STATE OF SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH

CLIMATE CHANGEMITIGATION
Draft report for public comment.

April 1, 2021
1

globalelectronicscouncil.org

Contents
State of Sustainability Research: Climate Change Mitigation .................. 3
Purpose .......................................................................................................... 3
About GEC.................................................................................................. 3
EPEAT Sustainability Impact Priorities .......................................................... 4
Climate Change Impacts and Mitigation Strategies for the ICT Sector ... 5
1.

Climate change impacts of the ICT sector ................................... 52.

Life cycle carbon footprint .............................................................. 8

3.

Strategies to reduce climate change impact ............................ 18

4.

Standardization ............................................................................... 26

5.

Summary of recommended criteria ............................................. 27

References ................................................................................................ 28
Appendix .................................................................................................. 30

2globalelectronicscouncil.org

State of Sustainability Research:
Climate Change Mitigation
PurposeThe development and release of a State of Sustainability Research (SOSR)
report for public consultation is the first step in the EPEAT criteria
development process. GEC welcomes stakeholder review of this report andsubmission of comments, including confirmation that the report identifies
priority impacts and mitigation strategies, identification of additional life
cycle analyses or data on sustainability impacts; and other mitigation
strategies and best practices leading to demonstrable impact reduction.

About GECThe Global Electronics Council (GEC) is a non-profit that leverages large-scalepurchasing power, both public and private sector, as a demand driver for moresustainable technology. By deciding to buy sustainable technology, institutionalpurchasers can “move the needle” toward a more sustainable world. GEC also helps
manufacturers understand the sustainability impacts of their technology, commit toaddress those impacts, and act to change operational, supply chain, and procurement
behaviors. GEC is the manager of the ecolabel EPEAT®, used by more purchasers ofelectronics than any other ecolabel worldwide.
EPEAT is a comprehensive voluntary sustainability ecolabel that helps purchasers identify
more sustainable electronic products that have superior environmental and social
performance. EPEAT establishes criteria that address priority sustainability impacts
throughout the life cycle of the product, based on an evaluation of scientific evidence
and international best practices.

3

globalelectronicscouncil.org

EPEAT Sustainability Impact Priorities
GEC organizes its analysis of sustainability impacts, and the criteria it
proposes to reduce these impacts, into the following four priority impact
areas of importance to large-scale purchasers of electronic products:••••

Climate Change Mitigation
Sustainable Use of Resources
Reduction of Chemicals of Concern
Corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Performance

In this State of Sustainability Research (SOSR) report we identify priority
contributors to climate change throughout the life cycle of ICT products
and mitigation strategies to reduce these impacts. This SOSR will serve as theevidenced-based scientific foundation for future EPEAT criteria
development work.

Climate Change Mitigation: An Imperative for Our Future
Climate change mitigation is at the forefront of sustainable purchasing
decisions globally, from the European Union’s Green Deal to the UnitedStates’ 2021 Federal Climate Executive Order, the path is set to achieve netzero emissions by 2050. To this end, institutional and consumer sustainablepurchasing remains an important lever for change. The business sector issimilarly invested in mitigating the harmful effects of climate change, as
illustrated by efforts from Microsoft’s ambitious goal to be carbon negativeby 2030 to the actions of Climate Signatory companies that have pledged
to be climate neutral by 2040, 10-years ahead of goals set by the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement.

4

globalelectronicscouncil.org

Climate Change
Impacts and
Mitigation Strategies
for the ICT Sector
1. Climate change impacts of the ICT sector
Climate change is creating irreversible damage to the planet andthreatening conditions for all life on earth – extreme temperatures andweather conditions, rising sea levels, melting ice caps, and loss of
biodiversity have already been documented as a result of climate change.
The primary contributor to climate change is the release of greenhousegases (GHGs) into the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels for electricity
generation and other energy needs. A recent report by the World
Economic Forum (WEF) identified the electronics industry as one of the top 8
sectors accounting for more than 50% of global carbon emissions [1].

In 2020, the total ICT sector footprint is expected to be dominated by data
centers (45%), followed by communication networks (24%), smartphones(11%), and computing devices including desktops (7%), displays (7%), andnotebooks (6%) (Figure 1) [2].

5globalelectronicscouncil.org

Figure 1.
Relative contribution of various ICT
products towards total sector
footprint in 2020

The WEF reported that the majority of GHG emissions from the electronics
industry are attributed to the supply chain (77%), which includes raw
materials mining, manufacture, and assembly of electronic components, aswell as transportation of the finished product. The WEF further notes that
supply-chain decarbonization presents a “giant opportunity for international
climate action”. For example, tapping into electricity generated fromrenewable resources could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 35%. They
estimated that in the electronics supply chain, material and energy
efficiency improvements in manufacturing processes could further reduce
emissions by ~20%. The WEF also estimates that using low carbon fuels fortransportation could cut GHG emissions by 5%. And, extending the life cycleof a product through increased durability and repair, along with highSupply-chain decarbonization presents a “giant
opportunity for international climate action”.
World Economic Forum, 2021

recycling and recovery rates, could further reduce embodied carbon by atleast 5% [1].
Additionally, the electricity consumed to power electronic products
contributes significantly to climate change. While reducing use-stage power
consumption of electronic products has been a major focus of programs
6

globalelectronicscouncil.org

such as the U.S. ENERGY STAR® program for over a decade, the number ofelectronic devices and the processing of data has proliferated. The
operational electricity consumption of global ICT sector in 2015 was 805 TWhof electricity, which accounts for 3.6% of global energy consumption and1.4% of the total global carbon dioxide emitted [3]. On a product level, thecontribution of use phase emissions ranges anywhere between 14% to 95%
of total life cycle GHG emissions.

7

globalelectronicscouncil.org

2. Life cycle carbon footprint
The potential contribution of a product to climate change is estimated byquantifying a product’s life cycle carbon footprint. The life cycle carbon
footprint of a product is a measure of the total GHG emissions associatedfrom raw material extraction to manufacturing, transportation, customer
use, and end of life processing (see Figure 2). There are two major
components of the life cycle carbon footprint: embodied carbon andoperational carbon associated with product use, as illustrated in Figure 2
below. To put it simply, embodied carbon is all life cycle GHG emissions,
except GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption to operate
the product. Each of these components are discussed in detail below.
Life cycle carbon footprint = embodied carbon + operational carbon

Figure 2. Life cycle carbon footprint of an ICT product
Embodied carbon is the sum of greenhouse gas emissions released fromproducing, procuring, and assembling the materials and components thatmake up a product [4]. Contributors to embodied carbon include:
upstream carbon, use phase carbon (not including operational carbon),end of life carbon and beyond the life cycle carbon [4].
Embodied carbon =upstream carbon + use stage carbon + end of life carbon + beyond thelife cycle carbon
8

globalelectronicscouncil.org

• Upstream carbon represents the GHG emissions associated with all theactivities that occur during the raw material extraction, component
production and assembly, and transportation of the final product to thecustomer.
• Use stage carbon includes the GHG emissions associated with materials
and processes required for the upkeep/maintenance of the product. For
example, when a user replaces a battery in their phone, the GHG emissions
associated with materials and processes required to manufacture a
replacement battery is accounted for in use stage embodied carbon. Anda reminder, the GHG emissions associated with the energy required to
power the device during the use phase (called Operational Carbon) is notincluded in use stage embodied carbon.
• End of life carbon accounts for the GHG emissions released during thedisassembly or dismantling process of products for reuse, recycling, or final
disposal.
• Beyond the life cycle carbon include GHG emissions or savings incurred
due to reuse of components and recycling of materials, as well as theemissions avoided due to using waste as a fuel source for another process.

Note: the scope of this Climate Change Mitigation SOSR excludes the GHG
emissions savings from product and component reuse, recycling, and othercircularity strategies. These aspects will be discussed in detail in GEC’s Stateof Sustainability Research report on Sustainable Use of Resources.

9

globalelectronicscouncil.org

2.1. Contribution of embodied carbon versus operational carbon
The relative contribution of embodied carbon to the total carbon footprint isdependent on the type of ICT product. For products, such as laptops,
smartphones, and tablets, which rely on a battery to power the device, thecontribution of embodied carbon is greater than GHG emissions fromoperating the device over its lifetime. For example, the embodied carbon
of a smartphone and tablet accounts for 90% and 84% of the total carbon
footprint, respectively (See Figure 3). For products, such as TVs and desktops,
which need to be plugged in for the devices to work, the upfront carbon
accounts for 31% and 30% of the total, respectively (Figure 3.)

Figure 3. The relative contribution of embodied carbon to the lifetime
energy consumption of various ICT devices. Note that embodied carbon
footprint here only includes upstream carbon emissions. [3]Similarly, Figure 4 provides an illustration of two high-energy consuming
products – network switch and rack server – where operational carbon
accounts for over 90% of life cycle carbon emissions, compared to an iPadand smartphone, with operational carbon contributing only 14 -15% of life
cycle carbon emissions.

10

globalelectronicscouncil.org

Figure 4. Relative contribution of life cycle stages towards product carbon
footprint for example ICT products. Note that “Use” represents operational
carbon. Here, total embodied carbon is sum of production, transportation,and end of life. See Appendix Table 1 for detailed data and sources.

11

globalelectronicscouncil.org

2.2. Upstream carbon
Figure 4 also illustrates that upstream carbon, which is the sum of carbon
emissions from production and transportation life cycle stages, is the largest
contributor towards embodied carbon compared to other life cycle
components of embodied carbon. Within the upstream stage, theproduction phase is the largest contributor to embodied carbon. Production
phase here includes raw material extraction and production, as well as theactivities that are included in the component manufacturing and assemblyof a finished product, inclusive of packaging. Depending on the producttype, the percentage contribution of production can vary from 5% to 77% of
the total carbon footprint of a device (see Figure 5). Transportation
generally contributes a smaller portion of upstream embodied carbon in theelectronics industry, ranging anywhere from 0.5% to 25% depending on the
product category (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Relative contribution of life cycle stages towards total carbon
footprint for various ICT devices. Note: See Appendix Table 1 for thedetailed data and references
12

globalelectronicscouncil.org

Priority Components
Figure 6 represents the relative contribution of components and upstream
activities towards upstream embodied carbon of various productcategories. As illustrated, components, such as printed circuit boards,
integrate circuits (ICs), and diodes, contribute the largest towards upstream
embodied carbon [5]. The contribution of these components together canvary anywhere between 5% to 80% of total upstream embodied carbon
depending on the product type.

Figure 6. The contribution of various components and upstream activities
towards the upstream embodied carbon [5]For products with a display, the display is also a top contributor towards
upstream embodied carbon. And, the contribution of the display
component increases with screen size, as seen for LCD monitor 17 inch and21.5 inch in Figure 6.
GHG emissions from component manufacturing can be attributed to two
factors: energy consumption and use of fluorinated compounds during the
manufacturing process (See Figure 6). According to data from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Program (GHGRP), in 2019 electronics manufacturing facilities in the U.S.
emitted 5.9 million metrics tons CO2e.1 Out of the total emissions, 83% of
1 Electronics manufacturing facilities included semiconductors (inclusive of light-emitting diodes),micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS), liquid crystal displays (LCDs), and photovoltaic cells (PV).

13

globalelectronicscouncil.org

emissions are attributed to F-GHGs, and the remaining 17% are attributed tocarbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions, which are released during the
combustion of fossil fuels to produce electricity [6]. Assembly andtransportation activities during the upstream life cycle contribute thesmallest relative percentage [5].
Absent intervention, embodied carbon of ICT devices is bound to increasein the future due to rapid innovation cycles and declining product life spans[7].
2.2.1. Fluorinated greenhouse gas emissions
F-GHGs are thousands of times more potent than CO2 emissions and hencea significant contributor to the potential for irreversible damage to earth’s
climate [8]. Fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-GHG) are commonly used in
the manufacturing of flat panel displays and semiconductors for various
purposes such as etching, cleaning, and cooling. Some of the commonlyused F-GHGs include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur
hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride [8]. This is not a static list, however. For
example, in 2016 the semiconductor industry added reporting of newly usedgases CH2F2, C4F6, C5F8 and C4F8O, and in 2019 these gases represented 7%of semiconductor global F-GHG emissions [9].
Semiconductor Industry
The World Semiconductor Council (WSC), which consists of the
Semiconductor Industry Associations in China, Chinese Taipei, Europe,
Japan, Korea, and the United States, published data on total perfluoro
compound (PFC) emissions (a type of F-GHGs) from 2010 to 2019 (see Figure7) [9]. As per the data, the absolute emissions of F-GHGs increased by 13.5%
from 2010 to 2018 attributed to increased production of semiconductors[10], while the normalized emission rate (i.e., emissions per unit) decreasedby 19.6% during the same time period. From 2018 to 2019, the most recent
years reported, total emissions decreased by 2%.

14

globalelectronicscouncil.org

In 2019 electronics
manufacturing facilities in
the U.S. emitted 5.9 million
metrics tons CO2e. Out of
the total emissions, 83% ofemissions are attributed
to F-GHGs.
US EPA, 2016

Figure 7. F-GHG emission trends in Semiconductor Industry as reported by
WSC [9]Flat panel manufacturing industry
EPA reported the total F-GHG emissions from the flat panel manufacturingindustry from 2000 to 2020, showing a steady increase in emissions (Figure 8).
COVID -19 has increased demand for display products, such as TVs,
monitors, laptops, as people are adapting to work from home; increasing
LCD panel production may further increase F-GHG emissions [11].

Figure 8. Global F-GHG
emissions from Flat Panel
Display manufacturing [8]15globalelectronicscouncil.org

2.3. Product use phase emissions (Operational Carbon)
Figure 9 illustrates the electricity consumption trends for product categories
in the non-residential ICT sector in 27 European Union countries (EU27) from2010 to 2025. As illustrated, the total electricity consumption is projected toincrease by 12% in 2025 when compared to 2010. Out of total nonresidential ICT electricity consumption, data centers, telecommunications,and electronic displays account for more than 70% of energy consumption
for all the years evaluated[12]. This is mainly due to increase in data traffic
and bandwidth driven mainly by video sharing. As per the EU27 ICT impact
study, close to 85% of the bandwidth of the data centers is taken by video
on demand, movies, social media clips and game streaming[12]. Electronic
displays increase is mainly driven by increasing resolution. Public ICT isanother category that is seeing a rise in energy consumption due toincrease in use of hotspots and security cameras[12].

Figure 9. Electricity consumption trends of product categories in EU27 for
non-residential sector [12]16globalelectronicscouncil.org

The energy consumption of a product, which is the driver of product use
phase emissions depends on various factors, including product size, whether
battery powered or plug in, type of battery and its efficiency, customer
behavior, mode, and power rating. For example, Figure 10 illustrates thedifference in energy consumption across various ICT devices per year.
Products that need to be plugged in to work generally consume more
electricity than products that are battery powered. In addition to energy
consumption, use phase GHG emissions are also driven by the grid mixes ofthe electricity used, especially in data centers, which includes high energy
consuming products, such as servers and network equipment.

Figure 10. Energy consumption of various products in EU27 for non-residential
ICT sector [12]17globalelectronicscouncil.org

3. Strategies to reduce climate change impact
3.1. Product carbon footprint or life cycle assessment
This State of Sustainability Research report summarizes publicly available
LCA data and provides a good indication of the GHG emission hotspots inthe life cycle of ICT products. Preparing a customized analysis of GHG
emissions -- either as a part of a life cycle assessment (LCA) or a productcarbon footprint of the product – is a valuable tool for pinpointing specificmaterials, components, and operations that contribute the greatest to GHG
emissions for a specific product system. Life cycle assessment or carbon
footprints should take a holistic view -- from extraction of raw materials to
product end-of-life. These tools also enable analysis of alternative scenarios,
such as sourcing electricity from renewable energy sources instead of fossil
fuels, alternate product transportation modes, and material substitutions.

3.2. Reducing Embodied carbon from upstream sources
There is an increasing recognition of the significant contribution of upstream
carbon to life cycle GHG emissions of ICT products, as illustrated in earlier
section of this report. While not specific to the ICT sector, models of global
energy systems developed by the International Renewable Energy Agency(IRENA) indicate that “the combination of use of renewable energy andenergy efficient technologies can potentially achieve 90% of the carbon
reductions required to limit global temperature rise to a maximum of 2
degree above pre-industrial levels with a 66% probability in line with the Paris
Agreement goals”[13].
Strategies to reduce upstream carbon are discussed below.
•

Energy efficient manufacturing

Improving energy efficiency in the manufacture of components andproduct assembly can provide a significant reduction in upstream
embodied carbon of a device. Facilities that manufacture the following
components should be prioritized as they are the largest contributors to18

globalelectronicscouncil.org

embodied carbon, as previously shown: printed circuit board (PCB),
integrated circuits (ICs), diodes, and displays. A product-specific LCA or
carbon footprint with customized supplier data may identify additional or
alternative components for consideration.
While execution of discrete energy efficiency projects leads to results, there
is increasing recognition of the value of applying a systems-based,
continuous improvement approach to energy management, similar to ISO
90001 for quality management and ISO 14001 for environment
management. For example, 3M and Schneider Electric worked with the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) to assess the benefits of implementing ISO
50001 - Energy Management Systems in their facilities [14]. The findings of thisanalysis show that ISO 50001 certified facilities outperformed non- ISO 50001
certified facilities and continued to do so over time. See Figure 11. While thebenefits vary by facility, on average, U.S. DOE estimates that one canachieve a 4% to 5% reduction in total emissions by implementing ISO 500012.
There are tools provided by U.S. DOE, such as the ISO 50001 Impact
Estimator Tool [15] (IET 50001), which can be used by a manufacturer toevaluate their own individual benefits from implementing ISO 50001.

Figure 11.
Comparison ofsavings with andwithout ISO 50001
implemented
energymanagement
systems[14]2 Communications with and data provided by U.S. DOE staff

19

globalelectronicscouncil.org

• Use of electricity generated from renewable sources in manufacturing
facilities
The grid energy mix plays an important role in increasing or decreasing GHG
emissions from manufacturing facilities. Electricity generated fromrenewable energy sources, such as solar, wind and hydropower, emit fewer
greenhouse gases, which lowers total upstream embodied carbon of the
product. As cited earlier in the report, WEF estimated that sourcing
electricity from renewable resources could reduce GHG emissions in theelectronics supply chain by 35% [1].
•Reducing F-GHG emissions in manufacturing

Over the last decade, many suppliers in the flat panel manufacturing andsemiconductor industries have taken voluntary steps to reduce their F-GHG
emissions. Many participating suppliers of the World Display Industry
Cooperation Committee (WDICC), which includes the LCD industry
associations in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan implemented strategies toaddress their emissions, including installing abatement technologies on
production lines in their newer generation fabs [8]. As a result, they wereable to reduce F-GHG emissions by 10.1 MMTCE, to where aggregate
emissions totaled 1.75 MMTCE in 2010 [8]. Members of the World
Semiconductor Council (WSC) reduced F-GHG emissions 32% from 2000 to2010 [9]. From 2010 to 2018, their absolute F-GHG emissions increased by
13.5%, however, normalized emissions (kgs of CO2 eq per area of siliconwafers) decreased by 19.6%. This implies operational controls have become
more effective in reducing F-GHG gases, but that total production and total
net F-GHG emissions are increasing. ICT brands play an important role indriving change in their supply chains through procurement, and specificallyin setting the expectation and holding suppliers accountable for monitoring
and reduction of F-GHG emissions in the manufacture of components
purchased for their products.

20

globalelectronicscouncil.org

3.3. Product energy efficiency
Improving energy efficiency of products reduces product use phase GHG
emissions of ICT devices. While specific methods to improve energy
efficiency vary by product type, best practice guidance developed bygovernments and standards bodies is available. Some prominent examples
are provided below.
•

U.S. ENERGY STAR Program for ICT equipment

The U.S. ENERGY STAR Program is a voluntary energy efficiency program thatis managed by the U.S. EPA and the U.S. DOE. The main objective of thisprogram is to help businesses and individuals save money while protecting
the environment through better energy efficiency. The criteria set by the
program varies with the product category, and generally covers power
supplies and energy consumption requirements during all operationalmodes of a product. ICT product categories currently covered under
ENERGY STAR include:- Data center equipment: Includes data center storage, servers, large
network equipment, small network equipment- Office equipment: Includes computers, imaging equipment, monitors- Consumer electronics: Includes televisions
The relative efficiency of ENERGY STAR certified products, as compared toconventional products is shown in Table 1 for select product categories.
Product category% more efficient thanconventional models

TV

25

Computers

25 – 40

Monitors

7

Imaging equipment

35

Servers30

Small network
equipment

20

21

Table 1: Comparison ofenergy efficiency of ENERGYSTAR certified products toconventional models [16]For further information,please refer to the ENERGYSTAR website directly.
globalelectronicscouncil.org

•

80 Plus® for power supplies

80 Plus is a voluntary program used to rate power supplies in computers,
servers, and data center devices based on their reliability and efficiency.
The performance specifications require multi-output power supplies incomputers and servers to be 80% or greater energy efficient at 20%, 50%
and 100% of rated load with a true power factor of 0.9 or greater. The
specifications of the program are summarized in Table 2 below.
80 PLUS
Certification

115V Internal Non-Redundant

115V Industrial% of Rated
Load

10%

20%

50%

100%

80 PLUS

-

80%

80%

80% PFC ≥0.90-

80 PLUSBronze-82%

85% PFC ≥
0.90

82%

-

80 PLUSSilver-85%

88% PFC ≥
0.90

85%

80%

80 PLUS
Gold

-

87%

90% PFC ≥
0.90

87%

80 PLUS
Platinum-

90%

92% PFC ≥
0.95

89%

80 PLUS
Titanium

90%

92% PFC ≥
0.95

94%

90%

80 Plus
Certification

10%

50%

100%

85% PFC ≥
0.90

88%

85%

82%

85% PFC ≥
0.90

90%

87%

85%

90% PFC ≥
0.95

92%

90%

-

230V EU Internal Non-Redundant

230 V Internal Redundant% of Rated
Load

10%

20%

50%

100%

80 PLUS-82%

85% PFC ≥
0.90

82%

80 PLUSBronze-85%

88% PFC ≥
0.90

85%

-

80 PLUSSilver-87%

90% PFC ≥
0.90

87%

-

22

25%

10%

20%

50%

100%

81%

85%
PFC ≥
0.90

81%

85%

89%
PFC ≥
0.90

85%

-

globalelectronicscouncil.org

80 PLUS
Gold

-

90%

92% PFC ≥
0.90

89%

-

88%

92%
PFC ≥
0.90

88%

80 PLUS
Platinum-

92%

94% PFC ≥
0.95

90%

-

90%

94%
PFC ≥
0.95

91%

90%

94%
PFC
≥
0.95

96%

91%

80 PLUS
Titanium

90%

94% PFC ≥
0.95

96%

94%

Note: PFC means “Power factor correction” or “Power factor controller”
Table 2. 80 PLUS program specifications [17]•EU Code of Conduct for ICT

The EU Code of Conduct (CoC) for ICT is a voluntary policy instrument
started in 2000. The main objective of the CoC is to develop policies toreduce energy consumption of ICT equipment. The CoC sets power
consumption levels for energy- efficient ICT equipment. The power
consumption levels are unique to a product category. The main areas of
the Code of Conduct for ICT include:-

External power supply units (EPS)
Digital TV services
Broadband equipment
Data centers Uninterruptible power supplies (UPS)For further details, please refer directly to the EU’s Code of Conduct
website.

•Battery charger system efficiency

The U.S. DOE and the U.S. State of California Appliance Efficiency
Regulations establish requirements for energy efficiency of battery charging
23

globalelectronicscouncil.org

systems. The California and U.S. Federal standards are reported to increase
battery charger energy efficiency by 10% [18], generating total electricity
savings of 18 billion kilowatt hours per year, which is equivalent to 8.6 million
metric tons of avoided CO2 emissions per year [19].
•Optimizing customer operations

In addition to energy efficient technologies, working with customers to
optimize effective use of software/hardware, and encourage sourcing of
renewable energy would further reduce to the overall ICT footprint. This isespecially important for data centers since the ICT equipment is highly
configurable and customized for the operation.
•

Additional resources

ENERGY STAR for typical electrical consumption of a product, 80PLUS
specifications for power supply unit efficiency guidelines and the European
Union’s Code of Conduct for ICT all contribute to reducing use phaseenergy consumption. Additional potential resources include ASHARE
Thermal Guidelines for Data Processing Environments and Voluntary
Agreements inclusive of test procedures and continuous improvementtargets.
3.4. Product transport emissions reduction
There are various factors influencing product transport GHG emissions,
including logistics, packaging weight, mode of transportation, and type offuel source used. Product life cycle assessment can help manufacturers
identify the sources of transportation carbon emissions, and potential
mitigation strategies for these problem areas. For example, HP was able to
avoid 25,000 tonnes of CO2e emissions in 2019 by switching the mode oftransportation from air to ocean between Asia and the Americas, Europe,and other countries within Asia [20].
There are several tools available that can help manufacturers calculate
emissions from product transportation, including the Global Logistics
24

globalelectronicscouncil.org

Emissions Council (GLEC), EPA SmartWay program, Clean Cargo Working
Group, Green Freight Asia, and the United Nations Climate & Clean Air
Coalition. These tools can help companies track, report, and reduce GHG
emissions, improve energy and fuel efficiency, set goals, and improveoverall environmental performance [20]. For example, Schneider Electric,
one of the participants in the U.S. EPA’s SmartWay program, reduced
product transportation emissions 4.13% from 2018 to 2019 [21] .

25

globalelectronicscouncil.org

4. Standardization
Table 3 summarizes relevant standards and voluntary programs that can
provide a foundation for product definitions, best practices, andbenchmarks.
Focus

Standard

Product Carbon
Footprint

GHG Protocol Product Standard: ICT Guidance (GHG
Protocol: 2013)
CFP-PCR:2013: Carbon Footprint of Products
Communication Program (Japan)
PIT PAIA (2014) LCA of ICT devices based on attributes
PEFCR Pilot: Product Environmental Footprint Category
Rule (ICT)
ISO/TS 14067, Carbon footprint of products –Requirements and guidelines for quantification andcommunication

Life cycle
Assessment

ISO 14040, Environmental management – Life cycle
assessment – Principles and framework
ISO 14044, Environmental management – Life cycle
assessment – Requirements and guidelines

Energy efficiency
in manufacturing

ISO 50001 Energy Management

Product energy
efficiency

U.S. ENERGY STAR Program for ICT equipment
IEC test procedures for ICT equipment
EU Code of Conduct for ICT
EU Energy Labeling Programs for ICT
ASHRAE TC 9.9 Thermal Guidelines (3rd Edition)

Battery charger
efficiency

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) regulation (10 CFR 430.32)
California Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20)

Power supplies

80 Plus® Program

Product transport

Global Logistics Emissions Council Framework (GLEC)
U.S. EPA SmartWay

Table 3. Overview of relevant sustainability standards for ICT devices
26

globalelectronicscouncil.org

5. Summary of recommended criteria
This State of Sustainability Research report serves as the evidenced-based
scientific foundation for criteria development for the EPEAT ecolabel. Table
4 provides a summary of mitigation strategies and best practice resources
by product life cycle stage, as identified throughout this report.

ImpactBest Practices/
Resources

Mitigation strategy

Criterion Focus

Life cycle
carbonConduct productcarbon footprint or full
LCA to identify
product specifichotspots

ISO 14067, ISO 14040,
ISO 14044

Product,
Manufacturer,
Supply Chain

Upstream
embodiedcarbonReduce energy
consumption incomponent andmanufacturing
facilities

Implement facilityenergy efficiency
programs; energy
management systems
that meet ISO 50001

Manufacturer
operations andsupplier facilities

Reduce carbon
intensive energy
sources in component
and manufacturing
facilities

Source electricity fromrenewable energy
sources

Manufacturer
operations andsupplier facilities

Reduce F-GHG
emissions insemiconductor andflat-panel
manufacturing

Use of strategies, suchas source reduction,
abatement
technologies and, orsafer alternatives

Component
manufacturers

Assess producttransport GHG
emissions, identify
opportunities for
reduction, andestablish reduction
goals

GLEC framework, EPA
SmartWay program,
Clean cargo working
group, Green freight
Asia

Supply Chain

Improve productenergy efficiency

ENERGY STAR, 80 Plus
(Power supplies),
European Union’s Codeof Conduct for ICT, US

Product

Product use
phase GHG
emissions27

globalelectronicscouncil.org

DOE battery charger
efficiency regulation

Table 4. Summary of mitigation strategies for priority climate change
impacts of ICT products

References[1] “Net-Zero Challenge: The supply chain opportunity,” World Economic Forum, Jan. 2021.
Accessed: Feb. 08, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.weforum.org/reports/net-zero-challengethe-supply-chain-opportunity/.
[2] L. Belkhir and A. Elmeligi, “Assessing ICT global emissions footprint: Trends to 2040 &recommendations,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 177, pp. 448–463, Mar. 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.239.
[3] J. Malmodin and D. Lundén, “The Energy and Carbon Footprint of the Global ICT and E&amp;M
Sectors 2010–2015,” Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 9, Art. no. 9, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.3390/su10093027.
[4] M. Adams, V. Burrows, and S. Richardson, “Bringing embodied carbon upfront,” World Green
Building Council, Sep. 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.worldgbc.org/sites/default/files/WorldGBC_Bringing_Embodied_Carbon_Upfront.pdf.
[5] P. Teehan and M. Kandlikar, “Comparing embodied greenhouse gas emissions of modern
computing and electronics products,” Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 3997–4003, May 2013,
doi: 10.1021/es303012r.
[6] O. US EPA, “GHGRP Electronics Manufacturing,” US EPA, Aug. 18, 2016.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgrp-electronics-manufacturing (accessed Feb. 08, 2021).
[7] C. W. Babbitt, R. Kahhat, E. Williams, and G. A. Babbitt, “Evolution of Product Lifespan and
Implications for Environmental Assessment and Management: A Case Study of Personal Computers in
Higher Education,” Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 43, no. 13, pp. 5106–5112, Jul. 2009, doi:
10.1021/es803568p.
[8] “Sector Spotlight: Electronics,” US EPA, Jul. 30, 2015.
https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/sector-spotlight-electronics (accessed Feb. 08, 2021).
[9] “Joint Statement of the 24th meeting of the World Semiconductor Council (WSC),” World
Semiconductor Council, Aug. 2020. [Online]. Available: http://www.semiconductorcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/09/24th-WSC-Joint-Statement-Final.pdf.
[10] S. Ravi, “Global Semiconductor Sales Increase 13.2% year-to-year in January,” Semiconductor
Industry Association, Mar. 01, 2021. https://www.semiconductors.org/global-semiconductor-salesincrease-13-2-year-to-year-in-january/ (accessed Mar. 18, 2021).
[11] “Prices of BOE and LG Display LCD panels soar as consumers stay home,” Nikkei Asia.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/Commodities/Prices-of-BOE-and-LG-Display-LCD-panelssoar-as-consumers-stay-home (accessed Feb. 09, 2021).

28

globalelectronicscouncil.org

[12] R. Kemna et al., “ICT impact study,” Prepared by VHK and Viegand Maagoe for the European
Commission, Jul. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/productbureau//sites/default/files/2020-11/IA_report-ICT_study_final_2020_(CIRCABC).pdf.
[13] IRENA, “Synergies between Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: a working paper based on
REmap,” Interantional Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Abu Dhabi, 2017. [Online]. Available:
www.irena.org/remap.
[14] “Business Case | Better Buildings Initiative,” Better Buildings US Department of Energy.
https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/iso-50001/business-case (accessed Feb. 09, 2021).
[15] “ISO 50001 Impact Estimator Tool | Clean Energy Ministerial |ISO 50001 Impact Estimator Tool |Advancing Clean Energy Together,” Clean Energy Ministerial.
https://www.cleanenergyministerial.org/initiative-clean-energy-ministerial/iso-50001-impact-estimatortool (accessed Feb. 08, 2021).
[16] “ENERGY STAR.” https://www.energystar.gov/ (accessed Mar. 01, 2021).
[17] “80 Plus Overview | CLEAResult.” https://www.clearesult.com/80plus/ (accessed Mar. 01, 2021).
[18] 2016 Pierre Delforge, “New Federal Battery Charger Efficiency Standards Will Power America’s
Mobility without Costing the Earth,” NRDC, May 09, 2016. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/pierredelforge/new-federal-battery-charger-efficiency-standards-will-power-americas (accessed Feb. 28,2021).
[19] C. Granda, “How States Delivered Strong Federal Battery Charger Standards | ASAP ApplianceStandard Awareness Project,” Aug. 02, 2018. https://appliance-standards.org/blog/how-statesdelivered-strong-federal-battery-charger-standards#_ftn2 (accessed Feb. 28, 2021).
[20] “Sustainable Impact Report,” HP, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://h20195.www2.hp.com/v2/GetDocument.aspx?docname=c06601778.
[21] “SCHNEIDER SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 2020 - Climate Highlights.”
https://sdreport.se.com/en/climate-highlights (accessed Feb. 09, 2021).
[22] Dr. L. Stobbe and A. Berwald, “STATE OF SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH FOR NETWORK EQUIPMENT
Large Network Equipment - Enterprise Switches and Routers Final Report. Prepared for the Green
Electronics Council and TÜV Rheinland in support of criteria development for the EPEAT and Green
Product Mark ecolabels,” Green Electronics Council and Fraunhofer IZM, Apr. 2019. [Online].
Available: https://greenelectronicscouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/20190401_GEC_TU%CC%88V_LNE_Final_Clean.pdf.
[23] “Preparatory study for implementing measures of the Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC DG ENTR
Lot 9 - Enterprise servers and data equipment - Task 5: Environment & Economics,” Bio by Deloitte,
2015.
[24] A. Szilagyi, “What’s in a Life-Cycle Assessment?,” Fairphone, Aug. 01, 2013.
https://www.fairphone.com/en/2013/08/01/whats-in-a-life-cycle-assessment/ (accessed Feb. 08,2021).
[25] “Surface Laptop Eco profile,” Microsoft, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE3cVG5.
[26] “Product Environmental Report. 16-inch Macbook pro,” Apple, Nov. 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/16inch_MacBookPro_PER_Nov2019.pdf.
[27] “Product Carbon Footprint Report,” ASUS. [Online]. Available:
https://csr.asus.com/english/file/PEP_Notebook_C423.pdf.

29

globalelectronicscouncil.org

[28] “Product Environmnetal Report. iPad,” Apple, Sep. 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/ipad/iPad_PER_sept2019.pdf.
[29] “Environmentally Conscious Products | Environment | Sustainability,” Samsung ca.
https://www.samsung.com/ca/aboutsamsung/sustainability/environment/eco-conscious-products/(accessed Feb. 08, 2021).
[30] S. Marudut, B. Wahidul, and B. Brian, “Personal Computer Life Cycle Assessment Study: The Caseof Western Australia,” presented at the 10th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, 2012,[Online]. Available: https://espace.curtin.edu.au/handle/20.500.11937/5389.
[31] K. Subramanian and W. K. C. Yung, “Life cycle assessment study of an integrated desktop device-comparison of two information and communication technologies: Desktop computers versus all-inones,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 156, pp. 828–837, Jul. 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.089.
[32] “Fact Sheet: LED LCD TV,” Climatetop, 2012. [Online]. Available:
https://www.myclimate.org/fileadmin/user_upload/myclimate_-_home/02_Takeaction/01_Corporate_clients/15_Climatop_label/Products/LG_Electronics_Inc/Produkte/LGE_LCD_TV__47LM760S-ZA_/Factsheet_e_LGE_LCD_TV.pdf.
[33] M. Bozeman, V. DeYoung, W. Latko, and C. Schafer, “Life Cycle Assessment of a Solid Ink PrinterCompared with a Color Laser Printer.Total Lifetime Energy Investment and Global Warming Impact,”
Xerox, Sep. 2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.office.xerox.com/latest/887WP-01U.PDF.

Appendix
Percentage
Product
category

Exampleproducts

SourceProduction

Transportation

Use

End of life

Network
Equipment

IP Phone

LNE
report[22]

19.5

0.2

80.5

-0.2

ChassisBased Switch

6

1

93.4

-0.4

Small Access
Router

5.95

1.45

92.8

-0.2

Large
ChassisRouter

4

3.2

93

-0.2

Mid-level
Ethernet
Switch

8.5

3

89

-0.5

8

<1

91

<1

5

<0.5

94.4

<0.5

Servers

Rack server

EU report[23]Blade system

30

globalelectronicscouncil.org

Datastorage

C-3 storage
unit

EU report [23]

8

<0.5

91

<0.5

Smart
phone

Generic
smartphone

Fair phone
[24]

77

4.6

15.4

3

Microsoft
laptopMicrosoft[25]

76

3

20

1

16-inch Mac
book Pro

Apple[26]

75

5

19

<1

Notebook
C423

ASUS[27]

48.9

18.9

32.2

0.01

iPad (7thgeneration)

Apple[28]

79

6

14

<1

24-inchmonitor(S24E650PL)

Samsung[29]

22

0.7

75.6

1.7

Desktop PC

Marudut etal [30]

59.83

0.09

40

0.07

Integrated
desktop

Subramanian
et al [31]

30

NA

69

1

TVs

LED TV (LGsmart TV)

Climatereport[32]

42.8

3.06

54.08

-2

Imaging
Equipment

Laser printerXerox [33]

45

25

30

-10

ComputersandDisplays

Table 1. The percentage contribution of life cycle stages towards total
carbon footprint of various ICT product categories. ** Notes:
1. Production – includes raw material extraction and manufacturing, as well ascomponent manufacturing and assembly of a parts and packaging
2. Transportation – includes transportation of a finished product from manufacturer to
distribution centers and finally to the customer
3. Use – includes emissions associated with the energy consumed to power the device
during product use phase estimated over the average life span of a product4. End of life – includes emissions from end-of-life treatment pathways

31

globalelectronicscouncil.org

ICT devices

Electricity consumption in 2020 (TWh/year)

Inkjet MFD

0.02

Mono laser copier

0.05

Color laser copier

0.12

IOT cellular gateway

0.14

3D printer

0.15

Tablet/Slate - Total

0.19

IOT home/office gateway

0.23

Integrated desktop- total

0.24

Thin clients

0.33

Mono laser printer

0.63

Networks

0.74

Professional printer/MFD

0.8

Mono laser MFD

0.93

Color laser printer

1.08

Colour laser MFD

1.15

Monitors

1.33

Workstation

1.34

Standard notebooks

1.77

Satellite & terrestrial TV

1.8

Standard desktops

2.18

Storage

4.35

Home/office network equipment

4.86

Televisions

6.44

Fixed Area Network

17.7

Signage Display

20.01

Servers

22.05

Table 2. Energy usage of various ICT products [12]32

globalelectronicscouncil.org