Lighting fixed first, energy second and still 45% less

Canopy manufacture is detailed work. Fitting, trimming, finishing and final inspection all happen at arm's length on surfaces where a flaw is small and the consequence of missing it is a return. Lighting that is adequate for moving stock around is not adequate for that.

The commercial problem is that quality-driven lighting projects are hard to fund. There is no line on the electricity account labelled defects missed under poor light, so the business case has to be carried by the energy saving even when the energy saving is not the reason for doing the work.

That constrains the design. A specification written purely for illuminance would have cost more and saved less; one written purely for energy would have delivered a darker factory more cheaply.

The project was scoped as a general lighting improvement: raise the standard of light on the production areas, and take the energy reduction that current product delivers on the way through.

At an estimated 45%, the reduction is the most modest in our published set, and that is the honest signature of a quality-led brief. Where a project is designed to maximise savings, light levels are held flat and every watt of the efficacy gain is banked. Where the brief is to improve the lighting, part of that gain is spent on the floor instead. Beekman spent a meaningful share of it on the work being done.

The payback, at an estimated 28 months, reflects the same trade. It is a longer return than a savings-led conversion would have produced, and it buys a better factory.