IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jchals/v8y2017i2p21-d108662.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Precision of a Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment Approach Used in Eco-Rating of Mobile Phones

Author

Listed:
  • Anders S. G. Andrae

    (Huawei Technologies Sweden AB, Skalholtsgatan 9, 16494 Kista, Sweden)

  • Mikko Samuli Vaija

    (Orange Labs, 4 Rue du Clos Courtel, 35510 Cesson-Sevigné, France)

Abstract

There is a lack of prescribed databases and approaches in place for performing comparable Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) of smartphones and other electronic devices in a coherent manner. Hence there is a need within certain eco-rating initiatives for simplified, yet still precise enough, approaches that are expert independent. Here, five independently published Full LCAs (FLCA) of smartphones—and a metal content declaration of a tablet—are analyzed and compared with the simplified LCA method (Open Eco Rating LCA, OLCA) used by the open eco rating (OER) sustainability assessment. OLCA is described in detail. The comparisons use the same characterization factors that are used for climate change and abiotic resource depletion (ARD) midpoint impact categories. The tablet is only analyzed for the ARD indicator (ARDI). The results show that the difference between the FLCAs and the OLCA is up to 20% for the Global Warming Potential indicator (GWPI). The difference is explained by significantly different emission intensities used in FLCAs and OLCA, especially for integrated circuit and screen production. The life cycle use of metals relevant for ARDI is identified in one of the FLCAs of mobile phones, and used in OLCA and compared with the corresponding FLCA ARDI score. The total FLCA ARDI score is 67% (2.0 vs. 1.2 grams Sb—eq.) and 32% (4.98 vs. 3.76 grams Sb—eq.) higher than OLCA ARDI for the mobile phone and the tablet, respectively. The reason is that OLCA only captures a few of the most relevant metals (gold, silver, tin, indium, and tantalum) for the ARDI. However, cobalt—and to some degree copper and lithium—are significant gaps in the OLCA. The conclusion is that OLCA is an efficient and fair approach for LCAs that are focused on the GWPI of smartphones as the divergence to FLCA can easily be explained. However, the circular footprint formulae, renewable electricity options, and ARD characterization indices for cobalt, copper and lithium should be added to OLCA for further precision. The next step is to compare the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) FLCA method with OLCA for GWPI and ARDI evaluations of new smartphones. Moreover, the effect of adding more midpoint or single score indicators could be tested in OLCA.

Suggested Citation

  • Anders S. G. Andrae & Mikko Samuli Vaija, 2017. "Precision of a Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment Approach Used in Eco-Rating of Mobile Phones," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-24, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jchals:v:8:y:2017:i:2:p:21-:d:108662
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/8/2/21/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/8/2/21/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anders S. G. Andrae & Mikko Samuli Vaija, 2014. "To Which Degree Does Sector Specific Standardization Make Life Cycle Assessments Comparable?—The Case of Global Warming Potential of Smartphones," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-21, November.
    2. Anders S. G. Andrae, 2017. "Life Cycle Assessment of a Virtual Reality Device," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-11, July.
    3. Anders S. G. Andrae & Mengjun Xia & Jianli Zhang & Xiaoming Tang, 2016. "Practical Eco-Design and Eco-Innovation of Consumer Electronics—the Case of Mobile Phones," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-19, February.
    4. Anders S. G. Andrae & Tomas Edler, 2015. "On Global Electricity Usage of Communication Technology: Trends to 2030," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-41, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anders S. G. Andrae & Mengjun Xia & Jianli Zhang & Xiaoming Tang, 2016. "Practical Eco-Design and Eco-Innovation of Consumer Electronics—the Case of Mobile Phones," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Bourgeois Guillaume & Duthil Benjamin & Courboulay Vincent, 2022. "Review of the Impact of IT on the Environment and Solution with a Detailed Assessment of the Associated Gray Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-19, February.
    3. Anders S. G. Andrae, 2017. "Life Cycle Assessment of a Virtual Reality Device," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-11, July.
    4. Tomasz Rokicki & Piotr Bórawski & Barbara Gradziuk & Piotr Gradziuk & Aldona Mrówczyńska-Kamińska & Joanna Kozak & Danuta Jolanta Guzal-Dec & Kamil Wojtczuk, 2021. "Differentiation and Changes of Household Electricity Prices in EU Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-21, October.
    5. Zhenxiang Cao & Liqing Peng, 2023. "The Impact of Digital Economics on Environmental Quality: A System Dynamics Approach," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    6. Steffen Dalsgaard, 2022. "Can IT Resolve the Climate Crisis? Sketching the Role of an Anthropology of Digital Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-17, May.
    7. Axenbeck, Janna & Niebel, Thomas, 2021. "Climate Protection Potentials of Digitalized Production Processes: Microeconometric Evidence," 23rd ITS Biennial Conference, Online Conference / Gothenburg 2021. Digital societies and industrial transformations: Policies, markets, and technologies in a post-Covid world 238007, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    8. Lange, Steffen & Pohl, Johanna & Santarius, Tilman, 2020. "Digitalization and energy consumption. Does ICT reduce energy demand?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    9. Wen Chen & Changyi Zhu & Qi Cheung & Siying Wu & Jun Zhang & Jia Cao, 2024. "How does digitization enable green innovation? Evidence from Chinese listed companies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(5), pages 3832-3854, July.
    10. Babasola Osibo & Simisola Adamo, 2023. "Data Centers and Green Energy: Paving the Way for a Sustainable Digital Future," International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science, International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS), vol. 12(11), pages 15-30, November.
    11. Alejandro Aristi Capetillo & Fredric Bauer & Cristina Chaminade, 2023. "Emerging Technologies Supporting the Transition to a Circular Economy in the Plastic Materials Value Chain," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 953-982, June.
    12. Muhammad Fahad & Arsalan Shahid & Ravi Reddy Manumachu & Alexey Lastovetsky, 2019. "A Comparative Study of Methods for Measurement of Energy of Computing," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-42, June.
    13. Tilman Santarius & Johanna Pohl & Steffen Lange, 2020. "Digitalization and the Decoupling Debate: Can ICT Help to Reduce Environmental Impacts While the Economy Keeps Growing?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-20, September.
    14. John Martinovic & Markus Hähnel & Guntram Scheithauer & Waltenegus Dargie, 2022. "An introduction to stochastic bin packing-based server consolidation with conflicts," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 30(2), pages 296-331, July.
    15. Salil Bharany & Sandeep Sharma & Osamah Ibrahim Khalaf & Ghaida Muttashar Abdulsahib & Abeer S. Al Humaimeedy & Theyazn H. H. Aldhyani & Mashael Maashi & Hasan Alkahtani, 2022. "A Systematic Survey on Energy-Efficient Techniques in Sustainable Cloud Computing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-89, May.
    16. Elgaaied-Gambier, Leila & Bertrandias, Laurent & Bernard, Yohan, 2020. "Cutting the Internet's Environmental Footprint: An Analysis of Consumers' Self-Attribution of Responsibility," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 120-135.
    17. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Martiskainen, Mari & Furszyfer Del Rio, Dylan D., 2021. "Knowledge, energy sustainability, and vulnerability in the demographics of smart home technology diffusion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    18. Kosuke Sasakura & Takeshi Aoki & Masayoshi Komatsu & Takeshi Watanabe, 2020. "A Temperature-Risk and Energy-Saving Evaluation Model for Supporting Energy-Saving Measures for Data Center Server Rooms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-22, October.
    19. Daniel Walia & Paul Schünemann & Hauke Hartmann & Frank Adam & Jochen Großmann, 2021. "Numerical and Physical Modeling of a Tension-Leg Platform for Offshore Wind Turbines," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-22, June.
    20. Xiaoxi Zhang & Machiko Shinozuka & Yuriko Tanaka & Yuko Kanamori & Toshihiko Masui, 2022. "How ICT can contribute to realize a sustainable society in the future: a CGE approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 5614-5640, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jchals:v:8:y:2017:i:2:p:21-:d:108662. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.