z., Yu, H., Zhu, J. & Li, J. The Influence of Roadmap for China Phasing Out Incandescent Lamps on the Promotion of Energy-Efficient Lighting Products. Sustainability 14, 11894 (2022).
44
Frondel, M. & Lohmann, S. The European Commission’s light bulb decree: Another costly regulation? Energy Policy 39, 3177–3181 (2011).
45
Blum, B., Hübner, J., Milde, A. & Neumärker, K. J. B. On the evidence of rebound effects in the lighting sector: Implications for promoting LED lighting.
46
Allcott, H. & Taubinsky, D. Evaluating Behaviorally Motivated Policy: Experimental Evidence from the Lightbulb Market. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 2501–2538 (2015).
47
Krames, M. R. et al. Status and Future of High-Power Light-Emitting Diodes for Solid-State Lighting. J. Disp. Technol. 3, 160–175 (2007).

1
International Energy Agency. Light’s Labour’s Lost: Policies for Energy-Efficient Lighting. (OECD, 2006). doi:10.1787/9789264109520-en.
2
Nardelli, A., Deuschle, E., De Azevedo, L. D., Pessoa, J. L. N. & Ghisi, E. Assessment of Light Emitting Diodes technology for general lighting: A critical review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 75, 368–379 (2017).
3
Kamat, A. S., Khosla, R. & Narayanamurti, V. Illuminating homes with LEDs in India: Rapid market creation towards low-carbon technology transition in a developing country. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 66, 101488 (2020).
4
Bardsley, J. N. et al. Securing Additional Energy Savings in SSL: an International Lighting Technology Roadmap. in 2024 IEEE Sustainable Smart Lighting World Conference & Expo (LS24) 1–2 (IEEE, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 2024). doi:10.1109/LS2463127.2024.10881402.
5
Dupuis, R. D. & Krames, M. R. History, Development, and Applications of High-Brightness Visible Light-Emitting Diodes. J. Light. Technol. 26, 1154–1171 (2008).
6
Sanderson, S. W. & Simons, K. L. Light emitting diodes and the lighting revolution: The emergence of a solid-state lighting industry. Res. Policy 43, 1730–1746 (2014).
7
Cho, J., Park, J. H., Kim, J. K. & Schubert, E. F. White light‐emitting diodes: History, progress, and future. Laser Photonics Rev. 11, 1600147 (2017).
8
European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Update on Status of Solid-State Lighting & Smart Lighting Systems: Assessment of Latest Energy Efficiency Progresses and World Market in Solid State and Smart Lighting. (Publications Office, LU, 2023). doi:10.2760/223640.
9
Haitz, R. & Tsao, J. Y. Solid‐state lighting: Why it will succeed, and why it won’t be overtaken. Opt. Photonik 6, 26–30 (2011).
10
Gerke, B., Ngo, A., Alstone, A. & Fisseha, K. The Evolving Price of Household LED Lamps: Recent Trends and Historical Comparisons for the US Market. LBNL-6854E, 1163956 http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1163956/ (2014) doi:10.2172/1163956.
11
European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Update on the Status of LED-Lighting World Market since 2018. (Publications Office, LU, 2021). doi:10.2760/759859.
12
Gerke, B. F., Ngo, A. T. & Fisseha, K. S. Recent Price Trends and Learning Curves for Household LED Lamps from a Regression Analysis of Internet Retail Data. (2015).
13
Davidovic, M. & Kostic, M. Comparison of energy efficiency and costs related to conventional and LED road lighting installations. Energy 254, 124299 (2022).
14
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Energy Efficiency Office. Building Technologies Office, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States), Scholand, M. & Dillon, H. Life-Cycle Assessment of Energy and Environmental Impacts of LED Lighting Products. Part 2: LED Manufacturing and Performance. BT0301000, PNNL–21443, 1044508 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1044508 (2012) doi:10.2172/1044508.
15
Tähkämö, L., Puolakka, M., Halonen, L. & Zissis, G. Comparison of Life Cycle Assessments of LED Light Sources. J. Light Vis. Environ. 36, 44–54 (2012).
16
Elijošiutė, E., Balciukevičiūtė, J. & Denafas, G. Life Cycle Assessment of Compact Fluorescent and Incandescent Lamps: Comparative Analysis. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 61, 65–72 (2012).
17
Zamprogno Rebello, R., Weitzel Dias Carneiro Lima, M. T., Yamane, L. H. & Ribeiro Siman, R. Characterization of end-of-life LED lamps for the recovery of precious metals and rare earth elements. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 153, 104557 (2020).
18
Ferreira, V. J., Knoche, S., Verma, J. & Corchero, C. Life cycle assessment of a modular LED luminaire and quantified environmental benefits of replaceable components. J. Clean. Prod. 317, 128575 (2021).
19
Xu, Z., Mim, N. K., Franchetti, M. & Kumar, A. A Facility Lighting Comparison Based on Energy Savings and Efficiency, Pollution Prevention and Life Cycle Assessment. Environ. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 5, 229 (2016).
20
Bertin, K. 05/05/2020 Life Cycle Assessment of Indoor Residential Lighting.
21
Wu, Y. & Su, D. LCA of an industrial luminaire using product environmental footprint method. J. Clean. Prod. 305, 127159 (2021).
22
Shahzad K. et al. Comparative life cycle analysis of different lighting devices. Chem. Eng. Trans. 45, 631–636 (2015).
23
Principi, P. & Fioretti, R. A comparative life cycle assessment of luminaires for general lighting for the office – compact fluorescent (CFL) vs Light Emitting Diode (LED) – a case study. J. Clean. Prod. 83, 96–107 (2014).
24
Chen, H., Yeboah, S. K., Dawodu, A., Dodoo, J. K. & Zou, T. A systematic review of circular economy of artificial lighting and global sustainability. Energy Build. 347, 116314 (2025).
25
Wang, S., Su, D. & Wu, Y. Environmental and social life cycle assessments of an industrial LED lighting product. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 95, 106804 (2022).
26
Liu, L. & Keoleian, G. A. LCA of rare earth and critical metal recovery and replacement decisions for commercial lighting waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 159, 104846 (2020).
27
Weinold, M. P., Kolesnikov, S. & Anadón, L. D. Rapid technological progress in white light-emitting diodes and its source in innovation and technology spillovers. Nat. Energy 10, 616–629 (2025).
28
Incandescent Lighting Product 2026-2034 Analysis: Trends, Competitor Dynamics, and Growth Opportunities. 124 https://www.datainsightsmarket.com/reports/incandescent-lighting-product-898092?tab=summary (2026).
29
Exploring Consumer Shifts in Incandenscent Light Bulbs Market 2025 – 2033. 105 https://www.marketreportanalytics.com/reports/incandescent-light-bulbs-391735?tab=summary (2026).
30
Kelly, K., Gl, D., Rosenberg, M. & Gl, D. Some Light Reading: Understanding Trends Residential CFL and LED Adoption. ACEE Summer Study Energy Effic. Build. (2016).
31
Cowan, K. R. & Daim, T. U. Understanding Adoption of Energy Efficiency Technologies: Applying Behavioral Theories of Technology Acceptance & Use to Understand the Case of LED Lighting for Commercial, Residential, and Industrial End-Users. PICMET Portland Int. Cent. Manag. Eng. Technol. Proc. 1–9 (2011).
32
Rubin, E. S., Azevedo, I. M. L., Jaramillo, P. & Yeh, S. A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies. Energy Policy 86, 198–218 (2015).
33
Kim, Y. J. & Brown, M. Impact of domestic energy-efficiency policies on foreign innovation: The case of lighting technologies. Energy Policy 128, 539–552 (2019).
34
Haitz, R., Kish, F., Tsao, J. & Nelson, J. THE CASE FOR A NATIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ON SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHTING. (2000).
35
Hicks, A. L., Theis, T. L. & Zellner, M. L. Emergent Effects of Residential Lighting Choices: Prospects for Energy Savings. J. Ind. Ecol. 19, 285–295 (2015).
36
Ortega, N. et al. Health and environmental impacts of replacing kerosene-based lighting with renewable electricity in East Africa. Energy Sustain. Dev. 63, 16–23 (2021).
37
Asghar, N., Amjad, M. A., Rehman, H. U., Munir, M. & Alhajj, R. Achieving sustainable development resilience: Poverty reduction through affordable access to electricity in developing economies. J. Clean. Prod. 376, 134040 (2022).
38
Vetter, C. et al. A Review of Human Physiological Responses to Light: Implications for the Development of Integrative Lighting Solutions. LEUKOS 18, 387–414 (2022).
39
Hölker, F. et al. The Dark Side of Light: A Transdisciplinary Research Agenda for Light Pollution Policy. Ecol. Soc. 15, art13 (2010).
40
Schulte-Römer, N., Meier, J., Söding, M. & Dannemann, E. The LED Paradox: How Light Pollution Challenges Experts to Reconsider Sustainable Lighting. Sustainability 11, 6160 (2019).
41
Rider, G. The pros and cons of different approaches to LED street lighting. (2023).
42
Martinsons, C. et al. Solid State Lighting: Review of Health Effects. 4e Energy Effic. End-Use Equip. (2024).
43
Ji, Z., Yu, H., Zhu, J. & Li, J. The Influence of Roadmap for China Phasing Out Incandescent Lamps on the Promotion of Energy-Efficient Lighting Products. Sustainability 14, 11894 (2022).
44
Frondel, M. & Lohmann, S. The European Commission’s light bulb decree: Another costly regulation? Energy Policy 39, 3177–3181 (2011).
45
Blum, B., Hübner, J., Milde, A. & Neumärker, K. J. B. On the evidence of rebound effects in the lighting sector: Implications for promoting LED lighting.
46
Allcott, H. & Taubinsky, D. Evaluating Behaviorally Motivated Policy: Experimental Evidence from the Lightbulb Market. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 2501–2538 (2015).
47
Krames, M. R. et al. Status and Future of High-Power Light-Emitting Diodes for Solid-State Lighting. J. Disp. Technol. 3, 160–175 (2007).