Sustainable AV: moving from good intentions to lifecycle responsibility

Jake Bevan, schoms Executive Board  

Sustainability within the AV sector is an increasingly important, yet challenging, area. Understanding where the sector currently stands, how sustainability can be meaningfully measured, and where responsibility lies continues to generate considerable discussion and debate.
I attended the AV Sustainability Summit as part of a wider piece of work being undertaken by SCHOMS to explore sustainability within learning spaces and the broader AV environment.
The day raised a number of interesting themes, challenges and practical considerations that I felt were worth sharing with the wider SCHOMS community. Sustainability is likely to continue rising in prominence across our sector, and these discussions provide a useful opportunity to consider how we can collectively develop a more informed, practical and consistent approach.

Sustainability in AV is increasingly becoming a question of how systems are designed, procured, supported and eventually retired. That was the clearest message from AV Sustainability 2026: meaningful progress requires us to look beyond the electricity consumed while equipment is switched on and consider the whole lifecycle of the technology we deploy.

Across the conference, speakers explored embodied carbon, circular design, equipment reuse, hybrid working, e-paper, artificial intelligence and sustainable procurement. Although the sessions approached the subject from different directions, several consistent themes emerged. Longer equipment lifecycles matter. End-of-life planning cannot remain an afterthought. Sustainability claims need evidence. Above all, organisations need governance and operational processes capable of turning ambition into repeatable practice.

The opening keynote, delivered by Marjolein Koens-Schaddelee of AVEX, introduced a distinction that ran through the rest of the day: operational carbon is only part of the environmental impact of an AV system. Before equipment is switched on for the first time, emissions have already been generated through raw-material extraction, manufacturing, assembly and transport.

This shifts the focus from choosing energy-efficient products in isolation towards preserving the value already embedded in equipment. The hierarchy discussed during the keynote was practical: use products for longer, repair before replacing, refurbish equipment for another life, reuse components and recover materials. Recycling remains important, but it is the final loop rather than the starting point.

AVEX’s BRIX zero model provided an example of how this thinking might translate into a commercial service. It combines standardised meeting-room and digital-signage solutions with circular hardware, lifecycle management and sustainability reporting. AVEX describes the model as a way of extending product life, limiting unnecessary replacement and making AV-related impacts more visible. BRIX zero was also named as a finalist in the Sustainable Initiative of the Year category at the 2026 AV Awards.

The wider challenge is that lifecycle information remains incomplete. Supply chains are complex, standards continue to develop and established commercial models still tend to reward the sale of new equipment. The keynote’s proposed response was deliberately pragmatic: start, test, learn, improve and repeat.

Sustainable AV needs an ownership model

A recurring issue throughout the day was the absence of a clear end-of-life strategy. Specifying recyclable products achieves relatively little if an organisation has no process for recovering, assessing, refurbishing or responsibly disposing of them.

The panel on circular AV described reuse as one of the fastest opportunities available to the industry.

It also raised a more fundamental question: who owns an AV product through its lifecycle? Project teams may deliver the initial installation, support teams keep it operating, and individual departments may fund replacement, but responsibility for the equipment’s long-term value and eventual destination is often unclear.

AV-as-a-Service and leasing models may provide one possible route. By retaining a residual value in equipment and making maintenance, refurbishment and return part of a service relationship, these models can create stronger incentives to extend product life. However, financing alone does not create circularity. It still requires dependable asset information, appropriate warranties, repair routes, monitoring and a defined destination for equipment that is removed from service.

Culture matters here, but culture can only carry an organisation so far. Governance, ownership and documented processes are what turn positive intent into reliable outcomes.

Procurement is becoming the point of leverage

Procurement emerged as one of the strongest mechanisms for change. Sustainability requirements increasingly appear in requests for proposals, but the conference discussion highlighted the need to move beyond broad commitments and ask for verifiable detail.

Relevant questions include:

·       What lifecycle and emissions data can the supplier provide?

·       How durable, repairable and upgradeable is the proposed equipment?

·       Are spare parts and repair information available?

·       Does the manufacturer offer a take-back, refurbishment or second-life route?

·       How are supplier non-conformances identified and closed?

·       What happens to the equipment at the end of the contract or project?

·       Can sustainability claims be independently verified?

Tools such as EcoVadis can provide a consistent way of examining sustainability performance across supply chains. EPEAT takes a product-focused approach, using independently verified criteria spanning design, production, energy use, recycling and repairability. Its public registry allows buyers to identify products currently meeting those criteria.

Regulation is also pushing the industry towards greater transparency. AVIXA identifies the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, Digital Product Passports, WEEE, Extended Producer Responsibility and corporate sustainability reporting among the frameworks influencing how technology is designed, managed and measured.

This suggests a practical change to the way AV projects are evaluated. Initial capital cost remains important, but it should sit alongside expected service life, energy consumption, maintainability, software support, upgrade paths, residual value and end-of-life responsibility.

Designing for adaptation

Several sessions questioned the industry’s tendency to treat replacement as the default response to changing requirements. AV equipment is often removed because it no longer provides the required functionality, even though the underlying hardware has not failed. That makes software support, interoperability and modularity significant sustainability concerns.

A more sustainable design philosophy would allow components to be repaired or upgraded independently and would separate rapidly changing functionality from infrastructure that can remain useful for much longer. This supports both environmental and operational resilience by reducing disruptive wholesale replacement and making incremental improvement more achievable.

The same principle applies to displays. The presentation on e-paper argued that it should be treated as a distinct technology for appropriate use cases rather than as a universal replacement for LCD. For static or infrequently updated information, its very low power requirements may make it a useful alternative to continuously powered signage. The broader lesson is to avoid applying the same display specification everywhere and instead select technology according to the actual communication need.

Hybrid working and AI require careful accounting

The conference resisted simple claims that particular technologies are inherently sustainable.

Hybrid working can reduce the impact of business travel, but its overall carbon effect depends on commuting patterns, domestic energy use, office occupancy and whether an organisation can actually reduce the space and resources required by its estate. Better meeting technology may support lower-carbon working, but the benefit needs to be evaluated as part of a wider operating model. The session also highlighted the continuing risk of visual, spatial and proximity bias against remote participants, reminding us that environmental and inclusive design should be considered together.

The same caution applies to artificial intelligence. AI may help reduce unnecessary energy use, identify underused technology, predict failures, support preventative maintenance and reduce travel. It also relies on physical infrastructure consuming energy, water, hardware and cooling.

A useful principle from the session was that AI should earn its footprint. The objective should be to improve a defined outcome, rather than to maximise the use of AI. Sustainability therefore needs to become one of the metrics against which an AI-enabled service is assessed.

What this could mean for university AV

For a university AV service, the most valuable lessons are operational rather than abstract. Sustainable practice can be built into  standards, procurement, project assurance and service management through a small number of concrete changes:

1.       Record what is already installed. Reliable asset, warranty and lifecycle data is the foundation for reuse and planned replacement.

2.       Design for maintenance and incremental change. Modular systems and accessible components reduce dependence on wholesale renewal.

3.       Make reuse the first assessment. Existing equipment should be evaluated for continued use, redeployment or refurbishment before new equipment is purchased.

4.       Include end-of-life responsibilities in procurement. Tender responses should explain take-back, recycling and second-life arrangements.

5.       Use remote monitoring intelligently. Earlier fault detection and preventative maintenance can reduce travel, downtime and premature replacement.

6.       Ask for evidence. Product certifications, lifecycle data, repair information and independently assessed supplier performance are more useful than unspecific environmental claims.

7.       Measure outcomes after installation. Sustainability should remain part of system operation, change control and eventual decommissioning rather than ending at the procurement stage.

These principles align closely with existing work on sustainable learning environments, including power scheduling, remote monitoring, modular design, structured reuse and end-of-life planning.

From ambition to routine practice. The conference showed that the AV industry has no single, complete roadmap for sustainability. Data quality varies, circular supply chains remain immature and some business models are still evolving. There are nevertheless credible actions available now.

The strongest starting point is to preserve the value of equipment for longer and make lifecycle responsibility explicit. That means designing systems that can adapt, procuring products whose claims can be evidenced, monitoring installations after handover and deciding what will happen to equipment before it reaches the point of removal.

Three questions from the opening keynote provide a useful conclusion:

·          What is one thing we can do differently?

·          What is one assumption we can challenge?

·          What is one step we can take now?

For AV services, the next stage is to convert those questions into standards, ownership and routine decisions. Importantly, this remains an evolving area, and there is real scope for us, both as schoms, individual organisations and as a sector, to influence the conversation, shape good practice and contribute to meaningful progress.

Further reading

·          AVIXA Sustainability Advisory Group

·          AVEX BRIX zero

·          European Commission guidance on deforestation-free products

·          EcoVadis sustainability ratings

·          EPEAT Registry and procurement resources