CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62Green IT and SustainabilityEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityPhotovoltaic Systems and Sustainability

Reducing the carbon footprint of ICT products through material efficiency strategies: A life cycle analysis of smartphones

Open access
Cordella, Mauro, Alfieri, Felice, Sanfelix, Javier·2021·Journal of Industrial Ecology
DOI 10.1111/jiec.13119
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

With the support of a life cycle assessment model, this study estimates the carbon footprint (CF) of smartphones and life cycle costs (LCC) for consumers in scenarios where different material efficiency strategies are implemented in Europe. Results show that a major contribution to the CF of smartphones is due to extraction and processing of materials and following manufacturing of parts: 10.7 kg CO 2,eq /year, when assuming a biennial replacement cycle. Printed wiring board, display assembly, and integrated circuits make 75% of the impacts from materials. The CF is increased by assembly (+2.7 kg CO 2,eq /year), distribution (+1.9 kg CO 2,eq /year), and recharging of the device (+1.9 kg CO 2,eq /year) and decreased by the end of life recycling (−0.8 kg CO 2,eq /year). However, the CF of smartphones can dramatically increase when the energy consumed in communication services is counted (+26.4 kg CO 2,eq /year). LCC can vary significantly (235–622 EUR/year). The service contract can in particular be a decisive cost factor (up to 61–85% of the LCC). It was calculated that the 1:1 displacement of new smartphones by used devices could decrease the CF by 52–79% (excluding communication services) and the LCC by 5–16%. An extension of the replacement cycle from 2 to 3 years could decrease the CF by 23–30% and the LCC by 4–10%, depending on whether repair operations are required. Measures for implementing such material efficiency strategies are presented and results can help inform decision‐makers about how to reduce impacts associated with smartphones.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jiec.13119

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Allwood, J. M., Ashbya, M. F., Gutowski, T. G., & Worrell, E. (2011). Material efficiency: A white paper. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 55(3), 362-381.
  2. Andrae Anders S.G. (2016). Life-Cycle Assessment of Consumer Electronics: A review of methodological approaches. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 5, (1), 51-60. http://doi.org/10.1109/mce.2015.2484639. · DOI
  3. Askham, C., Hanssen, O. J., Gade, A. L., Nereng, G., Aaser, C. P., & Christensen, P. (2012). Strategy tool trial for office furniture. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(6), 666-677.
  4. Bakker, C., Wang, F., Huisman, J., & den Hollander, M. (2014). Products that go round: exploring product life extension through design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 69, 10-16.
  5. Belkhir, L., & Elmeligi, A. (2018). Assessing ICT global emissions footprint: Trends to 2040 & recommendations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177(10), 448- 463.
  6. Clément, L. P., Jacquemotte, Q., & Hilty, L. M. (2020). Sources of variation in life cycle assessments of smartphones and tablet computers. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 84, 106416.
  7. Cordella, M., Alfieri, F., Clemm, C., & Berwald, A. (2021). Durability of smartphones: A technical analysis of reliability and repairability aspects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286(2021), 125388.
  8. Cordella, M., Alfieri, F., Sanfelix, J., Donatello, S., Kaps, R., & Wolf, O. (2020a). Improving material efficiency in the life cycle of products: a review of EU Ecolabel criteria. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25, 921-935.
  9. Cordella, M., & Hidalgo, C. (2016). Analysis of key environmental areas in the design and labelling of furniture products: Application of a screening approach based on a literature review of LCA studies. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 8, 64-77.
  10. Coroama, V. C., & Hilty, L. M. (2014). Assessing Internet energy intensity: A review of methods and results. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 45, 63-68.
  11. Ercan, E. M. (2013). Global warming potential of a smartphone -Using life cycle assessment methodology (Master of Science Thesis) KTH -Royal Institute of Technology of Stockholm, Sweden. TRITA-IM-EX 2013:01. http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:677729/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  12. Ercan M., Malmodin, J., Bergmark, P., Kimfalk, E., & Nilsson, E. (2016). Life cycle assessment of a smartphone. In Proceedings of ICT for Sustainability 2016 (pp. 124-133). Atlantis Press
  13. ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute). (2019). ETSI TR 103 679 V1.1.1 (2019-05) Environmental Engineering (EE); Explore the challenges of developing product group-specific Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs) for smartphones. www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/103600_ 103699/103679/01.01.01_60/tr_103679v010101p.pdf European Union. (2009). Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products. OJ L, 285, 31.10.2009, pp. 10-35.
  14. Falaki, H., Mahajan, R., Kandula, S., Lymberopoulos, D., Govindan, R., & Estrin, D. (2010). Diversity in smartphone usage. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (pp. 179-194). Association for Computing Machinery.
  15. Geyer, R., & Doctori Blass, V. (2010). The economics of cell phone reuse and recycling. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 47, 515-525.
  16. Gurita, L., Fröhling, M., & Bongaerts, J. (2018). Assessing potentials for mobile/smartphone reuse/remanufacture and recycling in Germany for a closed loop of secondary precious and critical metals. Journal of Remanufacturing, 8, 1-22.
  17. Huijbregts, M. A. J., Rombouts, L. J. A., Hellweg, S., Frischknecht, R., Hendriks, A. J., van de Meent, D., Ragas, A. M. J., Reijnders, L., & Struijs, J. (2006). Is cumulative fossil energy demand a useful indicator for the environmental performance of products? Environmental Science & Technology, 40(3), 641-648.
  18. In T. F., Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, & P. M. Midgley (eds.), Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 1535). Cambridge University Press.
  19. Iraldo, F., Facheris, C., & Nucci, B. (2017). Is product durability better for environment and for economic efficiency? A comparative assessment applying LCA and LCC to two energy-intensive products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140(3), 1353-1364.
  20. Kasulaitis, B. V., Babbitt, C. W., & Krock, A. K. (2018). Dematerialization and the circular economy -Comparing strategies to reduce material impacts of the consumer electronic product ecosystem. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1), 119-132.
  21. Makov, T., Fishman, T., Chertow, M. R., & Blass, V. (2018). What affects the second value of smartphones: Evidence from eBay. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(3), 549-559.
  22. Makov, T., & Fitzpatrick, C. (2019). Planned obsolescence in smartphones? Insights from benchmark testing. In Proceedings of the 3rd PLATE Conference, Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019.
  23. Moberg, A., Borggren, C., Ambell, C., Finnveden, G., Guldbrandsson, F., Bondesson, A., Malmodin, J., & Bergmark, P. (2014). Simplifying a life cycle assessment of a mobile phone. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(5), 979-993.
  24. Palazzo, J., Geyer, R., Startz, R., & Steigerwald, D. G. (2019). Causal inference for quantifying displaced primary production from recycling. Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 1076-1084.
  25. Palazzo, J., Geyer, R., & Suh, S. (2020). A review of methods for characterizing the environmental consequences of actions in life cycle assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 24(4), 815-829.
  26. Peiró, L. T., Ardente, F., & Mathieux, F. (2017). Design for disassembly criteria in EU product policies for a more circular economy a method for analyzing battery packs in PC-tablets and subnotebooks. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 731-741.
  27. Peña, C., Civit, B., Gallego-Schmid, A., Druckman, A., Pires, A. C., Weidema, B., Mieras, E., Wang, F., Fava, J., Canals, L. M., Cordella, M., Arbuckle, P., Valdivia, S., Fallaha, S, Motta, W. (2021). Using life cycle assessment to achieve a circular economy. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, http://doi.org/10. 1007/s11367-020-01856-z. · DOI
  28. Pihkola, H., Hongisto, M., Apilo, O., & Lasanen, M. (2018). Evaluating the energy consumption of mobile data transfer -From technology development to consumer behaviour and life cycle thinking. Sustainability, 10(7), 2494.
  29. Poppelaars, F., Bakker, C., & Van Engelen, J. (2018). Does access trump ownership? Exploring consumer acceptance of access-based consumption in the case of smartphones. Sustainability, 10(7), 2133.
  30. Schien, D., Shabajee, P., Yearworth, M., & Preist, C. (2013). Modeling and assessing variability in energy consumption during the use stage of online multimedia services. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(6), 800-813.
  31. Skerlos, S. J. J., Morrow, W. R. R., Chan, K., Zhao, F., Hula, A., Seliger, G., Basdere, B., & Prasitnarit, A. (2003). Economic and environmental characteristics of global cellular telephone remanufacturing. In 2003 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment (pp. 99-104). IEEE.
  32. Suckling, J., & Lee, J. (2015). Redefining scope: the true environmental impact of smartphones? International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(8), 1181-1196.
  33. Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., & Weidema, B. (2016). The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): Overview and methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(9), 1218-1230.
  34. Zink, T., & Geyer, R. (2017). Circular economy rebound. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 593-602.
  35. Zink, T., Maker, F., Geyer, R., Amirtharajah, R., & Akella, V. (2014). Comparative life cycle assessment of smartphone reuse: repurposing vs. refurbishment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(5), 1099-1109.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cordella, M., Alfieri, F., & Sanfelix, J.
Affiliations
  • European Commission (BE)
  • European Commission Directorate General for Research and Innovation Brussels Belgium
Corresponding author
Cordella, Mauro
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Industrial Ecology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-03-31
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
448-464
ISSN
  • 1088-1980 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-9290
DOI
10.1111/jiec.13119
OpenAlex
W3140444195
Cited by
62
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3
FWCI
2.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Industrial Ecology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • TECNALIA Publications (Fundación TECNALIA Research & Innovation) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
European Commission (Administrative Agreement N. 070201/2015/SI2.719458 (signed between DG ENV and DG JRC))
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Green IT and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Photovoltaic Systems and Sustainability
Keywords
smartphones, carbon footprint, material efficiency, life cycle cost, consumer electronics, end-of-life recycling, repair, printed circuit boards, integrated circuits

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review