The privacy and safety paradox regarding technical compliance and employer enforcement of home office lighting requirements

Abstract

The rapid shift to remote work following the COVID-19 pandemic transformed private residential spaces into permanent workplaces, often without professional ergonomic oversight. While occupational lighting is strictly regulated by standards such as EN 12,464–1, these norms are legally unenforceable in private homes due to privacy regulations. This study addresses the "Privacy-Safety Paradox" by conducting a comparative legal analysis of employer responsibilities versus privacy rights in the EU (including France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Poland) and the USA. It presents a case series analysis of five distinct home-office scenarios, evaluating illuminance levels (E_avg, E_min) and uniformity (U₀) against occupational safety requirements. Results reveal a 100% non-compliance rate, with critical deficiencies identified in makeshift workspaces. The most severe case exhibited an average illuminance of only ~ 188 lx and a minimum of ~ 22 lx, which is drastically below the biologically required thresholds for visual health and circadian regulation. The study identifies a systemic “compliance gap” where legal protections of the home, such as the German Selbstauskunft model or the Italian "right to disconnect", limit the employer’s ability to perform physical audits. To mitigate this risk, the authors propose a simplified self-assessment checklist designed to allow remote workers to identify and correct visual hazards without specialized photometric equipment.

Introduction

The beginning of 2019 became a breakthrough period for the world¹. The SARS COV-2 virus pandemic sweeping the globe has changed many aspects of the everyday life of almost every person. To prevent the spread of the virus, some changes were made to stop the pandemic. One of the factors gradually introduced into people’s lives was the transfer of millions of workers to the home space¹. Work in home office mode has significantly contributed to improving the global situation in the fight against the pandemic^2–7. With the transfer of activities to the home space, employees around the world had to adapt their homes to be able to perform work duties away from their main workplaces. Employers were obliged to provide their employees with appropriate conditions to perform professional activities at home. Unfortunately, under the influence of the new, rapidly developing epidemiological situation, these duties have been abandoned in many cases, leaving people unprepared to work in a home office. In the long term, this contributed to a decrease in the effectiveness of activities performed, as well as the deterioration of the physical and mental health of employees^8–15. Moreover^16–26, describes the impact of indoor lighting on work efficiency and employee well-being. Ensuring proper lighting conditions also affects the health of workers.

The rapid shift to home-based work has exposed a significant regulatory gap common to many legal systems: the conflict between the employer’s responsibility for occupational safety and the employee’s right to privacy in their domicile. Professional activity in a home environment is not limited to digital tasks but is characterized by high variability, including tight d eadlines, resource scarcity, and the frequent overlap of domestic responsibilities such as childcare or household maintenance. While occupational health and safety (OHS) standards are stringent for traditional offices, their enforcement becomes legally ambiguous when the “office” is a private living room. The legal landscape in the European Union is diverse, yet it shares a common challenge: the "inviolability of the home" often outweighs the employer’s ability to conduct physical audits.

Adequate lighting is a key condition for ensuring effective, comfortable and safe work. Lighting conditions are an extremely important external factor affecting the proper functioning of the body. Good lighting contributes to precision, concentration and ensures human well-being. Taking into account the above-mentioned factors, the appropriate lighting conditions in the space in which people stay should be ensured. Work transferred from offices to residential homes should be performed with adequate lighting, and the time spent on tasks such as working at a computer, reading or watching films should be provided in comfortable conditions. Adequate lighting in rooms should be provided for both children and adults. In the case of children who received distance education during the SARS COV-2 pandemic, their time spent at home increased significantly. Due to many hours spent in living conditions, special attention should be paid to proper lighting^27–30. Attention should be paid not only to workplaces in plants, offices or educational institutions, but also to those organized in one’s own home. The prevailing lighting conditions can be checked based on the measurements taken. In the case of the above-mentioned surfaces, the normative requirement is to measure the illumination intensity.

The EN 12,464–1 Light and lighting standard³¹ defines the areas in which they should be performed and determines the required lighting intensity values. Currently, there are no existing standards and regulations regarding the method of lighting in private residential buildings, clear standards regulating the measurement method, its frequency or guidelines regarding the qualifications of the person responsible for the tests and their interpretations. One way to assess the lighting used may be to compare private apartments to office spaces, the lighting conditions of which are regulated by standards. Based on the above-mentioned guidelines, the opinion issued about lighting conditions is not subjective but only confirmed by regulations and values developed by specialists in the field of lighting technology. An important issue in the design and evaluation of indoor lighting is how to take into account, in the conducted analysis, in addition to artificial light, the daylight^32–36.

In³², the authors deal with the effects of daylight on indoor lighting. The purpose of the study described³³ is to compare three methods for generating individual lighting characteristics to model user behaviour in a lighting environment. The created concept of “person” is used to represent typical users, highlighting their needs, perspectives and expectations.

In³⁴ authors proved that CCT is one of the most important lighting factors influencing subjective comfort and preferences. Detailed analysis shows that lower CCT values are considered more comfortable and preferred for relaxation, while higher CCT values are considered more comfortable and preferred for work. Authors in³⁴ conducted research related to the impact of lighting conditions on the perceived quality of space, comfort, cooperation, motivation, distraction and fatigue in the school laboratory. The presented results show that, according to most respondents, the room seemed spacious in daylight and at high color temperatures but cramped at low temperatures. A study reported in³⁶ determined the effects of a correlated color temperature of 2700 K versus 6000 K, 500 lx at a desk on users’ performance and physiology during hourly exposure in the morning and afternoon. In their article³⁷, Vasquez’s group presented the results of research conducted on representatives of Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, Italy, Poland and Japan aimed at examining the factors influencing participants’ satisfaction with lighting conditions in the home office, emphasizing user satisfaction with the visual environment. The presented data show differences in satisfaction depending on profession, gender and continent of residence of the participants.

According to the results of a study included³⁸, the use of home as a workplace has become an important feature of labor markets in many Western economies, and this number has increased significantly in recent years, helped by the pandemic. By 2015, about 1 in 6 workers in the European Union worked from home for at least part of their working days. It is important to note that changes in living, working and commuting activities due to working from home have a huge impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions during a typical day (24 h) when working from home and working in the office were estimated and compared. The results showed in³⁹ that working from home can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 29.11% (4.06 kg CO₂/person/day) compared to performing the same tasks in the office. The aim of the research published in⁴⁰ was to evaluate the potential impact of circadian lighting design recommendations on energy that are gaining popularity in various typical applications, such as offices and classrooms. Two applications—an open office and a classroom—were simulated, and the output power clearance, spectral characteristics, surface reflectance distribution and desk orientation were examined to scale the potential impact. The article⁴¹ reviewed and summarized the effects of the lighting environment on task performance, particularly for audiences in built environments. Existing research has included a variety of performance tests on cognitive and perceptual performance, visual acuity and response, memory, reasoning and work performance. The purpose of the study, the results of which were published in⁴², was to identify daylighting design strategies that can optimize the visual environment in kindergarten classrooms in the context of Greece’s climate data, as well as to evaluate climate-based daylight modelling indices as an evaluation tool when designing daylighting processes. In addition to analysing lighting performance in the area of the visual task, there is also an assessment of the energy demand. Research results published in⁴³ show that by taking into account emerging changes in hybrid work models and activity-based workspace environments, energy demand in the office building sector can fall below pre-pandemic Covid-19 levels, with significant energy savings of up to 50% less energy compared to the pre-pandemic situation. The choice of the adopted technology used in lighting has a significant impact on the amount of energy consumed as discussed by the authors in⁴³.

In^44–53, the authors deal with the problem of adapting lighting conditions to the individual needs of each person, which naturally arise from the different needs of individuals in the population. One important aspect of ensuring good lighting conditions is to reduce glare in the design of lighting systems, which the authors address in⁵⁴. Lighting conditions should be constantly monitored to respond, if necessary, to changes that occur during the operation of the installation as described in^55,56. Even a factor such as the view from a window can affect the well-being of the occupant. This issue is presented in⁵⁷.

Recent advancements in lighting research emphasize that illuminance levels and correlated color temperature (CCT) are not merely technical parameters but critical factors influencing worker well-being, stress reduction, and cognitive performance. According to recent studies on Human-Centric Lighting (HCL), properly adjusted lighting can significantly reduce stress levels, with CCTs of 4000 K and 6000 K showing particular effectiveness in workplace design⁵⁸. However, the interaction between illuminance and CCT is complex; while levels exceeding 750 lx may enhance attention and comfort in simulated VDT-based office tasks⁵⁹, they can also lead to increased tension if not balanced with appropriate spectral characteristics⁶⁰. Furthermore, the integration of adaptive lighting systems that monitor real-time cognitive workload and emotional states is becoming a key focus in modern office design to optimize the indoor environment for the human circadian system⁶¹. In the context of remote work, where professional oversight is absent, these sophisticated HCL strategies are virtually impossible to implement, potentially exacerbating the health risks associated with inadequate home-office lighting.

The paper presents the results of measurements and analysis of lighting parameters for selected working areas. These are areas in residential buildings that, as a result of restrictions related to the Covid-19 pandemic, have become for residents their temporary workplaces. Unlike previous international studies that predominantly focus on subjective worker comfort and perceived satisfaction, this research adopts a unique interdisciplinary approach. It bridges engineering in situ measurements with a comparative legal analysis of the “Privacy-Safety Paradox”, identifying a critical gap in the enforceability of occupational standards within private domestic spheres.

The privacy-safety paradox in remote work regulations

Establishing the legal framework for remote work requires a detailed examination of national labour codes and constitutional provisions. While the general conflict between privacy and safety has been outlined in the introduction, this section analyzes how specific jurisdictions (France, Poland, USA, etc.) translate these abstract rights into concrete employer obligations. The transition from „office-based” to „home-based” work necessitates a redefinition of the “workplace” and a reassessment of the tools available for health and safety monitoring.

The following legal comparison utilizes a functional and normative research method, analyzing the transposition of EU Directives (89/391/EEC and 90/270/EEC) into national legal frameworks and their collision with constitutional privacy protections. Table 1 presents a comparative analysis of this issue across multiple jurisdictions: the European Union (general framework), the United States (liberal approach), and Poland (detailed statutory regulation), illustrating that the lack of effective lighting oversight is a transnational structural problem.

Table 1.

Comparative analysis of employer responsibilities and constitutional privacy rights in remote work.

Jurisdiction	Employer responsibility for home office safety	Meetings / assessment frequency	Right to inspection (Home)	The regulatory conflict (Research gap)	Privacy protection & inviolability of the home
United States (OSHA Policy / Directive CPL 02–00-125)62	Limited. OSHA explicitly states it "will not conduct inspections of employees’ home offices" and does not hold employers liable for home office conditions	No routine inspections; focused on complaint-driven audits	None. The responsibility for the home environment is largely shifted to the employee	Lack of regulation leads to voluntary (and often ignored) safety standards	US Constitution: Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
Germany63	High. Protection of personal rights and home inviolability (Art. 13 Grundgesetz) Arbeitsschutzgesetz (ArbSchG): imposes on the employer the obligation to assess the risk (Gefährdungsbeurteilung) of working in a remote position	Periodic risk assessment (Gefährdungsbeurteilung)	Very Limited. Physical inspections are rare; employers often use self-declaration with photos	Monitoring systems (e.g., keyloggers) are strictly prohibited. Privacy takes precedence over direct OHS control	Basic Law: Fundamental right to the inviolability of the home
France64	High (Art. L1222-9—L1222-11 Labor Code). Requires regular meetings to discuss workload and OHS	Annual meetings (min. once a year) to discuss OHS and workload	Regulated. Inspection must be transparent and "non-obtrusive"; constant screen monitoring is illegal	Employer must ensure safe conditions through dialogue, but physical access remains difficult without consent	Civil Code: Right to respect for private life
Portugal65	High (Código do Trabalho, Art. 165–171). Modern remote work law (2021)	Initial setup assessment and periodic reviews	Conditional. Employer may inspect equipment/OHS with 24-h notice and only in the presence of the worker. The applicable regulations provide for the employee’s right to work remotely	One of the few systems with a clear inspection framework, though it still relies on employee cooperation	Constitution: Inviolability of home; remote work law must respect private life
Italy66	Contract-based (Lavoro Agile framework)	Annual written notice to the worker regarding OHS risks	Pre-defined. Rights must be specified in a mandatory “accordo individuale” The law introduces privileged groups that are first to be entitled to remote work (e.g. parents of children up to 12 years old or people caring for people with disabilities)	Must respect the "right to disconnect" (diritto alla disconnessione) and privacy outside work hours	Constitution: Home is inviolable; legal limits on audits
Belgium67	Code of Well-being at Work (VDU equipment focus)	Periodic ergonomic reviews as per CAO 85	Restricted. Practically hard to enforce in private residences	Strong emphasis on the right to disconnect creates a barrier to employer monitoring the workplace outside designated hours	Constitution: Specific consent required for entry
Netherlands68	Arbeid somstandighedenbesluit (Arbowet). Safe home environment mandated	Integrated into company’s OHS and risk management policy	Restricted. Compliance is required but enforcement is limited by privacy	A system based on trust and the impossibility of control without the employee’s consent means that ensuring an ergonomic workstation remains in the declarative sphere	Constitution: General right to privacy and protected home
European Union69–71	High. According to Directives 89/391/EEC & 89/654/EEC, employers must ensure safety in all aspects related to work	Implementation varies by national legislation	No EU-level Labor Inspectorate. Enforcement is delegated to Member States. However, the ‘right to inspection’ is fundamentally restricted by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 7), making national enforcement of OSH standards in private homes legally complex	A systemic “enforcement gap” exists because the EU mandates safety standards but simultaneously provides the legal tools (privacy rights) that prevent their verification in remote settings	EU Charter of Fundamental Rights:: Respect for private and family life
Poland (Case Study Context) (Labour Code, Art. 6728 et seq.)72	High. Strict liability for accidents; employer must provide equipment and cover energy costs	During initial setup or upon employee’s request	Conditional. Inspection allowed only during work hours and strictly with the employee’s direct consent	Creates a “liability trap” for employers and a “health trap” for workers who lack ergonomic knowledge	Constitution: Right to the inviolability of the home

As shown in Table 1, regardless of the jurisdiction, the physical verification of lighting conditions (illuminance, glare, uniformity) by the employer is either legally restricted or administratively abandoned. Consequently, the burden of ensuring visual comfort falls on the employee, who typically lacks the necessary engineering knowledge and photometric equipment. This regulatory deadlock serves as the rationale for the case study analysis presented in this paper, where Poland is used as a representative example of this global challenge. From the point of view of the employer’s liability, it is worth checking the lighting conditions at the employee’s house.

A fundamental theoretical challenge in remote work regulations is the legal spatial definition of the „workspace” within a private domicile. A distinction must be drawn between „formal telework” in a dedicated, partitioned room and „ad-hoc remote work” performed in communal areas like kitchens or living rooms. In the latter case, the boundary of the employer’s jurisdiction becomes blurred. If the workspace is not physically isolated, any attempt at an ergonomic audit or the installation of professional lighting equipment inherently encroaches upon the private sphere of other household members. This spatial ambiguity creates a „grey zone” where the employer’s duty to provide equipment similar to office standards (as per OHS requirements) becomes practically and legally impossible to execute.

Beyond the employer-employee relationship, another critical stakeholder is the occupational physician. Under EU health surveillance principles, the physician’s role is to assess the compatibility between the worker’s health status and their workstation conditions. However, the „Privacy-Safety Paradox” creates a significant procedural gap for occupational medicine. While the physician must evaluate risks such as digital eye strain (computer vision syndrome) and circadian disruptions caused by poor lighting, they lack the legal authority to conduct home environment audits without explicit invitation. This limits the physician to reactive medicine based on patient self-reporting, rather than preventive oversight based on objective measurements of illuminance and uniformity. Consequently, the occupational physician becomes a silent witness to deteriorating ergonomic standards in home offices, unable to fulfill their preventive mandate due to the inviolability of the employee’s home.

The technical impossibility of conducting a full photometric audit according to EN 13,032⁷³ standards, due to the lack of access to technical datasheets for private luminaires and the inability to perform destructive testing or laboratory characterization of lamps, is not a limitation of the study design, but a primary empirical finding. This represents the “Technical Enforcement Gap” within the Privacy-Safety Paradox. It demonstrates that even if an employer intended to verify compliance, the professional tools used in office lighting design (such as maintenance factors and photometric files) are practically non-transferable to the domestic sphere.

Methodology for measuring illumination intensity on the surface of the visual task area

The study follows an in situ assessment methodology to evaluate the immediate exposure of workers in ‘as-found’ conditions. Consequently, laboratory photometric procedures (as per EN 13,032⁷³) and theoretical maintenance factors were excluded, as the primary objective was to document the real-world compliance gap rather than to model a controlled lighting environment. Furthermore, due to the private nature of the workspaces, detailed technical datasheets for the existing residential luminaires were unavailable, mirroring the real-world lack of employer oversight in home-office ergonomics.

Measurements were intentionally conducted under artificial lighting conditions (at night or with windows shielded) to represent a worst-case scenario. This approach ensures that the workspace meets safety requirements regardless of weather or time of day, providing a stable baseline for legal and ergonomic compliance evaluation. This methodology aligns with the requirement that occupational lighting must provide adequate illuminance even in the absence of natural light.

The home-office spaces analyzed in this study were located in standard residential apartments with a consistent clearance height of 2.6 m. The internal surfaces (walls and ceilings) were finished in light colors (predominantly white or off-white) with typical reflection factors for residential interiors (approx. 0.7–0.8 for ceilings and 0.5–0.6 for walls). The furnishings at each workstation consisted of standard office or domestic desks and chairs, positioned according to the users’ daily work habits.

The research covered the visual task area, which included desktops intended for working at a computer, but also writing and reading activities are performed on them. According to the EN 12,464–1³¹ standard, the illumination intensity in the visual task area should be 500 lx. This value allows for comfortable work that does not cause eye strain. During work with a computer and with CAD or BIM programs, the EN-12464–1³¹ standard recommends that the illumination intensity in the visual task area should be 700 lx. Illuminance measurements were made using the Sonel LXP – 2 Luxmeter. According to the device specifications, luxmeter is a class B (spectral uncertainty f₁ is ± 6%, cosine matching error f₂ is ± 3%, linearity error f₃ is ≤  ± 2%) .

Beyond the device-specific error (± 5% basic error, < 6% spectral matching), the total expanded uncertainty of the in situ measurements was estimated by considering additional factors such as the operator’s positioning. a. While a formal laboratory-grade uncertainty budget is difficult to fully quantify in non-controlled environments, we conservatively estimate the combined uncertainty from 5 to 12%. Crucially, since the recorded illuminance deficits in most cases exceeded 50–80% of the EN 12,464–1³¹ requirements, the conclusions regarding non-compliance remain scientifically robust and statistically significant, as the gap far exceeds any potential measurement error.

Before the measurement process, the tested rooms were dimensioned, taking into account both the working surfaces and the window openings located in the given space. On the basis, an upper projection of the room was prepared, and then the light sources were identified and inspected. The type of lighting luminaire used and its location, as well as the light source used, were identified.

The measurements were made for a measuring grid with a mesh size of 10 cm x 10 cm. Given the multifunctional and often confined nature of home-office spaces, the distinction between the “task area”, “surrounding area” and “background” (per EN 12,464–1³¹) is frequently blurred, a finding that underscores the difficulty of adapting residential rooms to professional office standards. Measurements were taken after the stabilization of the measuring equipment. In rooms equipped with roller blinds, the measurement was performed when they were completely closed to eliminate the influence of external lighting, for example from external lighting. Measurements were made for five workplaces used by students, children and teenagers at school age.

The standard³¹ introduces average illuminance E_AVE and illuminance uniformity D to analyze the obtained results. The average illuminance is calculated from Eq. (1):

1

where:

E_i – illuminance at a given measurement point, (lx),

n – number of measurement points.

The illuminance uniformity U₀ is calculated from Eq. (2):

2

E_MIN – minimum illuminance on a surface, (lx),

E_AVE – average illuminance on a surface, (lx).

The study focused exclusively on the physical measurement of lighting parameters (illuminance and uniformity) within private residential environments. No human subjects were involved in the measurement process, and no experimental protocols involving humans or human tissue were conducted. Access to the private premises was granted voluntarily by the property owners solely for technical photometric measurements. The study was explained in detail to all owners, and their informed consent was obtained before any procedures were performed. Therefore, the study did not require approval from an ethics committee as it does not constitute human subject research.

Analysis of lighting conditions of workplaces

To provide a comprehensive assessment of domestic work environments, five distinct case studies (designated TA1–TA5) were selected for detailed analysis. These cases were chosen to represent a diverse range of typical home-office scenarios, differing in terms of user demographics (age, visual needs), spatial constraints, and room occupancy. All technical photometric measurements were performed in accordance with relevant institutional guidelines, and explicit informed consent was obtained from all property owners prior to entering the premises. In all analyzed cases, the workstations were located in residential apartments in urban areas. The measurements were performed on a horizontal workplane (the desk surface) defined at a standard height of h = 0.75 m above the floor. Internal walls and ceilings were finished in light colors with standard reflectance. While external obstructions such as neighboring buildings or trees were present in some cases, they did not impact the results as all measurements were conducted under artificial light only. Table 2 summarizes the key characteristics of each analyzed workplace, establishing the context for the photometric measurements presented in subsequent sections.

Table 2.

Characteristics and user profiles of the analyzed home office workplaces (TA1–TA5).

Case ID	User profile & primary activity	Risk factors & ergonomic constraints	Room area (m2)	Lighting configuration
TA1	University Student / Remote Worker (10 h/day usage)	Visual impairment (glasses required); High exposure time	9.90	Desk lamp, wall lamp, and central ceiling chandelier
TA2	High School Students (Siblings) (Shared space, learning/entertainment)	Left-handedness (one user); Visual defect (contact lenses); Multi-user desk occupancy	7.74	Desk lamp (movable), ceiling downlights, and decorative LED strip
TA3	Early School Age Child (Education/Writing)	Left-handedness; Developing visual system; Partial lighting failure (50% damage)	6.72	Desk lamp, ceiling downlights (one faulty)
TA4	Student / Designer (Precision CAD/BIM work)	High visual precision required (> 700 lx recommended); Corrective glasses used	10.75	Desk lamp (low power), central ceiling chandelier
TA5	University Student (Rented accommodation)	Rented space (limited modification options); Small room geometry causing potential glare	9.62	Free-standing floor lamp, central ceiling chandelier

In the next sections, due to the significant discrepancies in illuminance intensity between the analyzed cases (ranging from extreme underexposure in TA4 to high intensity in TA3), the color scales in the isoline maps presented for each described case, have been normalized to the maximum value recorded in each specific room. This approach was chosen to effectively visualize the internal distribution and uniformity (U₀) patterns within each workspace. Absolute lux values are indicated by the specific color bars accompanying each figure, while the gradient illustrates relative intensity distribution.

TA1 workplace

The analyzed workplace is used by a full-time student who combines studies with home office work. The mentioned person used the workplace for up to 10 h a day, most often to perform professional duties, learn via electronic means of communication, and use the computer for entertainment purposes. The user of the examined space wore glasses, was right-handed and had a visual impairment. For this reason, in accordance with the EN-12464–1³¹ standard, the required illuminance should increase up to 750 lx.

The tested workplace was located in one of the rooms in a multi-family building. The apartment was located on the seventh floor of a skyscraper located in Warsaw. The dimensions of the tested room were 3.3 m × 3 m (area 9.9 m²). The location of the building in relation to the cardinal directions is presented in Fig. 1. The windows in the analyzed room face west. The desk area was assumed as the workplace. The desk in the room being examined is located in the corner of the room. It was placed sideways to the window surface. Its dimensions are 1 m × 0.6 m. The light sources in the room were: a desk lamp placed on the right side of the desk, a wall lamp and a chandelier suspended in the central part of the room, as illustrated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 1.

Location of the building with the cardinal directions where the workplace marked as TA1 is located.

Fig. 2.

Location of lighting luminaires illuminating the TA1 workplace.

Table 3 lists the parameters of lighting luminaires and light sources used to illuminate the room in which the TA1 workplace is located.

Table 3.

List of parameters of lighting fixtures and light sources used to illuminate the room in which the TA1 workplace is located.

Desk lamp
Location (length and width in the room)	90 cm × 20 cm
The used light source	LED: PHILIPS Softone
Power of the light source	16 W
Supply voltage	230–240 V
The frequency of the supply voltage	50–60 Hz
Additional features	Adjustable lamp arm
Wall lamp
Location (length and width in the room)	270 cm × 10 cm
The used light source	Compact fluorescent lamp: PHILIPS GENIE
Power of the light source	8 W
Supply voltage	230–240 V
The frequency of the supply voltage	50–60 Hz
Chandelier—3 light sources
Location (length and width in the room)	160 cm × 160 cm
The used light source	Source LED Philips
Power of the light source	3 × 9 W = 27 W
Supply voltage	230–240 V
The frequency of the supply voltage	50–60 Hz
Luminous flux	3 × 806 lm = 2418 lm
Rated current of a single lamp	85 mA

The average illuminance in the workplace is E_AVG = 444 lx. The maximum measured value is E_MAX = 836 lx. The lowest value of illumination in the task area was E_MIN = 148 lx. The illuminance uniformity is equal to 0.33. The measurement results are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4.

The results of illuminance measurements in the visual task area TA1 in lx.

y (cm)	x (cm)
	5	15	25	35	45	55	65	75	85
5	148	287	298	362	418	548	653	647	401
15	234	276	385	451	507	627	724	732	501
25	230	287	403	470	515	672	836	819	609
35	218	263	392	403	506	651	770	704	576
45	208	221	337	375	418	517	528	698	432
55	203	284	307	277	342	310	354	317	342

To ensure maximum rigor in the absence of a professional laboratory environment, a measurement grid of 10 × 10 cm was applied. This density significantly exceeds the minimum requirements of EN 12,464–1³¹ for spaces of this scale, providing a high-resolution map of illuminance distribution. The ‘visual task area’ was strictly defined as the 40 × 60 cm zone directly in front of the operator where the primary tasks (reading/writing) occur. By applying this granular approach, we ensured that even the localized peak values were captured, confirming that the failure to meet standards is a systemic issue, not a result of poor sampling.

TA2 workplace

The workplace was located in a room used by two young people of the same age attending secondary school. It was used primarily for learning and entertainment purposes. The average time which was spent at the analyzed computer workstation was approximately 5 h a day. One of the siblings has a vision defect and wore contact lenses to correct the defect. They often used the examined site at the same time. One of them was left-handed (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.

Illuminance isolines in the visual task area TA1.

The analyzed workplace was located in a room in an apartment in a multi-family building on the sixth floor. The room had an area of 7.74 m² with dimensions of 4.3 m × 1.8 m. The windows face southwest. The orientation of the multi-family building in which the room was located concerning the cardinal directions is shown in Fig. 4. The desk in the examined room is used as a two-station desk with dimensions of 1.8 m × 0.6 m. It took up the entire width of the room. There was a desk lamp with a movable arm on the desk surface, illuminating its left side (additional lighting for a left-handed user). There were five LED sources in the form of recessed downlights located in the ceiling made of cardboard and plaster structures. Additional decorative lighting was provided by a 12.2 m long LED strip built into the ceiling recess around the entire perimeter of the room (Fig. 5).

Fig. 4.

Location of the building in relation to the cardinal directions where the workplace marked as TA2 is located.

Fig. 5.

Location of lighting fixtures illuminating the TA2 workplace.

Table 5 contains the parameters of lighting luminaires and light sources used to illuminate the room in which the TA2 workplace is located.

Table 5.

List of parameters of lighting fixtures and light sources used to illuminate the room in which the TA2 workplace was located.

Desk lamp
Location (length and width in the room)	90 cm × 20 cm
The used light source	LED: OSRAM VALUE CLASSIC
Power of the light source	4.9 W
Supply voltage	230–240 V
The frequency of the supply voltage	50–60 Hz
CCT color temperature (K)	3300
Additional features	Adjustable lamp arm
Downlight
Location (length and width in the room)	80 cm × 10 cm; 150 cm × 10 cm; 80 cm × 170 cm; 150 cm × 180 cm
The used light source	LED GU10 5 W
Power of the light source	4 × 5 W = 20 W
Supply voltage	230–240 V
The frequency of the supply voltage	50–60 Hz
Luminous flux	4 × 650 lm = 2600 lm
CCT color temperature (K)	3000
LED tape
The used light source	LED Kanlux LED LEDS -B
Length (m)	12.2
Power of the light source	4.8 W/m ≈ 59 W
Supply voltage	230 V AC / 12 V DC
CCT color temperature (K)	3000

In the case of TA2 workplace, the average illuminance is equal to E_AVG = 376 lx. The calculated illuminance uniformity in the visual task area is 0.39 (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6.

Illuminance isolines in the visual task area TA2.

Analyzig the measurement results the maximum value of illuminance is E_MAX = 1070 lx and the lowest value is E_MIN = 146 lx. The highest illuminance values were obtained in the task area near the installed desk lamp and one downlight luminaire located above the desk lamp. Installing a downlight with an LED source allowed for increased uniformity of illumination of the task area (Table 6).

Table 6.

Results of illuminance measurements in the visual task area TA2 in lx.

y (cm)	x (cm)
	5	15	25	35	45	55	65	75	85	95	105	115	125	135	145	155	165	175
5	188	227	296	309	400	380	393	308	303	301	286	265	245	238	229	256	307	219
15	196	221	354	331	387	488	456	405	396	411	395	344	311	311	296	295	268	235
25	197	224	381	388	446	586	509	451	406	423	407	367	323	324	306	297	265	229
35	204	260	432	428	526	947	635	530	443	435	403	372	334	335	308	281	261	219
45	208	260	439	422	611	981	893	611	467	408	385	364	369	307	285	247	227	176
55	150	233	421	415	650	1070	923	709	513	392	372	414	393	292	271	263	192	146

TA3 workplace

The examined workplace was used by a child of early school age primarily for educational purposes. Writing and reading activities as well as computer operation were performed on it. The young user was left-handed and has no visual impairments. The analyzed workplace was located in a three-room apartment in a multi-family building. The room has a rectangular shape with dimensions of 2.8 m × 2.4 m and the area of 6.72 m². The windows in the examined room face northwest (Fig. 7). The workplace was a desk placed in the corner of the room, sideways to the window area with dimensions of 1 m × 0.5 m.

Fig. 7.

Location of the building in relation to the cardinal directions where the workplace marked as TA3 is located.

The tested room was lit in the form of a desk lamp. There was a desk lamp on the surface of a small table and four LED sources in the form of recessed downlights in the suspended ceiling structure made of cardboard and plaster. The office lamp was equipped with a movable arm illuminating the left side of the desk (additional lighting for a left-handed user). At the time the measurements were taken, one of the light sources in the downlight fixtures did not function fully. The damage was estimated at 50%. The dimensions and location of the workplace and light points are shown in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8.

Location of lighting fixtures illuminating the TA3 workplace.

Table 7 contains the parameters of lighting luminaires and light sources used to illuminate the room in which the TA3 workplace is located (Fig. 9).

Table 7.

List of parameters of lighting fixtures and light sources used to illuminate the room in which the TA3 workplace is located.

Desk lamp
Location (length and width in the room)	270 cm × 40 cm
The used light source	LED energy-saving SMD2835
Power of the light source	15 W
Supply voltage	230–240 V
The frequency of the supply voltage	50–60 Hz
Downlights luminaires
Location (length and width in the room)	30 cm × 10 cm; 210 cm × 10 cm; 260 cm × 10 cm
Power of the light source	LED SMD2835
Supply voltage	3 × 6 W = 18 W
Supply voltage	230–240 V
The frequency of the supply voltage	50–60 Hz
Luminous flux	3 × 600 = 1800 lm
Rated current (A)	0.12

Fig. 9.

Illuminance isolines in the visual task area TA3.

For the TA3 workplace, the average illuminance is E_AVG = 378 lx. Moreover, the maximum value of illuminance is E_MAX = 1691 lx and the lowest value is equal to E_MIN = 143 lx. Therefore, the illuminance uniformity in the visual task area is 0.30 Table 8.

Table 8.

Results of illuminance measurements in the visual task area TA3 in lx.

y (cm)	x (cm)
	55	115	225	335	445	555	665	775	885	995
55	154	160	177	188	221	240	301	660	1071	1451
115	153	156	175	187	215	248	346	635	987	1691
225	151	156	170	180	203	245	389	558	846	1081
335	145	152	164	167	189	222	373	461	726	879
445	143	148	151	155	167	181	268	286	282	270

TA4 workplace

The next analyzed case was a workplace used by a mechatronics student who combined studies with remote work. Working as a designer requires many hours spent at a desk, approximately 8–9 h a day. The main factor characterizing the tested position was the location of a laptop with an additional monitor to improve the performed work. In addition, the workplace was used for educational purposes. The user wore glasses adapted for working at a computer and was right-handed.

The workplace was located in a multi-family building on the second floor. The room in which the workplace was located has an area of 10.75 m² and dimensions of 4.3 m × 2.5 m. The orientation of the building in relation to the cardinal directions is illustrated in Fig. 10. The window openings in the examined room were directed to the east. The desk (workplace) in the analyzed room was located in the corner of the room and had the dimensions 1.2 m × 0.7 m. It was made in the form of a countertop combined with a shelf in the form of a so-called extension. It was placed sideways to the window plane.

Fig. 10.

Location of the building in relation to the cardinal directions where the workplace marked as TA4 is located.

The lighting in the room was a desk lamp and a chandelier. The parameters of these devices are listed in Table 9 and the location is shown in Fig. 11.

Table 9.

List of parameters of lighting fixtures and light sources used to illuminate the room in which the TA4 workplace is located.

Desk lamp
Location (length and width in the room)	110 cm × 0.2 cm
The used light source	LED source
Power of the light source	15 W
Supply voltage	230 – 240 V AC / 5 V DC
The frequency of the supply voltage	50–60 Hz
Luminous flux (lm)	700
Chandelier
Location (length and width in the room)	240 cm × 130 cm
Light source used	DLED Lumenix
Power of the light source	3 × 8 W = 24 W
Supply voltage	230 – 240 V
The frequency of the supply voltage	50—60 Hz
Luminous flux (lm)	3 × 2640 lm
Color Temperature (CCT) (K)	2900 K

Fig. 11.

Location of lighting fixtures illuminating the TA4 workplace.

Table 9 contains the parameters of lighting luminaires and light sources used to illuminate the room in which the TA4 workplace is located (Fig. 12).

Fig. 12.

Illuminance isolines in the visual task area TA4.

The calculated value of average illuminance is equal to E_AVG = 188 lx. the illuminance uniformity in the visual task area is U₀ = 0.12 and the maximum and minimum illuminance values are equal to E_MAX = 769 lx and E_MIN = 22 lx, respectively (Table 10).

Table 10.

Results of illuminance measurements in the visual task area TA4 in lx.

y (cm)	x (cm)
	55	115	225	335	445	555	665	775	885	995	1105	1115
55	41	37	49	72	96	126	177	211	158	176	261	157
115	27	33	64	79	97	137	198	244	299	197	299	164
225	29	31	59	76	110	157	202	267	347	225	320	180
335	26	30	65	74	107	153	220	288	373	276	342	245
445	33	36	70	87	101	147	169	275	705	769	467	264
555	28	33	57	74	96	136	147	259	643	691	483	296

TA5 workplace

The last examined workplace was used on a daily basis by a full-time student who used the workplace mainly for educational purposes. The person was right-handed and without any visual impairments. The workplace was located in a rented room with dimensions of 3.7 m × 2.6 m and an area of 9.62 m². The windows in the room faced west. The location of the building is shown in Fig. 13. The workplace was a desk with dimensions of 1.2 m × 0.6 m. The location of the workplace and light points is shown in Fig. 14.

Fig. 13.

Location of the building in relation to the cardinal directions where the workplace marked as TA5 is located.

Fig. 14.

Location of lighting luminaires illuminating the TA5 workplace.

The lighting was provided by two lamps. One of them was located next to the desk and a chandelier was installed in the central part of the room. Table 11 contains the parameters of lighting fixtures and light sources used to illuminate the room in which the TA5 workplace is located (Table 12).

Table 11.

List of parameters of lighting fixtures and light sources used to illuminate the room in which the TA5 workplace is located.

Free-standing floor lamp
Location (length and width in the room)	310 cm × 20 cm
The used light source	LED source
Power of the light source	6 W
Supply voltage	230–240 V AC
The frequency of the supply voltage	50–60 Hz
Luminous flux (lm)	550
Color temperature (CCT) (K)	5300
Additional features	Three-stage lamp dimmable
Chandelier
Location (length and width in the room)	180 cm × 130 cm
Light source used	LED Arcchio
Power of the light source	7 W
Supply voltage	230—240 V
The frequency of the supply voltage	50—60 Hz
Luminous flux (lm)	700
Color Temperature (CCT) (K)	3000

Table 12.

Results of illuminance measurements in the visual task area TA5 in lx.

y (cm)	x (cm)
	55	115	225	335	445	555	665	775	885	995	1105	1115
55	140	168	194	245	324	258	267	277	292	272	184	122
115	157	177	208	228	275	292	304	312	386	506	369	124
225	148	203	247	300	326	402	447	482	489	703	541	286
335	134	187	289	337	416	473	595	649	719	788	840	382
445	122	226	345	356	453	563	685	729	851	1080	1078	411
555	116	270	326	403	382	475	512	564	660	924	816	342

The value of average illuminance in the TA5 workplace is E_AVG = 405 lx. The maximum and minimum values of illuminance are E_MAX = 1080 lx and E_MIN = 116 lx, respectively. The calculated value of the illumination uniformity in the visual task area is equal to 0.29 (Fig. 15).

Fig. 15.

Illuminance isolines in the visual task area TA5.

Discussion

The obtained results of measurements and analysis of lighting parameters are shown in Table 13 and are compared with the requirements of the standard ³¹.

Table 13.

Comparison of measured and calculated lighting parameters with the requirements of the standard³¹.

Workplace (Task area)	Standard requirement EN 12,464–1:2021		Measurement results		Meeting requirements
	EAVE (lx)	U0	EAVE (lx)	U0
TA1	500	0.6	444	0.33	No
TA2			356	0.39	No
TA3			378	0.30	No
TA4			187	0.12	No
TA5			405	0.29	No

The obtained results of lighting parameters measurements were made for selected areas of the workplaces in the private premises. None of the analyzed places met the required lighting parameters for workplaces. Particularly for the TA4 area, the obtained results deviate the most from the required values (the uniformity obtained from the analysis of the measurement results was several times lower than the value derived from the requirements). To ensure high methodological rigor, the total expanded uncertainty of the in situ measurements was estimated from 5 to 12%. This value accounts for device-specific errors (Class B luxmeter), spectral mismatch, and operator positioning in constrained domestic spaces. However, since the recorded illuminance deficits in critical cases (e.g., TA4) exceeded the requirements by over 80%, this margin of uncertainty does not alter the fundamental conclusion of non-compliance with EN 12,464–1³¹

From a physiological perspective, such deep deficits are not merely administrative violations but active health stressors. The extremely low illuminance observed in TA4 (E_min ≈ 22 lx) forces the user’s visual system to operate near the mesopic range. Under these conditions, the pupil dilates significantly to capture more light, which reduces the depth of field. Consequently, the ciliary muscles must exert continuous, excessive effort to maintain focus on the screen, leading to rapid onset of asthenopia and tension headaches. In countries like Germany, where employers rely on self-declarations via photographs, critical photometric deficiencies, such as the ~ 22 lx minimum illuminance found in TA4 cannot be detected. A photograph may show a desk lamp, but it cannot accurately measure the lack of uniformity (U₀ ~ 0.12).

In jurisdictions like Portugal, the requirement for a 24-h notice before inspection allows for temporary workspace adjustments that may not reflect daily reality. This further complicates the employer’s ability to identify long-term health stressors like the insufficient circadian stimulus found in TA4 due to warm light sources (≈ 2900 K). As noted in the introduction, lack of high-intensity, cool-spectrum light during the day may disrupt melatonin suppression, potentially leading to daytime somnolence and delayed sleep phase syndrome in remote workers^19,46,50.

Relatively the best results of lighting parameters were obtained for the TA1 and TA5 workplaces, but even there the obtained results, especially the uniformity of illumination, are almost twice less than the expected values.

For workplaces used in private homes during remote work, there should be the same requirements for lighting parameters as for workplaces located in companies. This “technical enforcement gap” demonstrates that even with explicit intent, professional tools such as maintenance factors and photometric files are non-transferable to the domestic sphere. The conflict is further amplified in models like Italy’s ‘Lavoro Agile’, where the ‘right to disconnect’ creates a legal barrier to monitoring OHS compliance outside designated hours, effectively leaving the home office as an unmonitored environment. In companies, occupational health and safety officers are responsible for ensuring the proper workplace lighting requirements are met. They can perform the relevant illuminance measurements themselves (if they have the necessary knowledge and skills) or outsource them to an external company. In the case of a private home workplace, there are several problems. Firstly, the workplace is located inside a private property, so if the employer wants to outsource the measurements to a professional company or have an employee from the health and safety department who can perform the measurements, then the consent of the property owner would be required. The employer would have to force the employee to modify the lighting at his property if he was found to be in non-compliance with the current regulations, but it is highly debatable whether the employee would consent to such action. Arrangements for lighting and non-lighting requirements for workplaces where work is performed remotely can be regulated by an appropriate agreement between the employer and the employee. Another issue is the cost of lighting modernization.

If an occupational disease is found to be related to, for example an eye injury, who is liable? An employee who lacks knowledge of workplace lighting, or an employer who, by outsourcing remote work, failed to ensure proper working conditions. The solution to this problem is education and the proper information should be written in the employment contract.

The place of performing remote work is indicated by the employee but must be approved by the employer. Typically, this is the employee’s residence, though not necessarily. For instance, within the analyzed jurisdiction (Poland), according to Article 207 of the Polish Labour Code, the employer remains responsible for ensuring safety and hygiene, even in remote settings, despite their limited ability to control the home environment. Employees, in turn, are obliged to follow employer-provided training and guidelines regarding proper workstation setup.

Even before the pandemic, for example, home schoolers were doing this work at home. Their workplaces usually were not and are not adequately lit. This is primarily due to a lack of knowledge regarding workplace lighting. According to the authors, education on workplace lighting should be carried out from the beginning of education. Education should include the effects of lighting on living organisms including the effects of blue light, measurements and methods of assessing it, and the basic parameters of light sources and luminaires.

The most accurate results of illuminance measuring are obtained using a calibrated luxmeter. An employee or normal property user cannot be required to purchase such a device.

Considering the legal restrictions preventing employers from conducting physical inspections in private residences, ensuring visual comfort largely becomes the responsibility of the employee. However, most remote workers lack access to professional photometric equipment. To address this gap, Table 14 presents a simplified self-assessment checklist. This protocol was developed directly based on the critical deficiencies and ergonomic errors identified in the analyzed case studies (TA1–TA5). It allows for the rapid identification of visual hazards such as the lack of task lighting observed in TA4 or the shadowing issues pertinent to left-handed users in TA3 without the need for specialized instrumentation. It serves as a bridge for this regulatory gap. It respects the privacy laws of the EU and the liberal stance of the USA while providing a non-invasive method to mitigate the “compliance gap” where visual safety currently shifts entirely to the employee.

Table 14.

Simplified self-assessment checklist for home office visual ergonomics, derived from critical deficiencies identified in case studies TA1–TA5.

Category	Assessment question (Checkpoint)	Basis in case study (Risk identified)	Corrective action
1. Illuminance Level	Is there a dedicated task lamp directed specifically at the desk surface?	TA4: Lack of effective task lighting resulted in critical underexposure (EAVG ≈ 188 lx, EMIN ≈ 22 lx)	Install a desk lamp with adjustable arm. Ceiling lighting alone is insufficient for visual tasks
2. Directionality & Handedness	Is the light source positioned on the side opposite to the dominant hand?	TA2, TA3: Multi-user desks and left-handed users are prone to “shadow casting” if lighting geometry is not personalized	Right-handed: Place lamp on the Left Left-handed: Place lamp on the Right
3. Uniformity & Contrast	Is the area surrounding the visual task (monitor/paper) moderately illuminated, avoiding deep darkness?	TA1, TA5: Low uniformity (U0 ≈ 0.3) causes high contrast ratios, forcing frequent eye accommodation and fatigue	Introduce “background lighting” (e.g., LED strip or wall lamp) behind the monitor to reduce contrast between the bright screen and dark room
4. Glare Control	Is the light source positioned to avoid direct visibility of the light source and reflections on the monitor screen?	TA5: Small room dimensions (9.6 m2) increase the risk of reflections on screens from central lighting	Adjust the lamp head angle. Use blinds to control daylight entering from windows facing the screen
5. Light Source Quality	Is the Color Correlated Temperature (CCT) appropriate for work (neutral/cool white)?	TA4, TA5: Use of warm sources (CCT < 3000 K) may promote relaxation rather than alertness required for cognitive tasks	Replace light source with Neutral White (CCT ≈ 4000 K) sources for working hours to support concentration

However, in the case of companies, it is possible to allow employees to borrow such a device, after completing appropriate training or at the employee’s request, the company where they are employed will perform the measurements and assessment. In the case of individuals, this is a more complicated situation. They can use the knowledge available, e.g. in books, on the Internet and mobile applications for measuring illuminance. Unfortunately, in the case of mobile applications, their user does not know what measurement error is being performed and is not sure whether the measurement is being correctly performed.

Another problem is that both government agencies and the European Union are conducting extensive education on energy efficiency, which is usually understood as a reduction in electricity consumption for lighting purposes. The primary purpose of lighting is to provide the best possible lighting conditions for work as well as to relax. By reducing the power of the sources, i.e. the consumption of electrical energy, the luminous flux can be simultaneously reduced. Reducing the luminous flux can affect the illumination and its uniformity. This relationship is valid not only for the luminous flux, but also for the luminous intensity distribution. For an ordinary user—customer, the concept of the luminous intensity distribution is unknown. When choosing a light source or lighting fixture, customers are guided primarily by two criteria—price and power. The lower these parameters, the more attractive the product is. In many cases, however, misunderstandings occur and after purchase and installation, it turns out that the customer prefers a warm colour (2700 K) and has purchased a light source with a corelated colour temperature CCT, for example 4000 K. Another important parameter that is placed on the label of a light source or lighting fixture is the color rendering index. The average user does not know what it means and what value is required to perform a given visual task.

This study has certain limitations. By focusing on artificial lighting in an in situ “worst-case scenario”, it does not account for the benefits of daylight or long-term maintenance factors.

Finally, several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. Firstly, the research is based on a selected case series of five diverse home-office configurations. While these scenarios capture the most common makeshift and dedicated workspace types, they do not represent a statistically exhaustive survey of the entire remote-working population. Secondly, the analysis focused exclusively on artificial lighting to evaluate the ‘worst-case scenario’ for OHS compliance; thus, the mitigating effects of natural daylight during daytime hours were not quantified. Lastly, the ‘in situ’ nature of the measurements in private residences precluded a detailed technical audit of the lighting hardware (e.g., precise luminous flux degradation or age of the luminaires), focusing instead on the actual illuminance levels delivered to the user’s visual task area. However, this methodological choice was necessary to highlight the immediate legal and safety risks inherent in the unregulated home-office environment.

Conclusions

The main contribution of this study to the existing body of research is twofold. First, unlike previous studies that predominantly focus on subjective worker comfort or theoretical simulations, this research provides empirical, objective in situ data on the actual lighting conditions in remote workspaces. Second, it establishes a novel interdisciplinary link between technical non-compliance and the „Privacy-Safety Paradox”. While previous literature has identified ergonomic challenges in home offices, this study contributes a comparative legal-technical analysis that explains the systemic inability to enforce occupational safety standards within the private domestic sphere, thereby identifying a critical regulatory gap in modern labor frameworks. The paper presents the results of measurements of lighting parameters for selected work areas marked from TA1 to TA5. The measurements were performed for visual task areas, where the size of the calculation grid was determined the following requirements included in the EN 12,464–1 standard³¹. For the analyzed areas, the average illuminance in the visual task area should be 500 lx. Unfortunately, in none of the analyzed cases, the obtained lighting parameters are considered to meet the normative requirements. Especially for the analyzed areas marked as TA4 and TA5, the obtained value of lighting uniformity significantly deviates from the standard.

This systemic failure is intrinsically linked to the "Privacy-Safety Paradox" identified in the legal analysis, where the inviolability of the home protected by statutes such as the German Basic Law (Art. 13 Grundgesetz) or the Polish Labour Code effectively prevents employers from conducting necessary physical audits. Consequently, even in jurisdictions with modern remote work frameworks, such as Portugal and France, reliance on self-declarations and virtual inspections is insufficient to detect critical ergonomic hazards, including the extreme underexposure (E_min ≈ 22 lx) and poor uniformity (U₀ ≈ 0.12) identified in TA4.

Although lighting conditions were somewhat better in the remaining cases, they still cannot be considered comfortable. Long-term work in such poorly lit environments may result in discomfort, reduced well-being, and, in the long run, irreversible damage to vision.

These results are particularly relevant today, as remote work has become a standard practice for many employers and employees, transforming private living spaces into permanent workplaces. While large organizations typically have units responsible for occupational health and safety, employees working from home must often assess and manage their own working conditions – including lighting.

The research identifies a systemic regulatory gap where constitutional privacy protections (e.g., Art. 13 Grundgesetz in Germany) outweigh the employer’s duty to conduct physical audits. To bridge this gap, future legislation should focus on defining the ‘occupational micro-environment’ within the home. Future legislation should focus on defining the ‘occupational micro-environment’ within the home to allow for targeted ergonomic interventions without compromising the inviolability of the entire residence.

Although this study focuses on lighting ergonomics, the authors recognize that a comprehensive assessment of remote work safety must also consider organizational and psychosocial factors, such as time pressure, the presence of other household members, and the quality of the indoor environment (ventilation, noise), which is an important direction for future interdisciplinary research.

The findings of this study pave the way for several promising avenues of future research. Firstly, expanding the current case series into a large-scale, multi-center statistical survey would provide a more comprehensive map of lighting ergonomics across different demographics. Secondly, further interdisciplinary research is needed to evaluate the role of “smart-lighting” and IoT (Internet of Things) solutions in bridging the compliance gap. Such systems could potentially ensure normative illuminance levels automatically, mitigating the lack of professional oversight. Additionally, longitudinal clinical studies could correlate the identified technical deficiencies with long-term health outcomes, such as digital eye strain or circadian rhythm disruption among remote workers. Finally, from a legal perspective, future work should explore the feasibility of ‘remote ergonomic auditing’ frameworks, where digital tools could provide verified evidence of compliance while respecting the constitutional inviolability of the home.

Consequently, despite stringent occupational safety laws in the EU and the varied regulatory approaches in the USA, the responsibility for visual health in remote work has largely shifted to the individual. The study proves that without the right to disconnect being balanced with safety education, as seen in the Italian model, the worker remains at risk. Instead of unenforceable physical inspections, we recommend the implementation of simplified self-assessment tools, such as the checklist proposed in this study, to empower workers to identify hazards like poor uniformity (U₀ ≈ 0.12) independently.

The implementation of such non-invasive tools is essential to respect the privacy laws of the EU while mitigating the liability trap that currently affects both employers and employees.

Finally, the findings of this study suggest that the technical and legal challenges of remote work lighting must be re-evaluated through the lens of public health. When a significant percentage of the population transitions to home-based work without adequate ergonomic oversight, individual occupational hazards scale up to collective public health issues. Prolonged exposure to sub-standard illuminance and poor uniformity (as evidenced in our case studies) contributes to the prevalence of computer vision syndrome (CVS), circadian rhythm disruptions, and cumulative eye strain across the workforce. Therefore, bridging the „compliance gap” is not only a matter of employer liability but a necessary intervention to prevent a long-term decline in visual and mental well-being at the population level. Integrating OHS standards with public health initiatives may be the only viable path to ensuring that the digital transformation of work does not result in a systemic health deficit.

Author contributions

Conceptualisation, R.S., E.K. and P.M.; methodology, R.S., E.K. and P.M.; validation, R.S., E.K. and P.M.; investigation, R.S., E.K., P.M., A.S. and M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, R.S., E.K. P.M. and M.S.; writing—review and editing, R.S., E.K. and P.M.; supervision, R.S. and E.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data availability

Data are contained within the article.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable. The study did not involve human subjects, human tissue samples, or clinical/biological experiments. Technical, physical measurements of lighting parameters were conducted in situ. Consent was obtained from property owners only to access the premises for technical lighting measurements. Formal ethical approval from an institutional bioethics committee was not required.