Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Table of contents

1.Introduction: Political and legal context

2.Problem definition

2.1.What is the problem and why is it a problem?

2.2.What are the problem drivers?

2.2.1.
   Market drivers
   

2.3.Who is affected?

2.4.How will the problem evolve?

3.Why should the EU act?

3.1.Legal basis

3.2.Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action

3.3.Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action

4.Objectives: What is to be achieved?

4.1.General objectives

4.2.Specific objectives

5.What are the available policy options?

5.1.What is the baseline from which options are assessed (Option 1)?

5.2.Option 2: Voluntary Agreement/ Eco Rating scheme

5.3.Option 3: Ecodesign requirements

5.3.1.
   Option 3.1: Ecodesign requirements for smartphones and tablets
   

5.3.2.
   Option 3.2a: Ecodesign requirements regulating also mobile phones other than smartphones and cordless phones; reparability, durability and energy efficiency requirements only
   

5.3.3.
   Option 3.2b: Ecodesign requirements regulating also mobile phones other than smartphones and cordless phones; including information requirements on upstream greenhouse gas emissions, material content and recyclability
   

5.3.4.
   Option 3.3: Ecodesign requirements together with a scoring index on reparability
   

5.4.Option 4: Energy Label

5.5.Option 5: Ecodesign + Energy Label

5.5.1.
   Option 5.1: Ecodesign plus Energy Label
   

5.5.2.
   Option 5.2: Ecodesign requirements together with a scoring index on reparability plus Energy Label
   

6.What are the impacts of the policy options?

6.1.ECONOMIC IMPACTS

6.1.1.
   Direct economic impact for businesses
   

6.1.2.
   Compliance Cost
   

6.1.3.
   Stranded Investments
   

6.1.4.
   Administrative burden
   

6.1.5.
   Impacts on SMEs
   

6.1.6.
   Competitiveness, trade and investment flows
   

6.1.7.
   Indirect economic impacts for businesses
   

6.1.8.
   Economic impact for citizens
   

6.1.9.
   Impact on third countries
   

6.2.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

6.2.1.
   Energy savings
   

6.2.2.
   GHG emissions and acidification
   

6.2.3.
   Circular economy perspective: material consumption
   

6.2.4.
   External societal costs
   

6.3.SOCIAL IMPACTS

6.3.1.
   Employment
   

6.3.2.
   Affordability (consumer expenditure)
   

6.3.3.
   Health, safety and functionality aspects
   

7.How do the options compare?

7.1.Summary of impacts

8.Preferred option

9.SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

10.How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated?

Annex 1: Procedural information

1.Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references

2.Organisation and timing

3.Consultation of the RSB

4.Evidence, sources and quality

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation

Annex 3: Who is affected and how

1.Practical implications of the initiative

2.Summary of costs and benefits

  

Glossary

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Term or acronym | Meaning or definition |
| 3TG | tin, tungsten, tantalum, gold; metals stemming potentially from conflict minerals |
| 5G | 5th generation mobile communication |
| AI | Artificial Intelligence |
| Bitkom | German association representing the digital economy |
| CEAP | Circular Economy Action Plan |
| CEI | Circular Electronics Initiative |
| CO2 eq. | Carbon dioxide-equivalents in terms of greenhouse gas effects |
| EEE | Electrical and Electronic Equipment |
| EPR | Extended Producer Responsibility |
| EPREL | European Product Database for Energy Labelling |
| GHG | Greenhouse Gases |
| IC | Integrated Circuit |
| ICT | Information and Communication Technology |
| IP | International Protection / Ingress Protection,  Intellectual Property |
| IT | Information Technology |
| kWh/a | kilowatt hours per year |
| LCA | Life Cycle Assessment |
| MIL-STD | US military standard |
| mt | Million tons |
| NACE | Nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la Communauté européenne |
| OEM | Original Equipment Manufacturers(s) |
| OS | Operating System |
| PC | Personal Computer |
| PCB | Printed Circuit Board |
| PJ | Petajoule |
| SME | Small and Medium-sized Enterprises |
| SO2 eq. | Sulphur dioxide emissions equivalents, contributing to the environmental impact acidification |
| t | Tons |
| TWh | Terawatt hours |
| WEEE | Waste Electrical and Electronics Equipment |

  

1.Introduction: Political and legal context

The European Green Deal is Europe’s new growth strategy and aims to “transform the EU into a fair and prosperous society, with a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy where there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 and where economic growth is decoupled from resource use” (European Commission 2019b). Digital technologies will be a critical enabler for this transition, since new technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), 5G, cloud and edge computing and the internet of things (IoT) can accelerate and maximise the impact of policies to deal with climate change and protect the environment. At the same time, the Green Deal also highlights the need to consider measures to improve the energy efficiency and circular economy performance of the information and communications technology (ICT) sector itself, from broadband networks to data and ICT devices.

The second Circular Economy Action Plan
[1](#footnote2)
 (CEAP 2020) was published by the Commission in March 2020. It gives a high priority to ICT and electrical and electronic equipment in particular within the area “key product value chains”, but also when it comes to empowering consumers and public buyers (European Commission 2020a). The CEAP 2020 announced the sustainable products policy framework that will provide high-quality, functional and safe products, which are efficient and affordable, last longer and are designed for reuse, repair, and high-quality recycling. To address the specific challenges in the electronics and ICT sector, the Circular Electronics Initiative (CEI) has the objective to promote longer product lifetimes
[2](#footnote3)
. It also foresees regulatory measures on chargers for mobile phones and similar devices. Another action of the CEI is related to improving the collection and treatment of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), e.g. by exploring options to incentivise the take-back and return of small electronics such as old mobile phones, tablets and chargers. On the demand side, the CEAP 2020 envisages to empower consumers and public buyers through several measures, such as the revision of the EU consumer law, strengthening consumer protection against green washing and premature obsolescence, setting minimum requirements for sustainability labels/logos and for information tools (European Commission 2020a). In addition, the future legislative initiative for a right to repair will promote a more sustainable and longer use of goods, e.g. through providing incentives for consumers to repair products.

Another measure announced in the Green Deal is a legislative proposal on batteries that the Commission published in December 2020. It includes a variety of proposed measures, including collection and recycling targets and sustainability requirements. For sustainability requirements such as carbon footprint and recycled content it focusses on large batteries (mainly electric vehicle batteries and industrial batteries). For sustainability requirements on performance and durability it focusses on large batteries and on (non-rechargable) portable batteries of general use (‘AA’, ‘AAA’ etc. formats), but it does not address performance and durability of other categories of batteries such as those for mobile phones and tablets (European Commission 2020b). Mobile phones and tablets also contain conflict minerals (tantalum, tungsten, tin and gold) which are regulated under the Conflict Minerals Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/821).

Not only the EU, but also some Member States are advancing on circular economy policies and legislation. As an example, France adopted a new circular economy and anti-waste law in 2020 with numerous measures, among others introducing a reparability index
[3](#footnote4)
 (see Annex 5).

One goal of the Commission announced in the CEAP 2020 is to work on regulatory measures for electronics and ICT (incl. mobile phones, tablets and laptops) under the Ecodesign Directive to ensure that devices are designed for energy efficiency and durability, reparability, upgradability, maintenance, reuse and recycling. Laptops are in scope to the already existing Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013 on computers, and are also currently under review.
[4](#footnote5)
 The Commission has therefore announced two specific and complementary initiatives 'Designing mobile phones and tablets to be sustainable – ecodesign'65 and ‘Energy labelling of mobile phones and tablets – informing consumers about environmental impact’71. An Ecodesign preparatory study on mobile phones, smartphones and tablets was launched by the Commission in 2020, resulting in a final report published in March 2021 (European Commission 2021). The information and data evidence gathered within this study show a potential, in particular for Ecodesign requirements on material efficiency aspects, but also for energy labelling (Annex 7 presents an overview on the functioning of the Ecodesign Directive and the Energy Labelling Regulation). The overall objective of this Impact Assessment is to build on the results of the preparatory study and other studies and to provide environmental and techno-economic analysis and scientific support for the policy-making process regarding possible regulatory measures on mobile phones and tablets, as referred to in the abovementioned initiatives65, 71.

At the time of the drafting of the current impact assessment (Q3 2021), a number of legislative and non-legislative initiatives was under development/already developed by the European Commission in fields related to product policy, circular economy and consumer rights, such as the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, the Circular Electronics Initiative and the Common charging solution initiative. Annex 6 presents and describes in detail the articulation of the two initiatives on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets with the other ones under preparation or recently proposed by the Commission. 

2.Problem definition

2.1.What is the problem and why is it a problem?

In 2020, around 150 million mobile phones and 23.90 million tablets were sold in the EU. The overall stock on the EU market is estimated to be around 450 million for mobile phones and around 150 million for tablets (European Commission 2021). According to Eurostat, there were on average 1.2 mobile subscriptions per person in the EU in 2018 (Eurostat 2020). The functionality and popularity of smartphones and tablets has been increasing over time, which resulted in increased energy demand and materials needed to manufacture them (see Annex III for an overview of the manufacturing industry).

Energy use of mobile phones, cordless phones and tablets

The total EU primary energy consumption of the installed base of mobile phones and tablets in 2020 over their lifecycle (including production, use and disposal) was 39.5 TWh (ca. 0.25% of total EU27 primary energy consumption
[5](#footnote6)
), thereof 28.5 TWh (72%) for smartphones, 1.6 TWh (4%) for mobile phones other than smartphones, 1.8 TWh (5%) for cordless phones and 7.6 TWh (19%) for tablets (European Commission 2021).

Contrary to many other energy-related products, short-living ICT products such as mobile phones and tablets have a rather high energy use in upstream production processes compared with the actual product use. The supply and value chain of smartphones and tablets is usually long, complex and undergoes constant changes. Main components such as displays, processors, batteries, flash memory, cameras, radio interfaces (baseband chip), computer network interfaces, and audio components stem from different parts of the world including Asia, North America and to a small extent Europe. Printed circuit boards (PCB) of smartphones and tablets are typically produced in Asia. However, there are also some relevant EU based companies in this segment. The final production of the devices is predominantly located in East Asia, mainly in China (European Commission 2021). For this reason, a significant share of the primary energy consumption is related to the production outside of the EU (46%) and only 1% to the production within the EU.

Of the 39.5 TWh total primary energy consumption of products on the EU market the share attributed to electricity consumption is 26.6 TWh (67%), including 11.4 TWh for production outside the EU, 0.2 TWh for production inside the EU and 15 TWh for use inside the EU. Total greenhouse gas emissions in 2021 for mobile phones are 7.0 mt CO2 eq., for cordless phones 0.4 mt CO2 eq., and for tablets 1.5 mt CO2 eq., including the life cycle phase’s production, distribution and use. Thereof, 4.9 mt CO2 eq. are attributed to production (mainly outside the EU), 1.7 mt CO2 eq. to distribution, and 2.2 mt CO2 eq. to use within the EU. The total GHG emissions of the analysed products correspond roughly to the total GHG emissions of Cyprus in 2019
[6](#footnote7)
. Total resource contents in products sold on the EU market in 2021 are estimated to amount to 5.3 t Tantalum (ca. 1.3% of EU annual average consumption
[7](#footnote8)
), 2.0 t Indium (ca. 3.1% of EU apparent consumption7), 36 t Rare Earth Elements (ca. 0.7% of EU consumption7), 1,200 t Cobalt (ca. 6.8% of EU apparent consumption7), among others (European Commission 2021).

With market saturation in recent years, the upwards trend of total energy use of mobile phones, cordless phones and tablets came to a hold in the EU (Figure 1) and stays relatively flat. There is little indication that this trend might be reversed in the future without policy intervention (European Commission 2021).

Figure 1: Total energy consumption of mobile phones, cordless phones, and tablets on the EU market, 2010-2021
[8](#footnote9)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_52002.jpg)

Resource intensive production

On average, more than 60 different elements are used for the production of smartphones (Bookhagen et al. 2020). Main materials are metals, glass and ceramics and plastics. Dominant metals are aluminium, copper and iron/steel alloys, but relatively small quantities of other raw materials that are classified as critical by the European Commission can also be found in smartphones and tablets. Critical raw materials combine raw materials that are of high importance to the EU economy and of high risk associated with their supply. Main examples include cobalt, lithium and rare earth elements (e.g. neodymium, dysprosium, terbium, gadolinium, etc.) as well as tantalum and tungsten (Cordella et al. 2020). The latter two, next to tin and gold, are furthermore classified as conflict minerals (so called 3TG). On 1 January 2021, the Conflict Minerals Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/821) came into force across the EU ensuring the responsible sourcing of minerals among EU importers. A recent study (European Commission, 2022) confirmed that for the mobile telephone industry rare earths, used to make permanent magnets that are essential for components like microphones and speakers, are part of an area of strategic dependency for the EU (as the EU’s production capacity covers only a limited share of EU demand and use).

The production of mobile phones and tablets is very resource intensive and Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) show that the highest impact for all environmental impact categories stems from the extraction of materials and the manufacturing processes (Proske et al. 2020b; Proske et al. 2016; European Commission 2021), see e.g. Figure 29. In manufacturing, the highest impacts on the global warming potential stem from integrated circuits (ICs) and PCB. Additional environmental impacts stem from the use of (critical) raw materials in main electronic components (Proske et al. 2020b; Proske et al. 2016). ICs have a high environmental impact coming from the energy-intensive processing of silicon wafers. The environmental impacts of precious metals (e.g. gold) are mainly related to upstream extraction and purification. Another substantial contribution comes from the PCBs, since the manufacturing of the substrate is a very energy-intensive process, which has a higher environmental impact than the used materials.

While the main environmental impacts occur in different parts of the world and mainly in Asia, fighting climate change (e.g. reducing GHG emissions), acidification, toxic and ecotoxic pollutants are global concerns and strategic policy goals for the Commission, e.g. the zero-pollution ambition which is a key commitment of the Green Deal
[9](#footnote10)
. The core principles of a Circular Economy are to design out waste and pollution, keep products and materials in use and to regenerate natural systems (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2013). Today, there are several problems hindering mobile phones and tablets to reach these core principles.

1.Current product design does not sufficiently incorporate Circular Economy requirements.

In its 2021 review of EU actions and existing challenges on electronic waste, the European Court of Auditors highlights that ecodesign requirements do not yet encompass mobile phones (European Court of Auditors 2021). However, such requirements are needed to promote energy and material efficiency (durability, reparability, upgradability, maintenance, reuse, and recycling). The current design of most mobile phones and tablets does not sufficiently incorporate these aspects.

According to a Eurobarometer survey (European Commission 2020c), the main reason for users to purchase a new digital device was that the old device broke (37%). The most common technical lifetime limiting factors for smartphones and tablets are durability aspects linked to accidental incidents, such as display cracks after a drop on a hard surface, immersion of water and decreasing battery charge capacity over time (European Commission 2021).

Also, only few broken devices are currently repaired and from a design perspective there are numerous barriers to better technical reparability on the product and the support level (see Problem Drivers). A survey among German users revealed that 59% purchase directly a new smartphone when the old one is broken and only 11% try to repair it (OHA - Obsoleszenz als Herausforderung für Nachhaltigkeit 2019). Another survey in Austria unveiled that of all consumers with a defective phone, only 34% tried to repair it. From that share, 43% were broken beyond repair, 31% were reparable and 26% did not know how to repair it (Wieser and Tröger 2018). According to these figures, only around 10% of all defective phones were actually repaired. On the other hand, 77% of the respondents in another Eurobarometer survey indicated that they would prefer to have their products rather repaired instead of buying new ones, but eventually replace or discard them (European Commission 2014b).

Other important reasons for users to purchase a new digital device are that the performance of the old device had significantly deteriorated (30%) and that certain applications or software stopped working on the old device (19%) (European Commission 2020c). Software is part of product design and software-related support is considered crucial for the longevity of mobile phones and tablets, since the operating system (OS) has to be maintained through updates to fix bugs and to ensure data security. Updates and upgrades are also crucial for reuse. Currently, there are large differences in the market regarding the provided OS support, ranging from below one year to above five years (European Commission 2021). Insufficient software support can lead to premature product replacement, since the product is no longer functioning as required (e.g. lower performance). OS also evolve over time in terms of functionality features, and it is an important economic decision criterion for third party application developers which OS versions are supported and for how long. The partial lack of OS updates leads to challenges for software developers of third party applications, in particular to maintain various software versions and to support various OS generations in parallel, leading to incompatibilities in case an application developer decides to terminate the support for any current or historic OS version. In that sense, supporting mobile phones and tablets with most recent OS updates over an extended period of time is essential for overall functionality of the device and has a significant impact on final users, but also on application developers.

Within the public consultation (see Annex 2) carried out in relation to the two initiatives
[10](#footnote11)
 under analysis in this impact assessment, some questions were specifically related to the reasons for which the respondent’s previous smartphone is no longer in use. The need for fast/better performing /new devices, as well as the lack of availability of software and firmware updates, and the high repair prices, were among the most common replies
[11](#footnote12)
.

2.It is too difficult for users to choose sustainable products at the point of sales.

There are strong indications that consumers are increasingly interested in considering sustainability criteria when purchasing new products such as smartphones and tablets. However, this information is currently not available at the point of sales and consumers cannot direct their choices towards more sustainable options.

A study conducted for DG JUST showed that consumers were generally willing to consider the durability and reparability of products when purchasing new products. Survey respondents indicated that they frequently searched for such information (62% for durability, 55% for reparability). However, they often felt that this information was difficult to find and would like to be better informed about these product characteristics. The same study delivered evidence that purchasing decisions might be strongly driven towards more circular economy friendly products when information on durability and reparability is provided in concise and comparable ways (European Commission 2018).

In a recent survey conducted by Bitkom, 72% of the participants stated that sustainability will be a decisive purchase criterion for their next smartphone (Bitkom e.V. 2020a). In the same survey, 86% of the participants indicated that they would consider a more robust display when purchasing their next smartphone and 82% stated that they will pay particular attention to the battery lifetime. Other important criteria for the participants were the production quality (85%), storage capacity (73%) and water ingress protection (66%). Another online survey among German consumers in 2017 (n=1813) came to similar results, showing that a long-lasting battery played a major role for 91% of the participants, while robust and durable design was an important choice criterion for 89%. Durability criteria found higher support in this survey than selected reparability criteria, such as the design feature that the device should be easy to repair (57%) and that the battery should be user-replaceable (52%) (Jaeger-Erben and Hipp 2018). Despite all these identified consumer preferences, the market situation still looks different, and it can be assumed that partly other criteria prevail when it comes to actual purchase decisions and as a matter of fact, transparency and comparability regarding several of the mentioned preferences is not given yet.

3.Most products are replaced prematurely by their users.

Surveys show that users usually expect their mobile phone to last around 5.2 years (Wieser et al. 2015). However, today’s replacement cycles and actual use lifetimes are much shorter (see below). Short lifetimes increase the environmentally harmful demand for energy, critical raw materials, and potentially conflict minerals. For this reason, extending the active use lifetime can reduce the environmental impact. This can either be done by prolonging the replacement cycles (first use) and/or the potential further uses. A replacement cycle refers to the time when a user upgrades to a new model, ending the first use of the old device. It should not be interpreted as the end-of-life of the device, since mobile phones and tablets could be reused, either by giving them to relatives or friends, or by selling them to a re-commerce platform or through a second-hand channel. The first active use lifetime further depends on the durability of the device as well as its reparability and consumers’ willingness to repair goods instead of replacing them once they break. The active use lifetime includes these potential further uses and comes to an end when the device is not further used and kept in hibernation (permanently switched off) or disposed of. In 2017, the average replacement cycle among smartphone users in Germany was around 21 months (1.75 years) – comparable to global replacement cycles (Lu 2017). Another analysis of five countries tracked by Kantar Worldpanel (France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Spain) showed that the replacement cycle of a smartphone was extended by nearly three months, from 23.4 to 26.2 months (2.18 years) between 2016 and 2018 (Ng 2019).

When it comes to the active use lifetime, a survey in Portugal came to the conclusion, that the average lifetime is 2.7 years for smartphones and 3 years for tablets (Martinho et al. 2017). Survey results from Belgium and France indicate a use lifetime of smartphones of 4.3 years and 3 years respectively (FNAC DARTY et al. 2019). The ICT Impact Study for DG ENER assumed an active use lifetime of 3 years for tablets/slates (Kemna et al. 2020), but the analysis conducted in the Ecodesign preparatory study found that this figure is underestimated. It concluded that smartphones are kept in active use for around 3 years, while tablets are kept in active use for around 5 years (European Commission 2021).

Within the public consultation (see Annex 2) carried out in relation to the two initiatives10 under analysis in this impact assessment, a question was posed, to understand for how long did respondents use their last device. Nearly 45% of respondents used it for less than 3 years, whereas nearly 39% used it between 3 and 5 years.

This impact assessment report assumes a ‘traditional’ ownership model (the user buys and owns the device). Ownership models such as free/subsidised phones for subscriptions with mobile phone operators are not infrequent. However, based on the supporting information collected for this impact assessment (an analysis on the different ownership models for mobile phones, and their effect on the user behaviour, is presented under Annex 5), having free/subsidised phones implies behavioural changes (e.g. buying a new device because it was being offered under the contract with the network operator, and not because the old one is broken) only for a very small percentage of users (5%).

4.At the end of their useful life, products are in most cases not returned back into the circular economy.

Recent national studies show that many households do not discard old smartphones or tablets, but rather keep them at home in hibernation. A study conducted in France in 2019 concluded that 54-113 million old devices are hibernating in French households, of which more than two-thirds are still functioning (Sofies and Bio Innovation Service 2019). A recent survey conducted by Bitkom Research came to a similar conclusion, estimating that there are around 200 million mobile phones in hibernation in Germany, compared to 124 million in 2018 (Bitkom e.V. 2020b). At the European level, estimated stock of hibernating mobile phones is almost 700 million in the EU (European Economic and Social Committee 2019). Hence, there is a significant and steadily increasing untapped potential for collecting these devices, recovering valuable materials and disposing of hazardous substances in a safe way. This would also contribute to collection, recovery and recycling targets set out in the Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE).

Within the public consultation (for more details see Annex 2), a question was posed concerning the end-of-life of products (what did you do with your last once you were no longer using it?). The choice of ‘hibernation’ was the most stated one, with more than 45% of replies. To those choosing this reply, the reasons for this behaviour were asked. Nearly half of respondents did not answer, whereas 30% replied that ‘I want to keep it as a backup/ an emergency spare, in case my new device does not work’, 14% replied that ‘I have no easy way to dispose of it properly or I do not know how to dispose of it properly’ and 11% replied that they might need the device to retrieve old data. 8% of the respondents gave as a motivation the fear of security/privacy breaches when throwing away the device.

The WEEE Directive requires separate collection and proper treatment of WEEE (European Parliament and the European Council 2012): According to Article 7 and from 2019 on, the minimum annual collection rate shall be either 65 % of the average weight of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) placed on the market in the three preceding years in the Member State concerned, or alternatively 85 % of WEEE generated on the territory of the Member State. On the EU level in 2017 the collection rate of IT and telecommunications equipment (category 3 during the transitional period until 14 August 2018) was only 61%, which shows a significant improvement potential for this category
[12](#footnote13)
.

Since 15 August 2018 and according to Annex III of the WEEE Directive, mobile phones and tablets fall in category 6 related to small IT and telecommunication equipment (no external dimension more than 50 cm). The minimum recovery target for this category is 75% and 55% for preparation for re-use and recycling. In its recent review on EU actions and existing challenges on electronic waste, the European Court of Auditors came to the conclusion that even if the EU would achieve the minimum collection rate of 65 % for each of the WEEE categories, a large part of WEEE would still neither be recycled nor prepared for reuse. According to a hypothetical scenario, the EU would recover 48.75 % and recycle 35.75 % of its mobile phones (European Court of Auditors 2021), therefore missing the targets.

2.2.What are the problem drivers?

2.2.1.Market drivers

Negative externalities from production and consumption are not internalised

Smartphones and tablets belong to technologies that evolve very quickly. All major brands place new devices with higher performance, better functionality and more capacity on the market at least once every year (Cecere et al. 2015). As shown in the introductory part of the problem definition, this trend resulted in increased energy and material demand leading to considerable environmental impacts imposed on third parties at various locations around the globe that are currently not fully internalised.

Missing incentives for circular business models and sustainable production and consumption

Circular business models are built on the concept of value retention throughout a product’s lifetime (EEA 2021). However, the dominant business models of the main manufacturers are currently still linear (take-make-dispose) and there are no clear incentives for change towards a more sustainable product design that would support longer lifetimes and an effective collection and recycling scheme at the end of a product’s life.

Today, there is still a significant untapped potential to extend the active use lifetime of mobile phones and tablets (European Commission 2021; EEB 2019; EEA 2020). The reasons behind replacing these devices prematurely can be of behavioural and technical nature. On the technical side, replacements usually occur as a result of limiting events after which primary or secondary functions can no longer be delivered. Limiting events can be related to overload failures (e.g. broken/damaged screen, water/dust damages, etc.), wear-out failures (e.g. damaged connectors, low battery life, etc.) or reductions in performance or capacity that do not allow the product to function as required. These issues can be linked to both hardware and software (e.g. limited updates/upgrades) aspects (Cordella et al. 2021; European Commission 2021).

From a design perspective, there are basically two main strategies on the hardware side to increase the lifetime of smartphones and tablets. First, a better reliability of parts and components, which reduces the probability of failures. Second, a better reparability of the devices enabling to bring devices back to a functional state once a failure has occurred (Cordella et al. 2021; European Commission 2021).

A better reliability (e.g., higher resistance to accidental drops, shocks, scratches, degradation, water and dust resistance, etc.) could lead to less defects in the first place, which would contribute to longer lifetimes. For remaining defects, better technical reparability could lead to more repairs
[13](#footnote14)
 being undertaken instead of purchasing new devices, which is often the default option today (OHA - Obsoleszenz als Herausforderung für Nachhaltigkeit 2019). The ability to repair a product depends on different product-related and support-related criteria. Product-related criteria can be the disassembly depth, fasteners and connectors used, required tools and working environment and necessary skills. Support-related criteria are, among others, diagnostic support and interfaces, the availability of spare parts, types and availability of (repair) information and return models for repair (EN 45554:2020). Each of these criteria is decisive for carrying out a repair operation from a technical point of view and many producers restrict repair by consumers and by independent repair companies through the following measures (Federal Trade Commission 2021; Cordella et al. 2020; European Commission 2021):

•Product design that does not prioritise repair;

•Restriction of spare parts and repair information to manufacturers’ repair networks;

•Impeding the use of non-OEM spare parts and independent repair;

•Software locks and firmware updates;

•Intellectual property rights
[14](#footnote15)
 (e.g. copyrights, patents, trade secrets, etc.).

In the past years, design changes could be observed towards more integrated and sealed devices that are less easy to disassemble, require expert skills and the use of specific or proprietary tools within a workshop environment (Berwald et al. 2020).

The availability, accessibility, and convenience of the repair infrastructure are other drivers that influence consumers’ decision to repair their products (Houston and Jackson 2016). Currently, the repair offer for mobile phones and tablets is often restricted to services provided directly by the manufacturer or by authorised repair shops that have an exclusive access to support-related criteria (training, diagnostic tools and software, OEM spare parts, repair information, etc.). As a consequence, self-repair is most of the time not possible and independent repair companies are often excluded from the market or have limited access to support-related criteria (Cordella et al. 2020). This can be seen as a case of split incentives where socially desirable actions (repair) are not undertaken by consumers, because market actors have different objectives that are not aligned. This is supported by a recent report by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that analysed repair restrictions. The report concluded that it “is clear that repair restrictions have (…) steered consumers into manufacturers’ repair networks or to replace products before the end of their useful lives. Based on a review of comments submitted and materials presented during the Workshop, there is scant evidence to support manufacturers’ justifications for repair restrictions” (Federal Trade Commission 2021). Not only consumers, but also the entire repair as well as the refurbishment business would benefit substantially from better reparability. These are predominantly SMEs situated within the EU (see Annex 5).

Up-to-date software is another important prerequisite for a long lifetime of the devices. Smartphones and tablets run on OS and with firmware. An OS allows the device to run applications and programs. Firmware is software that serves specific purposes related to hardware parts. For a certain period after releasing a new model on the market, manufacturers provide software updates on a regular basis to fix problems and security issues. Updates as well as a lack of updates can bring a device to a limiting state, making it obsolete. Discontinuing security updates can lead to less secure devices and to potential conditions of software obsolescence (e.g. risk of data leaks). Today, the availability of updates depends strongly on the brand and the operating system. While Apple has created its own ecosystem between software and hardware, most of the other manufacturers depend on Google for the operating system (Android). This dependency between hardware and software suppliers can have potential impacts, e.g. when it comes to the availability of (security) updates for a certain amount of time. Apple, through its integrated ecosystem with iOS, provides >5 years of security updates, as from the launch of a product. Other brands that use third-party OS (e.g. Android) offer significantly less time of update support (European Commission 2021). Furthermore, software also plays a crucial role for repair, since the access to diagnostic software and the ability to reset devices is required to perform many repair operations. Repair information and data may also be protected as trade secrets, where the legal requirements apply (Directive 943/2016). Some companies integrate “software locks” that make it impossible to repair a device outside of the manufacturer’s authorized service networks, or the use of firmware updates that limit third-party repairs. Manufacturers of devices with embedded software protect their code through intellectual property (e.g. copyright, patents, trade secrets) and may argue that allowing consumers and independent repairers to use that software might lead to expropriation by disclosure of trade secrets and/or royalty-free use of intellectual property. However, in its recent analysis the US Federal Trade Commission concluded that “while it is clear that manufacturers’ assertion of intellectual property rights can impede repairs by individuals and independent repair shops, in many instances intellectual property rights do not appear to present an insurmountable obstacle to repair” (Federal Trade Commission 2021).

Another important driver influencing the duration of the active use of a product is consumers’ willingness to repair goods instead of replacing them. Users are often prevented from repairing their devices due to the high cost of repair compared to the remaining (perceived) value of the product or the price of a new product (Deloitte 2016). A survey conducted in Germany in 2018 showed that only 26% of the respondents were willing to pay more than 30% of the price of a new smartphone for repairing a one year old broken device (IZT 2018). A different online survey among students showed that the mean willingness-to-pay for a mobile phone repair was around 27% of the price of a new device. The same study also found that the users’ willingness-to-pay for repair services declines on average at an annual rate of 6.7% during the use phase of their mobile phone (Sabbaghi and Behdad 2018). An analysis of display and battery replacement costs of 52 smartphones and 15 tablets found that the replacement of a display assembly costs on average 42% of the average purchase price of a new smartphone and 37% of the average purchase price of a new tablet. Battery replacement is usually less expensive and accounts for around 14% of the average purchase price of a new smartphone and 21% of the average purchase price of a new tablet (European Commission 2021). However, this is the minimum price that is charged in case the device does not have any other damages (e.g. cracked screen) that could complicate the replacement of the battery. If the device shows further damages (which is more likely after several years of use), more parts have to be replaced, which makes the repair more expensive. To summarise, currently the high repair costs incentivise users to buy new phones instead of repairing the existing ones.

If the devices find their way to recyclers at the end of their useful life, the usual process is an extraction of the battery (required by the WEEE Directive) and recycling of all remaining parts in a smelter. Integrated batteries are extracted by brute force, breaking the device open and ripping off the battery. The smelters accept all the remainder of the phone or tablet as a high-value fraction. This is due to the fact that precious metals are scattered all over the devices and can be found also in the display, flex printed circuit boards, connectors, etc. For this reason the recycling rate of properly recycled mobile phones and tablets is rather low in terms of a mass-based recycling rate as only some materials are recovered for economic reasons (~15%, see Annex 5). This rate is much lower than foreseen by the WEEE Directive (see 2.1). The recycled materials constitute the majority of the raw material value of a mobile phone or tablet, which is estimated at around 1.11 EUR per phone (Bookhagen et al. 2020). A better reparability usually also enhances recyclability, although the processes are different (non-destructive vs. destructive).

Limited information on sustainability criteria and environmental impacts

To guide effective choice, consumers would need to be fully informed about devices they purchase, including their anticipated lifetimes and environmental impacts. Today, EU consumers are usually not provided with information about a product’s lifetime, environmental footprint or any other sustainability criteria such as reliability (e.g. resistance to shocks, falls, scratches, etc.) or reparability at the point of sale (except in France, where a reparability index was introduced in January 2021). If such kind of information were available, consumers could be guided to choose a more environmentally friendly alternative. Some companies provide information on the (dust/water) ingress protection (IP) level of their high performing devices to differentiate themselves from rivals. Others go a step further and claim compliance with military standards, such as the MIL-STD-810 on reliability, i.e. lifetime aspects. However, this US standard allows companies to tailor test methods to fit specific applications, and to select only some of the tests to claim MIL-STD-810 conformity. This flexibility of the standard can make the claim misleading (European Commission 2021).

Battery endurance per full charge is an important performance criterion for users and relevant for purchasing decisions. However, there is no consistent way of measuring the time a device can fulfil a given functionality until a fully charged battery is drained. This is further complicated by the fact that mobile phones and tablets are used for a multitude of functions. Although enhanced battery endurance in cycles is already an important design target and sales argument, better transparency and comparability of related performance has the potential to change the market further towards energy efficient devices. Enhanced battery endurance per cycle also increases overall battery lifetime as the battery needs to be charged less frequently and every charging cycle contributes to battery ageing.

In May 2021, five of Europe’s leading mobile operators launched an Eco Rating scheme, which scores the environmental performance of mobile phones based on an assessment of both life cycle and circular economy indicators
[15](#footnote16)
. The Eco Rating does not cover tablets. It provides guidance in five key areas: durability, reparability, recyclability, climate efficiency and resource efficiency, but does not include any minimum requirements defined as threshold for market entry (a more detailed description of the Eco Rating scheme is given in Annex 9). As of early 2022 the Eco Rating scheme lacks transparent implementation and is not yet prominently depicted on MNOs’ sales channels, nor does it cover the full offered product portfolio of the MNOs
[16](#footnote17)
. 

2.2.2.Behavioural drivers

Behavioural biases are beliefs or behaviours that can influence the decision-making process and lead to sub-optimal results. While behavioural drivers as such cannot be addressed directly through ecodesign measures, the symptoms can be addressed through regulation.

Social norms and fast value depreciation of fast-moving and fashionable products

Mobile phones and tablets are fashion symbols, which means that not only technical, but also behavioural reasons can be significant drivers for replacement (Cox et al. 2013). Results from a survey in Austria have shown that almost 70% of smartphones are replaced in functioning conditions (Wieser and Tröger 2018). New technological developments and fashion trends can shorten the replacement cycle of devices and the desire to have an up-to-date product is one of the main drivers for replacement for these product groups (Smedley 2016). Fast-moving products also lose their perceived value quickly since they are generally compared to the latest products available on the market. Recent research shows that smartphones lose around 40-50% of their value after the first 12 months, depending on the brand (Makov et al. 2019).

Smartphones and to a lesser extent also tablets can act as status symbols and comparison with peers, social pressure as well as advertisement can lead to behaviour that favours the purchase of new devices (European Commission 2018). Furthermore, demographic factors, such as age, gender, income, geographic location, and education can play a role. As an example, younger users purchase in general cheaper products and use them for a shorter period of time than elderly consumers (Hennies and Stamminger 2016). Early technology adopters are also more sensitive to trends than conservative consumers and are more likely to replace their devices when new versions enter the market.

Habits and inertia

Habits can hamper innovation and change. If repair was never practiced in a consumer's surrounding, this practice might be unfamiliar. A significant number of mobile phones and tablets are kept in hibernation after their active use lifetime. The functioning part of the devices is usually kept as a back-up solution for occasional needs (temporary solution, for relatives/friends, etc.). The non-functioning part is essentially kept for data safety reasons (data loss/theft) or because of convenience and inertia, since an easy access to the recycling sector is not available or since people forget about the old device due to the small size. According to the special Eurobarometer survey (European Commission 2020c), more than 80% said they would be willing to recycle their old device if there was a nearby recycling point (44%) or if they were sure that there would be no potential data security and privacy risks (41%).

2.2.3.Regulatory drivers

Material efficiency aspects are currently not sufficiently covered by existing regulation (but the situation is evolving)

Existing EU regulations do not sufficiently cover material efficiency aspects, which will be necessary to move towards a circular economy. To change this, the Commission has launched numerous initiatives that are running in parallel at the EU level on the supply and on the demand side. Annex 6 presents and describes the articulation of the two initiatives on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets with the other ones under preparation, among which:

·Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation
[17](#footnote18)
 

·Empowering consumers for the green transition
[18](#footnote19)

·Circular Electronics Initiative

·Promoting sustainability in consumer after-sales and a new consumer right to repair – Right to Repair Initiative

·Common charging solution initiative.

These horizontal initiatives have been taken into account when analysing the policy options.

Varying product legislation in Member States

As highlighted in section 1, some Member States have already started to develop policies targeting the environmental performance of mobile phones, which is a regulatory driver for the need to establish a level playing field at the EU level. More details on specific measures are provided in Annex 5. As mobile phones and tablets are sold on international markets, separate requirements in different Member States could put additional burden on the manufacturers and lead to the fragmentation of the single market.

2.3.Who is affected?

The main stakeholders affected by the problem are manufacturers, retailers, software developers, consumers, repairers, refurbishers (second-hand market) and recyclers.

Most mobile phone and tablet manufacturers are large non-EU companies with production sites mainly in Asia (see Annex 3). They are currently not incentivised to design durable and repairable products or move towards more sustainable business models since their main revenues stem from selling new devices. Moreover, these companies are not required to internalise negative externalities generated throughout the production and distribution process.

Retailers, both online and stationary stores, are in particular affected when sales numbers are concerned. A new opportunity for retailers could be to move into the second-hand market and also to connect with the repair business. Furthermore, increased demand for spare parts could affect specialised retailers.

Smartphones and tablets run on OS, with firmware and applications that require regular updates. Therefore, updates are as important as the physical elements to ensure a longer life of the device and to reduce replacement rates. The availability of updates usually depends on the brand and the OS. Therefore, requirements will particularly affect those suppliers that offer short update and upgrade availabilities.

Consumers lack the necessary information to make sustainable choices at the point of sales. Furthermore, they replace their products prematurely, although they would prefer to have their products repaired, which is also a more cost-effective solution under the right circumstances.

Repairers and refurbishers are mainly EU-based SMEs. They often do not have sufficient access to product-related and support-related elements required for reparability, such as access to tools, spare parts or information. These limitations impact their businesses and the development of a functioning second-hand market that could also benefit consumers.

WEEE recyclers are also affected since they do not receive the products currently stocked by households as an input stream. Most of the European WEEE recyclers are small and medium-sized companies.

Figure 2: Visualisation of links between problems, drivers and consequences (Problem Tree)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_52003.jpg)

2.4.How will the problem evolve?

Since the market is relatively saturated, the number of mobile phones in active use per person will not increase significantly in the future. The same holds true for tablets, where the stock is even forecasted to drop to around 115 million in 2030 (European Commission 2021). The environmental footprint of manufacturing mobile phones and tablets is likely to increase further as a consequence of better performance: 5G components are adding significantly to the carbon footprint of production due to advanced antenna and chip designs needed for 5G connectivity
[19](#footnote20)
. Similarly, artificial intelligence features are increasingly embedded in smartphones
[20](#footnote21)
, which requires additional semiconductor area. Payment functionality and embedded SIM
[21](#footnote22)
, along with security features, require additional semiconductor components. The same can be stated for wireless charging circuitries and the still growing number of cameras
[22](#footnote23)
 and related large-area semiconductor based image sensors. Miniaturisation in memory chips is achieved by multilayer processing, which results in significantly more complex semiconductor processing technologies
[23](#footnote24)
. In general, the mobile phone industry is still the main growth driver of the semiconductor industry. From 2021 until 2026 the mobile phone semiconductor market alone is expected to grow at a CAGR of 7,49%
[24](#footnote25)
. This growth – as seen in the past – will also result in increasing overall energy consumption and environmental impacts of the industry.

Concerning batteries, the life cycle of lithium-ion batteries in mobile consumer electronics is rather low (500 – 1000 cycles) when compared to most other applications, and there is little momentum, that this will change without policy intervention. Battery capacity is on average constantly growing and subject to further innovation to increase running time on a full charge
[25](#footnote26)
 (see Annex 5 on battery capacity development), but the trend to enable fast charging is currently prevailing
[26](#footnote27)
 and might slow down further possible improvements in battery capacity. The proposal for a battery regulation does not address these issues for this category of batteries (see Annex 6).

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

Recent surveys show that the use of smartphones has substantially increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular for social networking, (video) calls for personal and professional purposes, online banking and fitness tracking. Many of the respondents also indicated that they will probably keep their intensified use even after the pandemic (Deloitte 2020; Kantar 2020). With higher impacts from manufacturing and use, the problems are therefore likely to intensify in the future without intervention. As an effect of the pandemic the industry currently faces shortages of semiconductors, which partly is a limiting factor for production capacity and thus also reduces sales of devices. As additional semiconductor manufacturing capacity is installed in Asia and elsewhere, this is likely a temporary effect and will not reduce overall stock or sales mid-term.

Current product design does not sufficiently incorporate Circular Economy requirements.

There are currently no indications that manufacturers would change their product design towards more reliable and repairable devices. In fact, there is a risk that some disruptive technologies might lead to a trend towards less durability in the future. As the technology and patent analysis in the preparatory study unveiled (European Commission 2021), numerous activities are on-going to enable larger display sizes by various means, such as foldable and expandable displays. Given the complexity of such design solutions, robustness and reparability of devices are likely to decrease in parallel. As an example, foldable or expandable displays are less scratch resistant than conventional devices. On the software side, software locking or pairing (replacing hardware requiring software activation) can be observed in more and more new devices placed on the market. Specific software is then required to calibrate repaired or replaced components and is typically only available to authorised repairers.

It is too difficult for users to choose sustainable products at the point of sales.

There are signs of an uncoordinated spreading of national and international labelling schemes that can lead to inconsistent and misleading information for consumers, which would not facilitate their choice and therefore not solve the problem. Also manufacturers raised concerns on the fact that it is challenging for the industry to follow different standards and regulations in different national markets as they typically supply an international, frequently a global market.

For France (20% of the EU market) the reparability scoring introduced on 1 January 2021 is expected to influence purchasing behaviour and later on also the lifetime of new devices. The effects will materialise not immediately, but only with the changing reparability practice over time, resulting fewer device replacement purchases. They will also depend on the effectiveness of the repair index and how criteria will be adjusted in the future (e.g. after an ex-post evaluation). Spain is currently assessing the possibility to introduce a similar label, but not necessarily taking over all criteria or weighting factors of the French index. This could lead to different ratings for the same products. The JRC is evaluating the possibility to further develop and possibly implement the scoring system for repair and upgrade of products that was initially prepared in 2019 (European Commission 2019). Annex 8 describes in detail how a reparability score for smartphones and tablets could be built, and this is also modelled as a policy (sub) option. France also announced plans to further develop the reparability index towards a durability index by 2024, integrating criteria related to reliability and upgradability.

The implementation of the Eco Rating by large telecommunication network operators across EU (~25% of the EU markets) in May 2021 could lead to the effect that sustainably conscious consumers will make better informed choices in the future. However, it is not yet clear whether the signals sent to the consumers by this initiative will be consistent with other information provided, e.g. the French repair index.

Most products are replaced prematurely by their users.

Although there are signs of slightly increasing product use lifetimes, which is typical for maturing technologies, upcoming trends might trigger premature replacement of smartphones and tablets. As an example, the transition towards 5G might lead to shorter replacement cycles, although experience with prior technology generations suggests, that this transition stretches over several years. It should be noted that the Directive 2019/771 on the Sale of Goods, introduced a new obligation on sellers to ensure that consumers are provided with updates necessary for the functioning of the goods, including security updates. These new provisions will become applicable as of 1 January 2022 and will allow consumers to use their goods for a longer time. In addition, future measures such as the initiative on the Right to Repair will aim at incentivising sustainable consumer’s behaviour when using products, by encouraging for example repairs or the purchase of second-hand goods. These measures will contribute to the extending of the active use of goods. At the end of their useful life, products are not returned back into the circular economy.

Without an intervention, the number of hibernating devices will rather increase, as there is no indication, that this trend might be reversed. Most of the material value (copper, cobalt, precious metals) coming from end-of-life mobile phones and tablets is already recovered with conventional copper smelters or integrated smelters. However, this represents only a fraction of the total device mass, and the current economic model does not incentivise the recovery of other materials, such as plastics, but also aluminium, magnesium, steel, glass and ceramics, which all make up a relevant share to individual product compositions.

  

3.Why should the EU act?

3.1.Legal basis

The legal basis for acting at EU level through the Ecodesign Directive and the Energy Labelling Regulation is Article 114 and Article 194 of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
[27](#footnote28)
 respectively. Article 114 relates to the establishment and functioning of the internal market, while Article 194 gives, amongst others, the EU the objective to, in the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment, ensure security of energy supply in the Union and promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy.

The Ecodesign Directive and Energy Labelling Regulation are framework acts and both include a built-in proportionality and significance test. For the Ecodesign Directive, Articles 15(1) and 15(2) state that a product shall be covered by an ecodesign or a self-regulation measure if the following conditions are met:

I.the product represents significant volume of sales in the EU, indicatively 200.000 units;

II.the product has significant environmental impact within the EU;

III. the product presents a significant potential for improvement without entailing excessive costs, while taking into account:

oan absence of other relevant Community legislation or failure of market forces to address the issue properly;

oa wide disparity in environmental performance of products with equivalent functionality.

As set out in more detail in Part 2 of Annex 5, these criteria are fulfilled for the product groups concerned. The sales of all individual product groups concerned vastly exceeded 200.00 in 2021. The potential for improvement stems clearly from the disparity in performance in relation to the relevant aspects described in this impact assessment. The relevant product groups also have significant environmental impacts that take place inside the EU. Those impacts consists of e.g. climate change caused by the associated greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts linked to electricity consumption associated with the use of the products concerned and the impacts linked to managing associated waste streams. For example, in absolute terms, the GHG emissions and energy consumption related to the use phase are higher than for other products covered by other existing ecodesign measures, for which it was concluded that there are significant environmental impacts within the EU
[28](#footnote29)
.

The Energy Labelling Regulation includes similar criteria for products to be covered by an energy label:

·the product group has significant potential for saving energy and where relevant, other resources;

·models with equivalent functionality differ significantly in the relevant performance levels within the product group;

As set out in more detail in Part 2 of Annex 5, these criteria are fulfilled for the product groups concerned. The analysis in this impact assessment (see in particular the section on ‘
[What are the impacts of the policy options?](#_Ref99748910)
’) shows that there is significant potential to improve e.g. the energy efficiency, the durability and reparability of the product groups concerned
[29](#footnote30)
. Different models show significant difference in performance on those aspects, providing the opportunity for a label to communicate these differences.

3.2.Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action

Action at EU level would enable consumers to buy a product with lower impact on the environment and would provide end-users with harmonised information no matter in which Member State they purchase their product. This is becoming all the more relevant as the online trade increases. With ecodesign and energy labelling at EU level, sustainable products are promoted in all Member States, creating a larger market and hence greater incentives for the industry to develop them.

As some Member States have started to develop and implement legislation targeting mobile phones, it is essential to ensure a level playing field for manufactures and dealers in terms requirements to be met before placing an appliance on the market and in terms of the information supplied to customers for sale across the EU internal market. For this reason, EU-wide legally binding rules are necessary.

Manufacturers of mobile phones, cordless phones and tablets are worldwide companies placing the same or equivalent product models on the market in different regions of the EU. Consequently, the ecodesign and energy labelling requirements can only be effectively implemented at EU level. As some Member States are enacting measures to target circular economy measures for mobile phones (e.g. France with a reparability index and forthcoming durability index), it would be more effective to have EU rules and also simplify it for the (global) manufacturers to comply with one set of EU rules, rather than with diverging rules in individual Member States.

3.3.Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action

There is clear added value for action at EU level: Without harmonised requirements at EU level, Member States would be incentivised to lay down national requirements in the framework of their environmental and energy policies. This would undermine the free movement of products and increase design, manufacturing and distribution costs. Before the ecodesign and energy label measures were implemented, this was in fact the case for many products. The added value of EU action in the area of the circular economy has already been enshrined in the Green Deal, Circular Economy Action Plan and the Ecodesign Working Plans.

  

4.Objectives: What is to be achieved?

4.1.General objectives

The general objectives are:

1. Facilitating the free circulation of mobile phones, cordless phones and tablets within the internal market;

2. Fostering the reduction of the environmental footprint of mobile phones, cordless phones and tablets and promoting their material efficiency (i.e. less prone to damage and premature obsolescence);

3. Promoting the energy efficiency of smartphones and tablets as a contribution to the EU’s objective to save primary energy consumption by about 35 % by 2030 and to implement the energy efficiency first principle established in the Commission Communication on Energy Union Framework Strategy.

4.2.Specific objectives

The specific objectives of the policy options considered in this impact assessment are to correct the problems identified in the problem definition:

1.Avoiding premature obsolescence of mobile phones, cordless phones and tablets;

2.Contributing towards a circular economy by facilitating repair and increasing durability of these products and key components (e.g. battery and display);

3.Helping consumers making an informed and sustainable choice at the point of sale;

4.Fostering product designs aimed to achieve cost-efficient material and energy savings.

These objectives will drive investments and innovations in a sustainable manner, increase monetary savings for the consumer, contribute to the Energy Union Framework Strategy and the Paris Agreement, contribute to the Circular Economy Action Plan and the Circular Electronics Initiative and support the transition toward a real circular economy (with particular reference to the repair and refurbishment sectors).

The following Figure shows the overall intervention logic linking problems with drivers and the objectives and measures.

Figure 3: Visualisation of links between drivers, problems, objectives and measures (Intervention Logic)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_52004.jpg)

5.What are the available policy options?

In order to address the problems and drivers identified in Section 2 and to meet the policy objectives in Section 4, a range of policy options are considered, and compared to a baseline, which represents developments without further EU intervention. Different consultations (as reported under Annex 2) took place to verify the extent to which the policy options could respond to the stakeholders’ and the Member States expectations.

Option 1 is the business-as-usual scenario (baseline). Option 2 is a scenario with self-regulation (either a Voluntary Agreement under the sense of the Ecodesign Directive, or other non-legislative initiatives). Option 3 sets ecodesign requirements with variants Options 3.1 to 3.3 are policy options related to Ecodesign requirements and a scoring index on reparability. The sub-options focus on different product scopes and were chosen due to product-specific particularities (design, use, etc.). Option 3.1 focuses on ecodesign requirements for smartphones and tablets. Option 3.2 adds mobile phones other than smartphones and cordless phones to the analysis (distinguishing two levels of ambition without and with extended information requirements on material content, recyclability, upstream greenhouse gas emissions) and Option 3.3 adds a scoring index on reparability for smartphones and tablets. Option 4 is on Energy Label and Option is a combination of Ecodesign and Energy Labelling. For all policy options relating to interventions by the European Commission, i.e. Ecodesign and/or Energy Label regulation, it is assumed, that requirements apply from 2023 onwards.

5.1.What is the baseline from which options are assessed (Option 1)?

Option 1 (baseline scenario) follows the assumption that no new policy measures are introduced at the European level. The smartphone market is split into low-end, mid-range and high-end devices mirroring for past years in particular the placing on the market of larger display sizes 6” and 6.5”. Furthermore, the smartphone market sees a trend towards today’s high-end technology.
[30](#footnote31)
 On a national level, the French reparability scoring that was introduced on 1st January 2021 is expected to influence purchasing behaviour and later on the lifetime of new devices. France represents around 20% of the EU market. In the “no action” baseline scenario, this national initiative is modelled with the assumption that 50% of the French smartphone and feature phone market (i.e., 10% of the EU markets) will manifest in better reparability and better repair practices. It is further assumed that the effects will materialise not immediately, but over time with changing reparability practices, resulting in longer lifetimes and fewer device replacement purchases. For this reason, the 10% market share is expected to be reached by 2024. Further, in May 2021, several network operators launched an Eco Rating scheme for mobile phones (see section 2.2.1 on market drivers), with the aim to quantify the environmental performance based on an objective assessment of both life cycle and circular economy indicators (detailed description is presented in Annex 9). In case the Eco Rating approach is fully implemented by large telecommunication network operators across EU, it can be estimated that it would cover roughly 25% of the EU market
[31](#footnote32)
. Given the findings from the first few months of implementing the Eco Rating scheme it is evident, that the scheme does not yet unveil its full potential as the product portfolios offered by MNOs are not fully covered by scores and as the score is typically presented in a way, which does not allow for direct convenient product comparisons. The baseline has to assume therefore a rather moderate penetration rate of 5% across the EU, which is the share of product purchase decisions likely to be influenced in a positive way.

As highlighted in the problem definition, the environmental footprint of manufacturing mobile phones and tablets is likely to continue the increasing trend due to complex devices and additional functionalities (e.g. 5G, artificial intelligence). The intensive usage pattern of these devices (because of the COVID-19) will probably continue even after the pandemic and therefore the environmental impacts stemming from manufacturing and use are likely to intensify in the future without intervention. There are currently no indications that manufacturers would change their product design towards more reliable and repairable devices and numerous on-going design evolutions (e.g. larger display sizes, folding displays) would negatively impact the robustness and reparability of devices. However, in December 2021 Apple announced the support for self-repair of devices
[32](#footnote33)
, but this announcement refers to individuals experienced with repair, not to users without experience (to whom it is suggested to visit a professional repair provider)
[33](#footnote34)
. Roll out of this support was announced for the United States and it remains unclear, if and how this might be rolled out on the EU market, unless an Ecodesign Regulation fosters this process. Due to these uncertainties, such potential self-repair initiatives cannot be considered for a robust forecast of the baseline. Finally, at the end of their useful life, products are not returned back into the circular economy and the number of hibernating devices will continue to increase thus a loss of material..

5.2.Option 2: Voluntary Agreement/ Eco Rating scheme

The Ecodesign Directive, in its Article 17, offers the opportunity to manufacturers to sign voluntary agreements, with the commitment to reduce the energy consumption of their products. When appropriate, the Commission formally recognises such agreements and monitors their implementation and abstains from regulatory measures. The industry has so far not proposed any kind of voluntary agreement related to mobile phones and tablets, which is a minimum condition in accordance with Article 17 and Annex VIII of the Directive 2009/125/EC to even consider this option.

The Eco Rating scheme could be considered conceptually close to self-regulation, though – at least for the time being - it would not qualify as a voluntary agreement in the sense of the Ecodesign Directive (Article 17), given that it is proposed by network operators (so not by manufacturers), and fails to set both, threshold requirements and a quantified target. It could become an Ecodesign voluntary agreement, if manufacturers of mobile phones and tablets would join and take responsibility for the initiative. The Eco Rating scheme does not implement any minimum requirement, but a comprehensive scoring system covering aspects beyond the scope of Ecodesign requirements.

Under these conditions there is no basis yet to consider a very hypothetical voluntary agreement as a valid policy option. Therefore, this option has to be discarded from further analysis (and therefore its potential effects will not be included in the forthcoming analysis on the impacts of the policy options)

Stakeholders’ views on the policy option: The proponents of the Eco Rating scheme, i.e., MNOs, strongly supported a kind of endorsement of Eco Rating through the European Commission, which would, however, neither be compliant with the rules for approving a Voluntary Agreement as an alternative to Ecodesign requirements, nor would the Eco Rating scheme meet the requirements to be directly incorporated in Ecodesign requirements. The views of other stakeholders were not strong, mainly due to the lack of detailed information on the scheme itself.

5.3.Option 3: Ecodesign requirements

Option 3 consists of eco-design requirements. The sub-options (3.1, 3.2a / 3.2b, 3.3) focus on different product scopes and were chosen due to product-specific particularities (design, use, etc.). Option 3.1 focuses on ecodesign requirements for smartphones and tablets
[34](#footnote35)
. Option 3.2 adds mobile phones other than smartphones and cordless phones to the analysis in two variants: With mainly specific reparability and durability requirements (Option 3.2a) and with additional information requirements on material content, recyclability, upstream emissions and energy aspects (Option 3.2b). Option 3.3 adds a scoring index on reparability for smartphones and tablets. Here, and in the remainder of the text, the tablets meant to be in scope to the proposed policy options are the so called ‘slate tablets’ (see Annex 9 for the detailed definition). Slate tablets represent the bulk of tablet market, and they share commonalities, in terms of product architecture, usage and behavioural patterns, with the smartphones. They do not have an integrated, physically attached keyboard in their designed configuration, and they are placed on the market with an operating system designed to be used also in smartphones. The supporting analysis for the identification of the products (sub)groups to be covered by the policy options is described in detail at the beginning of Annex 9.

5.3.1.Option 3.1: Ecodesign requirements for smartphones and tablets

Ecodesign requirements set specific performance and/or information criteria which manufacturers must meet in order to legally put their products on the EU market
[35](#footnote36)
. The purpose of these requirements is to remove low-performing products from the EU market. For smartphones and tablets the priority is given to measures addressing:

-Reparability and reusability, including facilitating repair by consumers, but not adversely affecting the durability of devices and in particular:

oAvailability of spare parts

oAccess to repair and maintenance information

oMaximum delivery time of spare parts

oMaximum price of spare parts

oDisassembly requirements

oRequirements for preparation for reuse

-Reliability and in particular:

oResistance to accidental drops

oScratch resistance

oProtection from dust and water

oBattery endurance in cycles

oBattery management and fast charging

oSoftware updates and operating system support

-Marking of plastic components

-Further information requirements:

oRecyclability requirements 

oMaterial content information

oUpstream greenhouse gas emissions

The ecodesign measures for Option 3.1 were determined on the basis of the analysis of the preparatory study and are detailed in Annex 9, in particular with information related to the nature, rationale and market readiness of each of the above listed requirements. Furthermore, under the same Annex it is also presented how the above requirements represent the ‘optimal set’ in techno-economic-environmental terms. Finally, Annex 9 also outlines which potential ecodesign requirements have been discarded in the process of the preparatory study and further analyses.

Stakeholders’ views on the policy option: Stakeholders were generally supportive. When it comes to the details, the positions of each stakeholder were quite articulated, given the wide breath of the measured proposed. Environmental and consumer NGOs, as well as repairer’s organisations, strongly welcomed the proposed requirements, in particular those related to reparability and ease of disassembly. Among the main caveats raised, original equipment manufacturers expressed reservations in particular on the requirements on improved reparability and spare parts availability. Furthermore, some EU member states raised concerns on the testing burden, in particular related to the number of devices to be tested per each product model.

5.3.2.Option 3.2a: Ecodesign requirements regulating also mobile phones other than smartphones and cordless phones; reparability, durability and energy efficiency requirements only

This Option extends the Ecodesign requirements presented under Option 3.1 also to mobile phones other than smartphones (so-called feature phones) and cordless phones, but includes as a less ambitious option only specific requirements on reparability and durability, and related information requirements, plus selected information requirements on e.g. energy efficiency (standby of cordless phones and battery endurance per cycle). The information requirements related to raw materials content, recycled content, recyclability and selected upstream greenhouse gas emissions indicators are not foreseen for feature phones and cordless phones under this sub-option. Details are provided in Annex 9.

Stakeholders’ views on the policy option: Specifically with reference to the extension of scope to feature phones and cordless phones, no clear views from stakeholders emerged.

5.3.3.Option 3.2b: Ecodesign requirements regulating also mobile phones other than smartphones and cordless phones; including information requirements on upstream greenhouse gas emissions, material content and recyclability

This Option extends the Ecodesign requirements presented under Option 3.1 also to mobile phones other than smartphones (so-called feature phones) and cordless phones. This option, just as option 3.1, also includes (on top of the reparability and durability requirements) information requirements related to raw materials content, recycled content, recyclability, and selected upstream greenhouse gas emissions indicators for all mobile phones, cordless phones and tablets. Details are provided in Annex 9.

Stakeholders’ views on the policy option: There was some criticism raised by Member States regarding the additional information requirements regarding upstream greenhouse gas emissions and means to verify these for non-EU production locations.

5.3.4.Option 3.3: Ecodesign requirements together with a scoring index on reparability

This sub-option is based on Option 3.2b, complementing the minimum Ecodesign requirements with a reparability score for smartphones and tablets only (as explained in Annex 8). The score covers reparability aspects which are not covered by specific or other generic requirements above (such as the required number of disassembly steps for the repair of a priority part), or where these specific requirements allow for enough further distinction in the market to be made transparent through a score (such as type of fasteners and type of repair tools needed). Annex 8 describes in detail how a reparability score for smartphones and tablets could be built. To be noted, that the modelling of the effects associated to the introduction of a reparability score, as in this sub-option, is independent from the ‘legal tool’ to be used for imposing such a scoring index
[36](#footnote37)
. Annex 9 describes in detail how to convey to the user the information about the reparability score, based on evidence from recent studies in the field.

Stakeholders’ views on the policy option: Specifically with reference to the introduction of the reparability score, stakeholders (in particular EU member states, environmental and consumer NGOs, repairer’s organisations) were in general very supportive of this policy (sub) option. Original equipment manufacturers issued mostly technical comments related to the structure/composition of the scoring index.

5.4.Option 4: Energy Label

Option 4 introduces an Energy Label that contains information on the energy efficiency of the device as well as information on material efficiency aspects. The purpose of this option is to ensure that consumers are being provided with the relevant information so that they can make a more informed choice regarding sustainability features when purchasing a new product. Energy efficiency is determined in accordance with an energy efficiency index. The label also contains information related to material efficiency aspects, namely the battery endurance per cycle and in cycles, on repeated free fall reliability and ingress protection (annex 9 presents, inter alia, available evidence from consumer and behavioural studies on the expected positive effect stemming from the quantitative information made available on these parameters). The objective of the energy label is to guide the consumer towards more energy efficient and material efficient devices. The overall spread in the market with respect to such a benchmark performance is a strong argument for an energy label. However, the absolute direct energy consumption per device and year of use is in the range of only around 6-16 kWh/a
[37](#footnote38)
, which is much less than for any other product group regulated under the Energy Efficiency Labelling Regulation (EU) 2017/1369. 

This approach is in principle applicable to feature phones, smartphones and tablets. Due to only a moderate spread in energy efficiency among cordless phones in the market, an energy label is not seen as appropriate for these products. Furthermore, the calculation of an Energy Efficiency Index for cordless phones would require a different basis due to limited functionality of cordless phones, different modes (base station constantly connected to the grid) and use patterns. The introduction of an Energy Label for mobile phones and tablets also means a mandatory data provision to the EPREL
[38](#footnote39)
 database, which eases the monitoring of policy implementation at a later stage. This option does not include the presence, in the energy label, of a scoring index on reparability, which is dealt with separately under option 3.2.

Stakeholders’ views on the policy option: Stakeholder comments were quite polarized with regard to this option. On the one side, environmental and consumer NGOs, repairer’s organisations and EU member states generally welcomed the proposed energy label. On the other side, original equipment manufacturers were not supportive, claiming that the benefits are not fully clear, given that manufacturers are already highly incentivized to ensure efficient phones for end-user satisfaction
[39](#footnote40)
.

5.5.Option 5: Ecodesign + Energy Label

The following Options 5.1 & 5.2 are policy options combining previous options related to ecodesign requirements, energy labelling and a scoring index on reparability.

5.5.1.Option 5.1: Ecodesign plus Energy Label

Option 5.1 is a combination of Ecodesign and Energy Label, which focuses on smartphones and tablets. It combines Option 3.2 and Option 4.

5.5.2.Option 5.2: Ecodesign requirements together with a scoring index on reparability plus Energy Label

This Option combines the Ecodesign requirements with scoring index on reparability (Option 3.3) and Energy Labelling requirements (Option 4).

A summary of the devices involved under each option is presented inn Table 1.

Table 1: Overview over the analysed Policy Options and their scope

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Option | Mobile phones other than smartphones | Smartphones | Tablets | Cordless phones |
| Option 1 – No action (baseline scenario) | X | X | X | X |
| Option 2 – Voluntary agreement | X | X |  |  |
| Option 3.1 – Ecodesign requirements |  | X | X |  |
| Option 3.2a – Ecodesign requirements (extended scope) | X | X | X | X |
| Option 3.2b – Ecodesign requirements (extended scope), adding additional information requirements | X | X | X | X |
| Option 3.3 – Ecodesign requirements, plus reparability scoring | X (without reparability scoring) | X | X | X (without reparability scoring) |
| Option 4 – Energy Labelling | X | X | X |  |
| Option 5.1 – Ecodesign requirements combined with Energy Labelling | X (without labelling) | X | X | X (without labelling) |
| Option 5.2 – Ecodesign requirements plus reparability scoring, combined with Energy Labelling | X (without labelling and reparability scoring) | X | X | X (without labelling and reparability scoring) |

6.What are the impacts of the policy options?

This chapter describes for each option the associated economic, environmental and social impacts. The assessment considers the following aspects:

1. Economic impacts: business revenue, compliance costs, stranded investments, administrative costs, impacts on SMEs, innovation, R & D, competitiveness and trade, and intellectual property rights;

2. Environmental impacts: energy saving, greenhouse gas emission reduction, acidification, materials saving and external societal cost;

3. Social impacts: employment, affordability, health, safety and functionality.

Impacts are stated for the year 2030 as by then the policy options will unfold their full potential
[40](#footnote41)
.

All policy options apart from the baseline, i.e. options 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.3, 4, 5.1 and 5.2, require EU intervention and are dominated by material efficiency related requirements targeting extended product lifetimes. This is, for example, the case for Option 4 (Energy Label), where battery endurance affects both, product energy efficiency and longevity; and the reparability score (sub-options 3.3 and 5.2). The latter assumes that this transparency in terms of reparability leads consumers to choose more repair-friendly devices and motivates manufacturers to enhance design and/or services towards better reparability. The expected result is a moderate increase in repair rates beyond the level achieved without such a score (i.e., sub-options 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b and 5.1). Such transparency is expected to result in an average lifetime extension of approx. 1 month beyond what is achieved with Ecodesign requirements or Ecodesign and Energy Label only (see Annex 9). Changes in product lifetime and related declining product sales are the main root cause for economic and social impacts detailed below.

Summary tables for each type of impact for smartphones + feature phones + cordless phones, and tablets separately, and at aggregated level (all devices together), can be found in Annex 10.

6.1.ECONOMIC IMPACTS

6.1.1.Direct economic impact for businesses

Manufacturers’ Revenue

To comply with ecodesign, energy and reparability requirements, the smartphones, feature phones, cordless phones and tablet manufacturers will need to make investments in turn increasing production costs. If this translates into a higher price for the product, it will affect both business revenue and consumer expenditure, as manufacturers are expected to pass on increased costs to consumers. However, higher prices do not always imply higher business revenue as the longer product lifespan achieved through ecodesign, energy efficiency and reparability requirements result in a decrease of unit sales that counteracts the effect of higher prices for manufacturers. This mainly concerns non-EU business revenue since EU manufacturers have a negligible market share. Given the degree of competition among non-EU manufacturers (as shown in more detail in Annex 5, there are a number of OEMs from various countries - mainly US, South Korea and China - in direct competition), it is considered unlikely that they would try to counterbalance reductions in revenue due to lower unit sales by increasing their prices.

Option 1 (No action) would imply a slight increase (+4%) for 2030 and compared to today in business revenue from smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones assuming no changes in consumer behaviour neither in prices. All these devices present a negative trend in sales, except for high-end smartphones, which are also the ones with the highest price. This last effect is greater and explains why business revenue is expected to increase under no-action scenario. For tablets, a future negative but slight trend (-3%) is observed due basically to the lower interest and greater durability of these devices compared to smartphones that results in lower sales, and thus in lower business revenue.

Some options including Ecodesign requirements (i.e. Option 3.1 and Option 5.1) would imply a significant reduction in business revenue in 2030 (when compared to the other options) even if the estimated price increase took place, both for phones and tablets. It will be about 1,150 million Euro
[41](#footnote42)
 (16%) of reduction in revenue for tablets under these options compared with “no action” and a reduction of EUR 18,300 million (24%) for the aggregate of smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones.

Sub-option 3.2b, although it includes more devices subjected to ecodesign requirements, will result in a similar reduction as Option 3.1, EUR 18,400 million less (24%) compared to no-action for smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones. The same reduction is achieved if these devices are subjected to less ecodesign requirements, i.e. sub-option 3.2a, with EUR 18,600 million less (24%). Business revenue for tablets under sub-option 3.2a will reduce 15% (EUR 1,200 million).

There will be similar outcomes for sub-options including a reparability score and considering the aggregated of smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones, resulting in a revenue reduction of EUR 19,200 million (25%) under sub-option 3.3 and of EUR 19,800 million (26%) for sub-option 5.2. Figures for tablets under these sub-options are EUR 1,200 million in both cases.

The option of establishing only an Energy Label (Option 4) could also imply a reduction in revenues but much lower than the Ecodesign options, it is EUR 2,300 million less (3%) than in the no-action scenario. The main reason is that with the Energy Label, as lifetime does not improve as much as with Ecodesign, the number of devices sold will not change by the same amount. For tablets, the Energy Label (Option 4) would lower business revenue by EUR 144 million (2%).

6.1.2.Compliance Cost

Impacts on OEMs

The compliance costs for implementing Ecodesign options (i.e. Options 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.2) on average are very moderate. For models sold in large numbers this cost increase will be even less relevant, considering economies of scale. For models where fewer units are sold, the redesign costs might become an issue. In any case, as most of the OEMs are located in the U.S. and Asia, it will affect mainly non-EU OEMs.

Verifying legal compliance will require substantial product tests, involving laboratory test costs and costs for test units. As some of the reliability requirements need to be based on a sound statistical basis (repeated free fall tests, battery lifetime tests), approximately 20 units of a model need to be tested. It is however right now already established practice among OEMs to test a substantial number of pre-series products against reliability criteria. Hence, rather some adaptations of the test setting might be needed to cover test conditions stipulated by Ecodesign and Energy Label requirements.

Spare part availability in general might become a risk for OEMs as they have to plan how many spare parts might be required over a given period. As these parts are typically sourced from suppliers, OEMs depend on the continued availability of spare parts or have to stock spare parts.

Effects of design requirements on smartphones and tablets vary. Some of them, such as adding water and dust resistance or incorporating an operating system support, imply costs to add to the purchase price (EUR 3 and EUR 2 per unit, respectively). Others, such as simplifying exchange of broken parts, have no effect on costs or imply savings.

Although several of the proposed measures (e.g. increased inventory requirements
[42](#footnote43)
) are related to additional costs, savings from other design requirements and the effect of economies of scale result in a weakly marginal price increase on average. It must be added that some design options are already implemented in devices (especially for mid-range and high-end smartphones) so this implies less additional costs.

Other compliance costs may include establishing production and supply chain changes to fulfil minimum requirements (including testing facilities and training); need for personnel to design new, compliant products and higher personnel activity dedicated to support of professional transitions from activities reduced by these requirements towards those favoured by them (specifically: maintenance, repair/upgrade, refurbishing, remanufacturing). Training staff to become acquainted with the system is a one-time investment and although there is not specific data, it is not considered significant.

6.1.3.Stranded Investments

In the case of smartphones and tablets, stranded investments may arise in third countries as the production in the EU is minor. It mainly refers to new production facilities that have been installed recently and they may not be as profitable as expected because of the future reduction on sales if some of these options are introduced (specifically those including Ecodesign requirements). In the case the already established OEMs decide to re-convert their machineries, this will imply new costs, proportional to the current efficiency level of industrial sector in these countries. However, how production firms react will determine the final effect, i.e. if they decide to shift supply to other non-EU countries (less regulated in Ecodesign, efficiency and reparability terms) or put their focus on other products, they could redirect the negative effect.

6.1.4.Administrative burden

Administrative burden for economic operators

The following burdens concern all proposed options, in comparison with the baseline scenario. The administrative burden for business is related to the price of testing increased by these new requirements. Tests are applied by OEMs, so they mainly concern non-EU countries. Another administrative burden may include the personnel cost to carry out testing and verification, and costs of product registration database, (mainly when Energy label is applied). Training staff is a one-time investment and not considered significant. Equally, and related to the registration database, uploading manufacturer information and obtaining the manufacturer code is considered not significant. However, uploading product specific information implies selecting appropriate information, formatting, and actually uploading the information, implying a higher cost. Based on studies for other electronic devices (electronic displays), the product registration database implies costs of about EUR 60/model. Several hundred mobile phone models are launched every year on the EU market, and a few hundred tablet and cordless phone models. Some brands launch a few dozen variants each year whereas some small players do not even launch a new model every year. Total costs relating to the registration of new models would be very limited (a few 10 000 EUR for all manufacturers together).

Measures such as including a reparability score and/or an Energy Label on the packaging or on the device itself (Option 4 and sub-options 5.1, 3.3 and 5.2) also involve administrative and logistics costs for OEMs, e.g., providing labels. For suppliers, the estimated cost to print a label is about EUR 0.3 per device
[43](#footnote44)
. For the total of smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones sold in 2030, this additional cost will be EUR 36 million (sub-options 3.3 and 5.2), EUR 37 million (sub-option 5.1) and EUR 46 million (Option 4) (See Annex 4 about methodology). Comparing the number of mobile phones produced in the EU with those imported from outside shows that only 3% of these costs will be borne by EU manufacturers with the remaining 97% corresponding to non-EU manufacturers
[44](#footnote45)
. Having made this distinction, the related costs under each option are: sub-options 3.3 and 5.2, EUR 1.2 million for EU manufacturers and EUR 34.8 million for non-EU manufactures; sub-option 5.1, EUR 1.3 million for EU manufacturers and EUR 35.7 million for foreign ones; and Option 4, EUR 1.6 million and EUR 44.4 million, respectively.

Similarly, for tablets, given that sales will be greater under Option 4, this will present the highest cost in labels (EUR 7 million). The other options that require a label (i.e. sub-options 3.3, 5.1 and 5.2) will imply additional EUR 6 million. Like for phones there are only a few rather small tablet manufacturers in the EU. As such, the distribution of labelling costs among EU and non-EU manufactures will also be similar (3% and 97%, respectively). Therefore, Option 4 would imply EUR 0.2 million for EU manufacturers and EUR 6.8 million for non-EU ones, while the other options will cost EU manufacturers EUR 0.2 million and foreign ones EUR 5.8 million.

Energy Label and Reparability score policy options (Option 4 and sub-option 5.1, 3.3 and 5.2) also involve administrative and logistics costs for retailers. Costs are related to presenting the labels of products on stock/display at the point of sales and/or on online platforms. This means, in practical terms, that retailers must take out the printed label (provided by the supplier) from the product box, and put it visibly close to the product (at the point of sale). Thus, it means that this operation has to be performed only for the product models exposed in the store (or virtually, in the online shop). Given the small number of products for which they need to do this physical operation, the final effect on retailers is expected to be marginal.

Administrative burden for citizens

There is no administrative burden/cost for citizens.

Administrative costs for the European Commission

The main administrative costs for the European Commission will be from establishing minimum requirements, review of these requirements regularly, and mandating the development of test standards. Clear targets and guidelines on Ecodesign requirements and criteria to elaborate the Reparability index and Energy label will also have an administrative burden.

Administrative burden for Member States

The form of the legislation proposed under all the options foreseeing regulatory approaches (3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.3, 4, 5.1, 5.2) is respectively an implementing Regulation (in the case of Ecodesign) and a delegated Regulation (in the case of Energy Labelling), both directly applicable in all Member States. This ensures that there would be no costs for national administrations linked to transposition. Furthermore, costs that may arise for Member States include the costs of establishing surveillance systems (more detailed in Annex 10), setting up the enforcement processes (including training), government expenditures for conformity review (circularity aspects, premature obsolescence) and monitoring compliance with the requirements.

6.1.5.Impacts on SMEs

There is an opportunity for companies in the EU market to further develop and capture the repair and refurbishment market, where significant growth has recently been seen
[45](#footnote46)
. As most of the companies in these markets are SMEs, it could represent a significant potential positive economic impact for the sector, not only regarding existing companies that would grow but also new ones that would emerge.

While a positive impact on SMEs in the repair/maintenance sector is expected, the opposite is observed for manufacturers of all considered devices: telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks (NACE 26302200), line telephone sets with cordless handsets (NACE 26302100) and laptop PCs and palm-top organizers (NACE 26201100). However, the main stakeholders affected will be non-EU manufacturers which own almost the entire production market share. For smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones, the largest negative impacts would be from the Ecodesign options, especially the one including a repair index plus Energy Label (i.e. sub-option 5.2) compared to the baseline. The lowest negative effect in terms of reduction of sales and of business revenues is expected under Option 4. These conclusions are based on estimations that establish a relationship between employment and sales. However, this only allows to show the trend of this sector, because other factors must be considered.

A positive impact on third party developers of software applications running on smartphones and tablets could be expected, as the requirements on OS updates are likely to lead to a less fragmented landscape of OS versions in use, thus potentially simplifying mainentance and support of software applications, which are supposed to be compatible with OS versions running on end devices. The business model of application developers, being SMEs in their vast majority, could thus benefit from the OS update requirements.

SMEs in the EU retail sector could be negatively affected because of the expected sales reduction under all considered options. However, it is difficult to establish the retail path with accuracy, because of many factors that can be considered and not all of them affect in the same way (for example, retailers can shift their supply to other devices with a better future projection, in term of sales).

6.1.6.Competitiveness, trade and investment flows

Functioning of the internal market

All options considered, i.e. Option 4, and sub-options 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.2, due to its compulsory nature will help in establishing a level playing field in the EU market, given that currently some MS have requirements (e.g., France
[46](#footnote47)
, Germany
[47](#footnote48)
, Sweden
[48](#footnote49)
), while others do not, resulting in diverging requirements for businesses to comply with for the same products. Common requirements will result in benefits, especially for those including Ecodesign (sub-option 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.2), as we have already seen in the case of the Ecodesign Directive
[49](#footnote50)
. Increased reuse, longer lifetimes, reparability, availability of high-quality recycled material, etc. will help in increasing the stock life, availability of secondary high quality raw material and thus reducing the import dependency of the EU. In the long run, EU businesses will benefit from ecodesigned products
[50](#footnote51)
, especially:

·Spare part and toolkit providers that enter the market in larger numbers if repairs are significantly simplified.

·Reuse/Refurbishment/Re-commerce businesses, resulting in greater availability and lower prices of used devices.

·Repair/maintenance sector will be able to increase its capacity to offer its service (more adapted design of devices to be repaired) and this will be more demanded by consumers13.

·Recyclers, benefitting from greater availability of units for recycling (as an effect of the requirements on preparation for reuse) and changes in recycling processes triggered by design changes.

Others, such as equipment, tools, semiconductors and display technology suppliers could be negatively affected if sales decrease and reduce the demand for key components. However, those providers supply different industries and they could also switch supply to other sectors (e.g., computers or Internet of Things).

6.1.7.Indirect economic impacts for businesses

As shown in the previous subsections, the compliance costs for OEMs are expected to be in general moderate, since the production of these devices is linked to economies of scale, and new design costs will be shared among a high number of products. Moreover, not all new requirements imply higher production costs. For example, there are some features such as the pre-installed battery management software that won’t have any effect since most devices already have it. Based on these considerations, negative reactions from third countries OEMs, such as ‘versioning’
[51](#footnote52)
 or retaliation, are not expected. The first signals from the market are rather in the opposite direction:

-As already described in the policy options section, a reparability scoring was introduced in France on 1st January 2021. To date, these has been no evidence from the French market of OEMs having to restrict their product range because of this obligation. Rather, there is anecdotal evidence on the fact that some OEMs are improving their service strategy to gain a better scoring.

-The recent initiative from a major OEM32 on the support for self-repair of devices can be regarded as a ‘self-regulatory reply’ to the ongoing preparatory work for the potential Ecodesign requirements analysed in this impact assessment. Again here, a (potential) regulatory solution fosters a transition of the market towards more sustainable products.

-A further indication that third countries will deal in a constructive manner with this type of policy initiatives is the fact that in China policy makers and OEMs consider a complementary carbon footprinting scheme for batteries to comply with requirements under the upcoming EU Batteries Regulation
[52](#footnote53)
, which features some similarities with the Ecodesign Regulation.

 

Innovation and Research

Options that involve an Energy Label and a Reparability index are largely based on information requirements and scoring systems. OEMs are expected to respond with their product designs, leaving room for innovations to reach high scoring values. Ecodesign options would demand investment on performance features in order to achieve the requirements in terms of durability, energy use, battery life, etc.

As most manufacturers are located in the U.S. and Asia, setting ambitious mandatory minimum Ecodesign requirements combined with a stimulating Energy Label scheme will, thus, positively influence innovation in third countries. Still, innovation could be promoted through the supply chain of market players (including EU ones), in particular in the repair and refurbishment sectors. As it has been seen from previous Ecodesign and Energy Labelling measures
[53](#footnote54)
, these options are expected to have a positive impact on the deployment and diffusion of innovations.

Especially for options including a reparability index (i.e. sub-options 3.3 and 5.2), education is also positively influenced, since promoting more repairable devices encourages people to acquire new skills. Moreover, this knowledge is expanded by means of communities such as that one constituted by Youtubers that help others get the most out of their devices by answering questions or giving advice on repairs. This could imply a cultural shift to convince people to fix it rather than throwing it away.

Intellectual property rights

Intellectual property rights of manufacturers may be affected to the extent that the proposed measures impose the availability of repair information and spare parts. Allowing the use of instructions for software and firmware
[54](#footnote55)
 might draw some criticism, given that software plays a crucial role for repair and manufacturers protect their code through intellectual property. In this context, manufacturers might need to disclose trade secrets
[55](#footnote56)
 and/or accept the use of their software royalty-free. Appropriate formulation of the (Ecodesign) requirement may be necessary to strike a balance between the need to oblige OEMs to make available to professional repairers software tools, firmware and similar auxiliary means required for full functionality of the spare part and device after repair and any potential impact on their IP.

Concerning, more in general, the issue of spare parts, the EU has launched a reform of its design legislation (described in Annex 6), which aims at liberalising the spare parts aftermarket.

6.1.8.Economic impact for citizens

The analysis in the preparatory study (European Commission 2021) only showed a minor product price effect for any analysed policy options compared to the baseline. Any such price increase is compensated by the product lifetime extension and thus results in less frequent acquisition of electronic devices, enhanced by an expected more conscious consumer behaviour. This means that, in general, from a product life cycle perspective, consumer expenditure in EU countries will decrease with the analysed policy options (see Section 6.3.2).

It should be noted that not all Ecodesign requirements imply a higher final cost for consumers. It may be that some of them slightly increase the acquisition price, but they could result in savings in future repairs, e.g. battery joining techniques or a battery removable without tools imply a reduction in battery repair cost by 5-30€
[56](#footnote57)
. Reparability scoring also implies this future saving, while Energy label reflects lower energy consumption.

Options providing information about energy efficiency of devices (i.e. Option 4 and sub-option 5.1) can make a significant contribution to energy savings by consumers and thus reduce energy bills (see section 6.2 and Annex 10 for energy consumption estimates and assuming a constant energy price) if consumers decide to switch from energy-intensive devices to more efficient ones. This change in demand will promote innovation and investments for their production.

Consumers will also benefit from greater quality of devices, given the continuous tests they have to pass in order to ensure they comply with all ecodesign requirements and achieve a good score on the Energy label and/or regarding reparability.

6.1.9.Impact on third countries

The implementation of Ecodesign options with or without an Energy label and/or a Reparability scoring in the EU will put in place new requirements for mobile phones and tablets, which are mostly manufactured in production sites outside the EU. A sales reduction is expected (that means lower EU imports) given the extended life time of new devices but, in order to maintain their share as suppliers of European countries, manufacturers from third countries will have to react quickly offering more efficient and ‘ecodesigned’ products. The nature of the economic impacts, and their repartition between EU and non-EU businesses, is linked to the intrinsical ‘circularity’ of the initiative. Shifting from a traditionally linear ‘take-make-discard’ economic model to a more circular one, where repair and recycling activities gradually become more prominent and resources can be saved, is among the objectives of the initiatives of this impact assessment. This shift would obviously imply that:

-on the one side, entities such as the (typically non-EU) original manufacturers would see the effects on their business described above, in particular the expected sales reduction;

-on the other side, entities belonging to the repair sector (typically local SMEs) are expected to strongly benefit from the initiatives, in particular thanks to the proposed Ecodesign requirements on reparability and ease of disassembly.

6.2.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The overall environmental impact of this product group, as identified in the preparatory study, is below 1% of the EU total emissions for most of the environmental indicators, which may seem small but in absolute terms is significant. Most of the environmental impacts relate to EU indirect impacts in upstream supply chains. The following subsections will present the global impact on environmental indicators under the different policy options. As almost all of the supply chain is located outside EU, impacts related to production can be considered as originating in their majority outside the EU. The distribution phase partly can be allocated to EU, partly to non-EU countries. Finally, changes in use phase and end-of-life related impacts clearly can be attributed to EU. However, the overall environmental impacts affect all countries (EU included) given the global nature of most of them, as explained under Annex 5. The improvement potential through policy intervention is significant, as shown in the next subsections.

6.2.1.Energy savings

There are savings under all options in comparison with no action. In all cases, savings are driven by technological improvements and extension of the use lifetime of devices. 

In 2020, the no action-scenario predicts 115 PJ energy consumption from smartphones (103 PJ), feature phones (6 PJ) and cordless phones (6.5 PJ). In 2030, the no action scenario is estimated to result in a reduction of 1PJ in energy consumption for both feature and cordless phones, while overall, smartphones' energy consumption remains the same compared to current values. The Ecodesign and energy label scenario (sub-option 5.1) and Ecodesign and repair index (sub-option 3.3) give 40 PJ savings in 2030 with respect to the no-action scenario. Ecodesign applied only to smartphones (sub-option 3.1) saves 37 PJ. Energy consumption also declines notably with ecodesign sub-option 3.2a and 3.2b (36 PJ and 39 PJ, respectively). The biggest reduction will be achieved under sub-option 5.2 (42 PJ), while the savings attributed to theEnergy Label scenario (Option 4) are in the order of 10 PJ in 2030. In relative terms, this is certainly less than the impact from the Ecodesign option. However, in absolute terms it still qualifies as significant (see Annex 5). As for smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones, tablet total energy consumption decreases significantly with options involving ecodesign requirements. In 2020, the no action-scenario predicts 27 PJ energy consumption. In 2030, the no action scenario is estimated to result in 1 PJ less energy consumption while the number of sales and stock of tablets decreases. The Energy Label scenario (Option 4) saves 3 PJ in 2030 compared the no-action scenario. The savings potential of sub-option 3.1 is 7 PJ by 2030, being 8 PJ under sub-option 3.3, 5.1 and 5.2. The less ambitious ecodesign sub-option, i.e. sub-option 3.2a, allows 7 PJ of savings for tablets.

6.2.2. GHG emissions and acidification

Trends for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are similar to energy consumption trends.

For smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones under no action, GHG emissions in 2020 are estimated at 7.3 million tCO2 eq.: 6.6 million t CO2 eq. (reducing to 6.5 million t CO2 eq. in 2030) for smartphones, 0.3 million t CO2 eq. for feature phones (0.3 also in 2030) and 0.4 million t CO2 eq. for cordless phones (declining to 0.3 million t CO2 eq. in 2030). With sub-option 3.1 (Ecodesign requirements), sub-option 5.1 (Ecodesign requirements and Energy Label) as well as sub-options including a repair index (i.e. 3.3 and 5.2) Greenhouse Gas emissions drop significantly over time. For these scenarios, the related emissions are from 2.7 (for Option 3.1) to 3.0 million t CO2 eq. (for Option 5.2) lower in 2030 than with “no action” (over 40% reduction). Ecodesign sub-options 3.2a and 3.2b also reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions: 39% and 40% of reduction, respectively. A lower reduction is expected under Option 4 (4%).

About acidification related to smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones sold in EU, sub-options 3.1 (Ecodesign requirements), 5.1 (Ecodesign requirements and Energy Label) and sub-options 3.3 and 5.2 (with repair index) result in significant reductions in SO2 and other emissions contributing to acidification. These emissions and related reductions mainly stem from production impacts outside the EU, thus having a regional effect outside the EU, and only to a smaller extend from reductions in use energy consumption in the EU (Options 4, 5.1, and 5.2). Roughly 20 kt SO2 eq. less in 2030 is the calculated effect of sub-options 3.1, 5.1 and 3.3 for the year 2030. Option 5.2 results in the reduction of 22 kt SO2 eq. A similarly high savings potential is achieved from 2027 onwards in these scenarios, also for sub-options 3.2a and 3.2b. Option 4 (Energy Label) results in less emissions reduction (3 kt SO2). These emissions are mainly due to electricity use along the life cycle phases.

Similar trends are identified for tablets. For sub-options 3.1 (Ecodesign requirements) and 5.1 (Ecodesign requirements plus Energy Label) and the respective sub-options including a scoring on reparability (i.e. sub-option 3.3 and 5.2) Greenhouse Gas emissions drop significantly from 2023 onwards. The same for the less ambitious ecodesign option, i.e sub-option 3.2a. For all these scenarios, the related emissions are 0.5 million t CO2 eq. lower in 2030 than with “no action”. Compared to this savings potential only an Energy Label (i.e., Option 4) yields a significantly lower savings potential, but still 0.1 million t CO2 eq.

Acidification under policies 3.1 (Ecodesign requirements), 5.1 (Ecodesign requirements and Energy Label) and the other sub-options (i.e. 3.3 and 5.2) result in significant reductions in SO2 and other emissions contributing to acidification, 2.8 kt SO2 eq. less in 2030. A reduction of 2.6 kt SO2 eq is expected under sub-option 3.2a. A similarly high savings potential is achieved from 2027 onwards in these scenarios. Option 4 (Energy Label) results in the least emission reductions (0.8 kt SO2 eq.).

6.2.3.Circular economy perspective: material consumption

Total material consumption from which smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones, accessories and packaging sold in 2030 are made is calculated to be roughly 86,500 t with Option 1 (of which 75,600 t smartphones, 6,300 t feature phones and 4,600 t cordless phones). This value is considerably reduced along with the declining sales of all devices with sub-option 3.1 (Ecodesign requirements) down to roughly 58,700 t (32% reduction), and sub-option 5.1 (Ecodesign requirements plus Energy Label), down to 54,700 t (37% reduction). Total material consumption with sub-option 3.2a reduces by 31%, to 59,000 tons and sub-option 3.2b reduces by 36%, to roughly 55,600 tons. With Option 4, material consumption reduces by 1%. As almost all materials used in these devices are mined and processed outside the EU, the reduced material consumption means accordingly less mining and processing outside the EU. Better recyclability and incentives to return used devices under Options 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b, 5.1 and 5.2 will secure resources for the EU economy. The consumption of Critical Raw Materials also decreases along with the declining sales.

In the “no action” scenario the overall amount of material used for tablets, accessories and packaging made in 2030 is calculated to be roughly 30,400 t. This value is reduced with sub-options 3.1 (Ecodesign requirements), sub-options 3.2a and 5.1 (Ecodesign requirements and Energy Label) down to roughly 22,000 t. The consumption of Critical Raw Materials, provided that the composition of tablets does not change fundamentally, is also reduced along with the declining sales of devices.

Full quantitative information for sub-options 3.3 and 5.2 are not available, but given they are built on sub-options 3.2b and 5.1, expected figures about material consumption will be at least the same or even lower since a reparability scoring supposes an additional impact. The environmental benefits of including reparability scoring would be significant: it avoids early failures allowing products to have a longer lifetime and thus, be less frequently replaced. This enhances their potential for circularity (i.e., re-sale and reuse) and reduces environmental impacts related to the production, transport, and disposal of products.

6.2.4.External societal costs 

For smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones, maintaining the no-action scenario (Option 1) will result in societal costs because of externalities. Implementing any of the proposed options would result in positive effects. With Option 4 (Energy Label) external annual costs will be reduced by about EUR 120 million compared to the baseline scenario. A major reduction in external annual costs is achieved with sub-option 3.1 (Ecodesign requirements), sub-options 3.2a and 3.2b (Extended ecodesign options under different requirements), sub-option 5.1 (Ecodesign requirements and Energy Label) and sub-options including a repair index (option 3.3 and 5.2). Significant reductions are achieved under sub-option 3.1, 3.2b, 5.1, 3.3 and 5.2 by almost EUR 900 million less in 2030 (the greatest reduction is for sub-option 5.2). Sub-option 3.2a is not as ambitious, with a reduction of EUR 730 million compared to no-action. More detailed information is found in Annex 10.

The social annual external costs of tablets will be slightly lower in 2030 under Option 1 compared to today, but greater results in terms of reduction will be achieved by implementing sub-options 3.1 (Ecodesign requirements) and 5.1 (Ecodesign requirements and Energy Label) and sub-options including a repair index (options 3.3 and 5.2). These options reduce societal costs by almost EUR 150 million in 2030 compared to the “no action” scenario. A lower but relevant result is obtained under sub-option 3.2a, with EUR 110 million less. With Option 4 (Energy Label), external damages will only be reduced by EUR 33 million in 2030.

6.3.SOCIAL IMPACTS

6.3.1.Employment

The biggest effects on employment are related to the numbers involved in the EU repair and maintenance sector.

For smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones with Method A (see other methods and sensitive analysis in Annex 10), it is estimated that under no action (Option 1) and if 10% of old smartphones and 2% of old feature phones
[57](#footnote58)
 were to be refurbished, about 22,700 jobs would be required for this process in 2030. This implies a current positive trend given the figure for 2021 was 22,000 jobs. In comparison with this figure, implementing the Energy Label, i.e. Option 4, leads to a small increase in the number of jobs (23,000 jobs). However, Ecodesign options achieve greater numbers: about 25,450 jobs in sub-option 3.1, sub-options 3.2a, 3.2b, sub-option 3.3 and sub-option 5.1, and higher for sub-option 5.2 (25,600 jobs).

For tablets, for the "no action” scenario (i.e. Option 1) about 7,350 jobs would be required in the repair/maintenance sector (i.e., a negative trend compared to the current number of jobs: 9,200). The reduction of the level of employment is smaller with other options (7,600 jobs will be needed under sub-option 3.1, 3.2a and 5.1, and 7,700 jobs will be needed under sub-option 3.3 and 5.2). The Energy Label option (Option 4) would be the less ambitious compared to Option 1 (7,400 jobs).

As opposed to the repair and maintenance sector, the effect on employment related to the EU manufacturing sector is expected to be negative. As many factors determine the level of production (directly and indirectly) and given the difficulty to take them all into account, an estimation has not been possible. Given the small size of the EU manufacturing sector, the effect is expected to be small.

The EU retail sector could be also negatively affected under different options, mainly due to expected sales reduction. A number of factors will determine the evolution of this sector, making it difficult to estimate the size of loss – if any - in employment. For example, in this case, retailers are likely to also sell other equipment and an expected reduction in consumer’s cost of ownership also would mean a positive income effect, so they are likely to increase spending on other goods. This could partly compensate for the negative effect on sales (not totally, given the relevant market share of phones and tablets in the electronic devices sector). It is also noteworthy that the fast speed of evolution may imply new kind of devices, with increased and or new functionalities, to appear on the market. This would, again, partly compensate retailers of the abovementioned effects.

6.3.2.Affordability (consumer expenditure)

In general, all proposed options will result in a small increase in purchase prices, which is mainly driven by design and service changes to meet reparability and reliability requirements, thus prices are very similar for those options with specific reparability and reliability requirements. The purchase price methodology is described in Annex 4. Under the same annex, a detailed analysis of the cost calculations per typology of requirement, as researched and estimated during the preparatory study and in this impact assessment, is presented. The product cost impacts per individual measure are based on a technical analysis of changes to be implemented and were subject to stakeholder consultations in the course of the preparatory study. In order to estimate the effects (on prices, but also on durability, repair rates, etc.) of the policy options described under this impact assessment, an iterative process was used. For each of the product subcategories under analysis (low-end smartphones, mid-range smartphones, etc.), a product architecture featuring compliance with a limited subset of requirements
[58](#footnote59)
 was first modelled. Then, further subsets of two-three requirements each were integrated into the modelling in an iterative way, i.e. adding one subset per step, each time re-evaluating the effects (on prices, but also on durability, repair rates, etc.). The order in which measures have been modelled and implemented for this analysis corresponds to the procedure mandated by the Methodology for Ecodesign of Energy-related Products (MEErP), i.e. implementing first measures with the highest cost savings potential for consumers. In case of mobile phones and tablets, these are the measures adressing reparability and next reliability, as these lead to overall longer product lifetime, thus reduced life cycle costs per year of use. The last measures to be implented in this analysis are those with no life cycle cost savings for consumers, but still with reduced environmental impacts and reduced societal life cycle costs. These are the information requirements on upstream greenhouse gas emissions. Where side effects, such as an incentivized unbundling of external power supplies and devices leading to additional replacement purchases of external power supplies, lead to additional costs for the consumer, this is factored in as well. Similarly, repair costs are covered in this analysis as life cycle costs, but where the consumer is undertaking do-it-yourself repairs no labour costs are considered, given that consumers do not consider such work as a cost factor. Given the competitiveness of the mobile phones and tablets market it is assumed, that additional manufacturing and logistics costs lead to corresponding product price increases, but not to excessively increased margins for the manufacturers or retailers.  All the details of this process are explained in Annex 4; by means of this analysis, it was possible to derive the below reported figures, which are presented in detail in Annex 10.

The 2030 price of mid-range smartphones under the different options is Option 1 = EUR 500; sub-option 3.1 = EUR 504; sub-option 3.2a = EUR 505; sub-option 3.2b = EUR 504; sub-option 3.3 = EUR 504; Option 4 = EUR 500; sub-option 5.1 = EUR 504, sub-option 5.2 = EUR 504.

For feature phones, 2030 price under the different options is: Option 1 = EUR 80; sub-option 3.1 = EUR 80; sub-option 3.2a = EUR 83; sub-option 3.2b = EUR 83; sub-option 3.3 =EUR 83; Option 4 = EUR 80; sub-option 5.1 = EUR 83, sub-option 5.2 = EUR 83. 2030 price for cordless phones will come to be EUR 50 for Options 1, 3.1 and 4, while it is estimated at EUR 52 for other options.

These cost calculations were subject to stakeholder consultation, without major concerns being raised by manufacturers and other stakeholders regarding their accuracy.

Affordability of access to smartphones might become an issue if this price increase is seen as a relevant barrier by EU consumers. Considering this increase is at most 1%, it is not expected that consumers will be significantly affected. Furthermore, the lifetime of smartphones is expected to increase from 3.1 (Option 1) to 4.14 years (Option 3.1 and 3.2b) 4.17 (sub-option 5.1), 4.18 (sub-option 3.2a) or 4.26 (sub-options 3.3 and 5.2). Option 4 would not imply an extended lifetime.

Tablet purchase prices will increase about 1% on average with the implementation of Ecodesign requirements and is not considered, therefore, and issue of affordability. The purchase price for Option 1 is EUR 330, for sub-option 3.1 (Ecodesign) the price was estimated at EUR 334 (the same for sub-option 3.2a, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.2), and for Option 4 (Energy label) the purchase price is EUR 331. As with smartphones, the lifetime of tablets is expected to increase from 5 years (Option 1) to 5.1 years (Option 4), 6 years (sub-option 3.1 and 3.2a), 5.6 years (sub-option 5.1) or 6.1 (sub-option 3.3 and 5.2).

All policy options lead to a very slightly higher prices. Due to extended lifetimes the costs of ownership (including energy consumption and expenses for repairs) per year of use are lower than under the baseline.

Consumer expenditure

For smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones, the total consumer expenditure
[59](#footnote60)
 in 2020 in the EU is calculated at EUR 77,208 million, of which EUR 75,025 million smartphones, EUR 1,360 million feature phones and EUR 823 million cordless phones. Following the trend, the aggregated nominal value will be about EUR 80,475 million for 2030. Total annual consumer expenditure declines with all options in the coming years when compared to no-action. It significantly declines for sub-option 3.1 (Ecodesign requirements) (EUR -18,200 million) sub-option 3.2a and 3.2b (Extended Ecodesign options) (EUR -18,500 million and EUR -18,300 million, respectively), sub-option 3.3 (Ecodesign with a repair index) (EUR – 19,000 million), and sub-option 5.1 (Ecodesign requirements and Energy Label) (EUR –18,300 million). The slight decline for option 4 (Energy Label) (EUR –2,600 million) is due to a limited effect of lifetime extension across the EU market and the ongoing trend towards higher price devices.

Sub-option 5.2 shows the highest decline (EUR –19,500 million) in total consumer expenditure. It also presents the lowest annual expenditure for a “typical consumer”: annual consumer expenditure for smartphones will decrease from EUR 170 (Option 1) to EUR 166 (Option 4), EUR 129 (sub-option 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b and 5.1), and EUR 127 (sub-options 3.3 and 5.2). For feature phones, it will reduce from EUR 29.6 (Option 1) to EUR 28.6 (sub-option 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.2), and EUR 28.4 (Option 4). For sub-option 3.1 there are no changes compared to the baseline. In the case of cordless phones, the annual consumer expenditure will decrease from EUR 11.8 (Option 1) to EUR 11.6 (Sub-options 5.1, 3.2a, 3.2b 3.3 and 5.2). There are no changes, compared to the baseline, for other options.

Similar conclusions are found for tablets. Option 4 will imply a minor reduction of total annual consumer expenditure compared to “no action” (EUR 700 million less). The remaining options would provide the same level of benefits to consumers in terms of expenditure - about EUR 1,000 million per year reduction compared to the baseline scenario: EUR –1,029 million (sub-option 3.1), EUR -1.036 million (sub-option 3.2a), EUR –1,085 million (sub-option 3.3) and EUR –1,032 million (sub-option 5.1). The highest reduction is expected for sub-option 5.2 (EUR –1,089 million).

The annual expenditure of a tablet’s “typical consumer” will decrease from EUR 71.2 (Option 1) to EUR 62,2 (sub-options 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b, and 5.1), EUR 69.4 (Option 4) and EUR 61.7 (sub-options 3.3 and 5.2).

  

6.3.3.Health, safety and functionality aspects

There are no known negative health impacts from using more efficient appliances as prescribed by the respective options. In fact, this is a way of ensuring that mobile devices comply with specifications and protocols to protect user’s and workers’ health.

Electronic devices, specifically smartphones and tablets, contain toxic materials that can cause serious health effects in exposed individuals. These materials can also affect human health and pollute agricultural lands and aquifers if not correctly managed after their use.

Under all options considered, toxic materials’ use is reduced, particularly for options including Ecodesign requirements. The main beneficiaries will be workers of recycling plants, as a significant number of toxic dioxins and furans that can cause health effects are generated during the recycling process. Halogenated compounds, for example, have been shown to cause reproductive abnormalities, diabetes, thyroid dysregulation and other diseases.

Since the manufacturing process is carried out mainly in non-EU countries but devices will be used by EU consumers, both EU users and non-EU workers will benefit from healthier and safer devices.

Additionally, and especially for Ecodesign options, given that new production must follow the same design criteria, compatibility across devices is assured.

7.How do the options compare?

7.1.Summary of impacts

The impacts of the different policy options at EU level for 2030 and for smartphones, feature phones, cordless phones and tablets are summarised in 
[Table](#_Ref85485174)
[2](#_Ref85485174)
. Values included are sales and cost impacts, environmental impacts and social indicators across devices. Absolute values are complemented by percentages indicating the change with respect to the baseline scenario (i.e., Option 1). All policy options apply to smartphones, a reparability index is not considered for feature phones (i.e. sub-options 3.3 and 5.2), cordless phones are only affected by Ecodesign requirement or none, while for tablets sub-option 3.2b does not apply. Similar tables for smartphones plus feature phones plus cordless phones and tablets are available in Annex 10.

Table 2: Smartphones, feature phones, cordless phones and tablets 
  
(Aggregated results per policy option, yearly figures for 2030)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_52005.jpg)

Economic impacts

With regards to the effects on OEMs we highlight the reduced number of manufactured devices, although this affects mainly non-EU businesses. On the other hand, the increase of repair and maintenance service would be expected to lead to an increase in the numbers of firms (SMEs), and its related level of employment (see social impact below). In general, the manufacturers and retailers could see reductions
[60](#footnote61)
 of the business revenues under some policy options, especially those including a reparability score (i.e. sub-options 3.3 and 5.2).

Environmental impacts

For 2030, the most ambitious option (i.e. sub-option 5.2), has the highest environmental positive effect (in terms of reduction of GHG emissions and of raw material consumption). Whereas the additional effect of an Energy Label and/or a repair index on top of Ecodesign seems to be not very significant (based on a moderate reaction of the market towards better energy efficiency, i.e. battery endurance), the positive change in the market is however expected to materialise earlier than with Ecodesign requirements only, at least for the Energy Label as it is already well known among consumers. The Energy Label alone has a positive impact as well, but only in the range of 1 to 9% improvement for environmental indicators. Comparing sub-options 3.2a and 3.2b, the more ambitious ecodesign option (i.e. sub-option 3.2b) presents better results, especially in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The addition of a repair index to Ecodesign requirements (i.e. sub-option 3.3 but especially sub-option 5.2) has a bigger improvement on the environmental aspects.

Total material consumption in all the products entering the market will be reduced by 29-30% (Sub-options 3.1 and 5.1) in 2030 compared to the baseline. It has not been possible to estimate these values for sub-options 3.3 nor 5.2, but in terms of circular economy, positive and greater results are expected (increase of refurbishment rate and longer lifetime). Relevant improvements in terms of external societal damages are achieved, especially for reparability index options, i.e. sub-option 3.3 and sub-option 5.2, about 30% and 32% of reduction, respectively.

Social impacts

Consumers would significantly benefit from the options. The positive effect of all options including Ecodesign requirements (so excluding Option 4) is on average 22% lower total annual consumer expenditure, despite the increase in repair costs.

Sub-option 3.3 (Ecodesign plus repair index) and 5.2 (Ecodesign plus repair index plus Energy Label) have the highest social effects. Employment in the repair and maintenance sector is expected to be 11% higher under these scenarios than with no action. This is significantly higher than the impact with Option 4, where the employment is expected to increase 1%.

Table 2a provides qualitative information comparing the policy options in terms of the objectives.

Table 2a: Objectives and policy options

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
|  |  |
| Options/impacts relative to the baseline | Avoiding premature obsolescence | Contributing towards a circular economy by facilitating repair and increasing durability | Helping consumers making an informed and sustainable choice at the point of sale | Fostering product designs aimed to achieve cost-efficient material and energy savings |
| Policy opt. 1 | no change | no change | no change | no change |
| Policy opt.3.1 | ++ | + | +- | ++ |
| Policy opt. 3.2a | ++ | + | +- | ++ |
| Policy opt. 3.2b | ++ | + | +- | ++ |
| Policy opt.3.3 | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
| Policy opt. 4 | + | + | +++ | ++ |
| Policy opt. 5.1 | ++ | ++ | + | ++ |
| Policy opt. 5.2 | ++ | +++ | +++ | +++ |

Legend: +- almost no impact; + minor positive impact; ++ positive impact; +++ significant positive impact; - minor negative impact; -- negative impact; --- significant negative impact.

Table 2b provides, on the basis of the analysis of the impacts, qualitative information comparing the policy options in terms of effectiveness (how each option achieves the specific objectives), efficiency (cost-benefits analysis) and coherence with other pieces of EU law and the overarching objectives of EU policies (a discussion about this comparison is presented in the next section, which then identifies the preferred policy option).

Table 2b: Comparison of policy options

|  |
| --- |
|  |
| Options | Effectiveness | Efficiency | Coherence |
| Policy opt. 1 | no change | no change | no change |
| Policy opt.3.1 | +/++ | ++ | + |
| Policy opt. 3.2a | +/++ | ++ | + |
| Policy opt. 3.2b | +/++ | +/++ | + |
| Policy opt.3.3 | ++ | ++ | + |
| Policy opt. 4 | +/++ | + | +-/+ |
| Policy opt. 5.1 | ++ | ++ | + |
| Policy opt. 5.2 | +++ | ++/+++ | ++ |

Legend: +- almost no impact; + minor positive impact; ++ positive impact; +++ significant positive impact; - minor negative impact; -- negative impact; --- significant negative impact.

To determine the level of efficiency of the options, the costs and benefits of each policy option (against the baseline scenario) have been considered. On the cost side, the increase in compliance costs, repair costs, acquisition price, reduction of business revenue and the negative impact on SMEs in the manufacturing and retail sectors have been assessed. As these costs are reflected in annual consumer expenditure, the change in consumer expenditure under the different policy options compared to the baseline has been taken as a proxy of the incremental costs of each option. On the benefit side, not all of the impacts are expressed in economic terms as many are environmental and social gains. In terms of relevance for this study, the incremental benefits of each option are estimated in terms of avoided externalities under the different options compared to the baseline. This includes benefits such as reduction of GHG emissions, acidification and energy consumption.

When evaluating the efficiency of each option,the gains and losses of different groups of affected parties (e.g. suppliers, repairers, etc..) have been considered. In practical terms, to derive the final assessment, no formal weighting has been used. Instead, a judgment has been taken on the relative importance of changes to different groups (suppliers of equipment, repairers, consumers, beneficiaries of environmental improvements).

8.Preferred option

Based on the analyses carried out in the previous section, it can be concluded as follows (annex 11 presents in detail a comparison of the options).

Sub-option 5.2 is the most efficient option as it presents the best result both in terms of the social indicators (lower annual consumer expenditure for the equipment, employment gain) and the environmental indicators (reduction in GHG emissions and in raw material consumption). With respect to losses in revenue for manufacturers, it should be noted that these represent a welfare transfer to consumers, resulting in reduced annual consumer expenditure. Yet, as consumers would still experience the same functionality from owning a smartphone or tablet, it can be argued that this also improves efficiency overall (less resource use providing the same utility). Therefore, lost revenues do not represent an economic loss to society. In terms of effectiveness, sub option 5.2 is clearly superior to the other ones. Being based on the synergy between Ecodesign requirements, an energy label and a scoring index on reparability, it would address all the problems identified in the previous sections and propose regulatory measures in line with the specific objectives. Environmental improvements would mainly be achieved through lifetime extending measures, as foreseen by the ecodesign requirements, but also the energy label requirements due to using the energy label as vehicle to communicate a range of environmental parameters in a transparent manner, thus resulting in a likely market pull. Improved energy efficiency of the devices is demonstrated to have also a positive effect on battery lifetimes due to less frequent charging, and thus on overall product lifetime.

The other policy options would have positive impacts (though never higher than sub-option 5.2) for realising some of the specific objectives. The policy options foreseeing ‘tools’ to communicate sustainability aspects to users (options 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b and 3.3 implying Ecodesign and option 4 on the energy label) would be certainly effective in helping consumers making an informed and sustainable choice at the point of sale. All options are expected to have a positive impact on the objective of facilitating repair and increasing durability and on the objective to achieve cost-efficient material and energy savings. Concerning the objective of avoiding premature obsolescence, the policy options foreseeing – inter alia – Ecodesign measures are those expected to be more effective, thanks to the extension of the lifetime of the devices attained (as a direct effect of the compliance with the Ecodesign requirements).

Concerning the efficiency of the various policy options, options 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b and 3.3 would be quite efficient. In fact, on one side they would imply, in particular, recurrent costs higher than the baseline due to the necessary product modifications in order to comply with the Ecodesign requirements. On the other side, they would have significant positive impacts(i.e. benefits). The efficiency of options 3.2a and 3.2b also depends on how the markets of cordless and feature phones evolve (expected to be declining). Option 4 (energy label) has the lowest economic impact in terms of reduction of sales and of business revenues, but it also has limited social and environmental benefits, which result ino not very high efficiency. Options 5.1 and 5.2 would have an efficiency similar to option 3.1, 3.2a and 3.2b.

In terms of coherence, all the options foreseeing regulatory approaches (3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.3, 4, 5.1, and 5.2) would be coherent with the existing waste and product policies. Furthermore, annex 6 shows in detail how these regulatory approaches would be complementary/synergic with the initiatives under development in fields related to product policy, circular economy and consumer rights. Concerning the coherence with the overarching objectives of EU policies, it is interesting to refer to the main objectives of the Green Deal and the CEAP 2020. With this regard, all the options foreseeing regulatory approaches would be coherent with the commitments laid down in the CEAP 2020, in particular those referred to under the Circular Electronics Initiative (regulatory measures for electronics and ICT (incl. mobile phones, tablets and laptops) under the Ecodesign Directive to ensure that devices are designed for energy efficiency and durability, reparability, upgradability, maintenance, reuse and recycling). Option 5.2, with its ‘composite’ structure of Ecodesign requirements, scoring index on reparability and Energy Labelling, would seem as the more comprehensive ‘reply’ to these commitments, thus qualifying as the best also from this viewpoint. Finally, the options foreseeing regulatory approaches (3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.3, 4, 5.1, and 5.2) would also be coherent the European Climate Law
[61](#footnote62)
, which integrated the goals defined in the Green Deal, in particular on carbon neutrality by 2050. In fact, all options, and in particular sub option 5.2, result in significant reductions of GHG emissions compared to the baseline. Thus, they would directly contribute to the 2030 climate target of at least 55% reduction of net emissions of greenhouse gases.

Based on these considerations, the sub option 5.2, foreseeing Ecodesign requirements together with a scoring index on reparability plus Energy Label appears as the most suitable one, as this is the option which, in general, ranks better than the others.

Thanks to its compulsory nature, and the extensive set of requirements Ecodesign would help delivering on the three specific objectives identified in this impact assessment report, i.e. 1) Avoiding premature obsolescence, 2) facilitating repair and increasing durability of these products and key components (e.g. battery and display) and 3) Fostering product designs aimed to achieve cost-efficient material and energy savings. To a small extent, it would also help delivering on the objective 4) Helping consumers making an informed and sustainable choice at the point of sale (there are also Ecodesign information requirements, that have to be made publicly available on free-access websites).

The Energy label, due to its specific design, would help delivering on the three specific objectives 2) facilitating repair and increasing durability of these products and key components (e.g. battery and display) 3) Fostering product designs aimed to achieve cost-efficient material and energy savings and 4) Helping consumers making an informed and sustainable choice at the point of sale. To a small extent, it would also help delivering on the objective 1) Avoiding premature obsolescence (in particular thanks to the prolonged battery lifetime that could be highlighted in the label). The energy savings that can be associated to the energy label alone (as per the results of Table 2, option 4) are quantified in 13 PJ, i.e. ~ 3,6 TWh/y. The energy savings that can be associated to the energy label in combination with Ecodesign, i.e. as under the preferred option 5.2, can be estimated in the order of 10,4 PJ, i.e. ~ 2,8 TWh/y
[62](#footnote63)
. This is certainly less than the impact from the Ecodesign option alone (48 PJ, i.e. ~ 13,3 TWh/y), however in absolute terms it still qualifies as significant (this is a similar value to other already existing Energy Labelling Regulations, such as Regulation 2015/1094 on professional refrigerators). 

The reparability score, incorporated in the energy label, would help delivering on the specific objectives of 2) facilitating repair and increasing durability of these products and key components (e.g. battery and display) and 4) Helping consumers making an informed and sustainable choice at the point of sale. To a lesser extent, it would also help delivering on the objective 1) Avoiding premature obsolescence (the scoring systems is positively affected by the availability of operating system updates over time) and 3) Fostering product designs aimed to achieve cost-efficient material and energy savings (with specific regard to material efficient product designs).

Recent consumer and behavioural studies conducted by the JRC show that there should be a positive effect stemming from quantitative information on material efficiency aspects available for the consumer in the form of a label. In fact, graded labels are the most effective to steer consumer toward more sustainable purchase decisions
[63](#footnote64)
. Moreover, it has been shown that the communication of reparability information results in an increase in the choice share for the product with the best reparability score relative to the baseline
[64](#footnote65)
. A more detailed analysis on the consumer acceptance/understanding of a ‘multi-dimensional’ label (i.e. displaying energy efficiency together with parameters related to material efficiency) is presented in Annex 9.

  

9.SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

A more optimistic trend for EU market is a situation where Eco Rating turns out to yield significant changes in the market without any EU intervention. A new scenario with higher Eco rating penetration (12.5%) is analysed as an alternative (hypothetical) baseline. Sub-option 5.2 is therefore compared to this alternative baseline for purposes of sensitivity analysis.

Regarding 
[Table](#_Ref85487302)
[3](#_Ref85487302)
, we can observe that, even with a more positive development of the baseline, sub-option 5.2 remains a suitable choice, because its economic, environmental and social impacts are significant and positive in most cases. As we compare it now with a more optimistic baseline, it is reasonable that changes are slightly lower, but the same will happen under the rest of options (see Annex 10). So, 5.2 still represents a considerable net benefit and remains the preferred option.

Table 3: Sensitivity analysis for the preferred option (sub-option 5.2) - yearly figures for 2030

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_52006.jpg)

There is also some uncertainty, concerning how better reparability, and in particular a reparability score, would be received by users, as there is no precedent on how the actual market response is for such a novel policy approach. Past market pull experiences, such as the energy labelling of other consumer electronics, show a clear positive effect of these instruments. In any case, the worst scenario could be the one where no positive effects are associated with the reparability score. If the reparability score has no effect, Option 5.2 would have the same environmental impact as Option 5.1. As soon as the reparability score results in actually more repairs being undertaken – for which there are strong preliminary indications – Option 5.2 is the preferred option.

A second – and more specific - sensitivity analysis on the potential negative effects resulting from overstock of spare parts is presented under Annex 10. For the 6 product segments (entry-level smartphones, mid-range smartphones, high-end smartphones, feature phones, cordless phones and tablets), an hypothetical situation, where the obsolete overstock varies between 10% and 50% of the actual spare parts demand, has been modelled. This analysis leads to the conclusion that the issue of obsolete spare parts stock even, under the worst case scenario of 50% excess stock, only results in very minor additional environmental impacts across all analysed indicators.

10.How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated?

Policy monitoring and tracking of the progress of the market towards better performing products in terms of ecodesign is facilitated by a mandatory requirement under Energy Labelling Regulation EU 2017/1369 to enter comprehensive performance data in the EPREL database of the European Commission.

An analysis of the products on the market (sales figures derived from generally available market statistics, performance, etc.) can determine if the shift towards more resource efficient products has happened as intended, in particular based on the following indicators, which reflect the general and specific objectives:

Socio-economic information

1.Market penetration (e.g. percentage of sales for improved products or elimination of worst performing products) (Source: Eurostat, Market data, WEEE registers);

2.Overall decline in sales as an indicator of longer product life cycles (Source: Eurostat, Market data);

3.Speed with which market penetration of improved products has occurred, i.e. x number of years for y% penetration (source: Market data);

4.Reduction of the related GHG emissions (To be estimated);

5.Savings (economic) for European consumers (To be estimated);

6.Number of additional jobs created in the EU (source: Eurostat);

Environmental Information

Compliance with the circular economy requirements: The monitoring framework on the Circular Economy as set up by the European Commission consists of ten indicators, some of which are broken down in sub-indicators. However, all these indicators will not be available at a disaggregated level to monitor the impact of ecodesign implementing measures and energy labelling. Only those highlighted in italics are the most relevant ones.

Production and consumption

1.Self-sufficiency of raw materials for production in the EU (the number of smartphone and tablets, collected and recycled, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) organisations can provide this information for the devices collected through their channels);

2.Restricting the use of hazardous substances (not in scope);

3.Green public procurement (as an indicator for financing aspects);

4.Waste generation (as an indicator for consumption aspects): information available from EPR organisations (WEEE Registers);

Waste management

5.Recycling rates (the share of WEEE which is recycled): information available from EPR organisations;

6.Dismantling of components (WEEE): information available from EPR organisations;

7.Information requirements to facilitate reparability: Source: Database on reparability index (e.g. in France, to be seen if such database can be established at the EU level by putting in place reporting requirements for Member States);

Secondary raw materials

8.Contribution of recycled materials to raw materials demand (Source: EPR organisations);

9.Trade of recyclable raw materials between the EU Member States and with the rest of the world (Source: Eurostat);

Competitiveness and innovation

10.Private investments, jobs and gross value added (Source: Eurostat);

11.Patents related to recycling and secondary raw materials as a proxy for innovation.

An evaluation of the initiative could usefully take place (indicatively) 4 years after entry into force of the measures. The evaluation would build on the information from the above indicators and could usefully be combined with the review process foreseen for ecodesign implementing measures.

  

Annex 1: Procedural information

1.Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references

Lead DG: DG GROW

Decide number of the underlying initiative: PLAN/2020/9213 (Ecodesign) and PLAN/2020/9217 (Energy Labelling).

2.Organisation and timing

The inception impact assessment was published on 23/12/2020
[65](#footnote66)
, with a feedback period until 27/01/2021.

The following DGs (Directorates General) have been invited to contribute to this impact assessment: SG (Secretariat-General), ENER (Energy), ENV (Environment), CNECT (Communications Networks, Content and Technology), JRC (Joint Research Centre), JUST (Justice and Consumers) and TRADE (Trade). The DG in the lead for this initiative, i.e. DG GROW (Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs), met with the other DGs 3 times during 2020-21, to give an update on the ongoing work and share the preliminary versions of the Impact assessment report, together with all the supporting documents.

3.Consultation of the RSB

The draft impact assessment report was submitted to the RSB on 18/11/2021. The impact assessment was discussed with the RSB on 15/12/2021. Following the meeting, the RSB issued a negative opinion on 17/12/2021. In order to take the Board’s concerns into account, the following modifications have been made to the impact assessment:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| RSB recommendations | Revisions introduced |
| (B) Summary of findings | |
| (1) The report does not provide enough evidence to back up the proposed options and analysis. | Please see the detailed points discussed below under C.1 |
| (2) The report does not demonstrate that it is proportionate to consider introducing Ecodesign requirements or an Energy label for smartphones and tablets. | Please see the detailed points discussed below under C.2 |
| (3) The scope of the initiative is not sufficiently clear, in particular in relation to other product groups covered by existing Ecodesign regulation. | Please see the detailed points discussed below under C.3 |
| (4) The baseline does not sufficiently incorporate possible sustainability initiatives by market actors and the effects of technological developments on the use of energy and resources. | Please see the detailed points discussed below under C.4 |
| (5) The report does not analyse the impacts of the options completely and in enough detail. It does not convincingly demonstrate that the preferred option performs significantly better than other options. | Please see the detailed points discussed below under C.6, C.7 and C.8 |
| (C) What to improve | |
| (1) The report should read as a standalone document. In particular, it should integrate relevant evidence from the preparatory study in an annex and summarise it in the main report. It should focus on presenting the relevant evidence to justify and structure the intervention and to assess its expected impacts. | Additional evidence from the preparatory study on the topics referred to in the left cell has been integrated in the report, in particular under Annex 4 and Annex 9 (and recalled/summarised in the main text). The information added are related in particular to the:  -nature and rationale,  -market readiness  -expected impacts on durability, reparability and energy efficiency of products,  -environmental impacts  on each of the proposed Ecodesign requirements, on the energy label and on the reparability score. |
| (2) The report should provide evidence that the initiative meets the proportionality requirements of the Ecodesign and Energy labelling legislation, which are pre-conditions for action. It should demonstrate that there are significant environmental impacts within the EU and that there are wide disparities in environmental performance between products with equivalent functionality.      The report should also demonstrate that there is no overlap between this initiative and the proposed Batteries Regulation | A detailed analysis on the legal basis for the EU action with Ecodesign and Energy Labelling requirements for mobile phones and tablets has been added in the second part of Annex 5, and summarised in the main text (section Why should the EU act?); it is shown that the conditions laid down in the Ecodesign Directive and the Energy Labelling Regulation for proposing regulatory measures are met in the specific case analysed in this impact assessment.  Concerning the risk of overlap with the Battery Regulation, an analysis on the articulation between the potential Ecodesign and Energy Labelling requirements for mobile phones and tablets, and the provisions of the Battery Regulation (as per the Commission proposal of December 2020 [66](#footnote67) ) has been added at the end of Annex 6. |
| (3) The scope of the initiative should be explained and justified. The report should explain the rationale of separating smartphones and tablets from computers and servers covered under Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013. The reasons for separating laptops from closely related products should be explained in greater detail. | A dedicated section on the supporting analysis for the identification of the products (sub)groups to be covered by the policy options has been added at the beginning of Annex 9 (this has been also clarified in the main report, in the policy options description).  The reasons for keeping laptops under the review of the Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013, as well as for covering smartphones and (slate) tablets under the same Ecodesign Regulation, are discussed. |
| (4) The baseline should better include current and likely developments put in place by private actors either at corporate or industry level. For example, it should include selfrepair schemes and eco-ratings and how these would evolve. The baseline should also better incorporate how continued progress in miniaturisation and battery efficiency would affect the use of energy and resources. | As described under section 5.1 (What is the baseline from which options are assessed), the baseline has been modified, in order to ‘incorporate’ and factor in the likely developments put in place by private actors, the Eco rating scheme in particular. The recent self-repair initiative from Apple32 was not incorporated in the baseline, due to the uncertainties related to the actual EU coverage, timing and typology of support.    As added in the section 2.4. (‘How will the problem evolve?’), it is argued that the expected technological evolution of smartphones and tablets will head towards increasing overall energy consumption and environmental impacts of the industry. |
| (5) The report should explain how it determined the set of specific measures and defined the reparability index. It should justify why it does not consider alternatives and explain why these were discarded. | Please also see the reply discussed below under C.1  In particular in the part added under Annex 9, it is presented how the optimal set (in techno-economic-environmental terms) of Ecodesign requirements, together with the Energy label and the reparability score, was determined on the basis of the analysis of the preparatory study. An analysis on the potential requirements that had been analysed, but finally discarded, has also been added.  A policy sub-option on Ecodesign has been added (and modelled), to show the differences in impacts between imposing only quantitative requirements and quantitative + information requirements on specific aspects (raw materials content, recycled content, etc.). |
| (6) Impacts should be analysed more comprehensively and presented in more detail. The report should analyse consumer behaviour under different ownership models for mobile phones.    It should also discuss the expected reactions from third-country manufacturers in more depth, taking into account global market dynamics, including strategic innovation, obsolescence and ‘versioning’ strategies. It should assess the risk of regulatory retaliation and other unintended consequences.    The environmental impacts of the proposed options should be analysed in greater detail; e.g. the material efficiency of mandating spare part inventories to be held available for a specific duration (and potentially unused).            More generally, the report should be clearer whether the reported costs and benefits systematically relate only to those directly affecting the EU or globally. | An analysis on the different ownership models for mobile phones, and their effect on the user behaviour, has been added under Annex 5 (at the end of the subsection ‘the consumer perspective’), and referred to in the main text, in the section 2.1 on ‘problem definition’).    An analysis on the expected reactions from third-country manufacturers has been added in the main text, in the subsection Indirect economic impacts for businesses.          A sensitivity analysis on the potential negative effects resulting from overstock of spare parts has been added under annex 10, and summarised in the main text. Overall, this sensitivity analysis leads to the conclusion that the issue of obsolete spare parts stock even, under the worst case scenario of 50% excess stock, only results in very minor additional environmental impacts across all analysed indicators.      Whether the reported costs and benefits systematically relate only to those directly affecting the EU or globally, has been clarified throughout the report |
| (7) The report does not convincingly explain why the costs of smartphones and tablets would only marginally increase. Several of the proposed measures, such as increased inventory requirements and including protective cases, would seem expensive. | A detailed analysis of the cost calculations per typology of requirement, as researched and estimated during the preparatory study and in this impact assessment, has been added under Annex 4, and recalled in the main text. |
| (8) The report should better justify why it considers that the preferred option performs best. It should link the scoring of options more closely to the differences in analysed impacts.  In particular, it is not clear why the preferred option should contain an Energy label, as it reduces environmental impacts only marginally. The consumer’s understanding and acceptance of a multi-dimensional Energy label, which combines energy and material efficiency indicators, should be clarified. | The scoring of the options has been revised, as well as some further analysis and comments have been included in the section related to the choice of the preferred option.    An analysis of the relevance of the energy savings deriving from the proposed energy label has been added in the second part of Annex 5 (in particular, related to the first Energy Labelling criterion, ‘a significant potential for saving energy or other resources’), and referenced in the main text. Furthermore, legal analysis in support of the feasibility to introduce material efficiency information/icons has been added to Annex 5. An analysis on the consumer acceptance/understanding of a ‘multi-dimensional’ label has been added under Annex 9, and referenced in the main text, under sections 5.4 (description of the policy option on energy label) and 8 (preferred option). |

The impact assessment report was then resubmitted to the RSB on 08/04/2022. The RSB issued a positive opinion on 03/05/2022. In order to take the Board’s concerns into account, the following modifications have been made to the impact assessment:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| RSB recommendations | Revisions introduced |
| (B) Summary of findings | |
| (1) The comparison of options is not sufficiently clear and the justification for the choice of the preferred option continues to be insufficient. | Please see the detailed points discussed below under C.1, C.2, C.3 and C.4 |
| (C) What to improve | |
| (1) While the revised report provides a more fine-tuned scoring of options, it is still not a sufficient basis for comparing them. The weighing of the individual criteria should be set out clearly. For instance, while the assessment of economic impacts distinguishes impacts on EU businesses and citizens and impacts on businesses outside the EU, it is not clear how this is considered in the overall assessment of efficiency of the options. Because of this, the justification for the choice of the preferred option is also insufficient and should be strengthened. | An explanation on how the effectiveness and efficiency of options have been evaluatued, taking into account all the interested parties (suppliers, repairers, etc..) has been added in section 7, ‘ [How do the options compare?](#_Ref104672430) ’. Additional arguments are provided in section 8 (preferred option). |
| (2) Despite the additional analysis presented on the impacts of specific measures included under various options, the assessment of impacts on consumer prices should be further strengthened. The report should justify the assumption that the increase in prices consumers would pay would equal, but not exceed, the increase in manufacturing costs, by providing, for instance, the information on the degree of competition in the smartphone/tablet market. | Further explanations have been added to the main text, in particular on the approach/rationale behind the analysis presented in Annex 4. This is reflected in section 6.1.1 and section 6.3.2. |
| (3) While the report provides a more comprehensive and detailed analysis of impacts, it should be clearer about the conclusions from the analysis. It should explain how the largely negative economic impacts on non-EU manufacturers are set against the impacts on EU businesses that are largely positive for the SME repair sector when it comes to the overall assessment of economic impacts.  The report should avoid conclusion ambiguities, for example, describing economic impacts as ‘the lowest’ without specifying whether such impacts are positive or negative and for whom.  It should also further develop the analysis of the impact of different ownership models on consumers’ choices and on different interoperability policies concerning the software embedded in devices. | The nature of the economic impacts, in particular their repartition between EU and non-EU businesses as a circular economy initiative has been clarified in the main report (section 6.1.9) and additional arguments are provided in section 8 that lost revenues do not represent a cost to society.        Clarifications on the nature of impacts have been added in section 6.      It has also been clarified, in the main report, that software interoperability is part of the adressed problem of a fragmented OS version landscape (section 2.1) and that the OS update requirements could possibly have positive impacts on mainly SMEs, in particular application developers (section 6.1.5). |
| (4) The report should include in the section on the preferred option a statement on the degree of consistency of the initiative with the European Climate Law, based on the analysis of environmental impacts. | As required, an analysis of the degree of consistency with the European Climate Law has been integrated in the main text (section 8). |

4.Evidence, sources and quality

Two recent reports from the Joint Research Centre
[67](#footnote68)
,
[68](#footnote69)
 assessed the relevance of material efficiency aspects for smartphones and tablets, with the aim of compiling a list of possible measures to improve their performance in terms of durability, reparability, upgradability, use of materials and recyclability.

A preparatory study
[69](#footnote70)
 concluded in March 2021 identified a number of areas for potential regulatory intervention, related to design for reliability, ability of the product to be disassembled and repaired, availability of operating system version upgrades, data deletion and transfer functionalities, provision of appropriate information for users, repairers and recyclers and battery endurance.

This impact assessment also benefitted from the technical support of external consultancy company, BIO Innovation Service
[70](#footnote71)
 (Lead for the Specific Assignment).

  

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation

In the context of the initiatives 'Designing mobile phones and tablets to be sustainable – ecodesign'65 and ‘Energy labelling of mobile phones and tablets – informing consumers about environmental impact’
[71](#footnote72)
, a wide range of consultations took place, with the aim to ensure that the interests of all relevant sectors, as well as citizens, non-governmental organisation, standardisation organisation, etc., were duly taken into account. The feedback obtained from stakeholders via the different tools mentioned below contributes to the analysis together with evidence from different sources including desk-research.

Stakeholder mapping

A wide range of stakeholders is concerned by this initiative:

·MS (Member States): MS representatives and National Governments

·Industry: large Original Equipment Manufacturers, which play an important role in the market

·SMEs (small and medium enterprises): In terms of market share they are certainly not the main player in the mobile phones and tablets sector, however there are European SMEs – in the order of some thousands - working on services or activities related to these products (product assembly, repair and maintenance).

·Environmental and consumer NGOs (non-governmental organisations) are a typical stakeholder in the framework of the consultation process for Ecodesign, with the aim to promote citizen rights, environment and sustainable development.

·Standardisation organisations: to be able to impose requirements on the energy efficiency and the material efficiency of mobile phones and tablets, the availability of standard measurement methods will be crucial. Such methods would be developed in conjunction with standardisation organisations, where relevant. This shows the importance of this stakeholder category, in particular at the level of European standardisation organisations, CEN, CENELEC and ETSI.

·'Users": mobile phones and tablets are iconic products, massively present in everyone’s life nowadays. Therefore almost every citizen could be interested/affected by the present initiatives.

Consultation method and tools

In the context of the activities linked to the initiatives referred to in the beginning of this Annex, an inclusive and articulated stakeholder consultation process took place, with the aim to gather feedback from a very wide audience.

·As part of the preparatory study69, two stakeholder meetings were organised. The main participants were from relevant industrial sectors and environmental organisations. The meetings were devoted to present and discuss the findings of the preparatory study, i.e. the techno-economic-environmental analysis in support of the preparation of the regulatory measures.

·During the preparation of the impact assessment, a meeting of the Ecodesign Consultation Forum (as required by Article 18 of the Ecodesign Directive) was convened on 28 June 2021. This Forum is composed of 30 Member States and 30 stakeholder organisations (business, environmental NGOs, consumer organisations, standardisation bodies and additional expert observers when required). The meeting was aimed to the presentation and discussion about the potential Ecodesign and Energy Labelling requirements for mobile phones and tablets

·A public consultation
[72](#footnote73)
 was launched on 31 May 2021, with feedback period until 23 August 2021, to collect feedback from all stakeholders on potential new measures and to collect information about users’ habits, preferences and choices related to their purchase, usage, repair and disposal of mobile phones and tablets. 

·individual (ad hoc) consultations were also held with selected stakeholders (e.g. on specific technical aspects) on a continuous basis

The chart below shows the level of involvement of the identified stakeholder categories in the various consultations/meetings in the framework of this initiative.

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| √: the party has significantly contributed to the specific consultation  √: the party has contributed in a limited way to the specific consultation | Member States | Industry (OEMs) | SMEs (Repairers, etc.) | Environmental and consumer NGOs | Standardisation organisations | Users |
| Meetings – prep. study | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |  |
| Meeting – after prep. study | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |  |
| Open public consultation |  |  | √ |  |  | √ |
| Consultation Forum | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |  |

Stakeholder consultations within the preparatory study

The preparatory study on mobile phones, cordless phones and tablets started in April 2020 and was completed in March 2021. The first draft task report on the scope (Task 1) and market analysis (Task 2) were published on 12th June 2020, followed by the first stakeholder meeting on 13th July 2020. Stakeholders could provide feedback on draft Task 1 and 2 reports until 10th August 2020. Draft Task 3, 4, 5 and 6 reports were published in October and November 2020. Draft Task 7 report was published on 16th December 2020. The second stakeholder meeting took place on 18th December and stakeholders could provide their written comments for Tasks 3-6 until January 8th, 2021 and for Task 7 until January 17th. The final preparatory study report was published on 3rd March 2021.

Besides the official stakeholder consultations, the project team of the Preparatory Study was in regular exchange with all relevant stakeholders such as manufacturers, repairers, NGOs, policy makers, etc. All information (incl. registration, documents, updates, etc.) was communicated through the dedicated project website 
<https://www.ecosmartphones.info/>
.

Stakeholder consultations after the preparatory study

Within the follow-up process related to the Impact Assessment, a stakeholder meeting was organised on 16th April 2021, discussing in detail the main changes/updates in particular for the final version of Task 7 of the preparatory study. This updated Task 7 report took into account main stakeholder inputs and improvement suggestions.

Consultation Forum meeting on mobile phones and tablets - Minutes

The minutes are available at: 
<https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46696>

Public consultation

A public consultation
[73](#footnote74)
 was launched on 31 May 2021, with feedback period until 23 August 2021, to collect feedback from all stakeholders on potential new measures and to collect information about users’ habits, preferences and choices related to their purchase, usage, repair and disposal of mobile phones and tablets. After the closing of the public consultation, 611 replies were submitted through EU Survey. Concerning the various typologies of respondents (research institutions, administrations, individuals, company, business organisations, etc.), there was a clear predominance of EU citizens that replied as individuals (90% of the respondents). In terms of country of origin of the respondents, there was a net majority of Germans (more than 50% of respondents), with the other countries homogeneously represented. A dedicated report, 'Brief factual summary of the replies received to the public consultation on the initiatives: - Designing mobile phones and tablets to be sustainable – ecodesign and - Energy labelling of mobile phones and tablets – informing consumers about environmental impact’, describes in detail the factual results. The report is available at 
<https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/418195ae-4919-45fa-a959-3b695c9aab28/library/f33a0226-e7b8-4753-b235-cefc2ebeaca5>
 

Overall messages from the consultation process

All categories of stakeholders identified in the stakeholder mapping participated in various consultation activities, therefore the outcomes of the consultation process were of great help in the analysis and the formulation of the policy proposals.

The meetings in the framework of the preparatory study and of the technical assistance study provided an early opportunity to promote stakeholder engagement, and to collect technical data. The public consultation gave useful input for the modelling assumptions on the user behaviour
[74](#footnote75)
, and the formulation of potential energy efficiency or material efficiency requirements under an Ecodesign regulation and the energy labelling scheme. The Consultation Forum meeting helped the Commission in understanding in detail stakeholder views on the various aspects of potential Ecodesign requirements on mobile phones and tablets; there was a general consensus in proceeding with the analysis and formulation of these requirements, with many detailed technical comments.

The stakeholders' opinions, with regard to potential regulatory measures on the environmental impact of mobile phones and tablets, can be summarised as follows:

- the EU Member States cautiously welcomed the Commission work on potential ecodesign requirements and energy labelling of mobile phones and tablets (concerning the latter, advocating in particular for the inclusion of a reparability score in the energy label); some concerns on the testing burden (in particular related to the number of devices to be tested) were raised.

- the standardisation organisations highlighted some caveats concerning the direct ‘use’ (in terms of classifications, definitions), for regulatory purposes, of the EN 45554 standard, developed in reply to the Commission’s standardization request M/543
[75](#footnote76)
.

- industry (original equipment manufacturers) main players were proactive and participative during the process. While they supported, in general terms, the preparatory work on the potential Ecodesign requirements for mobile phones and tablets, they expressed some reservations, in particular on the draft requirements on improved reparability and spare parts availability. They were not supportive of the proposed energy labelling scheme, claiming that the benefits are not fully clear, given that manufacturers are already highly incentivized to ensure efficient phones for end-user satisfaction.

- SMEs, mainly working in the field of repair, refurbishment and recycling, judged as important (a game changer, in some cases) the proposed material efficiency requirements on durability, reparability, upgradability, maintenance, reuse and recycling.

- environmental and consumer NGOs, as well as repairers' organisation, welcomed the Commission work on potential ecodesign requirements and energy labelling of mobile phones and tablets.

  

Annex 3: Who is affected and how?

1.Practical implications of the initiative

The initiative will concern a significant share of EU population and repairers, and given the small EU manufacturing base only few EU manufacturers of mobile phones, cordless phones and tablets.

Consumers: the impacts associated to the preferred option will consist in an extension of the lifetime of the devices as well as more transparency and clarity about their environmental impacts. Improved energy efficiency of the devices is demonstrated to have also a positive effect on battery lifetimes due to less frequent charging, and thus on overall product lifetime. The proposed Ecodesign requirements on reparability, ease of disassembly and on preparation for reuse are expected to significantly ease the repair process/choice. Longer and continued support of the operating system with updates and upgrades will remove one of the main barriers for extended use of smartphones and tablets

Manufacturers of mobile phones, cordless phones and tablets: the dominating effect of lifetime extending measures (foreseen under the preferred option), regarding the various domains repair, reuse and reliability, is an anticipated decline in new sales and related environmental impacts stemming from production. There would be also an administrative burden for business, related to the price of testing increased by the new requirements. The expected increase in the quality of the devices (as an effect of the requirements foreseen under the preferred option) would nevertheless increase the competitiveness on the global market. The landscape of mobile phone producers is characterised by large companies serving the global market, such as Apple, Samsung, Huawei, and Xiaomi. Few mid-size companies are active in the market, such as Gigaset in Germany, producing smartphones for a few years now and being also the largest European manufacturer of cordless phones. The product portfolio of Philips also includes cordless phones. In general there is very little overlap of manufacturers of smartphones and cordless DECT phones. French based companies Wiko designs and develops smartphones, which are available in some European countries. Archos, another French company, and BQ from Spain supply smartphones and tablets. Some small companies, such as Fairphone and Shift, put particular emphasize on sustainability aspects, although their market share is quite small and production is also outside EU. Several former European brands, such as Nokia and Alcatel, are now owned by high-tech companies from outside Europe. There is a relevant overlap of manufacturers in the mobile phone and tablet business, but besides the large smartphone manufacturers there are also those tablet brands, which are rather rooted in the computer business, such as Dell and Lenovo. There are some smaller EU brands in the tablet market, but with a very minor overall market share. Final production of mobile phones, cordless phones and tablets – among global and EU brands alike – is almost exclusively located in East Asia and particularly in China. The main components such as radio interfaces (baseband chip), processors, flash memory, computer network interfaces, displays, batteries, cameras and audio components come from various regions including Asia, North America and to a small extent Europe. Printed Circuit Boards for these products are typically manufactured in Asia, but Austrian based AT&S is a relevant player in this PCB segment. The value chain is considerably large.

Retail sector: the dominating effect of lifetime extending measures (foreseen under the preferred option) could also reverberate on this sector, mainly due to the expected sales reduction. However, a number of factors will determine the evolution of this sector, making it difficult to estimate the size of loss – if any - in employment. For example, in this case, retailers are likely to also sell other equipment and an expected reduction in consumer’s cost of ownership would also mean a positive income effect, so they are likely to increase spending on other goods. This could partly compensate the negative effect on sales. It is also noteworthy to highlight that the fast speed of evolution may imply new kind of devices, with increased and or new functionalities, to appear on the market. This would, again, partly compensate retailers of the abovementioned effects.

Public authorities: The impact would be associated with surveillance and enforcement of two additional regulations (one Ecodesign and one Energy Labelling Regulation).

SMEs: SMEs belonging to the repair and maintenance sector are expected to strongly benefit from the initiatives, in particular thanks to the proposed Ecodesign requirements on reparability and ease of disassembly. Not only will new repairers appear in the sector, but also existing ones will grow (as described in detail in Annex 10, see also Annex 12: The SME Test).

To a minor extent, workers of recycling plants would benefit from the proposed Ecodesign information requirements on the manufacturing phase of certain components (as described in Annex 9), as the use of toxic materials use would be reduced.

Other specific sectors or regions: few mobile phone manufacturers are based in the EU and they have only a very small market share. In light of the fact that the vast majority of economic operators that would be potentially affected are not based in the EU, this initiative would not affect specific sectors – others than those listed above - or regions in the EU.

2.Summary of costs and benefits

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option (5.2) | | |
| Description | Amount (yearly figures for 2030, all devices) | Comments |
| Direct benefits | | |
| New SMEs in repair/maintenance sector (nº firms) | (+++) Not only new repairers will appear in the sector but also existing ones will grow | Business |
| Promoting investment in the production of more energy efficient devices | Imposes requirements in terms of Ecodesign, energy efficiency and reparability, which implies investment (+++) | Business |
| Reduced GHG emissions (mt CO2 eq.) | -4 | Society |
| Reduced energy consumption (PJ) | -49 | Consumer |
| Reduced acidification (kt SO2 eq.) | -24 | Society |
| Employment creation in repair/maintenance sector (nº jobs) | +3,200 | Society |
| Reduced total annual consumer expenditure (million €) | -20,600 | Consumer |
| Reduced societal external annual damages (million €) | -1,000 | Society |
| Contribute to circular economy | Material reduction is expected (decrease of more than 40,300 tons of materials). In addition, it can promote the reuse of goods by providing more certainty regarding the remaining lifespan after first use. | Society |
| Indirect benefits | | |
| Reduced other environmental impact related to the production, transport and disposal of products | Positive effect due to a significant reduction on sales (+++) | Society |
| Ensure user’s health, compatibility across other devices and workers safety during production process | Reduces user and worker exposition to dangerous and toxic materials. Devices must follow the same production criteria that assures compatibility (+++) | Society |
| Positive impact on the deployment and diffusion of innovations | Encourages innovations to achieve new requirements that will be promoted through the supply chain. Promotion of repair skills among users (+++) | Business |

(1) Estimates are relative to the baseline for the preferred option as a whole (i.e. the impact of individual actions/obligations of the preferred option are aggregated together); (2) Please indicate which stakeholder group is the main recipient of the benefit in the comment section;(3) For reductions in regulatory costs, please describe details as to how the saving arises (e.g. reductions in compliance costs, administrative costs, regulatory charges, enforcement costs, etc.; see section 6 of the attached guidance).

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| II. Overview of costs – Preferred option (5.2), all devices | | | | | | | |
|  | | Citizens/Consumers | | Businesses | | Administrations | |
|  | | One-off | Recurrent | One-off | Recurrent | One-off | Recurrent |
| Higher compliance costs | Direct costs |  |  | (+++) Higher costs. Production and supply chain changes, equipment testing, and capital expenditure for adaption (manufacturing processes, logistics) | (+++) Higher costs. New personnel with Ecodesign competencies, to carry testing and verification, after-sales, maintenance activities, etc. | (+++) Higher costs. Setting up the enforcement process, government expenditure for conformity review, establishing minimum requirements | (+++) Higher costs. Monitoring compliance with the requirements |
|  | Indirect costs |  |  | (+) Higher up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, etc. | (+) Increased cost of products due to higher costs of minimum requirement obligations |  |  |
| Reduced business revenue for manufacturers (Mn €) | Direct costs |  |  |  | Business revenue will reduce annually up to –21,000 in 2030 |  |  |
| Reduced nº SMEs in manufacturing sector | Direct costs |  |  |  | (-) Negatively because of lower sales, although other factors must be considered |  |  |
| Reduced nº SMEs in retail sector | Direct cost |  |  |  | (-) Negatively affected because of lower sales, although other factors must be considered |  |  |
| Reduced employment in manufacturing sector | Direct costs |  | (-) Negatively affected because of lower sales, although other factors must be considered |  |  |  |  |
| Higher repair costs (Mn €) | Direct costs |  | Repair costs will increase annually up to + 700 in 2030 |  |  |  |  |

(1) Estimates to be provided with respect to the baseline; (2) costs are provided for each identifiable action/obligation of the preferred option otherwise for all retained options when no preferred option is specified; (3) If relevant and available, please present information on costs according to the standard typology of costs (compliance costs, regulatory charges, hassle costs, administrative costs, enforcement costs, indirect costs; see section 6 of the attached guidance).

NB: The figures presented on these tables (I and II) are 2030 projections.

Previous tables provide a general vision about sub-option 5.2 implications, both positives and negatives. While negative effects mainly concern businesses and administration, considerable benefits to consumers and society are expected, greater than those achieved under the other initiatives. This results in a positive final balance, making this option the most suitable to implement.

:   [(1)](#footnoteref2)

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A new Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and more competitive Europe. COM/2020/98 final
:   [(2)](#footnoteref3)

    See annex 6 for the articulation between the initiatives discussed in this impact assessment and other legislative and non-legislative initiatives under development by the European Commission in fields related to product policy, circular economy and consumer rights.
:   [(3)](#footnoteref4)

    Loi n° 2020-105 relative à la lutte contre le gaspillage et à l’économie circulaire
:   [(4)](#footnoteref5)

    See 
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1581-Review-of-ecodesign-requirements-for-computers-and-computer-servers_en>
     for the review of Regulation 617/2013. The reasons for covering smartphones and (slate) tablets under the same Ecodesign Regulation, as well as for keeping laptops under the review of the Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013, are discussed in detail at the beginning of Annex 9.
:   [(5)](#footnoteref6)

    Source: Eurostat (NRG\_BAL\_C) based on EU27 data for 2019 (last year available)
:   [(6)](#footnoteref7)

    Source: EEA greenhouse gases - data viewer. The total greenhouse gas emissions of Cyprus amounted to around 9.5 mt CO2eq in 2019.
:   [(7)](#footnoteref8)

    Source: European Commission, Study on the EU’s list of Critical Raw Materials (2020), Factsheets on Critical Raw Materials. The EU annual average consumption of tantalum over the period 2012-2016 was estimated to be around 395 t/y. The estimated EU apparent consumption of indium (production+imports–exports) was 64 t/y. The EU consumption of REE was 4,734 t/y of compounds (expressed in REO content) and 683 t/y of REE metals and interalloys during the 2016-2018 period. The apparent consumption of refined cobalt in the EU amounts to 17,585 tonnes of cobalt content per year on average during 2012–2016.
:   [(8)](#footnoteref9)

    The definition of the low-end (ca. 200 EUR; 2,400 mAh battery capacity; small 5” display), mid-range (ca. 500 EUR; 3,330 mAh battery capacity; mid-size 6” display), and high-end (ca. 1,000 EUR; 4,500 mAh battery capacity; large 6.5” display) segment follows the definitions set in the preparatory study.
:   [(9)](#footnoteref10)

     
    <https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/chemicals-strategy_en>
:   [(10)](#footnoteref11)

    'Designing mobile phones and tablets to be sustainable – ecodesign' and ‘Energy labelling of mobile phones and tablets – informing consumers about environmental impact’
:   [(11)](#footnoteref12)

    611 replies were submitted for this consultation. 90% of the respondents were EU citizens that replied as individuals, with a net majority of Germans (more than 50% of respondents)
:   [(12)](#footnoteref13)

    Source : Eurostat dataset env\_waselee. Calculation was performed for EU, based on the average weight of products put on the market between 2015 and 2017 (in tons) and divided by waste collected in 2017.
:   [(13)](#footnoteref14)

    Providing that such repairs are accessible and affordable (the importance of the costs of repair is referred to within this same section of the report)
:   [(14)](#footnoteref15)

    IP is part of property right, which is a fundamental right pursuant to Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
:   [(15)](#footnoteref16)

     https://www.ecoratingdevices.com/
:   [(16)](#footnoteref17)

     Brand, Robin: Label-Zauberei, Nachhaltigkeitslabel Eco Rating im Check, c’t 2022, 5, p. 110-112
:   [(17)](#footnoteref18)

     
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12567-Sustainable-products-initiative_en>
:   [(18)](#footnoteref19)

     
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12467-Consumer-policy-strengthening-the-role-of-consumers-in-the-green-transition_en>
:   [(19)](#footnoteref20)

    Stobbe, Lutz et al. (2020): UTAMO - Umweltbezogene Technikfolgenabschätzung von Mobilfunknetzen und Endgeräten
:   [(20)](#footnoteref21)

    IEEE: International Roadmap for Devices and Systems (IRDS™), 2021 Edition
:   [(21)](#footnoteref22)

    Emergen Research: Embedded SIM Market By Solution (Hardware, Connectivity Services), Application (Smartphones, Laptops, Wearables, Connected Cars, Machine to Machine, Others), By End-Use (Energy & Utilities, Automotive, and Others) By Region Forecasts to 2027, October 2020
:   [(22)](#footnoteref23)

    Yole Développement: Status of the Camera Module Industry, Market and Technology Report 2021
:   [(23)](#footnoteref24)

    Yole Développement: Status of the Memory Industry, Market and Technology Report 2021
:   [(24)](#footnoteref25)

    Research and Markets: Mobile Phone Semiconductor Market - Growth, Trends, COVID-19 Impact, and Forecasts (2021 - 2026), April 2021
:   [(25)](#footnoteref26)

    Allied Market Research: Mobile Battery Market by Type (Lithium-ion Battery, Nickel based, and Others), Application (Smartphone and Non-Smartphone), and Sales Channel (Online and Offline): Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2021-2030, January 2022
:   [(26)](#footnoteref27)

    Yole Développement, Status of the Rechargeable Li-ion Battery Industry, Market and Technology Report 2021
:   [(27)](#footnoteref28)

    Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p.

    47 (TFEU)
:   [(28)](#footnoteref29)

    See for instance the Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/1784 laying down ecodesign requirements for welding equipment.
:   [(29)](#footnoteref30)

    As estimated within this impact assessment, the energy savings related to the use phase that could be associated only to an Energy Label for smartphones and tablets are in the order of 3 TWh/y in 2030. These are similar savings to other already existing Energy Labelling Regulations, such as Regulation 2015/1094 on professional refrigerators.
:   [(30)](#footnoteref31)

    https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/smartphones-market
:   [(31)](#footnoteref32)

     Not all European telecommunication providers are involved, potentially not all vendors provide Eco Rating score date.
:   [(32)](#footnoteref33)

    https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/11/apple-announces-self-service-repair/
:   [(33)](#footnoteref34)

    “Self Service Repair is intended for individual technicians with the knowledge and experience to repair electronic devices. For the vast majority of customers, visiting a professional repair provider with certified technicians who use genuine Apple parts is the safest and most reliable way to get a repair.“
:   [(34)](#footnoteref35)

    Here, and in the remainder of the text, the tablets meant to be in scope to the proposed policy options are the so called ‘slate tablets’ (see Annex 9 for the detailed definition). Slate tablets represent the bulk of tablet market, and they share commonalities, in terms of product architecture, usage and behavioural patterns, with the smartphones. They do not have an integrated, physically attached keyboard in their designed configuration, and they are placed on the market with an operating system designed to be used also in smartphones.
:   [(35)](#footnoteref36)

    Annex 7 presents an overview on the functioning of the Ecodesign Directive and the Energy Labelling Regulation.
:   [(36)](#footnoteref37)

    At the time of the drafting of the current impact assessment (Q3 2021), the working hypothesis are either to introduce the reparability scoring as an Ecodesign information requirement, or as part of an Energy Label (with a preference for the latter approach which a) is supported by many stakeholders, among which various EU Member States and b) is the one that could be best communicated and understood by user, as discussed under Annex 9). In any case, the supplier would be obliged to calculate the value of the reparability scoring associated to each specific products model placed on the market, and to publish/display this information as foreseen in the legislative measure.
:   [(37)](#footnoteref38)

     covering the majority of all mid-range smartphones
:   [(38)](#footnoteref39)

     European Product Database for Energy Labelling, see at 
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/energy-climate-change-environment/standards-tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-requirements/energy-label-and-ecodesign/product-database_en>
:   [(39)](#footnoteref40)

    As explained in the next sections, the Commission’s view is that an energy label for smartphones and tablets could (as clearly shown by already existing energy labels) have a strong impact on the consumer behaviour and attitude at the purchase. Also, including durability information on the energy label could improve its effectiveness further. The proposed energy label would therefore represent a sound legislative measure to help attaining the specific objectives treated in this impact assessment.
:   [(40)](#footnoteref41)

    Any forecast beyond 2030 for such a product group characterised by short innovation cycles would be very speculative and subject to major uncertainties.
:   [(41)](#footnoteref42)

    This comparison is expressed in nominal terms. Henceforth, 2030 prices will be presented under its nominal value.
:   [(42)](#footnoteref43)

    for a detailled analysis see Annex 10, p. 217
:   [(43)](#footnoteref44)

    Based on estimations for TV display’s Impact Assessment (European Commission, 2019).
:   [(44)](#footnoteref45)

     These percentages are estimated based on 2019 PRODCOM data for the product categories under NACE code 26302200-Telephones for cellular networks. The total production linked to EU sales is understood as the sum of imports from non-EU countries (170 million mobile phones) and EU production (6 million phones).
:   [(45)](#footnoteref46)

     For example, in the case of smartphones while the market of new phones is saturated, the market in refurbished phone is showing strong growth 
    <https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/02/24/smartphones-le-boom-de-l-occasion_5427668_3234.html>
:   [(46)](#footnoteref47)

     French law against waste and for a circular economy 
    <https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/loi-anti-gaspillage>
     and reparability index
:   [(47)](#footnoteref48)

    Circular Economy Act 2020 
    <https://www.bmu.de/en/law/circular-economy-and-safeguard-the-environmentally-compatible-management-of-waste/>
:   [(48)](#footnoteref49)

     Swedish strategy for circular economy accelerates the transition to sustainability 2020 
    <https://www.government.se/4ad42c/contentassets/d5ab250cf59a47b38feb8239eca1f6ab/circular-economy--strategy-for-the-transition-in-sweden>
:   [(49)](#footnoteref50)

     “the circular economy requirements embodied in the Ecodesign Regulations are typically identified as the most effective solutions – in regulatory terms – to ‘market failures’, i.e., observed deviations from perfectly competitive market behaviour” in Bukarica and Tomši´c (2017) Energy efficiency policy evaluation by moving from techno-economic towards whole society perspective on energy efficiency market. Ren. and Sust. Energy Rev.
:   [(50)](#footnoteref51)

     ADEME (2017) Analyse des bénéfices économiques et financiers de l’éco-conception pour les entreprises. This study covering 10 companies from five different sectors (food, IT, sport, building, pharmaceutical, and hitech) estimated several economic and financial returns generated by the implementation of ecodesign approaches in companies: significant increase in turnover (up to a factor of 5 for the most marked case, + 7 to 18% in median values); a tangible reduction in production costs (up to -20% in the most pronounced case); and strengthens the commitment of employees and improve the internal functioning of the company. 
    <https://www.ademe.fr/analyse-benefices-economiques-financiers-leco-conception-entreprises>
:   [(51)](#footnoteref52)

    i.e. the fact that, due to the excessive stringency of the Ecodesign requirements, OEMs would find convenient to only adapt some of their products (rather than keeping the whole market range, as today) to be compliant for the EU market. This would results in a limited choice of products for EU users.
:   [(52)](#footnoteref53)

     
    <https://www.next-mobility.de/eu-batterie-regeln-wie-china-einen-ausschluss-vom-europaeischen-e-auto-markt-verhindern-will-a-1102334/>
:   [(53)](#footnoteref54)

     
    <https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/201405_ieel_product_innovation.pdf>
:   [(54)](#footnoteref55)

    In particular as an effect of the requirement to make available software tools, firmware and similar auxiliary means required for full functionality of the spare part and device after repair (see Annex 9 for more information)
:   [(55)](#footnoteref56)

    Directive (EU) 2016/943 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure and Article 39 of the WTO TRIPs Agreement provides for protection for undisclosed information, including trade secrets.
:   [(56)](#footnoteref57)

    Figures from European Commission Preparatory Study (2021)
:   [(57)](#footnoteref58)

     And assuming that cordless phones are not refurbished
:   [(58)](#footnoteref59)

    Please refer to the list of requirements under the section 
    [Option 3: Ecodesign requirements](#_Ref98323699)
     of this impact assessment. Detailed explanations on the nature/rationale of each requirement are presented under Annex 9.
:   [(59)](#footnoteref60)

    Consumer expenditure includes: acquisition price + energy consumption (electricity) costs + repair costs
:   [(60)](#footnoteref61)

    As highlighted in the previous sections, this effect should not be seen in ‘isolation’, i.e. only focussing on the possible effect stemming from the introduction or regulatory requirements. A number of factors will determine the evolution of this sector, making it difficult to estimate the size of losses in revenues. For example, retailers are likely to also sell other equipment and an expected reduction in consumer’s cost of ownership also would mean a positive income effect, so they are likely to increase spending on other goods.
:   [(61)](#footnoteref62)

     
    <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R1119&from=EN>
:   [(62)](#footnoteref63)

    The energy savings foreseen under option 5.2 (49PJ in total) are due to the synergic action of Ecodesign and Energy Labelling, thus they cannot be derived by simply summing the energy savings from the design options only foreseeing one policy, i.e. option 4 for Energy Labelling (13PJ) and option 3.3 for Ecodesign (48PJ). In order to estimate the shares of impacts under option 5.2 that can be attributed to each of the two policies, a rough repartition can be established by using as weights the energy savings foreseen under the design options only foreseeing one policy, i.e. option 4 for Energy Labelling (13PJ) and option 3.3 for Ecodesign (48PJ). Thus, 21,3% [=13/(48+13)] of the total 49PJ foreseen under option 5.2 would be attributed to the Energy Labelling, i.e. 10,4 PJ.
:   [(63)](#footnoteref64)

    Dessart, F.J., Marandola, G., Hille, S.L. and Thøgersen, J., Comparing the impact of positive, negative, and graded sustainability labels on purchase decisions, European Commission, 2021, JRC127006
:   [(64)](#footnoteref65)

     
    <https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/46076b42-669a-11eb-aeb5-01aa75ed71a1>
:   [(65)](#footnoteref66)

     
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12797-Designing-mobile-phones-and-tablets-to-be-sustainable-ecodesign_en>
:   [(66)](#footnoteref67)

     
    <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4b5d88a6-3ad8-11eb-b27b-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF>
:   [(67)](#footnoteref68)

    Cordella, M., Alfieri, F., Sanfelix Forner, J., 2020. Guide for the Assessment of Material Efficiency: Application to Smartphones. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020. ISBN: 978-92-76-15411-2, doi: 10.2760/037522
:   [(68)](#footnoteref69)

    Tecchio P., Ardente F., Marwede M., Clemm C., Dimitrova G. Mathieux F., 2018. Analysis of material efficiency aspects of personal computers product group. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. ISBN 978-92-79-64943-1 doi:10.2788/89220
:   [(69)](#footnoteref70)

     
    <https://op.europa.eu/it/publication-detail/-/publication/a7784be4-853d-11eb-af5d-01aa75ed71a1/language-env>
:   [(70)](#footnoteref71)

     
    <https://www.biois.eu/>
:   [(71)](#footnoteref72)

     
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12798-Energy-labelling-of-mobile-phones-and-tablets-informing-consumers-about-environmental-impact_en>
:   [(72)](#footnoteref73)

     
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12797-Designing-mobile-phones-and-tablets-to-be-sustainable-ecodesign/public-consultation_en>
:   [(73)](#footnoteref74)

     
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12797-Designing-mobile-phones-and-tablets-to-be-sustainable-ecodesign/public-consultation_en>
:   [(74)](#footnoteref75)

    Such as the average daily repartition of tasks (phone calls, chat, streaming media, gaming, etc..) by users of smartphones and tablets. This information helped in setting the methodology for the testing and calculation of the energy efficiency index for the devices.
:   [(75)](#footnoteref76)

    C(2015) 9096 final

[Top](#document1)

Table of contents

Annex 4: Analytical methods

  

Annex 4: Analytical methods

All projections cover the years until 2030. As most of the policy options involve measures, which are intended to result in extended product lifetimes and consequently less replacement sales, the full effect of the policy options will be reached shortly before 2030 only. Any forecast and modelling beyond 2030 involves major uncertainties: Given the very short innovation cycles of mobile phones and tablets technology will have evolved in non-predictable directions in ten years from now. None of the market analysts in this industry predict product developments beyond a time forecast of more than 5 or 6 years.

LIFETIME MODELLING

Many of the considered design options
[1](#footnote2)
 affect the lifetime. Therefore, estimations of the effect of design options on the lifetime of base case devices are needed. Further, products exit the active use phase and enter end-of-life distributed over time rather than all at the same point in time. Therefore, a lifetime model was set up that takes account of the identified reasons for products reaching their end of life and how this changes over time.

The assumed average lifetime is a statistical value. The products exit the active use phase and enter end-of-life distributed over time rather than all at the same point in time. The lifetime model takes account of the identified reasons for products reaching their end of life and how this changes over time. To build the lifetime model and calculate the number of products retired per year and per reason, a maximum lifetime was defined:

·Smartphones and feature phones:

oAverage lifetime: 2.5 – 3.5 years

oMaximum lifetime: 7 years

·Cordless phones and tablets:

oAverage lifetime: 5 years

oMaximum lifetime: 9 years

It is assumed that from a stock sold in year 0, the first products are retired in year 1 and the last products are retired in 7 / 9. For the simplified lifetime model, no product is used longer than the maximum lifetime.

Products leave the use phase due to hardware defects and non-hardware reasons:

·Hardware defects:

oDisplay damage

oDamage of glass back cover

oBattery failure and/or loss of capacity

oDamages through water & dust ingress

oOther defects

·Non-hardware reasons:

oPerformance-related product retirement

oSoftware-related product retirement

oNon-technical reasons (“psychological obsolescence”, context-related reasons, etc.)

For the hardware-related defects, a yearly failure rate and yearly repair rate are calculated as percentages of the remaining stock. Battery-related issues are treated differently with a failure rate of batteries increasing over time. The non-hardware reasons are then adjusted to meet the average lifetime of each product segment.

The individual design options are plotted on these lifetime models to account for e.g. additional repairs and defects in later years when options extend product lifetime. Thereby, the reduction of one failure rate (e.g. more resistant display) will reduce the number of products leaving the stock due to this specific defect, leading to the increase in absolute numbers of other defects and repairs in the following years as the number of products in the remaining stock changes and the percentaged failure rates stay the same.

Depending on the design option, the failure rate and/or the repair rate is affected.

Within the lifetime model, repair costs are calculated in parallel. Thereby, as for the failure rate, the repair regarding all defects change with each option as the percentage of failure and repair rates stay the same. As an example, the longer provision of OS updates would lead to higher absolute hardware defects and higher repair costs as less products leave the stock early for software reasons. The costs per active use time however would decrease.

The lifetime model for low-end smartphones (Base Case 1) is depicted in 
[Figure 1](#_Ref56816235)
: On average, the product lifetime is 2,5 years, but some units will leave the stock of products sold in a given year earlier than others, and there is a tail of products reaching much longer lifetimes. Maximum lifetime for the purpose of this modelling is assumed to be 7 years. The bars show the number of products leaving the stock (left scale) per reason. The blue line shows the remaining stock from year 0 (right scale).

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53002.jpg)

Figure 1 : Low-end smartphones (BC 1) - Lifetime model

For comparison, the lifetime models of the other Base Cases are shown below.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53003.jpg)

Figure 2 : Mid-range smartphones (BC 2) - Lifetime model

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53004.jpg)

Figure 3 : High-end smartphones (BC 3) - Lifetime model

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53005.jpg)

Figure 4 : Feature phones (BC 4) - Lifetime model

The lifetime model for cordless phones in 
[Figure 5](#_Ref56817111)
 is simpler than the other ones as there are not so many triggers for end of life than for the more complex smartphones and tablets.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53006.jpg)

Figure 5 : Cordless phones (BC 5) - Lifetime model

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53007.jpg)

Figure 6 : Tablets (BC 6) - Lifetime model

ANALYSED DESIGN OPTIONS

A key element of the analytical approach to derive policy options is the modelling of implementing consecutively design options, which have been identified in a screening as having potentially a positive effect on overall environmental impacts and consumer costs. The design options analysed in the preparatory study comprise the following individual measures, sorted by intervention domain. Several of these options were discarded for various reasons (cost implications, negative side effects, marginal positive effects, no robust data), other underwent reformulations and revisions in the course of being translated into Ecodesign or Energy Label requirements to reflect the findings of calculating the implementation options and due to later stakeholder intervention and new findings arising after December 2020 when these options have been presented and discussed first in a stakeholder meeting of the preparatory study.

Reliability

(1)Robustness of display and glass back-cover against accidental drops

oThe most frequent defect in smartphones and tablets are damages of the display. It can be assumed that a large share of the defects is broken glass due to drops of the device. Therefore, design measures to increase the glass withstand used to cover the display and the back of the device appear appropriate to mitigate the relatively high failure rates
[2](#footnote3)
. Another display related aspect is the way front glass and display unit are assembled: Current smartphone designs are characterised by front glass and display unit being fused or glued together by an adhesive. This has some advantages, but makes repairs more costly, as in case of a defect the whole assembly of screen glass and display unit has to be exchanged. For tablets it has been more common to keep display unit and cover glass separated, thus both being replaceable individually. This design can be considered best practice in terms of reparability. It does not relate to a design improvement, but rather represents a “design freeze” of what was common practice until few years ago. The use of display glass best-available-technology (BAT) has the potential to decrease the probability of display and back cover glass shattering when a drop of the device occurs. For instance, the reported fracture toughness of the BAT (Corning® Gorilla® Glass Victus™) is increased by more than 10 % over one of the previous iterations of hardened glass for mobile devices (Corning®Gorilla® Glass 5). Overall costs 1-3 Euros
[3](#footnote4)
. Improvements comprise: Lifetime extension through less retired devices, cost reduction through less repairs and extended lifetime, cost increase due to different cover glass

(2)Display scratch-resistance

oDesign measures to increase the withstand of the glass used to cover the display do not only prevent breaks in case of accidents, but also scratches of the display, which might lead to hard to read displays and may also weaken the glass in case of accidents. Improved scratch resistance can also contribute to reducing replacement of phones for aesthetic reasons. New display glass generations are not only hardened to prevent breaks, but are also more scratch-resistant and both aspects can be addressed by the same design change. Additionally, scratches are not defined as failures in the base case. Therefore, scratch-resistance is not calculated as an individual design option, but relevance for product lifetime has to be acknowledged. Besides the scratch resistance of the display also those of others surfaces matter: Scratches make devices not desirable anymore and as such also limit the reuse value of used devices even if full functionality is still given.

(3)Provision of additional screen and glass back-cover protection

oDamages of the display and of the back cover glass through accidental drops could be reduced by smartphone covers/bumpers and display protection foils. According to clickrepair (clickrepair 2019) 20% of the smartphones without protective covers showed damages throughout their live, but only 10% of the smartphones with protective cover, see Task 3. This would mean that covers would reduce the probability of damages by 50%. The difference is even higher for tablets according to clickrepair (WERTGARANTIE 2018). Assumption: 80% already use bumpers and/or foil, more people use bumpers than foil (clickrepair 2019), half of the other users could be reached through bumpers and foil included in delivery. The additional costs will affect all 20% which were not already using a cover. From material perspective, this design option would require additional bumpers and foils for 20% of the users (of which half of them will actually use them). Bumpers and display protection foils can be made from different materials: plastics, leather, textiles for phone covers and PET or glass for the display protection. This design options assumes bumpers made of TPU / silicone and display foils made of PET. Forecasted costs are 4/5€ for bumper and display foil together, costs within smartphone package are expected to be lower than end-user prices for individual bumpers and foils. Resulting improvements are lifetime extension through less retired devices, cost reduction through less repairs and extended lifetime, but cost increase through additional screen foil and bumper.

(4)Water and dust resistance

oClose to 50 % of smartphones sold in Europe in 2019 had an IP-rating to indicate a level of ingress protection from dust and water (see Annex 5). However, as this estimation is based on market data on the 25 best-selling smartphone models in Europe, and therefore it can be assumed that the market share of phones with an IP-rating is overestimated, as the lower-end devices with a lower individual market share, but a high combined market share, are likely not to feature an IP-rating. “Dropped into water” is among the most common accidental smartphone damages in a U.S. survey in 2018 (39 % of respondents reported this damage). The assumed failure rate due to water ingress is estimated to be half of all defects not related to the dominating failing parts (display, battery, backcover), which results in an annual failure rate of 0,84 % for smartphones and feature phones, and 0,5% for tablets. It is assumed that the probability of failure due to ingress is reduced by 50 %. Ingress protection needs to be accounted for in the design phase of devices. Effort and material is needed to implement it, sealing any points of entry to the phone with gaskets and adhesives, possibly applying water-resistant coatings. This may also result in increased manufacturing costs over devices without an IP-rating. Testing and verification of ingress protection according to testing standards may also be an additional cost factor. As no data on the cost associated with the implementation of ingress protection could be identified, the preparatory study assumed that it adds 3 Euros to manufacturing costs as a proxy. It can be argued, that dust and water ingress protection also have an effect on repair costs and lead to more complex repairs. The actual parts replacement time, which is likely to increase by 2 – 3 minutes, plus the additional time for testing water tightness after repair (which is done in a vacuum chamber or similar within seconds) is only one aspect of overall repair labour costs. Thus, repair costs per individual repair case is likely to increase slightly, but this considered marginal across all devices compared to the purchase price increase for all devices.

(5)Battery endurance (cycle stability)

oSmartphones with user-replaceable batteries no longer play a major role on the market (see Annex 5), while tablets have always had embedded rather than user-replaceable batteries. As batteries can therefore not easily be replaced, the inevitable ageing of the embedded batteries will likely lead to a limiting state at some point during the use phase. On the contrary, the batteries of feature phones and DECT phones can commonly be accessed and replaced easily. Battery-related defect rates of the different product segments over their lifetime are between 8,3 % (low-end smartphone) and 50 % (cordless phone). The endurance of device batteries can be defined over time or over use. Some OEMs specify the number of charge/discharge cycles device batteries are expected to withstand before their capacity drops to 80 % relative to the nominal or initial capacity. For instance, Apple Inc. states that smartphone batteries are designed to retain up to 80 % of their initial capacity after 500 full charge cycles, and 1000 full charge cycles in case of tablets
[4](#footnote5)
. The endurance of batteries may either be increased by specifying a minimum state of health after a defined period of use time or after a defined number of charge/discharge cycles. Such a design option can be verified by battery endurance testing in accordance with the international standard IEC/EN 61960. The standard specifies a testing procedure to continuously charge and discharge batteries and measure the capacity fade up to a threshold to be specified or over a specified number of charge/discharge cycles. However, such tests can be time-consuming. Depending on the battery capacity and the charging profile defined by the OEM, one cycle may take 5 hours or more. Therefore, testing over 500 cycles may take more than 100 days. The design option to be assessed here is: Device batteries shall retain at least 90% of their initial capacity after 300 full charge/discharge cycles, measured in accordance with IEC/EN 61960. Assuming linear capacity loss as a function of the number of charge/discharge cycles, smartphone batteries may improve by 20 % (SOH 80 % after 600 cycles instead of 500 cycles). Batteries of feature phones are also assumed to be improved by 20 %. Batteries of DECT phones are not expected to improve, as their ageing is assumed to not be influenced as much by cycle withstand and more by calendar ageing. Tablet batteries may not be affected by the design option when they were designed to withstand 1000 cycles while retaining 80 % SOH. However, not all tablet batteries may be designed this way. A lithium-ion battery cell for a smartphone costs the device OEM somewhere between $2 to $4 depending on its capacity and other design attributes. It constitutes about 1 to 2% of the entire cost of the mobile device
[5](#footnote6)
. It is therefore assumed that a high-endurance battery costs the OEM $4, which is assumed to equal 4 Euros for reasons of simplicity. This results in an increase by 0 to 2 Euros, depending on the assumed quality and capacity of the base case without this design option, taking into account current penetration rates. Tablet batteries are assumed to cost double due to their higher capacity.

(6)Higher battery capacities to reduce number of charging cycles and states of very low state of charge

oLong battery life is the most important feature in smartphones for prospective buyers. Battery life denotes the time the device can be used before the battery needs to be recharged. As batteries inevitably age over time and with use, the available capacity decreases, leading to a decrease in battery life. Installing batteries with higher capacity results in increased battery life and therefore, even as the batteries age, the battery life may remain to be acceptable to the user for a longer period of time. Higher battery capacity therefore may postpone a limiting state in which the decreased battery life is insufficient to the user and results in a repair (battery replacement) or replacing the device with a new unit. It can be assumed that the same logic applies to feature phones, DECT phones and tablets. Higher battery capacity may also decrease the charging frequency and therefore the number of charging cycles is stretched out over a longer period of time, which enhances product lifetime. This design option has not been elaborated on for the following reasons: It is assumed that OEMs strive to implement high battery capacity due to the demand on user-side for longer battery life, even without this design option. Battery life results from a combination of battery capacity and power draw from the device, i.e. the same battery life may be achieved by a smaller battery in a device with a lower power draw compared to a larger battery in a device with a higher power draw. Therefore, “higher battery capacity” is relative and cannot be specified across the board for all devices in a product group.

(7)Pre-installed battery management software

oSome manufacturers of smartphones have started implementing features that aim at extending the battery lifespan. Some of these include: Smart charging that aims to prevent the battery to remain in trickle charge mode for extended periods of time after the charging process is complete (e.g. via timed overnight charging). A high state of charge tends to accelerate battery ageing; user-selectable charging rate to prevent fast charging when it is not needed. High charging rates tend to accelerate battery ageing; dynamic performance management of the device to prevent random shutdowns in cases where an aged battery can no longer meet the required power draw from high-performance applications. Unexpected shutdowns may lead to users replacing their battery or device. It is assumed that the around half of the charging processes benefit from the functionality of this smart charging software. Therefore, the overall benefit for affected device batteries is assumed to be roughly 25 % increase lifespan (roughly half a year). Given the considerable sales data on smartphones in particular, and considering that OEMs constantly develop new software features for their handsets, it is assumed that the additional cost to develop and maintain a pre-installed battery management software is negligible on a per-device basis, with the exception of the low-end smartphone, where the profit margins are comparatively smaller.

(8)Battery status (SOH, age, cycles, peak performance) reporting

oSome ICT device batteries employ specialized hardware and software to store, estimate and report the battery status to the host device’s OS. Making this information accessible to stakeholders including the user as well as the repair and refurbishment practitioners may come with a range of potential advantages, including the possibility for continued use of a battery based on specific information on its health. (Clemm et al. 2019) listed some potential benefits and drawbacks of making such data available for different stakeholders. Relevant state of health information includes: battery type, date of manufacture, nominal battery capacity, remaining battery capacity, number of charging cycles performed. Potential benefits may include, among others: Incentive for users to adopt behaviour that slows down battery degradation; consumer empowerment with regard to in-warranty battery failures; users may benefit from a “race to the top” as manufacturers are incentivized to optimize battery endurance; continued use of batteries that may otherwise be disposed of due to unknown health status; increased trust in used devices by potential buyers due to known battery health status. Clemm et al. (2019) further reported that iOS devices commonly provide such information while Android devices do not. No feature phones or DECT phones could be identified that provide such a functionality. It is assumed that a battery with advanced functionality on battery SOH estimation will increase the price to the OEM by no more than 1 Euro, in practice most likely rather in the range of a few cents. It is estimated that the lifespan of 10 % of the smartphone and tablet batteries is increased by 20 % through the potential benefits of this design option listed above, effectively reducing the failure rate caused by batteries. It is assumed that due to battery health information being available, the confidence in second-hand devices increases slightly. On the other hand, devices with relatively lower SOH may no longer sell on second-hand markets for the same reason. It can well be assumed that reliable information about the actual value of second hand smartphones will increase the average price consumers are willing to pay for them.

(9)Information provision (correct battery use; whether it is embedded and therefore not replaceable)

oAn informed user who is aware of the influence of their behaviour on the lifespan of their device battery is more likely to favour behaviour that is beneficial for the lifespan. A share of 10 % of the device batteries benefits from more aware users. Their lifespan increases by 10 %. This is applicable to all base cases. This design option does not lead to increased purchase prices for the devices.

Operating system, software and firmware

(10)New models on the market should always be equipped with the most recent OS

o20% of devices reach end-of-life due to software issues, and an OS not further supported is a major issue here. New devices on the market are always equipped with the most recent operating system (OS) version are potentially supported longer with up-to-date software. The effect could be 1 to 2 years longer product life as approximately every year a new OS version (Android and iOS) is introduced. However, hardware in the market is not always compatible with latest OS versions nor does the intended use require all latest OS features. Such an option therefore might also lead to the non-intended effect that models are discontinued earlier than needed or devices are increasingly “oversized” in terms of the specification. Due to these side effects, this option is not analyzed any further. Instead, supporting the OS, with which a model is shipped, for an extended period of time, regardless which actual OS version it is, is seen as the more effective option (see following option).

(11)Availability of update support of OS (e.g. 5 years after the placement of the last unit of the model on the market), including information on impact of updates and reversibility of updates

oDiscontinued OS support is a major reason for security and performance issues. Data on OS support for individual models suggests, that low-end devices are supported much shorter than high-end devices. Support duration is roughly in the range of 2,5 to 3,5 years. An OS support of 5 years eliminates the OS as major lifetime limiting factor for another 2,5, 2 and 1,5 years for the 3 smartphone market segments. Almost 20% of users bought a new device as software or applications stopped working on their device. These 20% are at stake for a prolonged lifetime through extended OS support. Although it is not certain, that third party application providers follow suit with their maintenance strategy it is much more likely as they are at risk to lose part of their user base. As with increasing lifetime other obsolescence factors will become more important (defects, performance other than OS), continued OS support will not extend the lifetime of all 20% of the devices at stake to full 5 years. It seems plausible, that on average for these 20% the lifetime is extended by ¼ of the time span between Base Case end of life and OS support duration of 5 years. Assumption on additional costs per device is based on approximately 1000 different smartphone models being on the EU market, with on average 150.000 sold units, and updates being in the cost range of “several hundred thousand US dollars per model” (Clark 2016), i.e. calculating with 2 Euros per device for this option. For comparison: Stated software development costs for the Fairphone 2 are 4,62 € at 140.000 sold phones per year (Fairphone 2015)

(12)Possible use of open source OS or open source Virtual Machine software

oThe use of open source OS or open source Virtual Machine software has been mentioned by the JRC material efficiency study (Cordella 2020) as an option. Actually, also Android is an open source project and OEMs are adapting Android according to their specific interests (features, user experience etc.). The possibility to change over from a pre-installed OS to (another) open source OS is motivated by, e.g. keeping a device running with a less phone-resource intensive operating system when the pre-installed / market-leading OS slows down the device or does not support the device anymore. Data privacy concerns are also a motivation for some users to rely on alternative open source software. The latter is not directly related to any lifetime extension. In general, deviating from a pre-installed OS or one of the market-dominating OS requires some technical skills. It is therefore questionable, how many users would really make use of alternative open source OS. Most likely the effect would be minimal, but there is no data to underpin this judgement.

(13)Security patches latest 2 months after the release of the new update

oGetting security patches rolled out rapidly is important to reduce data security risks. In case of Android, such a provision of security patches requires some time due to e.g. OEM specific OS variants, which need to be updated as well. 1 month for providing such security patches after the initial update is considered hardly feasible. 2 months delay is still ambitious but feasible (Mobile & SecurityLab 2019). While this option enhances data security for the user, there is no specific improvement potential in terms of lifetime extension. In conjunction with an overall long-term support of the OS, such timely provision of security patches is considered a relevant sub-aspect.

(14)The capacity of the device allows the installation of next OS versions and future functionalities (e.g. min. 4 GB for the RAM and 64 GB for the Flash could be considered reasonable for current models on the market)

o“Future-proof” hardware in terms of memory (RAM) and storage (Flash) has been mentioned by the JRC material efficiency study (Cordella 2020) as an option. The minimum requirement for Android 10 and 11 is 2GB of RAM and there are several smartphone models on the market with 32 GB Flash supporting Android 10. Android 11 has been released only on September 8, 2020, and there are few devices at all on the market, apparently none with 32 GB. Technically, Android 10 and 11 require 4 GB flash memory for application private data, thus a 32 GB storage capacity leaves room for additional software and data. Just providing more memory and storage does not guarantee an upwards compatibility with future OS versions, as also the SoC and other hardware components need to be compatible. An environmental assessment, confirmed by LCA data published by OEMs, indicates the high environmental impact of flash memory in particular and incentivizing an oversizing of storage capacity should be avoided. Also from a cost perspective there is a significant difference between a model with 32 and the same model with 64 GB (in the range of 20 Euros purchase price difference), which will not be compensated LCC-wise through longer product lifetime. Due to these considerations the option of more memory and storage to support future OS versions has not considered for the further analysis.

Reparability

(15)Battery removability/replacement: Joining techniques

oAll of the 25 best-selling smartphones of 2019 had an embedded battery that cannot be easily removed and replaced without the use of tools (see Annex 5). The majority of embedded batteries are fixed in the devices using adhesives. This is a potential barrier to the removal and replacement of the battery, as frequently thermal energy, solvent, and/or prying force need to be applied in order to dissolve the joint. This may also increase the risk of physical damage to the battery and other components during the removal process. The semi-soft battery packs may be bend or punctured, leading to short circuit and thermal runaway in the worst case. These factors can be assumed to lead to a decrease in (successful) repair attempts by users. Professional repair operators are assumed to have the skills, tools and knowledge
[6](#footnote7)
 to remove and replace batteries independently of the type of adhesive employed, but the use of strong adhesives may increase the time spent on the process and therefore the involved repair cost for the user. This design option avoids designs that utilize adhesive joining of the battery within devices in favour of solutions that intend to ease the process of removal and replacement of batteries and make it safer. Such designs where reversible adhesive bonds are in use, include: Batteries are mounted into the housing with double sided pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) tapes with stretch-release-properties; PSA systems with adhesion properties that are sensitive to contact with ethanol; battery wrapping technology with a pull tab attached to the battery wrap. Accordingly, the design option aims at a device design where the battery is not fastened within the device using joining techniques that require tools, thermal energy, or chemicals to solve. Close to 50% of the best-selling smartphones sold in Europe in 2019 had a type of pull tab adhesive solution in place. It is assumed that the implementation of such joining techniques incurs negligible additional costs during the manufacturing phase that do not result in an increased purchase price for consumers. On AliExpress, an order of 500 pull tabs ranges from USD 44 to 132, equivalent to 0,07 to 0,22 Euro , depending on the smartphone model. It can be assumed that the cost for the adhesives strips does therefore not play a role in manufacturing devices when bought in much larger quantities directly from suppliers. Although the potential of such repair-friendly battery implementation is significant, it materialises only in conjunction with better overall accessibility of the battery and spare parts availability, as other barriers, such as the need to still consult professional repair services, thus still significant overall repair costs, data privacy concerns in case of third party repairs and times of non-availability of the device remain. With better removability of the battery only a small additional fraction of the devices with integrated batteries will be repaired.

(16)Battery removability/replacement: Joining battery and display unit

oProfessional repair operators are assumed to have the skills, tools and knowledge to remove and replace batteries in almost any type of design with respect to all six base cases. However, the probability of damaging other components in the process may be influenced by the product design choices. One design choice that may considerably increase the likeliness of damaging other components is to adhere the device battery to the backside of the display unit. This design has been documented in at least one smartphone of a major manufacturer (Clemm and Lang 2019). This design choice is likely to increase the cost for repair due to the increased risk of damage to the display unit, as well as increasing the material consumption due to additional display units required to replace accidentally broken units during repair. An additional impact of this design choice may be that users themselves are further discouraged from DIY repairs. Therefore, this design option aims to prevent this design choice from being implemented in future devices: Batteries may not be adhered to the display unit. It is unknown whether any devices currently employ this design choice, therefore it is assumed that 1 % or less of devices is affected in the market for all base cases. Due to the uncertainty with respect to market relevance of the design choice, this design option is not evaluated further.

(17)Battery removability/replacement without use of tools and use of standardised batteries for cordless phones

oLess than 10 % of the mobile phones sold released to the market in 2019 had a user-replaceable (non-embedded) battery, and none of the best-selling smartphone models in Europe in 2019 had a user-replaceable battery. By definition, embedded batteries are integrated into devices and cannot be accessed without the use of tools. Devices are commonly sealed using adhesives and require thermal energy, hand-held tools, or machines to be opened. The design that was prevalent in smartphones previously allowed access to the battery by simply removing the back cover of the device. This design is still commonplace in feature phones and DECT phones, but not in smartphones and tablets. This design option requires all devices to adopt a design where batteries can be accessed, removed, and replaced without the use of any types of tools, thermal energy, or solvents. In case of cordless phones, user-replaceable (rechargeable) AAA batteries, or other standardized battery form factors, which are available in the market, ease not only the exchange of batteries, but also long-term availability at reasonable prices from multiple sources is given. Although most cordless phones are designed for user-replaceable AAA batteries there are some products, which feature other, non-standardized form factors and not in all cases these are user-replaceable. The exact market share of these designs is not known, but as this is a feature of some popular models, a market share of 15% is a plausible estimate. Benefits are the ease of replacing a faulty or faded battery and the opportunity to use a secondary battery. A likely side-effect is that the back cover is easily removable with such a design as well. Another side-effect may be in the material of the back cover of devices with a user-replaceable battery. A removable back cover is less likely to be made from glass, but rather from plastic or metal, to ease damage-free separation from the device. There are only very few devices on the market with high ingress protection and a readily-removable battery. The battery is accessible without any tools after removing the back cover. It has been pointed out by a stakeholder that back covers made of metal, as well as allowing batteries to be user replaceable (which means making the back cover detachable) might make it harder or impossible to integrate coils for wireless charging capabilities. In fact the very few smartphones with user replaceable battery on the market do have wireless charging capability, e.g. Gigaset GS4. This design option depends on the availability of spare batteries to unveil its full potential. The repair rate is increased as a weak battery is always a trigger point, which might lead to upgrading to another device. A user-replaceable battery would lower the barrier to get a repair done, thus is assumed to increase the repair rate significantly – in particular for already somewhat older devices -, also in comparison to an established professional repair infrastructure. The reduced battery repair costs correspond to batteries as OEM spare parts, to be acquired by the user. However, some will likely make use of the convenience of a professional battery replacement (without the need to wait for a replacement battery to be shipped), but also in these cases replacement costs are not expected to be much higher than the parts costs due to the simplicity of the process.

(18)Glass back cover removability/replacement

oDamage of a glass back cover is one of the main limiting states of technical nature for smartphones and tablets. Therefore, in addition to design measures to replace the display, the ability to detach and remove a shattered glass back cover has the potential to prevent a premature limiting state and prolong the lifetime of the device. Easily removable glass back cover needs to be accounted for in the design phase of devices. As there is no evidence of smartphone or tablet designs with easily removable glass back cover and no data on the cost associated with the implementation of easily removable glass back could be identified, we assume that it adds 2 Euros to manufacturing costs. This amount or a part thereof may be added to the sales price.

(19)Display removability/replacement

oThe most frequent defect in smartphones and tablets are damages of the display. Therefore, in addition to design measures to increase the withstand of the display glass against accidental drops, the ability to detach and remove a shattered display without further damage seems appropriate to preclude a premature limiting state. Prioritizing the display in the design and making it accessible has the potential to incentivize repair, thus prolonging the lifetime of the device. For instance, there are examples that the display can be removed either without tools or just with the use of a regular Philips screwdriver. Whereas displays can be replaced by professional repair shops with some efforts, i.e. costs, a detachable display unit mainly fosters additional DIY repair, but also simplifies and speeds up the process for professional repair shops. This measure depends on the availability of display units to unfold its full potential. As long as availability for consumers is not given, the effect will be limited to those cases, where displays can be sourced from third parties or through cannibalising other defect devices. 

(20)Provision of repair and maintenance information

oProvision of information (e.g. through user manuals) is necessary to support the repair/upgrade operation. Repair information should be both comprehensive and available to various target groups of repairers. Enabling a broad access to such information (e.g. to independent repair service providers) could contribute to create a level-playing field in the repair sector and to reduce repair costs and the effort to find suitable repair centres (Cordella et al. 2020). For popular devices comprehensive repair guidance is available through third parties already, and additional information through OEMs would not improve the situation for these devices much. However, OEMs are able to provide information, how a device is supposed to be repaired instead of relying on the guess-work and experience of third parties. For the broad market of low-end and mid-range devices such third party repair instructions are much less common and better OEM information can make a significant difference. Better information is of limited effect, if the repair process is still too complicated and if no spare parts are available. Therefore this option unveils its full potential only in conjunction with other measures. Due to these other barriers this option is calculated as stand-alone with a 10% increase in repairs. Provision of repair and maintenance information is not expected to result in relevant additional costs.

(21)Availability of spare parts (priority parts, e.g. battery, display) that can be used for repair without negative implications for functionality of the device

oThe availability of spare parts, especially for those parts with highest failure rate, is a paramount parameter to ensure that a repair/upgrade process can take place. The lack of spare parts prevented 4% of the respondents in a study on consumer repair attitudes to repair their smartphones. Another important aspect is the provision of information on repair costs: Most of the OEM provide professional repair services in-house or through authorised independent repairers. As an example, it is possible to bring iPhones and iPads to Apple stores where they can be repaired. Samsung has launched a doorstep repair service where professional repairers come to the customer. Huawei also offers customer service centres where repairs are offered. Most of the OEMs provide information on their repair services and costs on their websites. Also, there are market platforms providing information on the costs of spare parts. Some manufacturers raised the concern of counterfeit parts/products on the market, which could undermine the functionality of the device and the brand reputation, especially in case of bad repair (Cordella et al. 2020). Ensuring spare parts availability results in additional logistics costs, but it is up to the price policy of the OEM, if this results in increased product prices or increased spare parts prices. Given the very competitive market this option is calculated with no changes to purchase prices, but higher repair costs (+5%). The availability of spare parts has a limited effect on DIY repairs as long as other reparability options are not implemented (removable and reusable fasteners; display removability), but is assumed to be more than the 4%, which stated in the survey, missing spare parts was the reason not to get the device repaired, as availability for the user also addresses the cost barrier and other causes of not getting a device repaired. Again, additional logistics costs arise, but DIY repairs cost less. Given a 5% cost increase on professional repairs due to increased parts costs and that the additional 10% of repairs are DIY, both effects compensate each other.

(22)Provision of information on maximum costs for display & battery replacement

oAnother important aspect is the provision of information on repair costs. As stated above, most of the OEM provide professional repair services in-house or through authorised independent repairers and offer information on repair services and prices on their websites. The main potential effect of this option is the informed choice by consumers for products where repair is less costly. Thus the market would shift towards better reparable devices. This market shift depends on numerous factors, including the repair costs spread, once such information is available across the market, and how consumers would factor this in their purchase decisions. A positive effect on LCC and the environment is likely, but can be estimated hardly at this moment.

(23)Use of reversible and reusable fasteners (housing)

oThe use of removable and reusable fasteners to join the housing together is a considerable factor influencing the reparability and dismantlability of products. Commonly used fasteners for the housing are clips that require no tools to reversibly disconnect, snap-fits that do require tools for leverage, screws, adhesives, or a combination of screws and adhesives. Adhesives commonly require the application of thermal energy or chemical solvents to be dissolved, except for pull-tab solutions (Clemm et al. 2020b). This option refers to better access to relevant parts for repair, and better re-assembly of repaired devices without the need to acquire new fasteners not provided with the spare part. The disassembly and repair can be supported through the use of reversible and reusable fasteners, assuming, that this will simplify repairs. The full repair potential however depends also on other aspects (availability of spare parts etc.). As a stand-alone option this is likely to have a limited effect, increasing repair rates by 10% (more DIY repairs, faster turnaround in repair shops etc.). Product costs might slightly increase as the use of adhesives reduces typically assembly times, BOM changes are considered marginal. Product prices are expected to increase by 0,10 Euros. On the other hand the increased number of DIY repairs reduces repair costs. DIY repairs (spare part only) is roughly 50% of the costs of professional repairs. This option is calculated with a 50% repair costs reduction for the 10% of additional repairs. It is likely that some of the repairs now done by professional repair shops will then be done as DIY, which will decrease LCC further and is not accounted for in this analysis.

Use of materials

(24)Use of recyclable materials

oPositive effect on the effectiveness and efficiency of recycling can be facilitated through appropriate product design targeting depollution, dismantling, recyclability and recoverability of products. Also, where the market of certain recycled materials needs to be stimulated, it could be more appropriate to set quantitative targets in terms of recyclability (Cordella et al. 2020). EN 45555:2019 provides guidance for the assessment of the recyclability of electronic products, taking into account the fasteners and assembly techniques, compatibility of materials with current recycling techniques as well as the ability to access and remove plastics parts containing fillers or flame retardants. In addition to positive effects on reparability, some of the other design options have the potential to facilitate design for higher recyclability. Thus, this design option is not evaluated further. In the later modelling the benefits of ease of disassembly through reparability measures is not taken into account as it is unlikely, that recyclers under current conditions would treat disposed devices in any way differently than they do today. Separation of individual fractions beyond “batteries” and “rest of the device towards a copper / precious metal smelter” is unlikely, but might change with OEMs putting in place dedicated recovery technologies (Chandler 2020).

(25)Use of post-consumer recycled plastics

oThe use of post-consumer recycled (PCR) plastics in electrical and electronic equipment still poses a number of special challenges. This includes in particular diverse material-related quality requirements, e.g. the impact resistance, tensile strength, rigidity, processability or insulating properties. These requirements must also be met by recycled plastics if they are to be used within the existing device design and the established production processes. Another basic requirement for the use of plastic recyclates is compliance with defined limit values for harmful substances (e.g. RoHS, REACH). The challenges lie particularly in the reliable procurement of quality-assured raw materials that originate from appropriately optimized preparation processes. The availability and prices for such quality-assured secondary materials are decisive factors for the replacement of primary materials. Manufacturers of smartphones and DECT phones have already started using post-consumer recycled plastics. The technical feasibility of using 100% recycled ABS was demonstrated in a DECT phone. An LCA performed under the H2020 PolyCE project indicates that the potential environmental impact of a plastic component produced by injection moulding with recycled feedstock can be reduced by 24 %, compared to the use of virgin plastics.

(26)Use of bio-based plastics

oApple reported the use of bio-based plastics in the cover glass frame of iPhone (Apple 2018a). Several phone companies such as Nokia, Samsung and NEC have launched phones using PLA in the phone housing (Shen et al. 2009). Production costs, technical challenges in the scale-up of production, short-term availability of bio-based feedstock as well as the need for the plastics converters to adapt to the new material are amongst the main reasons for the relatively low replacement rate of virgin (petrochemical) with bio-based plastics (Venkatasamy 2019). Assumption: in view of the complex processing required, the market price of bio-based plastics is substantially higher (at least 70%) than the price of virgin plastics.

(27)Provision of products without External Power Supplies (EPS) and other accessories

oThe Impact Assessment Study on Common Chargers of Portable Devices (Ipsos 2019) analysed the effect of common chargers and the option to sell mobile phones without external power supplies. Unbundling of selling a mobile device and the external power supply is an option. In case all mobile phones, smartphones and tablets are sold without external power supplies by default, given that compatible units are already widely available in households, only a limited share of users would be expected to purchase a separate external power supply. Headsets are a slightly different issue, but continued use of existing ones is definitely an option. Headset cables are to a non-negligible share subject to defects, thus replacement purchases will be required more frequently than those of EPS, but many also purchase higher quality headsets than those shipped with the phone. A rough estimate is 25% more users would buy a separate headset, if phones are shipped without by default. The smaller package reduces logistics costs all the way from final assembly and packaging to the shop floor. Estimated savings on packaging material savings and more importantly logistics are in the range of 0,50 € for phones and 1 € for the larger tablets.

(28)Standardised interfaces for external connectors and EPS

oA common charger solution eases the implementation of Unbundling external power supplies from device sales, but is not essential for such an approach as shown by Apple’s recent announcement to ship iPhones without external power supplies. Furthermore the widespread use of external power supplies with detachable USB Type-A to USB Type-C cables allows in many cases already a reuse of existing power supplies. As the Impact Assessment Study on Common Chargers of Portable Devices (Ipsos 2019) has demonstrated, the harmonisation of connectors as such has little effect on consumers and the environment. The benefits of harmonised connectors and chargers materialise with the unbundling of device and external power supply, see design option above. For a distinct environmental and LCC assessment of a common charger solution see the Impact Assessment Study on Common Chargers of Portable Devices (Ipsos 2019).

Readiness for second use and recycling

(29)Reliable data erasure through encryption combined with factory reset

oThere are strong indications, that data privacy concerns are a major reason for the large amount of hibernating devices. Instead of hibernation, many of these devices could be made available for the reuse market, thus replacing new devices, if the user has confidence in data erasure or encryption with deletion of the encryption key. Encryption by default leads to reliable data erasure, once a factory reset is done. This requires the encryption key to be deleted in the factory reset process. Android and iOS support this feature. Alternatively third party software can be used to overwrite data before factory reset, but given the architecture of flash memory not all data might be erased this way. 65% of smartphones, feature phones, tablets are assumed to go into hibernation. 37% are hoarding devices in Germany as they are afraid, that data might be extracted from disposed phones. In UK 40% have similar concerns when being asked why not recycle used devices – and it can be assumed a similar high rate would give the same answer, if the question would have been related to “why not reuse”? This means that more than 20% of all mobile phones and tablets due to data privacy concerns are hoarded after use. A conservative estimate is, that with proper and trustworthy data erasure processes in place, 5% of low-end smartphones and feature phones (as there is a smaller reuse market for these devices) and 10% of all other mobile phones and tablets could re-enter the reuse market. Due to other limitations, second life is assumed to be shorter than first life, a plausible assumption are an additional 1,5 years. Refurbishment will likely require a battery replacement as additional material consumption. For the first user the re-sale value of the device reduces life cycle costs, the second user has to pay the higher re-sale price, if the device is traded through a recommerce company, which is frequently the case, but just selling C2C through ebay or similar is also common. Assuming at least a battery replacement and a recommerce margin for some of the devices adds additional costs throughout the significantly extended lifetime. These recommerce processing costs and margins are derived from a short analysis of leading recommerce platforms and comparing offered prices for acquiring used devices and sales prices. The found margins also indicate, that recommerce platforms can achieve better margins with flag-ship devices than with low-end devices, which likely results in less interest by the recommerce platforms to get engaged more in these market segments and reuse would need to rely rather on the C2C reuse market.

(30)Data transfer from an old to a new product is conveniently possible via installed or downloadable tools or cloud-based services

oComplicated data transfer from one device to another one is a barrier to phone and tablet reuse and recycling as devices are rather kept as a data archive: 24% of all users in Germany hoarding devices do so as they consider data transfer too complicated. Similarly, valuable information stored on the old device turned out to be a major reason for users in the UK not to recycle old phones. These findings are presented in more detail in the preparatory study. These data points indicate, that simpler data transfer could also increase the number of hoarded devices which can be made accessible for reuse, i.e. a second life. Data transfer through the cloud under the condition of an existing Google account is typically feasible for transfers from Android to Android devices with limited effort and if registering for a Google account is not seen as a barrier. Similarly such data transfer is conveniently provided for iPhones. However, users still state to consider this too complicated (or they are just not aware of the feature). Hence, this design option is rather about better transparency, how to transfer data technically than implementing new technical measures. Given the figures for Germany, the maximum potential is 15% of devices which can be reused, if this option is fully exploited. A conservative estimate is, that this in the end might materialise for 5% of the low-end smartphones and 10% of other smartphones and tablets. For feature phones this option is assumed not to be a relevant option. Similar to the data erasure option above, enhanced data transfer is assumed to yield more reuse / recommerce: Refurbishment will likely require a battery replacement as additional material consumption. For the first user the re-sale value of the device reduces life cycle costs, the second user has to pay the higher re-sale price, if the device is traded through a recommerce company, which is frequently the case, but just selling C2C through ebay or similar is also common. Assuming at least a battery replacement and a recommerce margin for some of the devices adds additional costs throughout the significantly extended lifetime. Given that this option and the data erasure option above are calculated as conservative scenarios by far not exploiting the full potential, these two options can be considered additive. The amount of devices the reuse market can absorb however is definitely limited and these two options would already have a massive push effect on the reuse market.

Ability to recycle smartphones / parts / materials

(31)Collection of products / put in place take back schemes

oInsufficient collection is particularly relevant for small devices such as smartphones and tablets. Lack of information about disposal of obsolete devices, hording effects and data security issues are amongst the main reasons for the low collection rates. Separate collection and mindful storage avoiding excessive mechanical stress also facilitates reuse. Setting up take-back schemes offers additional positive effects, for example, devices being returned via take-back schemes and transported further for refurbishment or recycling or parts harvesting. It should be noted that anti-theft and security software installed on smartphones poses potential barrier for independent organisations and professionals since this software can only be removed by the original owner or by the manufacturer (Cordella et al. 2020). An option to incentivise the collection of mobile devices is a deposit. This has been proposed in the past by various stakeholders and industry came forward with arguments against it, arguing among other points, that logistics and capital lockup would be issues. The German manufacturer Shift however introduced few years back a 22 Euros deposit on smartphones (which is more than 5% of the price of their cheapest model), demonstrating the feasibility of this approach. The option to put in place and strengthen product take-back schemes is subject to another study of the European Commission, which investigates this aspect more in detail.

(32)Identification, access and removal of specific parts

oThe removal of certain parts at the EOL is necessary for the safe disposal of the device and an efficient recycling and recovery of materials. Identification, access and removal of parts of concern according to Annex VII of WEEE (batteries and PCBs) and parts containing precious/critical raw materials is of particular relevance for the effective EOL management of discarded products. Also, there is the risk that certain components (e.g. batteries and displays) difficult to be extracted would be shredded together with other waste, with the consequent dispersion of pollutants and contamination of other recyclable fractions, the risk of explosions in the shredders, and the irreversible loss of valuable resources. Design options enhancing reparability as outlined above would also correspond better with manual dismantling processes at end-of-life, although processes and tools are typically not the same (non-destructive versus destructive). As the major LCC and environmental benefits of this option are related to reparability not recyclability, no separate “Design for Recycling” options are proposed here.

(33)Provision of additional information for recyclers

oFor the safe and efficient recycling, information on disassembly process and location of battery and other valuable components is essential (Maya-Drysdale et al. 2017b). Information could concern: general information on the product (including the month and year when the products were placed on the market); content of dangerous components/substances used (as a minimum the ones mentioned in Annex VII of the WEEE Directive): provision of a short description and photo, and the place where these are usually found in the appliance; dismantling instructions: these could include exploded diagrams of the device, indicating the opening mechanism and required tools; in case of clips, this should include information related to the direction the housing should be opened; how to recognize special models and specific dismantling instructions for them;
   advice on collection (separate/mixed) and on logistics. Apart from this information, providing uniform, visible and comprehensive marking has the potential to improve the sorting and recycling of device and targeted parts (Maya-Drysdale et al. 2017b). The marking can be applied to: Content in the product of CRM and minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas; marking of parts containing halogenated substances or hazardous substances/SVHC; marking of plastic parts > 25g in accordance to ISO 11469 (mainly relevant for cordless phones and a substantial share of tablets); marking of batteries (chemistries). After collection, batteries at the EoL mostly appear as mixtures and are subject mostly to manual sorting and separated according to their chemistries. The identification of the chemistry type is based on the label placed on the battery packaging/casing. In practice, however, when the batteries reach the recycling facility, the labels sometimes are missing, making identification and sorting difficult. In order to release manual labour force, raise the sorting speed as well as accuracy, better marking with improved readability is required in order to realize efficient identification and sorting (Tecchio et al. 2018a). Interviews with battery recyclers conducted within the framework of the preparatory study on the Review of Regulation 617/2013 (Lot 3) indicate that uniform battery marking will facilitate the separation of mixed batteries and therefore increase the recycling rates of Li-ion batteries (Tecchio et al. 2018a). Except for the battery marking clearly identifying chemistries, the other measures do have a very limited effect under current recycling practice, as recyclers do not have the infrastructure to access and consult such documentation easily and to integrate this information in their workflow. Research is ongoing to improve recycling through e.g. an electronic product passport, advanced automation for dismantling, and recycling of rare earth magnets from mobile devices, the latter even in conjunction with proposing a marking system for the magnets and their composition. Data and information requirements and capabilities of recyclers to make use of the data needs to be developed in parallel. Currently the effect of enhanced information provision cannot be reliably predicted, and due to these major uncertainties, this is not underpinned with a calculation. The only case where there is a clear mentioning of data needs by recyclers is the marking of batteries per distinct chemistry. By now, a better separation could lead to more efficient battery recycling and higher recovery rates, but this benefit cannot be quantified yet. Marking batteries is considered almost cost-neutral.

Packaging

(34)Use of fiber-based packaging materials

oMost of the sales packages for this product group are already made of paper and cardboard material, which typically provides good protection against rough handling and is not in conflict with an appealing appearance at the point of sales. Occasionally plastics inlays are in use, but any further improvement in materials compared to the assessment results of the Base Case seems marginal and is not further analysed here.

(35)Improvement of packaging efficiency

oOccasionally sales packages are oversized and packaging material could be used more efficiently. A significant effect in terms of reducing packaging sizes and material is related to the unbundling of devices and external power supply, or other accessories. This option and effect is linked to the unbundling discussion.

Manufacturing

(36)Renewable energy used for the manufacturing of PCBs and semiconductors

oGiven that the manufacturing of semiconductors and printed circuit boards are particularly energy intensive processes, a shift towards renewable energy for these components is particularly relevant to reduce the carbon footprint of mobile phone, smartphone and tablet production. It should be noted however that a phone or tablet is made of one or more rigid PCBs but easily in the range of 50 or more integrated circuits. Such an approach therefore would require involvement of multiple players. For a more focused approach shifting to renewable energy for the production of the largest PCB (i.e. mainboard, and mainboard PCBs, which are soldered together, e.g. stacked PCBs), CPU / SoC, memory: RAM, and storage: Flash, would already cover a large portion of the GHG emissions. The expected effect are reduced carbon emissions from mainboard, SoC, RAM, Flash manufacturing (-60% to account roughly for the electricity related energy share of PCB production and chip front-end and back-end). As newly installed renewable power capacity increasingly costs less than the cheapest power generation options based on fossil fuels (IRENA 2020), increasing use of renewable power in the supply chain is feasible without increasing product costs, but this assumption might be challenged by the conditions in specific regions, available power sources, and the willingness of suppliers to change to renewable sources.

(37)Ground or cargo vessel transports only

oAvoiding air cargo reduces impacts of shipping devices to the EU significantly. This also reduces costs significantly as air cargo of smartphones roughly costs 1 € and sea transport is significantly cheaper, less than 0,10€
[7](#footnote8)
. A major drawback of this option is a delayed market introduction of new devices by several weeks and a slower reaction time, if a significant share of failures in the field are detected right after market introduction. The carbon emissions of sea transport are 1/10 or less of the GHG emissions resulting from air freight
[8](#footnote9)
. 

(38)Area-optimised PCB design

oThe design of feature phones and DECT phones frequently relies on a large PCB, which provides stability to the overall device and connects all external connectors, buttons and slots on the various edges of the device. In low-end and partly also mid-range smartphones the PCB fulfils a similar function as carrier for all connectors and button contacts, but frequently in an odd-form designed around the embedded battery, resulting in significant cut-offs and PCB losses in the manufacturing process. In high-end smartphones the size of the mainboard is typically optimized, i.e. minimized, for optimal volume use inside the device and distances are bridged by flex connector PCBs. In tablets similar odd-form PCB designs are found with significant cut-off losses. For an option with area-optimized rigid PCB design, some other design changes are required: More flex PCB to bridge distances (incl. connectors) and potentially additional plastics frame / housing material to provide required stability. Whereas additional housing material adds negligible costs in the range of few cents at maximum, flex PCBs add more costs, but on the other hand area savings of the rigid PCB in a similar range materialises. The overall design, and thus the assembly is getting more complex. In the end such design might cost 0,50 € more.

(39)Reduction of fluorinated gas emissions resulting from flat panel display manufacturing

oReducing fluorinated gas emissions from display manufacturing can reduce the carbon footprint of LCDs by up to 10%. Reducing GHG emissions through abatement of PFCs by 5% is a substantial improvement. As various perfluorocompounds are used and for several purposes, emission reduction can be achieved through a combination of measures, including substitution, process optimisation, abatement. These measures add costs, but there is no public data on how much achieving which abatement rate costs. As a proxy this option is calculated with an additional 0,5% LCD costs.

(40)Reduction of fluorinated gas emissions resulting from IC manufacturing

oSimilar to the LCD case, reducing fluorinated gas emissions from IC manufacturing can reduce the carbon footprint of semiconductor packages by up to 10%. Reducing GHG emissions through abatement of PFCs by 5% is a substantial improvement. This is defined as an option for CPU/SoC, RAM, Flash components, but can be extended to other semiconductors as well. As various perfluorocompounds are used and for several purposes, emission reduction can be achieved through a combination of measures, including substitution, process optimisation, abatement. These measures add costs, but there is no public data on how much achieving which abatement rate costs. Given that there are multiple activities under way by the semiconductor industry, this option is calculated with an additional 0,5% semiconductors costs.

(41)Content in the product of CRM and minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas, and other metals

oThere are significant differences in the content of critical raw materials (CRMs) found by various chemical analyses. This is largely related to deliberately made design decisions, where certain materials are state-of-the-art, but there are also cases where the exact material choice is up to a supplier. Most relevant CRMs are tantalum, cobalt, platinum group metals, indium, gallium and rare earth elements. Given the variance of concentrations found in these devices a reduction by 10 or 20% through informed design choices seems feasible. However, reducing cobalt might be in conflict with battery capacity, rare earth elements in magnets are used for affixing modules and accessories in an easily reversible way, and gallium is essential for proper radio communication and compromises here might be hardly justifiable from a performance perspective. Gold is another relevant material, but rather from an environmental perspective. Also gold content is varying widely among devices and progress is made to reduce gold layer thicknesses and to replace gold wire bonds with copper wire bonds. As the properties of gold add to the reliability of contacts - and a large number of connectors adds to the modularity of the design -, reducing gold might be in conflict with durability and other strategies targeting at extended product lifetime.

Energy

(42)Extended battery endurance per full charge

oVariations in battery endurance per full charge among smartphones can be observed. This is partly related to the battery size, but even more how energy-efficient the smartphone operates. Given the multiple functions of smartphones – and tablets -, there are numerous technical aspects, including software and hardware, which have an impact on energy efficiency of the device. Battery endurance is a major indicator for this. As the analysis shows 30% above average battery endurance is achieved by a significant share of the market, including flagship devices with a high-end specification. Therefore, an energy-efficiency related design option is a battery endurance of 30% above average for smartphones and also for tablets. The positive effect of longer battery endurance is two-fold: Energy savings through less frequent charging and longer battery lifetime in terms of cycles as the same number of charging cycles is stretched over a 30% longer period. As there is some correlation of battery capacity and battery endurance in a given system, a longer battery endurance incentivizes larger batteries, which has to be taken into account as a possible side-effect of this design option.

(43)Reduced standby power consumption (BAT: 0,4 W base station; 0,05 W charging cradle only)

oThere is a spread of standby power consumption among cordless phones with base station. Several devices meet a standby power consumption of 0,4 W, even with an integrated answering machine and other typical features. These particularly power-saving units are in the same price range as other cordless phones with base station, which gives no reason to assume, that low power consumption comes at a significantly increased product cost. It is very unlikely, that this likely marginal extra component cost exceeds the achievable electricity cost savings of 1,84 € on average.

(44)Eco-DECT

oThere are several measures to reduce the power consumption of DECT handsets, but more important to reduce radiation. Such features are frequently summarized with the term Eco-DECT and typically include an adaptation of radiation power of handset and/or base station depending on the distance between both and that a radio connection is actually only established once there is an incoming call or the user activates the handset. Radiation power of the handset might be switched off when the handset is placed in the base station. The power savings of the handset and base station as a combo vary and actually power consumption of the base station might be even higher, if radiation power of the handset is regulated down. Such features to reduce overall radiation are beneficial for the user, but impacts on human health cannot be quantified in the context of this study. According to Gigaset as one main manufacturer in this market, these Eco-DECT features do not lead to increased product prices
[9](#footnote10)
.

Other features

(45)Memory extension card option for smartphones and tablets with 32 GB on-board Flash or less

oAs storage limitations can be considered a performance issue after a while of use, additional storage through providing memory extension card options is a viable way for the user to mitigate this problem. This option however is already standard and broadly available for smartphones with up to 32 GB flash storage (more than 90% of all model variants
[10](#footnote11)
). Flash capacities above 32 GB might still constitute a limitation for some users, but in general should suffice for most.

(46)Dual-SIM (SIM-card or eSIM)

oThe Dual-SIM option can make a second mobile phone obsolete as the same device can e.g. be used for private and business use, with different phone contracts and numbers. In case a second device is really replaced through this feature, the impact is very relevant on a per unit basis. However, Dual-SIM, either through a second SIM card slot or an on-board eSIM chip is already implemented in the majority of devices: Among feature phones, low-end and mid-range smartphones at least 80% of all model variants feature Dual-SIM. Among high-end smartphones roughly 50% of the model variants come with a second SIM option
[11](#footnote12)
. This widespread implementation of Dual-SIM is considered to leave enough options for the user to choose a Dual-SIM option, if this feature is of interest. As there are many users for whom Dual-SIM does not matter, it is important also to have choices without Dual-SIM as either the additional SIM slot or the additional eSIM chip relates to additional environmental impacts in the production phase and additional costs for the user. Although it might be important to make a clear reference to the Dual-SIM option at the point-of-sales to ensure decision for a Dual-SIM device is made where this makes sense, this option is not further analysed.

ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND CALCULATIONS

Business revenue

Business revenue has been estimated using the purchase price and sales of each device under different options. We have applied the following formula:

BRj = Σ (PPij × Qij)

Where:

·BRj = Business revenue for manufacturers under Option ‘j’

·PPij = Purchase price of device ‘i’ under Option ‘j’

Qij = Quantity of device ‘i’ sold under Option ‘j’, being ‘j’ = 1; 2; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 4; 5.1 and 5.2;

and ‘i’= low-end smartphones, mid-range smartphones, high-end smartphones, feature phones, cordless phones and tablets.

These values (i.e. purchase price and sales) have been taken from European Commission (2021) and have been employed to calculate Business revenue for the period 2010-2030. How we have obtained the purchase price is explained below.

Administrative costs

Estimations about costs related to provide labels on the packaging or on the device itself (required under some of policy options considered) have been carried out.

In order to estimate the cost of printing labels for suppliers under those options including a reparability score and/or an Energy Label, we have proceeded as follows:

Labelling cost = Nº devices sold (million units) x cost of print a label (per device)

The formula has been applied to each device. About the second component (the print label cost), the value has been taken from another Impact Assessment report based on TV displays and carried out by European Commission in 2019
[12](#footnote13)
. This value is EUR 0.3 per device.

Figures for the number of sales (for each device and under the different policy options) have been taken from the Ecodesign Preparatory Study (European Commission, 2021).

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS AND CALCULATIONS

Figures related to energy savings, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, acidification, material consumption and external societal costs are taken from the Ecodesign Preparatory Study (2021). These values have been used for the impact assessment.

The assessment of environmental impacts in the Preparatory Study were based on the Methodology for ecodesign of energy-related products (MEErP) and the underlying EcoReport file, including generic datasets applied coherently across product group studies und the Ecodesign Directive. As these generic datasets partially do not reflect properly the specific technologies found in mobile phones, cordless phones and tablets, the authors of the Preparatory Study undertook the effort to research more recent data on semiconductor component, printed circuit boards, displays, batteries, special glass and updated the EcoReport file accordingly. Design options were assessed regarding hardware changes required and resulting material consumption changes and regarding further effects throughout the product life cycle, such as the share of failing units and the likeliness that a user fixes defects or rather decides for a device upgrade. Such considerations resulted in a complex lifetime model to analyse the consequence of combinations of design options. The basic functional unit for these assessments has been one year of use of a given device, i.e. environmental impacts of the average product life cycle are divided by the calculated averaged years of use to establish impacts per year of use for the 6 market segments separately: low-end smartphones, mid-range smartphones, high-end smartphones, feature phones, cordless phones and tablets.

Improvements achieved through policy options, which reflect a combination of design options, are then calculated as a delta of total environmental impacts of the market (distinct stock models for the six market sub-segments) in a given year versus the impacts in the baseline scenario.

Assessed environmental indicators comprise

·Material consumption

·Other Resources & Waste

oTotal Energy (GER)

oof which, electricity (in primary MJ)

oWater (process)

oWater (cooling)

oWaste, non-hazardous/ landfill

oWaste, hazardous/ incinerated

·Emissions (Air)

oGreenhouse Gases in GWP100

oAcidification, emissions

oVolatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

oPersistent Organic Pollutants (POP)

oHeavy Metals

oPAHs

oParticulate Matter (PM, dust)

·Emissions (Water)

oHeavy Metals

oEutrophication

The overall analysis throughout the Preparatory Study assessed all these indicators with the main conclusion that the results in almost all cases point in the same direction for the various indicators. For this reason, taking a selection of indicators, such as greenhouse gas emissions, total energy, and acidification as guiding indicators and as indicators being of high relevance for EU climate policy, is justified.

SOCIAL ASSUMPTIONS AND CALCULATIONS

Employment

The methodology followed to estimate employment effect in repair/maintenance sector consist of two steps.

-First: a time series of the number of old devices (smartphones, feature phones, cordless phones and tablets) over the period of analysis (i.e., 2020-2030) has been estimated by linking data from European Commission (2021) on projected annual stock (the stock of devices in use remains the same in all policy options, see Annex 5) with data on projected annual sales under eight policy options (see Figure 14 and Figure 15). An old phone/tablet is defined as a device with an age of 1 year or above. The number of old phones is calculated under the assumption, that (almost) no devices leave the stock in year 1, so that “old phones” = “stock” – “new sales in a given year”.

Figure 7: Smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones – Annual sales EU for various scenarios, 2010-2030

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53008.jpg)

Figure 8: Tablets – Annual sales EU for various scenarios, 2010-2030

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53009.jpg)

·Second: employment has been estimated by 2 methods (Method A and Method B). Based on CEPS (2019) which states that refurbished smartphones already accounted for 10% of the overall sales volume in France in 2017, Method A assumes a 10% refurbishment rate of old smartphones and considers that 8 persons are employed in the repair sector per 10,000 devices being repaired or maintained (CEPS, 2019). 10% of refurbishment is also applied to tablets. However, this rate is not realistic for the two other devices: feature and cordless phones. Cordless phones are barely repaired due to its low acquisition price (about 50€) and the non-existent tendency to refurbish this type of device. Because of this, we have assumed 0% of refurbishment (no repair/maintenance sector for his device). Regarding feature phones, they also present a low acquisition price (about 80€). We have assumed that 2% are refurbished. Method B assumes that the increase in employment is based on the percent increase in repair expenditure projected by EC (2021) relative to Option 1. The biggest effects on employment are related to the numbers involved in the repair and maintenance sector. As the results of both methods are similar, the report only presents results from Method A.

A sensitivity analysis using 20% and 30% rates for smartphones and tablets is performed. This is supported by a behavioural experiment conducted with respondents from various EU countries, which found that 20% of consumers had a tendency to buy a second-hand mobile phone (including refurbished devices) as a replacement for their old device (Cerulli-Harms et al., 2018). An upper bound for the rate of refurbishment has been set at 30% for smartphones as in CEPS (2019). However, the lower refurbishment rate considered for features phones makes that those employed on sensitive analyse were different for this device. In this way, we have used 4% and 6% for feature phones.

European Commission (2018)
[13](#footnote14)
 estimates that 67% of the repairs in the Information and Communication Technologies sector are done by professionals and 33% are undertaken by other types of repairs (repair cafés, self-repair, etc.). We have applied these percentages, assuming that self-repair, repair cafés, etc. do not require formal jobs.

Employment estimations are present on following tables.

Table 4: Employment in the repair and maintenance sector. Nº jobs. Method A (10%):

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53010.jpg)

Table 5: Employment in the repair and maintenance sector. Nº jobs. Method B

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53011.jpg)

Table 6: Employment in the repair and maintenance sector. Nº jobs (rf 20%)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53012.jpg)

Table 7: Employment in the repair and maintenance sector. Nº jobs (rf 30%)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53013.jpg)

Table 8: Employment on repair and maintenance sector by market players. Smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones. Nº jobs in 2030.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53014.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53015.jpg)

Table 9: Employment on repair and maintenance sector by market players. Tablets. Nº jobs in 2030.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53016.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53017.jpg)

Consumer expenditure

Consumer expenditure is also obtained from European Commission Preparatory Study (2021). Here, three components are identified and sum up for each policy option using the following formula:

CE = PP + RC + EC

Where:

CE = Consumer expenditure

PP = Purchase price

RC = Repair cost

EC = Energy cost

Purchase price

The purchase price (PP) of products is given by the manufacturing costs (MC) plus the margins added. Following to Cordella et al. (2020), this could be simplified as follows:

PP = MC x (1+MM) x (1 + RM) x (1+VAT)

Where:

MC = material costs, considered to include the cost of the phone's / tablet’s parts

MM = manufacturing margins, considered to include additional costs (e.g. investment and operational costs associated with manufacturing, product design, software, Intellectual Property, certifications)

RM = aggregated sale margin

VAT = value-added tax (e.g. 21.6% as average in the EU in 2015)

In the case of smartphones, the average sales price for mobile phones is steadily increasing over the years: In 2012 mobile phones on the EU 27 market on average were sold for 290 euro. At that time feature phones still had a significant market share whereas today the market is almost completely absorbed by smartphones. As of 2020 the average price was 395 euro in EU 27, with a span from 322 euro in Bulgaria up to 495 euro in Belgium. Until 2023 a slight further increase of the average sales price is predicted. For the EU 27 on average the price for mobile phones will increase from 395 euro to 403 euro.

Following the current trend and for 2030, the purchase price of each smartphone is estimated as follows: low-end smartphone (EUR 200), mid-range smartphone (EUR 500) and high-end smartphone (EUR 1000). For feature phones it is EUR 80, and EUR 50 for cordless phones.

In the case of tablets, according to data from Statista the average tablet was sold on the consumer market in Germany for 603 euro in 2010 and for 337 euro in 2019, thus indicating a trend towards more affordable lower-end devices in this market over the past decade (European Commission, 2021).The same data source provides market shares for several device models form the leading OEMs Apple and Samsung, which combined make up 59% of the European market. In the second quarter of 2018, low-end devices with a retail price below 200 € only accounted for 6 % market share. Medium-priced devices with retail prices in the range of 200 to 400 € accounted for 17 %, devices in the range of 400 to 800 € accounted for 11 %. High-end devices with a retail price above 800 € had a major market share with 25 %. The current trend estimates a purchase price for tablets in 2030 of EUR 330.

In order to estimate prices for Ecodesign sub-options and for each device, different design requirements have been evaluated in terms of their saving potential along the life cycle cost. These cost calculations per design option1 have been researched and calculated as part of the preparatory study and were subject to stakeholder consultation without major concerns being raised by manufacturers and other stakeholders regarding the accuracy of made cost statements. The average product prices resulting from individual design improvements are listed in 
[Table](#_Ref95751540)
10 and take into account that there is already a significant penetration of some of the options in the market. In several cases the purchase price is forecasted to increase by up to 3 Euros per option. Many other options are cost neutral. The stated Base Case prices are the baseline.

From these cost impacts per product type and per individual design option, the overall estimated purchase price effect of the actual requirements is derived as follows:

1.The cost increase is adapted (and typically lowered), if the actual technology-neutral requirement allows also for other technical solutions than the analysed technical design options (example: Overall better drop resistance can be reached not only by a more resistant display, but also by integrating e.g. bumper features in the housing or through the design option of protective foils, which is a less costly solution)

2.The cost increase is adapted (and typically lowered), if the actual requirement is formulated less ambitious than the initially analysed design option in the preparatory study, due to identified barriers (example: OS support instead of 5 years only set requirement: 5 years security updates and 3 years functional updates)

3.Some design options despite an environmental improvement potential have been ruled out from further analysis due to unintended possible side effects (example: removable backside cover glass is seem as incompatible to current designs, thus significantly limiting design choices; similar effect achieved through defining the back cover assembly as a spare part and by introducing reliability requirements, which will lead to less repair cases) or due to parallel policy developments (example: take back schemes)

4.The remaining and adapted options are then aggregated, respecting synergies, to derive the forecasted sales price of devices under the various policy options (summarised in section 6.3.2 and detailed further below, 
[Table](#_Ref98431364)

[11](#_Ref98431364)
, and in Annex 10).

Resulting purchase price changes were subject to a comprehensive sensitivity analysis, showing that even if price increase is significantly higher than forecasted, overall life cycle costs for consumers are significantly decreasing. This is due to the lifetime extending effect of several requirements combined, leading to significantly longer product replacement cycles. Below table 10, detailed explanations are given, on how the (total) purchase price changes were calculated.

Table 10: Purchase price effects of individual design options

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53018.jpg)

In order to model the effects (on prices, durability, repair rates, etc..) of the policy options described under this impact assessment, an iterative process (described in the table below) was used, starting from the individual design options. For each of the product subcategories under analysis (low-end smartphones, mid-range smartphones, etc..), a product architecture featuring compliance with a limited subset of three requirements (battery removability/joining techniques, repair information, availability of spare parts for professional repair shops) was first modelled. Then, further subsets
[14](#footnote15)
 of two-three requirements each were integrated into the modelling in an iterative way, i.e. adding one subset per step, at each time re-evaluating the effects (on prices, durability, repair rates).

This analysis has been undertaken already in the course of the preparatory study, following the Methodology for Ecodesign of Energy-related Products (MEErP), and is presented here as a consolidated compilation to ease the understanding of the analytical approach and underlying assumptions and data.

Table 11: Product price modelling based on consecutive implementation of technical options

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Low-end smartphone | Mid-range smartphone | High-end smartphone | Feature phone | Cordless phone | Slate tablet |
| Current product price (€) | 200,00 | 500,00 | 1000,00 | 80,00 | 50,00 | 330,00 |
| Implementing:   ·battery removability: joining techniques   ·repair & maintenance information   ·availability of spare parts for professional repair shops   Not relevant for cordless phones.   Resulting effect: Higher repair rates (new rates listed below) compared to the status quo, technical implementation without any effects on product costs (see Table 10), but logistics and documentation efforts slightly increase repair costs. | | | | | | |
| repair rate battery (of broken devices) | 50% | 45% | 40% | 50% |  | 45% |
| display repair rate (of broken devices) | 50% | 45% | 40% | 50% |  | 45% |
| other repair of broken devices | 50% | 45% | 40% | 50% |  | 45% |
| affected devices | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |  | 100% |
| additional repair costs | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% |  | 4% |
| New product price (€) | 200,00 | 500,00 | 1000,00 | 80,00 | 50,00 | 330,00 |
| Additionally, implementing:   ·battery removability without tools   ·glass back cover removability   ·display removability   ·availability of spare parts for end-users   ·reversible / reusable fasteners   ·repair index as information requirement (smartphones and slate tablets only)   Resulting effect: Further increased repair rates (new rates listed below) compared to the status quo, technical implementation without any effects on product costs (see Table 10), main cost effect are lower repair costs (displays specifically, for batteries current spare parts prices assumed) due to DIY repairs partly replacing professional repairs   In case of cordless phones only those products (15% of the market) are affected, which do not currently feature replaceable batteries. In these cases one battery replacement is assumed to extend product life by 2,5 years (battery lifetime). | | | | | | |
| repair rate battery (of broken devices) | 80% | 80% | 80% | 50% | +2,5 years | 80% |
| repair price battery | 30 | 30 | 30 |  | 7,50 | 50 |
| display repair rate of broken devices) | 70% | 70% | 70% | 60% |  | 70% |
| other repair of broken devices | 60% | 55% | 50% | 50% |  | 55% |
| affected devices | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 15% | 100% |
| reduced repair costs of displays | 30% | 30% | 30% | 20% |  | 30% |
| New product price (€) | 200,00 | 500,00 | 1000,00 | 80,00 | 50,00 | 330,00 |
| Additionally, implementing:   ·Extended battery endurance per full charge (smartphones and slate tablets)   Resulting effect: Battery endurance on average extended by 30%, which shifts the point in time where the battery reaches a critical status by approx. 0,6 years, thus overall extending product life (but by less than 0,6 years due to other lifetime limiting factors, which gain in importance). Product costs increase due to higher battery costs (better quality and/or higher capacity, see cost figures in Table 10), which scale with product price segment and battery size. | | | | | | |
| delayed critical status of the battery | + 0,6 years | + 0,6 years | + 0,6 years |  |  | + 0,6 years |
| affected devices | 100% | 100% | 100% |  |  | 100% |
| additional cost for measure (€) | 0,40 | 0,60 | 0,80 |  |  | 1,00 |
| reduced energy consumption [kWh/a] | 1,52 | 2,19 | 3,05 |  |  | 2,43 |
| New product price (€) | 200,40 | 500,60 | 1000,80 | 80,00 | 50,00 | 331,00 |
| Additionally, implementing:   ·Extended availability of OS updates (smartphones and slate tablets)   Resulting effect: Where software obsolescence is considered the critical factor for premature device replacements (5% of devices) further OS support is forecasted to extend the product lifetime. This effect is less eminent for those product segments with already a longer product lifetime. Product costs increase for all devices (see Table 10). | | | | | | |
| prolonged lifetime (years) | + 2,5 years | + 2 years | + 1,5 years |  |  | + 1 year |
| affected devices | 5% | 5% | 5% |  |  | 5% |
| additional cost for measure (€) | 2,00 | 2,00 | 2,00 |  |  | 2,00 |
| New product price (€) | 202,40 | 502,60 | 1002,80 | 80,00 | 50,00 | 333,00 |
| Additionally, implementing:   ·Enhanced battery management   Resulting effect: Battery endurance on average extended by 25%, which shifts the point in time where the battery reaches a critical status by approx. 0,55 years, thus overall extending product life (but by less than 0,55 years due to other lifetime limiting factors, which gain in importance). Product costs increase for low-end smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones (see Table 10) as they are assumed not yet to have hardware suitable for such battery management features, other products are expected to have such battery managenent hardware already integrated and the main change is to control and manage the battery properly. | | | | | | |
| improvement potential (25%) | + 0,55 years | + 0,55 years | + 0,55 years | + 0,55 years | + 0,55 years | + 0,55 years |
| affected devices | 100% | 75% | 50% | 100% | 100% | 50% |
| additional cost for measure | 1,00 | 0 | 0 | 2,00 | 2,00 | 0 |
| New product price (€) | 203,40 | 502,60 | 1002,80 | 82,00 | 52,00 | 333,00 |
| Additionally, implementing:   ·Enhanced battery endurance in cycles   Resulting effect: Battery endurance on average extended by 20%, which shifts the point in time where the battery reaches a critical status by approx. 0,5 years, thus overall extending product life (but by less than 0,5 years due to other lifetime limiting factors, which gain in importance). This does not affect high-end smartphones and an assumed 50% of mid-range smartphones and tablets, which typically already feature high quality batteries, and it does not affect cordless phones due to different charging patterns. Product costs increase for all devices (see Table 10). | | | | | | |
| improvement potential (20%) | + 0,5 years | + 0,5 years |  | + 0,5 years |  | + 0,5 years |
| affected devices | 100% | 50% |  | 100% |  | 50% |
| additional cost for measure | 2,00 | 0,75 |  | 1,00 |  | 1,20 |
| New product price (€) | 205,40 | 503,35 | 1002,80 | 83,00 | 52,00 | 334,20 |
| Additionally, implementing:   ·Information about charging patterns to improve battery lifetime   Resulting effect: Battery endurance on average extended by 10%, which shifts the point in time where the battery reaches a critical status by approx. 0,25 years, thus overall extending product life (but by less than 0,25 years due to other lifetime limiting factors, which gain in importance). This however is assumed to affect only those devices, where users are open to such kind of information (10%). Product costs are not affected as this is an information requirement only with no product design changes (see Table 10). | | | | | | |
| improvement potential (10%) | + 0,25 years | + 0,25 years | + 0,25 years | + 0,25 years | + 0,25 years | + 0,25 years |
| affected devices | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% |
| additional cost for measure (€) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| New product price (€) | 205,40 | 503,35 | 1002,80 | 83,00 | 52,00 | 334,20 |
| Additionally, implementing:   ·Battery status information accessible at end of first life (smartphones and slate tablets)   Resulting effect: Knowledge about battery state of health enhances reusability (i.e., affect 10% of the devices, which is roughly the additional market share for reuse), but also reparability (simplifies identification of root causes for short battery lifetime). Battery state-of-health is considered relevant for 10% of the reused devices, with an assumed shift of the the point in time where the battery reaches a critical status by approx. 0,4 years, thus overall extending product life (but by less than 0,4 years due to other lifetime limiting factors, which gain in importance). Product costs are not affected as only anyway available data from the battery management system has to be made accessible for the user with no product design changes (see Table 10). | | | | | | |
| improvement potential (10%) | 0,4 | 0,4 | 0,4 |  |  | 0,4 |
| affected devices | 10% | 10% | 10% |  |  | 10% |
| additional cost for measure (€) | 0 | 0 | 0 |  |  | 0 |
| New product price (€) | 205,40 | 503,35 | 1002,80 | 83,00 | 52,00 | 334,20 |
| Additionally, implementing:   ·Encryption of data and data erasure   Resulting effect: Data privacy concerns as barrier for reuse of devices mitigated through better trust in data erasure, which is facilitated by data encryption. This has been identified as a relevant barrier for 5 – 10% of the devices at end of first life. Potential second life expected 1,5 years, which is further reduced by other lifetime limiting factors. Product costs increase due to implementation of data encryption (see Table 10), complemented by information requirements. | | | | | | |
| additional lifetime | + 1,5 years | + 1,5 years | + 1,5 years | + 1,5 years |  | + 1,5 years |
| affected devices | 5% | 10% | 10% | 5% |  | 10% |
| additional cost for measure (€) | 0,13 | 1,50 | 1,50 | 0,10 |  | 1,00 |
| New product price (€) | 205,53 | 504,85 | 1004,30 | 83,10 | 52,00 | 335,20 |
| Additionally, implementing:   ·Ease of data transfer to new device   Resulting effect: Lack of convenient data transfer is a reason for device hibernation and a barrier to reuse. This has been identified as a relevant barrier for 5 – 10% of the devices at end of first life. Potential second life expected 1,5 years, which is further reduced by other lifetime limiting factors. Product costs increase due to implementation of simplified data transfer, including cloud services (see Table 10), complemented by information requirements. | | | | | | |
| additional lifetime | + 1,5 years | + 1,5 years | + 1,5 years | + 1,5 years |  | + 1,5 years |
| affected devices | 5% | 10% | 10% | 5% |  | 10% |
| additional cost for measure (€) | 0,13 | 1,50 | 1,50 | 0,10 |  | 1,00 |
| New product price (€) | 205,65 | 505,85 | 1005,80 | 83,10 | 52,00 | 336,20 |
| Additionally, implementing:   ·Resistent display or   ·Bumper and foil or   ·Integrated protective design measures (alternative to design options analysed in the preparatory study an listed in Table 10)   Instead of a resistent display or extra protective cases a similar level of protection is achievable by a design, which exposes the display glass less to accidental damages, e.g. elevated rims around the display glass, frame integrated shock absorbing structures, no edge displays. This might have aesthetical implications.   Resulting effect: Less device and particular display defects, better drop resistance. Integrated design measures are significantly less costly than further improvements of the display glass (deviation from Table 10), although for aesthetical reasons OEMs might opt for the more costly option of strengthening the glass further. Integrated design measures are expected to reduce defect rates by 10 to 15% (i.e., “improvement potential“ below), in case of high-end smartphones 50% of devices are expected to already meet the robustness requirement (due to resistant display glass, i.e. no extra costs for these). The use of protective cases similarly results in less device defects, but would be relevant only for those devices not used with (third party / OEM) protective cases already (10-15%). For feature phones and cordless phones display defects are not a relevant issue. | | | | | | |
| improvement potential (integrated design measures) | 15% | 10% | 10% |  |  | 10% |
| affected devices | 100% | 100% | 50% |  |  | 70% |
| improvement potential (protective cases) | 50% | 50% | 50% |  |  | 60% |
| affected devices | 10% | 10% | 10% |  |  | 15% |
| Additional costs  for integrated design measures (€) | 0,15 | 0,10 | 0,05 |  |  | 0,07 |
| New product price (€) | 205,80 | 505,95 | 1005,85 | 83,10 | 52,00 | 336,27 |
| Additionally, implementing:   ·Unbundling of device and external power supply unit and headsets   Resulting effect: Less external power supplies to be shipped with devices due to incentivizing unbundling through an information requirement. Saved costs related to saved external power supplies is assumed to be partially reflected in reduced purchase prices, but additional costs for headsets and power supplies have to be factored in for those users, who do not have a headset or external power supply readily available. These extra costs are included in the new product price stated below (see also Table 10). For cordless phones and slate tablets (reuse of mobile phone headsets) additional headset costs are not expected. | | | | | | |
| affected devices unbundling | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| cost savings (€) | -6,50 | -8,00 | -8,00 | -6,50 | -3,00 | -5,00 |
| affected devices headset | 25% | 25% | 25% | 25% |  |  |
| additional cost headset (€, per unit) | 14,00 | 14,00 | 14,00 | 14,00 |  |  |
| affected devices extra EPS | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% |
| additional cost extra EPS (€, per unit) | 11,00 | 15,00 | 15,00 | 11,00 | 11,00 | 15,00 |
| New product price (€) | 205,00 | 504,45 | 1004,35 | 82,30 | 51,20 | 332,77 |
| Additionally, implementing:   ·Power consumption thresholds for cordless phones   Resulting effect: Reduction of power consumption in standby. Given the demonstrated feasibility to comply with threshold by products, which do not deviate in terms of price from other typical products no price change is expected (see Table 10). | | | | | | |
| Reduced energy consumption (kWh/a) |  |  |  |  | 1,73 |  |
| affected devices |  |  |  |  | 100% |  |
| Additional cost (€) |  |  |  |  | 0 |  |
| New product price (€) | 205,00 | 504,45 | 1004,35 | 82,30 | 51,20 | 332,77 |
| Additionally, implementing:   ·Ground or vessel cargo, incentivized through an information requirement   Resulting effect: Less transport related emissions. Cost savings due to lower shipping costs (see Table 10), but potentially delayed market entry of products. Cost savings are expected to be reflected in product prices. Lower rate of affected devices for low-end smartphones, feature phones (20%) and slate tablets (50%), where container vessels are more common for logistics. For cordless phones this is not relevant due to significant manufacturing base in Europe and longer innovation cycles, i.e. cargo vessels being common already for EU imports. | | | | | | |
| affected devices | 20% | 100% | 100% | 20% |  | 50% |
| cost savings (€, per unit) | -0,90 | -0,90 | -0,90 | -0,90 |  | -1,20 |
| cost savings (€, per average device) | -0,18 | -0,90 | -0,90 | -0,18 |  | -0,60 |
| New product price (€) | 204,82 | 503,55 | 1003,45 | 82,12 | 51,20 | 332,17 |
| Additionally, implementing:   ·Increased share of renewable energy use,   ·Reduction of fluorinated gas emissions in display production,   ·Reduction of fluorinated gas emissions in IC production, all incentivized through an information requirement   Resulting effect: Less carbon emissions across supply chains. Cost increases due to production related measures, scales with number, complexity and size of displays and ICs respectively (see Table 10). | | | | | | |
| affected devices | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Additional cost displays (€) | 0,05 | 0,125 | 0,25 | 0,03 | 0,02 | 0,10 |
| Additional costs ICs (€) | 0,10 | 0,25 | 0,50 | 0,05 | 0,04 | 0,20 |
| New product price (€) | 204,97 | 503,93 | 1004,20 | 82,20 | 51,26 | 332,47 |

The resulting product prices stated above correspond to the implementation of technical solutions to achieve the intended effect per design measure. The resulting product price under the various policy options then differs depending on the individual design measures required to meet the set of requirements: Reflecting the impacts of policy options on prices is done in Annex 10 (rounded product prices in Table 36, Table 47 and Table 48).

Implementing the aforementioned options in many cases is expected to increase product lifetime significantly, which in turn means, costs for consumers go down as they will hold on to their devices longer. The resulting lifetime changes per design option, again factoring in the already seen market penetration of design options, in 
[Table](#_Ref95752212)
[12](#_Ref95752212)
. This takes into account also failure and repair statistics, and typical obsolescence factors, e.g. improved battery endurance is only factored in, where battery endurance is identified to be the lifetime limiting factor.

Table 12: Lifetime effects of individual design options

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53019.jpg)

The resulting consumer costs per year of use, including also anticipated repair costs, are listed in 
[Table](#_Ref95752717)
[13](#_Ref95752717)
. It is evident, that even in those cases where product prices are forecasted to increase, mostly the consumer costs per year of use go down. This analysis does not yet take into account the interdependencies when implementing several design options in parallel. In some cases the overall effect is synergistic the resulting savings are larger than the sum of individual options, and in some cases the opposite applies. Such complex lifetime modelling (see above) has been applied to model overall effects of implementing these options in parallel.

Table 13: Costs per year of use per individual design option

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_53020.jpg)

Those options that report higher benefits will be selected and their average manufacturing costs have been calculated and added, determining the new prices.

Design options with particularly high saving potential through consecutive implementation are:

·Moderate reparability option;

·Broad reparability option;

·Increased battery endurance per full charge;

·Improved battery management and information provision;

·Extended OS support;

·Improved data erasure and confidence in processes;

·Unbundling of device and accessories.

Energy Label option and those that incorporate a reparability scoring will establish prices based on a different criterion such as the added cost of putting labels.

Repair costs

There are different levels of repair with different implications on costs for the user. Some manufacturers encourage repairs by the end-user (“do it yourself” repairs and facilitate this through a modular product design). In these cases, only spare parts costs and shipping costs are relevant.

The costs of professional repair services include labour costs, the margin of the repair service and the replacement cost of spare parts (e.g. battery replacement costs and display replacement costs). It is important to note that the total cost of repair services can vary significantly from one country to another, since repair is a labour-intensive activity subject to regional labour costs.

Smartphones

When repair is implemented by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), the cost for battery replacement for smartphones is shown to vary to a large extent, ranging from 10 EUR to 78 EUR. For display replacement, it varies from 65 EUR to 579 EUR. The analysis shows an average price for battery replacement of 58.60 EUR (14% of the average purchase price). Displays replacement costs show an average price of 174.30 EUR (42% of the average purchase price). The analysis of the dataset shows an average sales price of 414.80 EUR for new devices.

Tablets

The cost for battery replacement for tablets lies between 76 EUR and 119 EUR, with the average price amounting to 89.90 EUR (21% of the average purchase price). The cost for display replacement varies between 89 EUR and 280 EUR, with an average price of 154.09 EUR (37% of the average purchase price). As with smartphones, the average sales price for tablets (EUR 420.80) is significantly higher than the price of battery and display replacement.

In both cases, i.e. for smartphones and tablets, to obtain the average repair cost, the share (%) of devices being subject to such a defect and the share (%) of actual repairs undertaken (in contrast to continued used of a defective device and to end of use life) have been taken into account.

Considering all these aspects, average repair costs are added to all devices in order to calculate the consumer expenditure. This supposes to add the following figures (estimations for 2030 under the current trend): EUR 10 for low-end smartphones, EUR 19 for mid-range smartphones, EUR 32 for high-end smartphones, EUR 7 for feature phones, EUR 4 for cordless phones, EUR 17 for tablets.

Energy cost

The only relevant energy cost for smartphones and tablets are electricity prices. A first estimation of energy consumption (in kWh) per device and considering its lifetime is made on the Preparatory Study. Prices including taxes, levies and VAT for household consumers were on average 0.2126 €/kWh as of first half of 2020 (Eurostat 2020).All figures cover the period 2010-2030 applying a discount rate (interest minus inflations) and an escalation rate (project annual growth of running cost) of 0.04%.

Under the current trend and for 2030, energy cost added to purchase price and repair cost for different devices and over their lifetime is the following: EUR 4 for low-end smartphone, EUR 6 for mid-range smartphone, EUR 9 for high-end smartphone, EUR 3 for feature phones, EUR 6 for cordless phones, EUR 9 for tablets.

Purchase price, repair cost and energy cost will change under different policy options.

:   [(1)](#footnoteref2)

    In line with the MEErP methodology, by ‘design option’ a specific product architecture is meant, with technical features which make it more advanced and/or more efficient when compared to the ‘base case’, i.e. the average EU product defined for analysis. Typically, a design option is formulated to model a product architecture compliant with a specific requirement (or, a specific set or requirements), for instance a product with a minimum efficiency/performance level, a product with a minimum level of reparability, durability, etc.
:   [(2)](#footnoteref3)

    Note: The toughness of the display can have also other influence factors than just the variety of the glass. It depends on how the display it is integrated into the device, e. g. if the display is tightly integrated under tension it is more likely to break. The alternative is to build it in a flexible way on a rubber seal or the like which dampens shock forces transmitted from other housing components to the display.
:   [(3)](#footnoteref4)

     
    <https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/03/21/could-sapphire-replace-gorilla-glass-in-smartphones/>
     
    <https://www.autonews.com/article/20150829/OEM10/308319972/will-automakers-go-for-gorilla-glass>
    [;](; ) 
    <https://www.androidauthority.com/corning-gorilla-glass-victus-1140743/>
:   [(4)](#footnoteref5)

     
    <https://www.apple.com/batteries/service-and-recycling/>
:   [(5)](#footnoteref6)

    https://www.beroeinc.com/article/lithium-ion-batteries-price-trend-cost-structure/
:   [(6)](#footnoteref7)

    As already presented in the in the ‚SOCIAL IMPACTS‘ section of the main report, professional repairers typically consider the assembly and disassembly operations at component level (e.g.: battery) routinary work which can be learnt in a relatively simple way.
:   [(7)](#footnoteref8)

    https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/transport/publication/air-freight-study#:~:text=The%20demand%20for%20air%20freight,typically%20exceeds%20%244.00%20per%20kilogram.
:   [(8)](#footnoteref9)

    Example : https://www.dhl.com/content/dam/dhl/global/core/documents/pdf/gogreen/dhl-gogreen-carbon-calculator-062016.pdf
:   [(9)](#footnoteref10)

    https://blog.gigaset.com/en/what-is-eco-dect/
:   [(10)](#footnoteref11)

    data for Germany, idealo.de, Nov 16, 2020
:   [(11)](#footnoteref12)

    data for Germany, idealo.de, Nov 16, 2020
:   [(12)](#footnoteref13)

    Reference: SWD(2019)354
:   [(13)](#footnoteref14)

    Socio-economic analysis of the repair sector in the EU. Study to support ecodesign measures to improve reparability of products. Final Report and Annex: Member State Reports
:   [(14)](#footnoteref15)

    The requirements under each subset are considered in an aggregated way as it is assumed that they ‘work in synergy’, i.e. that the design modifications needed on the product can be similar for all the requirements of the subset.

[Top](#document2)

Table of contents

Annex 5: Additional evidence on problem definition and on the legal basis for EU action

  

Annex 5: Additional evidence on problem definition and on the legal basis for EU action

Part 1: PROBLEM DEFINITION

Requirements of the French circular economy and anti-waste law

From 1 January 2021 manufacturers, importers, marketers and other retailers that put smartphones, laptops, washing machines, TVs and mowers on the French market have to inform, free of charge, downstream sellers and any person of the reparability index of their products, as well as the parameters explaining how such index was established. Article L541-9-2 (II) of the French Environment Code also foresees to move towards a durability index by 2024, including aspects related to product reliability and upgradability. In March 2021, the Spanish Ministry of Consumer Affairs announced that it wants to pursue a similar approach
[1](#footnote2)
. Since product manufacturers operate on the European Single Market, these national initiatives are highly relevant for EU legislation and beyond.

Market and stock data

The first smartphones came on the market already in the late 1990s, but it was in 2007 with the introduction of the iPhone that smartphones gained significant market share. 
[Figure](#_Ref85486293)
[1](#_Ref85486293)
 shows the number of smartphones sold to end users from 2007 to 2020 worldwide. Initially, a fast growth could be observed in shipments. In 2014, smartphone sales were tenfold as compared to 2007. Since 2015, smartphone growth has been decreasing and sales have remained relatively constant at 1.5 bn per year. In 2019, 31% of the world’s population owned a smartphone (
[Figure](#_Ref85486369)
[2](#_Ref85486369)
) and around 600 million users are located in broader Europe (incl. Western and Eastern Europe).

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Figure 1 Number of smartphones sold to end users worldwide from 2007 to 2020 [2](#footnote3)  (in millions) | Figure 2: Smart phone user by region [3](#footnote4) |

For the EU 27, the stock model developed within the ecodesign preparatory study estimates around 430 million mobile phones and around 150 million tablets in 2020 (5-year lifetime scenario) (European Commission 2021).

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Figure 3: Stock model mobile phones EU (European Commission 2021) | Figure 4: Stock model tablets EU    (European Commission 2021) |

Suppliers and manufacturers

The landscape of producers of mobile phones and tablets is characterised by few large companies serving the largest share of the global market and shaping the design of mainstream products. In 2020, more than 75% of total mobile phones and more than 85% of tablet shipments in Europe came from the companies Samsung, Apple and Huawei (statcounter 2021). Only few SMEs are active in the EU market (e.g. Gigaset, Wiko, Archos, BQ, Fairphone, Shift) and their market share is very small. Several former European brands, such as Nokia and Alcatel, are now owned by high-tech companies from outside of Europe.

The mobile phone and tablet industry is highly competitive, and the three global brands Apple, Samsung and Huawei are currently dominating the global market with the highest market shares. Some Chinese upstarts like Xiaomi and Oppo are gaining market share, while others are withdrawing from the market. As an example, South Korean LG Electronics announced in April 2021 that it would exit the smartphone business
[4](#footnote5)
.

Many different smartphone and tablet models in low-, mid- and high-ranges exist on the market and consumers have a considerable choice between different devices. Many models within a cost category come with similar features and processing power, which makes differentiation for the suppliers more difficult. While the high number of substitutes contributes positively to the bargaining power of consumers, the big tech companies also invest heavily in marketing activities and customer experience to gain new customers and retain existing ones. Companies such as Apple or Samsung also produce other devices (e.g. watches, speakers, earbuds, etc.) and optimise the interoperability between their devices and systems.

The final production of mobile phones, smartphones and tablets is mostly located in East Asia and particularly in China. The main components such as radio interfaces (baseband chip), processors, flash memory, computer network interfaces, displays, batteries, cameras and audio components come from various regions including Asia, North America and to a small extent Europe. Printed Circuit Boards for these products are typically manufactured in Asia, but Austrian based AT&S is a relevant player in this PCB segment. The value chain is considerably large and underlies constant changes. Some market consolidation trends are noticeable. Most of the manufacturing takes place in Asia, particularly in China. Only few manufacturers are located in the EU 27, and among these the semiconductor fabs represent the majority of the sites, followed by some material suppliers.

Operating systems

Smartphones and tablets are either run on iOS or Android and hardly any other operating system (e.g. Windows). Since 2009, Android increased its EU market share significantly, covering more than 70% of the market, followed by iOS (28%).

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_50006.jpg)

Figure 5: Market share of leading mobile operating systems in Europe from 2010 to 2020
[5](#footnote6)

The situation is different for the smaller tablet market where iOS and Android both have around 50% of the market
[6](#footnote7)
. While Apple has created its own ecosystem, most of the other manufacturers depend on Google for the operating system (Android). This can have consequences when it comes to availability of (security) updates for a certain amount of time.

Supply of repair activities

Repair services can be undertaken either within the legal guarantee period or afterwards. In the EU, a legally binding guarantee is provided for a minimum duration of two years. Out-of-guarantee repairs can be offered once the legal or commercial guarantee period is expired. However, the cost needs to be covered by consumers.

There are many different actors involved in repair activities. Some manufacturers encourage DIY repair through a modular product design (examples: Fairphone, Shift). In these cases the customer has to pay only for the spare parts and shipping costs. While no labour costs apply in these cases, potential costs for tools can occur. As soon as professional repair services are consulted, labour costs and the margin of the repair service has to be accounted for. Many manufacturers offer professional repair services in-house or through authorised independent repairers. The total cost of repair services can vary significantly from one country to another, since repair is a labour-intensive activity subject to regional labour costs. The following Figure provides an overview over the main actors involved in the repair sector.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_50007.jpg)
 Figure 6: Main and associated actors in the repair sector
[7](#footnote8)

Independent repairers usually do not only repair mobile phones and tablets, but also other small ICT equipment.

Independent repairers of computers and communication equipment are classified under the NACE code S951. Recent data from Eurostat suggests that in the EU there are more than 45.000 of such small repair companies with a turnover of 12.7 bn EUR and employing more than 120.000 persons. The following Figures show the development between 2014 and 2018.

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
|  |  |
|  | |

Figure 7: Number of repairers of computers and communication equipment, their turnover and persons employed in EU according to NACE code S951 (Source: Eurostat)

Market of refurbished devices

Refurbished devices have gained in popularity in the last years. The main difference between "refurbished" and "used" devices is that refurbished products have to undergo test and verification processes before being sold to a new owner. Refurbished products can be used, or unused customer returns or trade-ins and phones or tablets usually undergo data cleaning, change of components (if necessary) and external polishing before being resold.

IDC expects global shipments of used smartphones, including both officially refurbished and used smartphones, to reach 225.4 million units in 2020, which represents around 15% of the global market of new smartphones sold to end users in the same year (1.5 bn). IDC also sees a high potential for this market to grow to 351.6 million units in 2024
[8](#footnote9)
. Main drivers are growth in trade-in programs of the manufactures and on average selling prices of new devices. Contrary to this trend the latest Counterpoint Refurbished Smartphone Market Update showed that the European refurbished smartphone market (not reused) fell 14% YoY in 2020
[9](#footnote10)
, mainly due to COVID-19. Nevertheless, the mid and long-term prospects are positive.

New companies that came on the market recently, like Back Market, refurbed or rebuy could raise significant investments, showing that there is market demand for refurbished devices and a high potential for further growth
[10](#footnote11)
. Product and software design that facilitates the steps necessary for refurbishment for third parties (e.g. data cleaning, change of components (accessibility, price, etc.)) can enhance competition in the sector and lead to innovation and lower prices for end-users.

The consumer perspective

Use-phase

Survey results in different countries show that most smartphones are used between 1-4 years, while tablets are kept in active use for 3-6 years. Below Figure shows exemplary survey results from the UK on the active use time of smartphones and tablets.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_50011.jpg)

Figure 8: Average use life of portable devices
[11](#footnote12)

Slightly longer replacement cycles were identified recently for mobile phones in scientific literature (Ng 2019; Triggs 2018). The main market drivers for this trend are (European Commission 2021):

·advancements in technology;

·increasing prices of phones;

·maturity of the market;

·users with a decade long history of various brands and models having figured out their preferred model by now, rating high the model they own;

·not much further improvements in features and experience expected;

·longer support for older smartphone models, in particular by Apple;

·and consumers increasingly moving away from mobile contracts with telecommunications carriers and related handset upgrade cycles offered by these mobile service providers.

According to a recent Eurobarometer survey
[12](#footnote13)
, the main reasons to purchase a new device are:

·Old device broke (37%);

·The performance of the old device had significantly deteriorated (30%);

·Certain applications or software stopped working on the old device (19%).

When a smartphone breaks, around 59% of users purchase directly a new device and only around 11% try to repair their broken device
[13](#footnote14)
. The main reasons for not repairing are stated to be the cost of repair (53%), but also the perception of users that their device is “old anyway” (53%)
[14](#footnote15)
. This latter aspect plays an important role in the case of consumer electronics, since psychological obsolescence is an important driver for product replacement
[15](#footnote16)
.

The most common technical lifetime limiting factors for smartphones and tablets are product defects linked to accidental incidents, such as display cracks after a drop on a hard surface, immersion of water, decreasing battery charge capacity over time and less frequently other types of malfunctions due to mechanical stress (e.g. buttons, connectors). Occasionally, also other components fail, such as cameras or radio connectivity components (Cordella et al. 2020; WERTGARANTIE 2018; clickrepair 2019). These kinds of defects frequently trigger the replacement of a device.

The following tables show the main defects in smartphones as well as damages of dropped tablets in Germany.

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Table 14: Defects in smartphones    (Germany, 2019 [16](#footnote17) )   |  |  | | --- | --- | | Part | Share (%) | | Display | 67,4% | | Casing | 50,0% | | Battery | 33,9% | | Connectors | 16,1% | | Camera | 7,9% | | Damages of dropped tablets (Germany, 2018 [17](#footnote18) )   |  |  | | --- | --- | | Part | Share (%) | | Display | 64.1% | | Casing | 47.1% | | Camera | 18.1% | | Blemish to the appearance | 17.5% | | Ports | 13.6% | |

Once a product reaches a limiting state where it cannot function as required, repair can be an option to bring the device back to a functional state. A Eurobarometer survey found that 77% of respondents stated that they would make an effort to get broken appliances repaired before buying new ones (European Commission 2014a). However, the share of consumers having their smartphone or tablet repaired once it is broken is relatively low (OHA - Obsoleszenz als Herausforderung für Nachhaltigkeit 2019) and affordable, accessible, and fast repair solutions could contribute to extending the active use lifetime of mobile phones and tablets.

Some case joining techniques (e.g. gluing, sealing) often do not allow for self-repair/replacement of the broken parts and professional repair services can cost from 58.6 EUR for battery replacement (average cost) to 174 EUR for display replacement (average cost)
[18](#footnote19)
. Compared to the depreciated mental book value consumers attribute to their used device, these sums can be a barrier to demand repair services. Consumers also state that their desired lifetime of a smartphone is around 5.2 years
[19](#footnote20)
, which shows that there is a gap between actual and desired lifetime.

End-of-life stage

Problems arise also at the end-of-life stage of smartphones and tablets. Although collection programmes for mobile devices are in place in many countries, consumers often store their phones after use, leading to a hibernating stock of old devices. A study conducted in France in 2019 concluded that 54-113 million old devices are hibernating in French households, of which more than 2/3 are still functioning
[20](#footnote21)
. The functioning fraction of the phones is mainly kept as a back-up solution for occasional needs (replacement phone for oneself or relatives/friends). The non-functioning part is mainly retained for data safety reasons, because an easy access to the recycling sector is not available or since people forget about the old device due to the small size. According to the study, 13-25.1 million phones are put in hibernation every year in France, which represents more than 50% of the devices put on the market. According to a survey by Bitkom Research
[21](#footnote22)
 in Germany the number of old mobile phones kept at home but not being used anymore grew rapidly in recent years: Currently, there are 199.3 million mobile phones in hibernation in Germany, compared to 123.9 million in 2018.

Collection programmes need to propose interesting alternatives for users to mitigate expected risks, such as data deletion certificates, financial incentives or nudging techniques. As an example, the Tokyo 2021 Olympic and Paralympic medals are made from recycled electronic waste
[22](#footnote23)
. Knowing that their old device will serve this purpose, many Japanese people brought their old devices to special collection points.

While smartphones contain critical raw materials and more than 50 metals, their material value is only around 1.11 EUR, making them not the most interesting waste flow for recyclers from an economic perspective
[23](#footnote24)
. Furthermore, since these devices contain batteries that need to be removed, they are not the easiest products to handle for recyclers and can even lead to fires in the recycling plants or during transportation.

Key technology developments

From a technological point of view, the functionality of smartphones and tablets has been increasing over time, with consequent increase of storage capacity, power demand and materials needed. Through its increased functionality, smartphones and tablets have contributed to dematerialisation, substituting products and materials such as digital cameras, navigation devices, paper, etc. At the same time, devices with an improved functionality (e.g. better cameras, 5G, etc.) can trigger the replacement of the entire device although it is still working.

Storage / memory

Shortage of storage capacity or memory can be one reason for consumers to replace their device prematurely. 
[Figure](#_Ref85488615)
[9](#_Ref85488615)
 shows data for the market average (green) and the highest (orange) and lowest (blue) value for smartphones among the best-selling devices from 2010-2019. It can be observed that the gap between the best and worst performing devices has been increasing over time. The growth of GB has been nearly exponential for the phones with the highest amount of RAM and internal storage.

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
|  |  |

Figure 9: Development of the amount of RAM and internal storage employed in smartphones between 2010 and 2019 (Clemm et al. 2020)

Tablets have usually 2-6 GB RAM and the storage capacity covers the full range from 16 GB to 128 GB and for high-end devices up to 1 TB.

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
|  |  |

Figure 10: Development of the amount of RAM and internal storage employed in tablets between 2008 and 2019
[24](#footnote25)

Battery lifetime and endurance (per cycle)

A weak battery constitutes a significant problem for users and is one if the main replacement reasons for smartphones and tablets. For this reason, long-lasting batteries as well as easy and cost-effective replacement opportunities for degraded batteries can extend the useful lifetime of smartphones and tablets.

Rechargeable batteries are consumables and degrade with use and over time, resulting in a loss of remaining capacity, energy and/or an increase in impedance, and therefore a reduction in power and efficiency. The lifetime of batteries is measured in two ways:

·Calendar life: time during which the battery can be stored, without or with only minimal use, before its capacity permanently decreases below a certain percentage of its initial capacity;

·And cycle life: number of times (cycles) a battery can be fully charged and discharged before it becomes unsuitable for a given application, e.g. when it can only be charged up to a certain percentage of its initial capacity.

Both aspects can be assessed through laboratory tests (e.g. IEC EN 61960-3).

The analysis of a database with more than 5.600 data sets on battery health from different Apple iPhones (mobile phones) and iPads (tablets) provided insights into the durability of the batteries under real-life use conditions (Clemm et al. 2016).

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_50016.jpg)

Figure 11: State of health (SOH) of smartphone batteries, clustered into intervals of battery age in years, over the course of 1.000 charging cycles (Clemm et al. 2016)

In the 
[Figure](#_Ref85488672)
[11](#_Ref85488672)
 above a steady decrease of the share of batteries with a state of health (SOH) above 80 % and 60 % can be observed. While the heterogeneity of the data is significant, a global trend of decreasing capacity with increasing cycle count can be observed. After 800 cycles >55 % of the batteries were, able to retain >80 % of their design capacity, >88 % retained >60 % of their capacity, and >12 % had less than 60 % of their design capacity left. The study concluded that data appears to indicate that smartphone batteries are technically able to withstand a high number of charge/discharge cycle over the course of several years while retaining a high share of their initial capacity (Clemm et al. 2016).

A similar exercise was conducted for tablets using data on the SOH of iPad batteries, but only up to 500 charge/discharge cycles. 90 % of all batteries that contributed data to the database reported SOH above 80 % even after several hundred charging cycles over several years as can be seen in the following Figure.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_50017.jpg)

Figure 12: State of health (SOH) of tablet batteries, clustered into intervals of battery age in years, over the course of 500 charging cycles (Clemm et al. 2016)

Battery capacity and integration

[Figure](#_Ref85488700)
[12](#_Ref85488700)
 shows the market average (green) as well as the highest (orange) and lowest (blue) value among the best-selling smartphones from 2010-2019. The average capacity increased from around 1.300 mAh to 3.300 mAh (+254%) in the course of ten years. However, there is a considerable variance between the highest and lowest capacity among the best-selling phones and the gap has been increasing (Clemm et al. 2020). The average battery capacity of tablets has been increasing from around 4.000 mAh in 2010 to more than 6.000 mAh in 2020 (Proske et al. 2020a).

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
|  |  |

Figure 13: Development of the battery capacity in smartphones (left, (Clemm et al. 2020)) and in tablets (right, (Proske et al. 2020a))

Until 2011, the majority of smartphones had user-replaceable batteries. Since then the number of new models dropped very quickly. There are still models with user-replaceable batteries on the market, but they are rare and not in the high-end segment of smartphones. When it comes to tablets, user-replaceable batteries were never very common as can be seen in below Figure (Proske et al. 2020a).

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
|  |  |

Figure 14: Share of user-replaceable and not user-replaceable batteries in mobile phones (left) and tablets (right), (Proske et al. 2020a)

Battery integration and IP rating

Until 2011, the majority of models on the market had user-replaceable batteries. As of today, some models with user-replaceable batteries can still be found, but they are rare and not available in the high-end segments of smartphones (Clemm et al. 2020). It can be assumed that the practice of embedding batteries and sealing the external housing with adhesives allows more models to successfully reach higher water and dust ingress protection (IP) ratings (commonly IP67 or IP68). Plotting the market share of smartphones with embedded battery and phones with ingress protection (IP) rating (water and dust ingress protection) shows a positive correlation (see Figure below).

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_50022.jpg)

Figure 15: Coevolution of the smartphone design trends embedded battery, glass back cover, IP rating and wireless charging 

Higher IP ratings can lead to better reliability of devices, since water damages are one of the main reasons for product failure. However, there might be a conflict with the reparability of the devices, since sealed products are less easy to disassemble. Most of the models on the market are not designed for DIY repair, since they use case joining techniques that require certain skills and tools to open. The following figure shows the evolution of smartphone case joining techniques applied to the best-selling smartphones in Europe.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_50023.jpg)

Figure 16: Evolution of smartphone case joining techniques applied to the best-selling smartphones in Europe (based on market data from Counterpoint Research; market coverage denoted on top of data columns) (Berwald et al. 2020)

This design feature can hamper the willingness of a user to repair the device, in particular if the in-house repair solutions are relatively expensive.

Software

Smartphones and tablets run on Operating Systems (OS) and with firmware. An OS allows the device to run applications and programs. Firmware is software that serves specific purposes related to hardware parts. Updates can lead to problems, since they can determine the performance of essential hardware such as the battery and CPU, which can influence the overall performance of the device. Producers provide updates on a regular basis to fix problems and security issues. Updates as well as a lack of updates can bring a device to a limiting state, making it obsolete. Therefore, updates are as important as the physical elements of a smartphone to ensure a longer life of the device and to reduce replacement rates. Although security updates do not significantly affect the performance of a device, a stop of security updates can lead to less secure devices and to potential conditions of software obsolescence (e.g. risk of data leaks). Software updates and in particular security updates of operating systems (OS) are crucial for the functionality and data security of smartphones and tablets. The availability of updates depends strongly on the brand and the operating system. While e.g. Apple, through its integrated ecosystem with iOS, provides >5 years of security updates, other brands that use third-party OS (e.g. Android) provide significantly less time of update support.

Chargers

In earlier days of mobile phones and tablets, most of the devices had their own charger. In 2009, major producers of mobile phones agreed to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to harmonise chargers for data-enabled mobile phones sold in the EU. External power supplies (ESP) provided with mobile phones and tablets typically do not have the same power rating, although there can be overlaps. Tablet chargers are usually rated for a higher wattage, sometimes being in the same range as laptops (65W). Today, the EPS is most of the time detachable from the charging cable and most smartphones and tablets on the market use technologies based on USB specifications and standards. USB Type-C connectors have been replacing older USB connectors for most Android OS devices. A still existing alternative proprietary solution is e.g. Lightning by Apple. The impact assessment study on common chargers of portable devices conducted for DG GROW in 2019 (European Commission 2019a) concluded that there is no clear-cut “optimal” solution for common chargers. However, the study stated that consumer’s convenience could be improved by pursuing common connectors in combination with interoperable EPS. The common charging approach is however only effective, if an unbundling of handset and charger is implemented at large scale.

More and more smartphones are also equipped with wireless charging and power share features, providing additional charging options and reducing the mechanical strain put on the USB connector throughout the device’s lifetime. However, when it comes to charging efficiency, the efficiency can be lower when compared to charging through a wire.

Some mobile phones can be ordered without a power supply unit. Examples are the Fairphone 3 / Fairphone 3+ and SHIFT5me and SHIFT6m. In October 2020 Apple announced to ship iPhones without charger and headset, and just to keep the USB‑C to Lightning cable in the shipping box. Later on, Samsung followed with a similar unbundling approach for selected smartphone models.

Different ownership models for mobile phones

The preparatory study, as well as this impact assessment report, are focused on a ‘traditional’ ownership model (the user buys and owns the device). Ownership models such as free/subsidised phones for subscriptions with mobile phone operators are not infrequent, however:

·it is difficult to analyse and model them, due to the huge variability at national level, and at the level of the contractual relationships
[25](#footnote26)

·many types of subscriptions with mobile operators foresee contractual relations which are basically equivalent to buying the product (i.e. the user becomes the owner, and/or he/she must pay the monthly subscriptions for a minimal number of months, a relevant part of which is de facto a deferred payment for the phone plus a fee for the use of the network).

Estimating the market share of mobile phones bought by/via telecom operators is not straightforward, with high variability at national level, and on the typology of contractual solutions. It can be considered that around 25%-35% of products are bought via the telecom operators.

With ‘Product-as-a-Service’ business models, the client no longer assumes the risk of product failure or the responsibility for maintenance as these are typically included with the service. As the client does not necessarily need to purchase the product, the client does not need to make large capital expenses (and assume the risk of losing the financial investment) but smaller operating expenses. The fact that the client no longer assumes the risk of product failure or the responsibility for maintenance does not necessarily reflects in a lowered lifetime of the product. Within the public consultation (see Annex 2) carried out in relation to the two initiatives
[26](#footnote27)
 under analysis in this impact assessment, some questions were specifically related to the reasons for which the respondent’s previous smartphone is no longer in use. The need for fast/better performing /new devices, as well as the lack of availability of software and firmware updates, and the high repair prices, were among the most common replies. Only 5% of the respondents motivated their choice of buying a new device, because it was being offered under the contract with the network operator. Similar low results were obtained in other survey, as the one referred to in Figure 66 of the preparatory study.

The environmental perspective

Numerous lifecycle assessments (LCA) of mobile phones and tablets exist and all of them show that the electronic components in phones cause the main environmental impact (production phase). The following table shows a comparison of different LCA results with respect to GWP (in %).

Table 15: Comparison of different LCA results with respect to GWP (in %) (Berwald et al. 2020)

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Product Group | Product Reference | Prod. | Use | Distr. | EOL | Source |
| Smartphones | Fairphone 2 | 82% | 14% | 7% | -3% | Proske M. et al. 2016 |
|  | Apple iPhone 8 | 80% | 16% | 3% | 1% | Apple 2017 |
|  | Apple iPhone XR | 76% | 19% | 4% | 1% | Apple 2018 |
|  | Google Pixel 3XL | 71% | 22% | 6% | 1% | Google 2018 |
|  | Sony Z5 | 78% | 13% | 10% | -1% | Ercan et al. 2016 |
| Tablets | iPad—6th generation (32 GB) | 82% | 13% | 4% | 1% | Apple 2018 |
|  | iPad - 7th gen | 79% | 14% | 6% | 1% | Apple 2019 |

Smartphones and tablets contain precious, critical and conflict minerals. Gold can be found in electronic components, printed circuit board finish as well as connectors or contact pads. Tantalum is the main component of some capacitors. The number of tantalum capacitors usually ranges between 2 – 7, but some phones (e.g. Fairphone 3) also don’t use tantalum capacitors at all (European Commission 2021). Electrical components are soldered on the PCB, mainly through solder alloys with tin as main constituent as well as silver and copper. Furthermore, many other elements such as platinum and palladium are used in the devices. Next to gold, tantalum and tin, smartphones also contain tungsten, which can be a potential conflict material (3TG). Tungsten is used in very small amounts in semiconductors and in more significant amounts in the vibration alert modules. It has to be noted that the overall use of tungsten in mobile devices is only a marginal share of the overall global demand for tungsten.

Nowadays, most of the smartphones and tablets contain lithium ion or lithium polymer batteries. For these batteries lithium cobalt oxide is often used as the positive electrode in the battery (although other transition metals are sometimes used instead of cobalt). A large share of the mined cobalt production stems from the Democratic Republic of Congo (around 50%), where a significant amount of the material is mined through unregulated artisanal and small-scale mining practices (Cordella et al. 2020). The negative electrode is mostly formed from carbon in the form of graphite (European Commission 2021).

Another element used in smartphones and tablets is indium that can be found as transparent indium-tin-oxide layer (ITO) in displays. Furthermore, Gallium is used in Power Amplifiers (PAs), usually as GaAs III-V semiconductor material, to amplify voice and data signals to the required power level allowing the transmission to the network base-station and in LED-backlights (Manhart et al. 2016). Magnets can be found in microphones and speakers. These are often neodymium-iron-boron alloys, although dysprosium and praseodymium are also often present in the alloy and can also be found in the motor of the vibration unit of the phone, where tungsten is used as rotating component (European Commission 2021). A large variety of plastics is also used in smartphones and tablets (ABS, PC, TPU, TPE, PMMA, PA, PP, silicone rubber, etc.), but they have a relatively low environmental impact when compared to the other materials (European Commission 2021).

Modularity of certain components can facilitate repair, but a modular design usually comes with a slightly higher environmental impact during manufacturing when compared to a non-modular device. This is due to additional board-to-board connectors, sub-housing of the modules and more PCB area for the connectors (Proske et al. 2016). However, this additional environmental impact during the manufacturing phase can be compensated through an extended lifetime which modularity can enable. The following analysis from the Fairphone 3 LCA shows the potential of a modular and therefore repairable/upgradable design as compared to a baseline scenario. In repair scenario A, faulty modules are assumed to be replaced by new ones, taking advantage of modular design. In repair scenario B, it is assumed that some of the faulty modules are repaired at board-level, allowing for replacement of specific components. A per-year comparison of the results are shown in the following Figure. The benefits from both repair scenarios are highly dependent on the related use phase extension.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_50024.jpg)

Figure 17: Relative impact per year use for the impact category GWP (Proske et al. 2020b)

These results were also confirmed during the Base Case modelling exercise of the ecodesign preparatory study. The following figures show the environmental indicators for a mid-range smartphone (Base Case 2) and a tablet (Base Case 6).

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_50025.jpg)

Figure 18: Mid-range smartphone (Base Case 2) - Relative contribution of the life cycle stages based on the EcoReport LCA results

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_50026.jpg)

Figure 19: Tablet (Base Case 6) - Relative contribution of the life cycle stages based on the EcoReport LCA results

Despite the small product size distribution impacts significantly contribute to the overall environmental impacts. Due to the short innovation cycles, a major share of devices is shipped by air cargo from the region, where product assembly takes place (typically East Asia), to the EU.

Since the main impact is related to the product manufacturing, prolonging the use time (number of years) has a high potential to reduce the overall environmental impact. This can be reached through more robust design, better reparability, longer battery lives and modularity of certain components.

Recycling sector and recyclability rate

Most of the European WEEE recyclers are small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) and many of them are members of the European Electronics Recyclers Association (EERA). EERA members process around 2.2 million tonnes of WEEE per year, ca. 2/3 of overall WEEE accounted for as treated in compliance with legislation in the EU. Together with the supply chain of collectors, transporters, sorters, the WEEE reuse, recycling and reprocessing industry provides jobs for more than 10.000 people in the EU
[27](#footnote28)
.

The recyclability rate at end of life of smartphones, mobile phones other than smartphones and tablets is rather low in terms of a mass-based recycling rate as only some materials are recovered through typical recycling processes. These recycled materials are however those, which constitute the majority of the material value (not component value). The usual end of life process is an extraction of the battery, and all remaining parts are recycled in a copper or precious metal smelter (integrated smelter). As the smelters require the pre-processors to extract the battery first, this is done regardless how difficult this is. Integrated batteries are extracted by brute force, breaking the device open and ripping off the battery. The smelters accept all the remainder of the phone or tablet as a high-value fraction. This is due to the fact, that precious metals are scattered all over the device and found also in the display, flex printed circuit boards, connectors etc. Not to lose this share of precious metals all this is meant to go as one fraction to the smelter.

EN 45555:2019 "General methods for assessing the recyclability and recoverability of energy-related products" defines the framework to develop product group specific recyclability rates, which could be specified as a specific or generic ecodesign requirement. Pre-condition is the definition of a reference end-of-life treatment scenario, which is supposed to reflect typical end-of-life processes. Given the explanation above such a flow chart looks as follows.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_50027.jpg)

Figure 20: Flow chart for an end-of-life process for mobile phones and tablets

Recovery rates for most recovered metals is above 90%, and up to 99% for some precious metals. Only the recovery rate for indium is significantly lower as it is partly lost in the slag (Chancerel et al. 2016).

Under these conditions there is not much room to manoeuvre to improve the recyclability rate by design, except for increasing the weight share of the recyclable materials, copper being the only one – besides the battery materials -, which could make a significant difference. Or, vice versa, reducing the share of all non-recoverable materials, which are basically all usual housing and frame materials (plastics, aluminium, steel, ceramics, glass).

Fairphone published a comprehensive analysis demonstrating the benefits of a modular design, in case the product is dismantled accordingly at end of life (Fairphone 2017). Then the display unit can be separated for light-metal recycling (as the display backside is an aluminium plate), the plastic back cover turned into a plastics recyclate, and battery to battery recycling, and all other parts to copper recycling or an integrated smelter. In such a scenario a significantly higher recyclability rate can be achieved, but this scenario does not materialise in current pre-treatment processes: The display unit as a composite part will hardly be separated for aluminium recycling, although Fairphone’s analysis shows some merit in doing so. The plastics back cover might be separated as it happens to be a separate part anyhow when removing the battery – just as with feature phones.

With sophisticated dismantling processes as demonstrated by Apple separation of further material fractions from smartphones is feasible (Apple Inc. 2019), but as this is not established recycling practice and as the capacity of Apple to process phones is only a fraction of Apple’s market share, this cannot qualify as a reference end-of-life treatment scenario in the sense of EN 45555:2019.

The following table lists an approximate material composition derived from the preparatory study, representing base case 2, a mid-range smartphone.

Table 16: Approximate material composition of a mid-range smartphone

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_50028.jpg)

Neglecting the actual recovery rates in metallurgical processes, the current recycling rate for smartphones is roughly 15%, mainly driven by copper recycling, followed by cobalt and lithium recycling from batteries. With the modular design approach of Fairphone, combined with a partly theoretical end of life scenario the recyclability rate is at approximately 36%, with a more plausible value of approximately 23% ignoring the potential to feed the display unit into light-metal recycling. With the Apple approach of robotics for smartphone dismantling a recycling rate of approximately 41% might be feasible, not implementing any distinct design measure to enhance recyclability.

This leads to the insight, that a recyclability rate of 20% might be set as a feasible specific requirement under the conditions, that the reference end-of-life scenario anticipates a recycling of all recyclable mono-material parts (i.e., aluminium, steel, magnesium, plastics, all with a very low amount of any other materials) separated (i.e., fasteners being clips, sliders or similar which result in a full separation) when removing the battery with destructive means. Actually, 20% is likely to be achieved in fact only, if such a larger mono-material part is removed, otherwise it will be extremely challenging to meet this criterion. Theoretical design measures to meet a recyclability rate of 20% could be:

·larger batteries (negative effect on manufacturing impact, but positive impact on device lifetime);

·more light-weight housings to reduce overall product weight (which could have an adverse effect on robustness);

·more copper or brass use instead of other metals.

Given the rather low difference in recycling rates (15% as status-quo and 20% as an already ambitious specific requirement) such a criterion rather qualifies as a generic information requirement, with requiring to state the recyclability rate as such or ranges of <10%, 10 - <20%, 20 - <30%, >30%. The latter without any known existing design. Furthermore data points on exact material composition of products are very limited and frequently refer to end-of-life analysis.

The reference end-of-life scenario is defined as

·Battery: Co, Li (Rcyc,Li 50%) masses count towards recyclability rate;

·Mono-material parts removed when extracting the battery: Steel, Al, Mg, plastics or copper masses count towards recyclability rate;

·All other parts: Cu, Co, Sn (Rcyc,Sn 50%), Ni (Rcyc,Ni 85%), In (Rcyc,In 50%), Au, Ag, PGM (Rcyc,PGM 95%) masses count towards recyclability rate.

Material specific recyclability rates derived from (Deubzer 2007; Velázquez-Martínez et al. 2019), rounded values.

The recyclability rate is calculated according to EN 45555:

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_50029.jpg)

This is a mass-based calculation. EN 45555 also allows for an environmental weighting of recyclable materials, following the White Paper “Quantitative environmental benefits of recycling and energy recovery” (Wolf 2018). Actually, the recycling of precious metals is most important from an environmental perspective, but as this is done anyhow due to the outstanding economic value, no further incentive in this direction is needed.

Part 2: LEGAL BASIS FOR EU ACTION

The Ecodesign Directive and Energy Labelling Regulation are framework acts and both include a built-in proportionality and significance test.

Ecodesign

With regard to the Ecodesign Directive, Article 15(1)-(2) provides that a product shall be covered by an ecodesign or a self-regulation measure if the following conditions are met:

I.the product represents significant volume of sales in the EU;

II.the product has significant environmental impact within the EU;

III.the product presents a significant potential for improvement without entailing excessive costs, while taking into account:

oan absence of other relevant Union legislation or failure of market forces to address the issue properly;

oa wide disparity in environmental performance of products with equivalent functionality.  

The first criterion (representing a significant volume of sales, indicatively more than 200.000 units a year) is clearly satisfied in the case of mobile phones and tablets. According to the preparatory study, EU sales of mobile phones were forecasted as 141 million units in 2021. In addition, 13 million cordless phones and 23 million tablets were expected to be sold in 2021.

Concerning the second criterion, it should first be noted that what needs to be established is that the environmental impacts in the EU are significant as compared to the overall environmental impacts taking place in the EU. It is not necessary that those impacts are significant from the perspective of overall impacts stemming from the life cycle of the relevant product (i.e. relative to those taking place in third countries). With this in mind, it should be noted that:

·the life cycle environmental impacts related to smartphones and tablets are considerable. Of particular importance are the climate change impacts stemming from Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) and acidification impacts. As calculated within this impact assessment report, the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of this product group are equal to 0.18% of the total EU emissions.  It is true that a relevant share of these emissions originates outside the EU. However, the resulting environmental impacts frequently have a global dimension and have clear and noticeable effects inside the EU. Especially when it comes to climate change, there is strong scientific evidence
[28](#footnote29)
 supporting not only the relevance of the impacts and their dramatic consequences, but also that those consequences take place across the world, including the EU, irrespective from where the emissions take place.

·in addition to the impacts originating from the manufacturing phase, there is also a considerable share of environmental impacts stemming from the use phase, in particular the impacts linked to energy consumption. The yearly energy consumption in the use phase amounts to ~10TWh (~35 PJ) for all the four product segments analysed in this IA. This is equal to 0.38% of the total EU electricity consumption. It also means that (as shown in the preparatory study estimations), the GHG emissions linked to the use phase are in the range of 25-27% for smartphones and 31% for tablets (compared to total GHG emissions throughout the lifecycle). This means that, in absolute terms, the GHG emissions and energy consumption related to the use phase are higher than for other products covered by existing ecodesign measures
[29](#footnote30)
, for which it was concluded that there are significant environmental impacts within the EU
[30](#footnote31)
.

·At the end of life, all the relevant products placed on the market translate into several thousands of tonnes of device materials to be disposed. These materials eventually end up in recycling, landfilling, incineration, etc. These processes happen in the EU, and it is well known that waste processing can contribute to climate change, soil and air pollution, and directly affects many ecosystems and species
[31](#footnote32)
. The IA estimates that in 2030, for the 4 product segments analysed in this IA, the material consumption is expected to be in the order of 120.000t, with the preferred policy option estimated to foster a decrease of 35-40%. This will also lead to a significant decrease in the amount of waste to be managed.

Given the above points, it can be concluded that there are significant environmental impacts within the EU.

Concerning the third criterion, and in particular with reference to the ‘wide disparity in environmental performance of products with equivalent functionality’, it can be noted that the present impact assessment report, as well as the preparatory study, clearly show that such a disparity exists. In particular, it is shown that the devices are, in many cases, put out of use (to go to hibernation or disposal) prematurely (in the case of smartphones, the average lifetime of devices is 3 years). Prolonging their lifetime in active use allows a tangible decrease of the environmental impacts associated with the device. In quantitative terms, as estimated in this impact assessment, an increase in lifetime of smartphones of for instance 15 months (compared to the 3 years of the baseline) can bring about reductions in the various environmental impacts categories (GHG emissions, total energy, material consumption) of at least 30%. This can be achieved without otherwise affecting functionality
[32](#footnote33)
. Furthermore, with reference to the ‘absence of other relevant Union legislation or failure of market forces to address the issue properly’, it can be noted that:

·no other Union legislation regulates directly the aspects of environmental sustainability of mobile phones and tablets covered by the initiatives discussed in this impact assessment, as shown in detail under Annex 6;

as shown in the ‘problem definition’ section of the main report, there are currently no indications that manufacturers would drastically change their product design towards more reliable and repairable devices (apart from the limited effect of self-repair schemes and eco-ratings, as discussed in sections in sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the main report).

Energy Labelling

The Energy Labelling Regulation includes, in its Article 16, similar criteria for products to be covered by an energy label:

·the product group has significant potential for saving energy and where relevant, other resources;

·models with equivalent functionality differ significantly in the relevant performance levels within the product group;

Concerning the first Energy Labelling criterion (a significant potential for saving energy or other resources), it should be noted that:

·as calculated in this impact assessment, the increase in lifetime of smartphones attainable by means of an energy label can bring reductions in certain environmental impacts categories (GHG emissions, total energy) of an estimated 10%. In relative terms, this is certainly less than the impact from the Ecodesign option. However, in absolute terms it still qualifies as significant, as the estimated energy savings (related to the use phase) that could be associated only to an Energy Label for smartphones and tablets are in the order of 3 TWh/y in 2030 (see the section on the ‘preferred option’). This is a similar value to other already existing Energy Labelling Regulations, such as Regulation 2015/1094 on professional refrigerators.

·as shown more in detail in Annex 9, the energy label for smartphones and tablets would give relevant quantitative information also on the material efficiency aspects (on top of the information on energy use). Therefore, on top of promoting energy efficient devices, the label would also facilitate the purchase of devices that are durable (thanks to the information on the battery long term performance, on the water and dust protection rating, and on the impact resistance) and/or reparable (thanks to the reparability scoring). This is explicitly foreseen in the framework. Article 16(3)(c) and related recital 36 of the Energy Labelling Regulation explicitly foresee the inclusion in the label of supplementary information on the performance of a product other than energy consumption, such as on its durability and environmental performance, with a view to promoting the circular economy.

Concerning the second Energy Labelling criterion (that models with equivalent functionality differ significantly in [energy] performance levels), the evidence in support of the conformity with this criterion stems from the following observation: in the course of the preparatory study, an Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) for smartphones and tablets was developed
[33](#footnote34)
.
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_50030.jpg)
 An analysis of the values of the EEI indexes for various devices on the market, (see figure above) clearly shows the spread of the various energy performance levels, thus confirming the significant differences (in relative terms) between the best and the worst performers.

In a conceptually similar manner, it can be argued that models with equivalent functionality differ significantly in performance levels also with regard to the durability aspect, which is the one targeted by the icons (battery long term performance, water and dust protection rating and impact resistance) below the EEI index in the energy label (described more in detail under Annex 9). As shown in the preparatory study, the lifetime in use for the smartphones and tablets varies between 1 and 9 years, with most of the users keeping these products in active use for a period between 3 and 6 years
[34](#footnote35)
. Assuming that the user keeps the product in active use as a proxy of the fact that the product is regarded as (still) functional, it soon emerges how wide the range of the durability is for these products (this is accompanied by relevant differences in terms of the environmental impacts, as discussed above, for the third Ecodesign criterion).

Based on the above analysis, it can be concluded that the proportionality requirements laid down in the Ecodesign and Energy labelling frameworks are met in the case of potential measures on mobile phones and tablets
[35](#footnote36)
.

:   [(1)](#footnoteref2)

     
    <https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/gobierno/news/Paginas/2021/20210315reparability-label.aspx>
:   [(2)](#footnoteref3)

    Statista (2020c): Number of smartphones sold to end users worldwide from 2007 to 2020. Available online at 
    <https://www.statista.com/topics/840/smartphones/>
    .
:   [(3)](#footnoteref4)

    Newzoo (2019): Global Mobile Market Report. Insights into the World’s 3.2 Billion Smartphone Users, the Devices They Use & the Mobile Games They Play. Available online at 
    <https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoos-global-mobile-market-report-insights-into-the-worlds-3-2-billion-smartphone-users-the-devices-they-use-the-mobile-games-they-play/>
    .
:   [(4)](#footnoteref5)

     
    <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lg-elec-smartphones/lg-becomes-first-major-smartphone-brand-to-withdraw-from-market-idUSKBN2BS032>
:   [(5)](#footnoteref6)

     
    <https://www.statista.com/statistics/639928/market-share-mobile-operating-systems-eu/>
:   [(6)](#footnoteref7)

     
    <https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/tablet/europe>
:   [(7)](#footnoteref8)

    Socio-economic analysis of the repair sector in the EU, DG ENV, 2019
:   [(8)](#footnoteref9)

     
    <https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS47258521>
:   [(9)](#footnoteref10)

     
    <https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-refurbished-smartphone-market-fell-in-2020/>
:   [(10)](#footnoteref11)

    In May 2021, Back Market raised 276 M EUR; refurbed raised 15.6 M EUR in 2020
:   [(11)](#footnoteref12)

    YouGov Research, 2020
:   [(12)](#footnoteref13)

    European Commission (2020): Attitudes Towards The Impact of Digitalisation on Daily Lives (Special Eurobarometer).
:   [(13)](#footnoteref14)

    OHA (Obsoleszenz als Herausforderung für Nachhaltigkeit), 2019
:   [(14)](#footnoteref15)

    YouGov Research, 2020
:   [(15)](#footnoteref16)

    PROMPT Project, Deliverable 2.6: State-of-the-art knowledge on user, market and legal issues related to premature obsolescence
:   [(16)](#footnoteref17)

    Clickrepair, 2019
:   [(17)](#footnoteref18)

    Wertgarantie, 2018
:   [(18)](#footnoteref19)

    Ecodesign preparatory study on mobile phones, smartphones and tablets, Task 2 Report
:   [(19)](#footnoteref20)

    Wieser, H., Tröger, N., & Hübner, R. (2015). The consumers' desired and expected product lifetimes. Product Lifetimes And The Environment.
:   [(20)](#footnoteref21)

    Sofies & Bio Innovation Service, 2019 - Étude du marché et parc de téléphones portables français en vue d’augmenter durablement leur taux de collecte
:   [(21)](#footnoteref22)

    Bitkom e.V. 2020
:   [(22)](#footnoteref23)

     
    <http://svil.recyclingpoint.info/tokyo-2020-olympic-medals-will-be-made-out-of-weee/?lang=en>
:   [(23)](#footnoteref24)

    Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe: Commodity TopNews 65 – Metalle in Smartphones
:   [(24)](#footnoteref25)

    In the framework of the German research project MoDeSt a data set of 9,600 smartphone models and their technical specification was analysed. The data base included also 636 data sets for tablets, which were analysed in the Ecodesign Preparatory Study.
:   [(25)](#footnoteref26)

    Product-as-a-Service (PaaS) business model allows customers to purchase the services and outcomes a product can provide, rather than the product itself. There may be different PaaS business model scenarios. In one scenario, the manufacturer owns and maintains the product, and the customer leases it for use or subscribes to a menu of services. In other scenarios, the customer owns the product, but is not responsible for maintenance (or such responsibilities are divided according to the license agreement or warranty). In all cases, the manufacturer uses the product as a platform for delivering additional services to the customer.
:   [(26)](#footnoteref27)

    'Designing mobile phones and tablets to be sustainable – ecodesign' and ‘Energy labelling of mobile phones and tablets – informing consumers about environmental impact’
:   [(27)](#footnoteref28)

    Source: https://www.eera-recyclers.com/recyclers
:   [(28)](#footnoteref29)

       Only quoting a few examples:

    -Regulation 2021/1119 on achieving climate neutrality states: “Climate change is by definition a trans-boundary challenge’.

    -‘Climate change is already affecting every inhabited region across the globe’ (Summary for Policymakers IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers)

    -‘Transboundary air pollution (generated in one country and impacting in others) makes a major contribution to acidification and summer smog’, EEA (https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/92-9157-202-0/page304.html )
:   [(29)](#footnoteref30)

    See for instance the Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/1784 laying down ecodesign requirements for welding equipment.
:   [(30)](#footnoteref31)

    The impacts related to the energy consumption of the use phase are primarily covered by the option of an energy label. Under the draft Ecodesign requirements, specific requirements concerning the battery management systems are also aimed to improve the energy performance of the product.
:   [(31)](#footnoteref32)

       See e.g, for a description of the various effects: Huisman, J., Stevels, A., Baldé, K., Magalini,F., Kuehr, R.3 “The e-waste development cycle, part II - Impact assessment of collection and treatment (Chapter 3).
:   [(32)](#footnoteref33)

    An increase in durability from 36 to 51 months (with unaltered product functionality) implies that per year less than one quarter of the stock is replaced as opposed to one third, which corresponds to a reduction of annual sales by 30%.
:   [(33)](#footnoteref34)

    The EEI index developed during the preparatory study is not exactly the same of the EEI index currently defined (i.e. the one shown in the annex of the label design), as some updates/improvements have been introduced, but conceptually the methodology for calculating the EEI index is unchanged.
:   [(34)](#footnoteref35)

    Similar results were obtained within the public consultation (see Annex 2) carried out in relation to the two initiatives under analysis in this impact assessment: a question was posed, to understand for how long did respondents use their last device. Nearly 45% of respondents used it for less than 3 years, whereas nearly 39% used it between 3 and 5 years.
:   [(35)](#footnoteref36)

    Please note that the energy label for smartphones and tablets is proposed – as argued in the text - in line with the rules laid down in Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling. This is without prejudice to the ongoing preparatory work related to the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, which includes the revision of 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, which is – inter alia - assessing the potential to set labelling requirements in relation to material efficiency aspects of products.

[Top](#document3)

Table of contents

Annex 6: Articulation with other initiatives

Annex 7: The Ecodesign Directive 2009/125, the Energy Labelling Regulation and the product-specific measures

Annex 8: A reparability scoring system for smartphones and tablets

Annex 9: Policy Options and Measures

  

Annex 6: Articulation with other initiatives

At the time of the drafting of the current impact assessment (Q3 2021), a number of legislative and non-legislative initiatives was under development/already developed by the European Commission in fields related to product policy, circular economy and consumer rights:

1.Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation125;

2.Empowering consumers for the green transition127 

3.Circular Electronics Initiative;

4.Promoting sustainability in consumer after-sales and a new consumer right to repair

5.Common charging solution initiative
[1](#footnote2)
;

6.Review of the Commission Regulation (EU) No 617/2013 of 26 June 2013 on ecodesign requirements for computers and computer servers128;

7.EU green public procurement criteria for computers, monitors, tablets and smartphones;

8.Intellectual property – review of EU rules on industrial design
[2](#footnote3)
;

9.(proposal for a) Battery Regulation (European Commission, 2020b)

These initiatives could have potential relationships with the initiatives in support of which the current impact assessment is carried out, i.e. 'Designing mobile phones and tablets to be sustainable – ecodesign'64 and ‘Energy labelling of mobile phones and tablets – informing consumers about environmental impact’70.

This annex presents and describes the articulation of the two initiatives on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets with the other ones under preparation. The aim is to prevent duplication, so as to minimise the administrative burden for economic operators and authorities, and to show the potential synergic actions among different legislative and non-legislative tools.

In the remainder of this annex each of the abovementioned initiatives is briefly described, together with the articulation with the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets.

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation [3](#footnote4) |
| Legislative or non-legislative? | Legislative. |
| Brief description | This initiative, which will revise the Ecodesign Directive and propose additional legislative measures as appropriate, aims to make products placed on the EU market more sustainable.  Consumers, the environment and the climate will benefit from products that are more durable, reusable, repairable, recyclable, and energy-efficient. The initiative will also address the presence of harmful chemicals in products such as:  -electronics & ICT equipment;  -textiles;  -furniture;  -steel & chemicals. |
| Interaction with the two initiatives on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets | The two initiatives on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets would consist in secondary legislation implementing the Ecodesign Directive 2009/125 and the Energy Labelling Regulation 2017/1369.  Ecodesign Regulations are typically to be reviewed every 5 years (the specific time range varies case by case and is foreseen in the ‘review clause’ article of each Regulation). As the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation consists in the revised Ecodesign Directive, this would somehow affect all the products that will be, at the time of the finalisation of the review, already regulated under Ecodesign implementing Regulations. The impact assessment in support of the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation elaborates further on how the reviews of already existing Ecodesign Regulations could be carried out.    Why acting now with the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets?  The adoption of the measures on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets is foreseen within the first half of 2022. This very ambitious timing [4](#footnote5)  rests on the following reasons/motivations:  -the commitments and deadlines of the Circular Economy Action Plan 2020, and in particular of the Circular Electronics Initiative;  -the increasingly perceived importance of circular economy and ecodesign of products by consumers, in particular mobile phones;  -postponing the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling requirements – for whatever procedural or policy aspects - in the short-middle term (e.g. 3 years) would leave unreaped environmental benefits. Within the Ecodesign preparatory study on mobile phones and tablets (European Commission 2021) it has been estimated that, only considering smartphones, as an effect of the first 3 years following the introduction of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling requirements, 20TWh of energy would cumulatively be saved  -EU member states already started proposing national regulatory initiatives in the field of the circular economy of mobile phones and tablets. For instance, from 1 January 2021 manufacturers, importers, marketers and other retailers that put smartphones (as well as laptops and other products) on the French market have to inform, free of charge, downstream sellers and any person of the reparability index of their products. Without harmonised EU legislation in the field, a jeopardised internal market for these products could be expected in the next years. |
| 2 | Empowering consumers for the green transition [5](#footnote6) |
| Legislative or non-legislative? | Legislative. |
| Brief description | This initiative will tackle problems identified with:  oconsumer information aspects at the point of sale, in particular the fact that consumers lack reliable information for choosing more environmentally sustainable products, including related to the durability and reparability of products;  oprotecting consumers against certain unfair commercial practices in relation to sustainable purchasing, such as greenwashing, early obsolescence of consumer goods and non-transparent sustainability labels or digital tools.  It will apply in a business-to-consumer context.  The IA assessed policy options building upon the existing EU horizontal consumer law framework9, including the improvements recently brought forward in relation to enforcement10. It will result in targeted amendments by “greening” existing consumer law (i.e. the Consumer Rights Directive and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive). The proposal was adopted by the Commission on 30 March 2022. |
| Interaction with the two initiatives on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets | The initiative on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition will aim, inter alia, to improve information on the durability and reparability of products at the point of sale, in particular by setting horizontal information requirements through consumer law, and by laying down a general obligation on sellers to provide consumers, at the point of sale, with a Repair Scoring Index, when such a score is established in accordance with EU law for the relevant product group. It also aims to provide better consumer protection against misleading practices leading them away from sustainable purchases such as early obsolescence practices.  The two initiatives on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets, by laying down specific product requirements, will be able to elaborate on and further complement the above general obligations, in particular in relation to the reparability and durability of products. For example, by establishing a Reparability Scoring Index at EU level for mobile phones and tablets, these initiatives will directly complement the requirement in the initiative on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition that a Reparability Scoring Index needs to be provided to a consumer at the point of sale whenever this is established by EU law. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 3 | Circular Electronics Initiative (CEI) |
| Legislative or non-legislative? | Non-legislative initiative (TBD) + legislative initiative (TBD). |
| Brief description | The objectives of the circular electronics initiative (CEI) are to extend the lifespan of electronic devices (starting with mobile phones, tablets and laptops) to reduce e-waste, retain rare/valuable materials, improve recycling and boost European aftermarkets. To achieve this, these devices must be designed to be durable and allow for disassembly, maintenance, repair, reuse and recycling, and consumers should have a right to repair them (including a right to software updates).  To meet these commitments, a two-pronged approach is currently envisaged. Upstream requirements need to be in place in order to ensure these devices are reparable and durable by design. On the demand-side, the CEI aims to ensure devices cannot only technically be repaired but that consumers have easy/affordable access to repair. |
| Interaction with the two initiatives on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets | The CEI, as currently envisaged, consists of a number of actions to increase the sustainability of consumer electronics.  The two initiatives on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets are an integral part of the CEI, as they represent one of the prongs of the CEI, namely upstream/supply-side requirements to ensure reparability and durability by design, as well as provisions for the availability of spare parts and software updates. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 4 | Promoting sustainability in consumer after-sales and a new consumer right to repair - Right to Repair |
| Legislative | Legislative initiative (Q3 2022). |
| Brief description | This initiative would encourage goods being used for a longer time, more defective goods being repaired, and more second-hand goods being purchased. It would encourage consumers in an after-sales context to repair a product when it is defective. It would also encourage producers to design their goods in such a way that they last longer, would be easily reparable and to take better into consideration their use/reuse phase.  The initiative could entail a package of targeted amendments of the Sale of Goods Directive and a new instrument on a right to repair.  The Sale of Goods Directive could be amended for situations when consumers receive defective goods in sales transactions. Currently, according to the Directive, when sellers deliver defective goods, consumers have a choice between the repair of the defective product and the replacement with a new one during a liability period of at least two years. There are several options how to increase sustainability through targeted amendments of the SGD which will be examined in detail in the impact assessment. Among those options are the following:  Consumers could be incentivised to opt for the more sustainable alternative of repair, for instance by restarting anew the liability period after repair.  To further promote sustainable decisions, consumers could be stimulated to buy second-hand goods instead of new ones, for instance by aligning the liability period for second-hand goods with that of new ones.  To encourage producers to produce goods which last longer, the liability period could be extended.  A new instrument on a right to repair could create a consumer right to have a defective product repaired, probably by the producer, within a given period after purchase and for a reasonable cost. While the Sale of Goods Directive would continue to apply to defects which already existed at the time of delivery, the new instrument could apply to other defects, for example those due to the use of the goods or to a lack of conformity which becomes manifest after the liability period of the Directive. |
| Interaction with the two initiatives on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets | The two initiatives on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets are an integral part of the CEI and will, in relation to repair, address the supply side by setting out quantitative and information requirements for products placed on the market.  The initiative on ‘Promoting sustainability in consumer after-sales and a new consumer right to repair’ could help to further address the demand side by providing incentives and tools for consumers to play their part in a more sustainable consumption by fighting the premature disposal of goods before the end of their useful life.  The three initiatives would be complementary and produce synergies. For example, the scope and content features of the right to repair could be linked with the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling requirements on mobile phones and tablets.  As a result, more use would be made of the repair option created through supply side measures. Vice versa, the supply side measures are a prerequisite for a right to repair as only repairable goods can actually be repaired. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 5 | Common charging solution for mobile telephones and other similar devices123 |
| Legislative or non-legislative? | Legislative. |
| Brief description | This initiative aims to limit fragmentation of the charging solutions, at the same time not hampering future technological evolution. The specific objectives are as follows:  1.To promote interoperability reducing the fragmentation in terms of end-device charging port of mobile phones and other portable devices;  2.To promote interoperability in terms of charging performance of devices. The devices shall unjustifiably reduce the charging performance below the maximum level that they both support and ensure that fast charging can work irrelevant of the charger used;  3.To ensure citizens have enough information as to make informed choices when they decide to buy a new device. Consumers shall be given clear, intelligible and immediate tool to understand the performance of the electronic devices and which charging accessories shall be used to achieve the optimal performance;  4.To provide consumers with a choice as to whether they want to acquire a new charger when they purchase electronic devices;  5.The pool of devices in scope of the initiative is to be extended to the maximum possible, in the respect of the charging requirements, technologies and uses.    Radio equipment, such as data-enabled mobile telephones fall within the scope of the Radio Equipment Directive (RED) 2014/53/EU. Actually, Art. 3(3)(a) of RED, that states: “[…] Radio equipment within certain categories or classes shall be so constructed that it complies with the following essential requirements: (a) radio equipment interworks with accessories, in particular with common chargers […]’’ empowers the Commission to impose harmonised solutions. This will be amended by the new proposal for a revision of the RED which will set new requirements as regards to interoperability with ‘common’ chargers. |
| Interaction with the two initiatives on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets | The common charging solution initiative proposes actions on the side of mobile phones and similar portable devices. Mobile phones are also in scope to the two initiatives on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets. The close cooperation between Commission services ensures that there will be no points of overlap between the three initiatives, with provisions under each of the 3 pieces of legislation (RED Directive, Ecodesign Directive and Energy Labelling Regulation) specifically target to the specific objectives – and legal remit – of each initiative.  There is rather a potential for synergic action. For example, under consideration for the formulation of the Ecodesign requirements on the availability of chargers as spare parts there is an exemption for smartphones compliant with the new requirements of the Common Charging Solution initiative. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | Review of the Commission Regulation (EU) No 617/2013 of 26 June 2013 on ecodesign requirements for computers and computer servers [6](#footnote7) |
| Legislative or non-legislative? | Legislative. |
| Brief description | Computers and small servers sold in the EU are subject to ecodesign rules, as outlined in Regulation (EU) No 617/2013. They cap estimated annual energy consumption based on a product's average use pattern. They also include requirements for the efficiency of the internal power supply and power management. It has been estimated that switching to products that comply with these ecodesign requirements led to electricity savings of up to 16.3 TWh by 2020, equivalent to cost savings for European citizens of up to EUR 2.6 billion.  This Regulation is under review. The technology and market changes that has occurred since the initial preparatory study on Lot 3 concluded in 2007 (in support to the current Regulation) are being assessed. The scope of the Regulation is being revised, and a number of new aspects (in particular: potential circular economy requirements) are being analysed. |
| Interaction with the two initiatives on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets | A detailed analysis on the differences between the scope of the Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013 and the scope of the (potential) Ecodesign Regulation on mobile phones and tablets is presented at the beginning of Annex 9. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 7 | EU Green Public Criteria for Computers, Monitors, Tablets and Smartphones |
| Legislative or non-legislative? | Non-legislative – Voluntary Guidance published as Staff Working Document of the European Commission. |
| Brief description | The Staff Working Document SWD (2021) 57 provides the EU Green Public Criteria for Computers, Monitors, Tablets and Smartphones.  These EU GPP Criteria aim at helping public authorities to ensure that ICT equipment and services are procured in such a way that they deliver environmental improvements that contribute to European policy objectives for energy, climate change and resource efficiency, as well as reducing life cycle costs.  These criteria for computers, monitors, tablets and smartphones focus on the most significant environmental impacts during their life cycle, which have been divided into four distinct areas: product lifetime extension; energy consumption; hazardous substances; end-of-life management. This set of criteria also includes a further category of criteria that apply to separate procurements for refurbished/remanufactured devices and related services. |
| Interaction with the two initiatives on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets | The two initiatives are potentially synergic. Some of the EU GPP Criteria anticipate (at voluntary level), requirements are thresholds that are proposed for a mandatory implementation, at a late stage, under the Ecodesign. The EU GPP Criteria have already included, among others, criteria on battery endurance (in cycles), water and dust ingress protection, free fall testing, reparability, spare parts availability, unbundling of accessories, for both smartphones and tablets. The EU public sector can drive and stimulate the market toward a rapid and smooth implementation of these aspects at mandatory level. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 8 | Intellectual property – review of EU rules on industrial design |
| Legislative or non-legislative? | Legislative. |
| Brief description | This initiative will update EU rules on design protection. Design rights protect the appearance of a product, which results from attributes such as its shape, colours or materials, from unauthorised use.  The initiative aims to:  -modernise, clarify and strengthen design protection;  -make design protection more accessible and affordable across the EU;  -ensure EU and national rules governing design protection are more compatible;  -further align EU rules on design protection for repair spare parts. |
| Interaction with the two initiatives on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets | The policy option(s) currently under investigation for the EU rules on design protection for repair spare parts (in particular, that the market of ‘must-match’ spare parts should be opened for competition in entire EU, extending it to both existing and new designs) would be synergic with the initiative on the Ecodesign of mobile phones and tablets, in particular for the Ecodesign requirements on reparability aspects. |

  

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 9 | (proposal for a) Battery Regulation (European Commission, 2020b) |
| Legislative or non-legislative? | Legislative. |
| Brief description | This Regulation aims to ensure that batteries placed in the EU market are sustainable and safe throughout their entire life cycle. The Commission proposes a range of mandatory requirements for various categories of batteries (i.e. industrial, automotive, electric vehicle and portable) placed on the EU market. Requirements such as use of responsibly sourced materials with restricted use of hazardous substances, minimum content of recycled materials, carbon footprint, performance and durability and labelling, as well as meeting collection and recycling targets, are essential for the development of more sustainable and competitive battery industry across Europe and around the world. |
| Interaction with the two initiatives on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of mobile phones and tablets | The initiatives are synergic. The “placing on the market” provisions of the Batteries proposal address mainly the large batteries (electric vehicle and industrial battery with capacity above 2 kWh) and portable batteries of general use (battery formats such as AA, AAA etc. that exist in both rechargeable and no-rechargeable forms), because it was not considered feasible in such legislative framework to regulate every application of batteries (e.g. performance and durability of smart phone batteries) or for certain requirements not proportionate (carbon footprint, recycled content and supply chain due diligence).  The key provisions of the Batteries proposal that apply to batteries contained in mobile phones and tablets are the following:  - Chapter VII, on end-of-life that deals with collection, treatment, recycling and recovery of waste batteries and the minerals contained in them. The ecodesign and energy labelling measures considered here do not deal with such activities;  - Article 6, on restrictions of hazardous chemicals. It is not the intention to do so for the Ecodesign of mobile phones and tablets, because existing legislation already addresses this (Batteries Directive, RoHS Directive, REACH Regulation);  - Article 11, which requires that portable batteries (i.e. batteries less than 5 kg) incorporated in appliances can be removed and replaced. The Ecodesign requirement on the disassemblability of batteries (described in detail under Annex 9) is in line with this provisions, and it could be considered as lex specialis [7](#footnote8)  related to the batteries of mobile phones and tablets. It addresses in greater detail the proposed Battery Regulation’s general requirement for removability and replaceability. The batteries proposal can regulate this aspect only in a general way and without specific conformity provisions for economic operators and market surveillance authorities, because such conformity assessment will effectively have to be done by appliance manufacturers rather than battery manufacturers.  - Concerning the information requirements foreseen under the Battery Regulation and the Ecodesign Regulation:  oArticle 13 of the Battery Regulation concerns the labelling of the battery. This will provide basic information about the battery (manufacturer, type, chemistry) and its capacity. The indication about the battery chemistry would give information on whether it includes cobalt or not. Such information requirements are not foreseen for the initiative on the Ecodesign Regulation.  oThis initiative includes Ecodesign information requirements affecting the batteries of mobile phones and tablets, related to the interaction of the battery with the phone/tablet (in particular, they concern the battery maintenance and the battery management system). These information requirements are not foreseen by the Battery Regulation for this category of batteries.  Thus, there is no overlap between the sets of information requirements of the Battery proposal and the Ecodesign regulation for mobile phones and tablets. |

Annex 7: The Ecodesign Directive 2009/125, the Energy Labelling Regulation and the product-specific measures

In the European Union (EU), the Ecodesign Directive
[8](#footnote9)
 requires product manufacturers to improve the environmental performance of their products by meeting minimum energy efficiency requirements, as well as other environmental requirements such as water consumption, emission levels or minimum durability of certain components or requirements on reparability (including upgrades), recyclability, ease of reuse and end-of-life treatment before they can place their products on the market. The Energy Labelling Regulation
[9](#footnote10)
 complements Ecodesign by enabling end-consumers to identify the better-performing products, via the well-known A-G/green-to-red labelling grading.

Together with the Energy Labelling Regulation, this legislative framework pushes industry to improve the energy efficiency of products and removes the worst-performing ones from the market. It also helps consumers and companies to reduce their energy bills. In the industrial and services sectors, this results in support to competitiveness and innovation. Finally, it ensures that manufacturers and importers responsible for placing products on the European Union (EU) market only have to comply with EU-wide rules, instead of Member State legislation. Some of its main achievements are highlighted below.

This legislative framework benefits from broad support from European industries
[10](#footnote11)
, consumers
[11](#footnote12)
, environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
[12](#footnote13)
,
[13](#footnote14)
 and Member States (MSs), because of its positive effects on innovation, increased information for consumers and lower costs, as well as environmental benefits.

Ecodesign and energy labelling are recognised globally as one of the most effective policy tools in the area of energy efficiency. They are central to making Europe more energy efficient, contributing in particular to the ‘Energy Union Framework Strategy’
[14](#footnote15)
, and to the priority of a ‘Deeper and fairer internal market with a strengthened industrial base’
[15](#footnote16)
. The 2030 Climate Target Plan
[16](#footnote17)
 notes that EU product efficiency standards have reduced their energy needs by about 15% and cut EU GHG emissions by 7%, while creating many additional jobs.

In quantitative terms, it has been estimated that the average EU27 household in 2020:

–Bought 11 regulated products of which 4 light sources, 4 electronics products.

–Used 70 regulated products of which 30 light sources, 25 electronics products.

–Saved 1000 kWh (27%) of electricity and 700 kWh (6%) of fuel (gas, oil coal, wood) in2020 compared to a scenario without Ecodesign and Labelling measures. In 2030 this is projected to increase to 1200 kWh electricity (33%) and 1400 kWh of fuel (12%).

–Avoided 530 kg CO2eq of greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 compared a scenario without Ecodesign and Labelling measures. In 2030 this is projected to increase to almost 700 kg CO2eq/household.

–Saved EUR 210 (7%) in user expenditure in 2020, expected to increase to EUR 350 per year per household in 2030 (11%) compared to a scenario without Ecodesign and Labelling measures. This considers only the direct savings for products used in households. Additional financial benefits for households might arrive from the savings in the tertiary and industry sectors, if these are translated in lower tariffs, lower product prices, or higher wages.

The Ecodesign Directive and Energy Labelling Regulation include a built-in proportionality and significance test. For the Ecodesign Framework Directive, Articles 15(1) and 15(2) state that a product should be covered by an ecodesign or a self-regulating measure if the following conditions are met:

·The product should represent a significant volume of sales;

·The product should have a significant environmental impact within the EU;

·The product should present a significant potential for improvement without entailing excessive costs, while taking into account:

o an absence of other relevant Community legislation or failure of market forces to address the issue properly;

oa wide disparity in environmental performance of products with equivalent functionality.

The procedure for preparing such measures is described in Article 15(3). In addition, the criteria of Article 15(5) should be met:

·No significant negative impacts on user functionality of the product;

·No significant negative impacts on Health, safety and environment;

·No significant negative impacts on affordability and life cycle costs;

·No significant negative impacts on industry’s competitiveness (including SMEs).

The preparatory work prior to any Ecodesign or Energy labelling policy measure
[17](#footnote18)
 entails technical as well as procedural and legal steps, according to a well-defined procedure, which is shown in the figure below.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_49002.jpg)

Figure 32: Procedure for developing Ecodesign implementing measures

Potential candidate-products, for which the feasibility of proposing Ecodesign (and/or Energy Labelling) requirements will be investigated in detail, are normally listed in the Ecodesign Working Plan, a document prepared by the European Commission every three to five years. An Ecodesign working plan sets out an indicative list of prioritised product groups, mainly on the basis of the criteria of the expected energy savings in case of regulatory measures. Historically, the main criterion to prioritize inclusion of product groups in the successive working plans has been the potential for energy saving by pushing for more efficient products
[18](#footnote19)
.

Products listed in an Ecodesign working plan are first generally analysed in a preparatory study, which provides the necessary technical and economic information to orient more in-depth analysis. Once, for a specific product group, the conditions for action are met
[19](#footnote20)
, an impact assessment takes place, where various policy options are analysed, such as "no action
[20](#footnote21)
", voluntary agreement, Ecodesign requirements at various levels of stringency, energy labelling schemes or other alternative policy tools. The options are compared across different impact dimensions (economic, occupational, social and environmental aspects, on top of environmental savings) in order to identify the best one. During the impact assessment phase, potential regulatory approaches are discussed in the context of a Consultation Forum meeting with the EU member states, industrial organizations, the ESOs (European Standardization Organizations) and the consumer organizations and environmental NGOs. This meeting is among the most important consultations throughout the whole procedure, as stakeholders' objective and external critical comments are extremely useful to improve the scoping of the measures, product definitions, wider considerations and detailed text, practicality of enforcement, etc. Subsequently, an internal consultation of all the interested European Commission services (known as 'inter-service consultation') takes place, a notification of an advanced draft is provided to the World Trade Organization for comments and, finally a Regulatory Committee vote (for Ecodesign) or an Expert meeting (for Energy Labelling) further amends the draft, before a formal adoption by the Commission and a scrutiny by EU Parliament and the Council. The Ecodesign Directive, in its article 17, also offers the opportunity to manufacturers to sign voluntary agreements, with the commitment to reduce the energy consumption of their products. When appropriate
[21](#footnote22)
, the Commission formally recognises such agreements and monitors their implementation and abstains from regulatory measures.

Ecodesign Regulations typically foresee requirements (e.g. on minimum energy efficiency levels) which enter gradually in force following a two or three tiers scheme. The first tier is usually between one and three years after publication; the second usually applies after three-five years. Timing and stringency of each tier take into account the design cycle and the typical life-span of a specific product model. Ecodesign Regulations are typically reviewed within a certain number of years to cope with technology, market or legislative evolution. On top of their contribution to the energy efficiency objectives under the Energy Union strategy, since the adoption of the Circular Economy Action Plan in December 2015, Ecodesign regulations are also expected to contribute to the objectives on material efficiency and design for circularity.

As an alternative to regulation, the Ecodesign Directive states that priority should be given to alternative courses of action such as self-regulation by the industry where such action is likely to deliver the policy objectives faster or in a less costly manner than mandatory requirements. Self-regulation, including voluntary agreements offered as unilateral commitments by industry, can enable quick progress due to rapid and cost-effective implementation, and allows for flexible and appropriate adaptations to technological options and market sensitivities.

The European Commission assesses each self-regulatory initiative on a case-by-case basis after consulting the members of the Consultation Forum and taking into account the findings of the technical/economic preparatory study if available. The basis for the assessment whether a proposal goes beyond business-as-usual is the information provided by the industry and affected parties and, if available, the findings of the preparatory study. Voluntary agreements are expected to include quantified and staged objectives, starting from a well-defined baseline and measured through verifiable indicators. Voluntary agreements also need arrangements for independent verification as they are not necessarily subject to market surveillance by Member States.

Guidelines on self-regulation
[22](#footnote23)
 were adopted by the European Commission on 30 November 2016.

To date, 32 Ecodesign Regulations and 2 voluntary agreements are in force. An overview of these measures can be found in the table below.

Table 17: Overview of applicable Ecodesign measures

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
|  | Ecodesign |
| Ecodesign framework | 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. |
| Heaters | Council Directive 92/42/EEC of 21 May 1992 on efficiency requirements for new hot-water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous fuels (only Articles 7(2) and 8 and Annexes III to V).  Commission Regulation (EU) No 813/2013 of 2 August 2013 with regard to ecodesign requirements for space heaters and combination heaters.  Commission Regulation (EU) No 814/2013 of 2 August 2013 with regard to ecodesign requirements for water heaters and hot water storage tanks.  Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1185 of 24 April 2015 with regard to ecodesign requirements for solid fuel local space heaters.  Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1188 of 28 April 2015 with regard to ecodesign requirements for local space heaters.  Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1189 of 28 April 2015 with regard to ecodesign requirements for solid fuel boilers.  Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/2281 of 30 November 2016 with regard to ecodesign requirements for air heating products, cooling products, high temperature process chillers and fan coil units. |
| Off mode & standby | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 of 17 December 2008 with regard to ecodesign requirements for standby and off mode electric power consumption of electrical and electronic household and office equipment.  Commission Regulation (EU) No 801/2013 of 22 August 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 with regard to ecodesign requirements for standby, off mode electric power consumption of electrical and electronic household and office equipment, and amending Regulation (EC) No 642/2009 with regard to ecodesign requirements for televisions. |
| Lighting | From 1 September 2021:  Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2020 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for light sources and separate control gears.  Until 31 August 2021:  Commission Regulation (EC) No 244/2009 of 18 March 2009 with regard to ecodesign requirements for non-directional household lamps.  Commission Regulation (EC) No 245/2009 of 18 March 2009 with regard to ecodesign requirements for fluorescent lamps without integrated ballast, for high intensity discharge lamps, and for ballasts and luminaires able to operate such lamps.  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1194/2012 of 12 December 2012 with regard to ecodesign requirements for directional lamps, light emitting diode lamps and related equipment. |
| Refrigeration | Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1095 of 5 May 2015 with regard to ecodesign requirements for professional refrigerated storage cabinets, blast cabinets, condensing units and process chillers.  Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2019 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for refrigerating appliances.  Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2024 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for refrigerating appliances with a direct sales function. |
| Washing machines & washer-dryers | Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2023 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for household washing machines and household washer-dryers. |
| Motors | From 1 July 2021:  Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/1781 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for electric motors and variable speed drives, amending Regulation (EC) No 641/2009 with regard to ecodesign requirements for glandless standalone circulators and glandless circulators integrated in products.  Until 30 June 2021:  Commission Regulation (EC) No 640/2009 of 22 July 2009 with regard to ecodesign requirements for electric motors. |
| Circulators | Commission Regulation (EC) No 641/2009 of 22 July 2009 with regard to ecodesign requirements for glandless standalone circulators and glandless circulators integrated in products.  Commission Regulation (EU) No 622/2012 of 11 July 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 641/2009 with regard to ecodesign requirements for glandless standalone circulators and glandless circulators integrated in products.  Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/1781 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for electric motors and variable speed drives, amending Regulation (EC) No 641/2009 with regard to ecodesign requirements for glandless standalone circulators and glandless circulators integrated in products. |
| Water pumps | Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2012 of 25 June 2012 with regard to ecodesign requirements for water pumps. |
| Tumble driers | Commission Regulation (EU) No 932/2012 of 3 October 2012 with regard to ecodesign requirements for household tumble driers. |
| Computers and servers | Commission Regulation (EU) No 617/2013 of 26 June 2013 with regard to ecodesign requirements for computers and computer servers.  Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/424 of 15 March 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for servers and data storage products amending Commission Regulation (EU) No 617/2013. |
| Vacuum cleaners | Commission Regulation (EU) No 666/2013 of 8 July 2013 with regard to ecodesign requirements for vacuum cleaners. |
| Electronic displays (including TVs) | Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2021 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for electronic displays. |
| External power supplies | Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/1782 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for external power supplies. |
| Cooking appliances | Commission Regulation (EU) No 66/2014 of 14 January 2014 with regard to ecodesign requirements for domestic ovens, hobs and range hoods. |
| Power transformers | Commission Regulation (EU) No 548/2014 of 21 May 2014 with regard to small, medium and large power transformers.  Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/1783 of 1 October 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 548/2014 with regard to small, medium and large power transformers. |
| Air conditioners and fans (including ventilation units) | Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2012 of 6 March 2012 with regard to ecodesign requirements for air conditioners and comfort fans.  Commission Regulation (EU) No 327/2011 of 30 March 2011 with regard to ecodesign requirements for fans driven by motors with an electric input power between 125 W and 500 KW.  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1253/2014 of 7 July 2014 with regard to ecodesign requirements for ventilation units.  Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/2281 of 30 November 2016 with regard to ecodesign requirements for air heating products, cooling products, high temperature process chillers and fan coil units. |
| Dishwashers | Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2022 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for household dishwashers. |
| Welding equipment | Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/1784 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for welding equipment. |
| Omnibus | Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/341 of 23 February 2021 amending Regulations (EU) 2019/424, (EU) 2019/1781, (EU) 2019/2019, (EU) 2019/2020, (EU) 2019/2021, (EU) 2019/2022, (EU) 2019/2023 and (EU) 2019/2024 with regard to ecodesign requirements for servers and data storage products, electric motors and variable speed drives, refrigerating appliances, light sources and separate control gears, electronic displays, household dishwashers, household washing machines and household washer-dryers and refrigerating appliances with a direct sales function. |
| Imaging equipment | Voluntary agreement – Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the voluntary ecodesign scheme for imaging equipment COM/2013/023 final. |
| Game consoles | Voluntary agreement - Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the voluntary ecodesign scheme for games consoles (COM/2015/0178 final). |

  

·

Annex 8: A reparability scoring system for smartphones and tablets

Context

In support of a possible introduction of product reparability scoring in the EU policy, the JRC published a report in 2019 in which such a system is developed (hereinafter “General Method”). In that report, scoring criteria are set out to rate the extent to which products are reparable or upgradable. The assessment of reparability focuses on a number of priority product parts and technical parameters, which cover product design characteristics and relevant operational aspects, related to the repair and upgrade of products.

This work took place with the participation of a range of stakeholders, including member states, industry representatives, consumer and environmental NGO, who provided input in stakeholder meetings hosted by the JRC team. Furthermore, it expands on the methodological work conducted at the level of European standardisation, and specifically the development of standard EN 45554:2020.In parallel to the work at the EU level, a reparability scoring scheme has been introduced at the national level in France, while other member states such as Germany and Spain have highlighted the importance of establishing such system at EU level as well. Moreover, several mobile phone operators launched an industry-wide harmonised labelling scheme for mobile phones. In that sense, the establishment of such a system at EU level fills an identified information gap while avoiding a potential proliferation of national reparability schemes that would hinder development at a single market context. Despite the development of the French index, France continues to constructively participate at EU level discussions during the development of this report and the subsequent study for application in smartphones and slate tablets.

The study
[23](#footnote24)
 at the basis of the development of the reparability scoring method for smartphones and tablets products uses the aforementioned JRC method developed in 2019 and follows the methodological steps and proceeds with the choices that are deemed appropriate for these product groups.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_49003.jpg)

Figure 33: From general to product specific approaches

The selection and weighting of priority parts and the definition and weighting of the scoring criteria are based on the proposed regulation laying down ecodesign requirements for mobile phones, cordless phones and tablets. However, the scope of the reparability scoring system is limited to smartphones and slate tablets only and does not include a) mobile phones other than smartphones and b) cordless phones. As identified in the preparatory study, these product categories (i.e. mobile phones other than smartphones, and cordless phones) demonstrate different features and product characteristics compared to smartphones and tablets, such as easier disassembly by users and removable batteries, therefore a repair scoring system was deemed less relevant.

Selection and weighting of Priority Parts

A selection of relevant priority parts is made in order to maintain the complexity in the assessment at a reasonable level, and to ensure consistency with proposed ecodesign minimum requirements. The criteria used for the identification and weighting of those parts are primarily the functional importance of the part (i.e. the extent to which a part is necessary for the delivery of primary or secondary functions of the product), and the frequency of failure or update of a given part.

Based on the same factors, the priority parts were also weighted in order to influence the final score accordingly, as shown in the Table 18 below. Two scenarios are considered depending on the design of the product, i.e. whether the part of folding mechanism (part level 4) are present on the phone/tablet.

Table 18: Table: Selected priority parts and weighting factors –

 

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Level | Sublevel | Spare Parts | Scenario A Weighting | Scenario B Weighting |
| LEVEL 1 | 1a | Display assembly | 30% | 25% |
|  | 1b | Battery | 30% | 25% |
| LEVEL 2 | 2 | Back cover | 10% | 9% |
| LEVEL 3 | 3 | Front camera(s) assembly | 5% | 4% |
|  | 3 | Back camera(s) assembly | 5% | 4% |
|  | 3 | External charging port(s) | 5% | 4% |
|  | 3 | Mechanical Button(s) | 5% | 4% |
|  | 3 | Microphone(s) | 5% | 4% |
|  | 3 | Speaker | 5% | 4% |
| LEVEL 4 | 4 | Hinge assembly or Fold mechanism | N/A | 17% |

The table above is applied across different technologies of smartphones and tablets through a dynamic approach between the weighting of scenario A and scenario B.

In the case of a non-foldable device, the scenario A weights are applied. Whereas in the case of a foldable device, where hinge assembly or fold mechanism are present, the sum of the priority part weightings would exceed 100% and be equal to 120%, therefore an adjustment with a correction factor (fc = 1/120 %) is introduced in the scenario B in order to maintain the same balance of importance between parts.

 

Selection and weighting of Parameters

The parameters relevant to rate reparability for smartphones and tablets have been identified. As in the case of priority parts, these parameters can also have different levels of relevance as reflected in the different weighting factors assigned.

The parameters were selected having in regard the following principles:

·The complementary nature of the reparability scoring index to potential minimum requirements related to repair stipulated in the ecodesign draft regulation developed in parallel, including a balance between design-related and service-related aspects of reparability;

·The methodological consistency with the JRC general method developed in 2019, as well as the methodological foundations laid by the European standardisation work and the development of EN45554:2020;

·The applicability and verifiability of those parameters at EU level and within the ecodesign framework context;

·The result of a consensus-building exercise with the participation and contribution of a wide range of stakeholders via the organisation of stakeholder meetings and consultation processes.

Table 19: Selected parameters and weighting factors

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Parameter | Weight | Justification |
| Disassembly Depth | 25% | Key parameter for ease of repair and upgrade, not addressed by a minimum requirement. |
| Fasteners (type) | 15% | Key parameter for ease of repair and upgrade, partially addressed by a minimum ecodesign requirement. |
| Tools (type) | 15% | Key parameter for ease of repair and upgrade, partially addressed by a minimum ecodesign requirement. |
| Spare Parts (target group) | 15% | Key parameter for ease of repair and upgrade, partially addressed by a minimum ecodesign requirement. |
| Software Updates (duration) | 15% | Key parameter for ease of repair and upgrade, partially addressed by a minimum ecodesign requirement. |
| Repair Information | 15% | Key parameter for ease of repair and upgrade, partially addressed by a minimum ecodesign requirement. |

Finally, the selections and weightings above result in an overall final score. This can be calculated using the formula described in Table below. For parameters related to disassembly depth, fastener type and tools type, partial scores are first calculated at priority part level and then aggregated at parameter level using the weighting factors of priority parts. Finally, the parameter scores are aggregated in the overall score, based on the different parameter weighting factors.

Table 20: Calculation of the Overall Reparability Index

|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Parameter | Score for priority part i [1-5] | Weight for priority part i [%] | Parameter  Score [1-5] | Parameter  Weight [%] | Final Score  [1-5] |
| #1 Disassembly depth | S1,i | ω1,i | S1 = | W1 | Overall Reparability Index     R = |
| #2 Fasteners (type) | S2,i | ω2,i | S2 = | W2 |  |
| #3 Tools (type) | S3,i | ω3,i | S3 = | W3 |  |
| #4 Spare parts (target group) | … | … | S4 | W4 |  |
| #5 Software updates (duration) | … | … | S5 | W5 |  |
| #6 Repair Information | … | … | S6 | W6 |  |
| Where:  R is the overall reparability score  S is the score (per spare part or parameter)  ω is the priority part weight  W is the parameter weight  i is a specific priority part,  N is the N of priority parts  J is a specific parameter | | | | | |

Each parameter will score between 1 and 5, reflecting (from low to high) the performance of the device in each of the reparability aspects covered by the scoring system.

Reparability scoring classification system

The methodology for a reparability scoring system proposes a classification system which would allow an understandable way of communicating reparability information to various audiences, including consumers. In order to propose such a system, a calibration exercise was conducted in parallel as part of the JRC study, in which a number of smartphone and tablet models were assessed. The reparability scores observed ranged between 1.16 and 4.27. This allows for the determination of a classification system which on one hand reflects current levels of reparability on the market, and at the same time ensures its future-proofness.

The classification system is presented in the table below.

Classification system for the representation of reparability scores

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Reparability Score Class | Reparability Score Range |
| A | x ≥ 4.00 |
| B | 4.00 > x ≥ 3.35 |
| C | 3.35 > x ≥ 2.55 |
| D | 2.55 > x ≥ 1.75 |
| E | 1.75 > x ≥ 1.00 |

Assessment and verification

The assessment presented above would be verified on the basis of self-declaration whereby the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) provide to Member State Authorities (MSAs) on request:

-the analytical calculation of the final score per parameter;

-a disassembly map and disassembly protocol that describe all the disassembly steps considered necessary to replace each of the priority parts (as defined in the Scoring System Report), including an indication of the tools needed and the types of fasteners to be removed;

-the list of parts available for professional repairer and/or consumer as well as a detailed description of the information provided for professional repairer and/or consumer.

How to implement the reparability score at policy level, is described under Annex 9.

  

Annex 9: Policy Options and Measures

Introduction: scope of the initiatives

As usually done in Ecodesign preparatory studies, the identification of the products (sub)groups to be covered by the regulatory initiatives (Ecodesign, Energy Labelling) started from the denominations of the product group(s) indicated in the reference policy documents, in this specific case the ‘Circular Economy Action Plan 2020’ (CEAP 2020), that referred to requirements for ‘mobile phones, tablets and laptops’.

Concerning mobile phones and tablets, the preparatory study then elicited the scope of the initiative as referred to four product subcategories, i.e. smartphones, tablets, cordless
[24](#footnote25)
 phones and ‘mobile phones other than smartphones’ (also known as feature phones). This was done while implementing the ‘task 1’ of the reference methodology for Ecodesign, the MEErP (Methodology for ecodesign of energy-related products); in fact task 1 foresees, among others, the identification of the preliminary product scope and of the relevant definition(s).

Concerning laptops, they are in scope to the already existing Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013 on computers. Furthermore, laptops have a far stricter relation with desktops computers (rather than with mobile phones and tablets): the microprocessor architecture, the operating system and the application software is closer, when not identical. The Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013 was already under review
[25](#footnote26)
 at the moment of the publication of the CEAP 2020. It was therefore decided quite straightforwardly to ‘inject’ the analysis of the feasibility of circular economy requirements into the already ongoing review. To date, this review is still ongoing, and, in procedural terms, it is behind the initiative on Ecodesign/Energy labelling of smartphones and tablets. Material efficiency requirements similar to those identified for smartphones and tablets are being analysed also in this review.

The review of Regulation 617/2013 together with the (new) Ecodesign Regulation on smartphones and tablets will respond to the CEAP 2020 commitments.

It was decided not to include mobile phones and tablets in the Ecodesign Regulation on computers under review (and to rather go for dedicated regulatory initiatives, analysed in the current impact assessment) for the following reasons:

-Because of the intrinsic differences between mobile phones and computers (whether they are laptop or desktop), in terms of product architecture, usage and behavioural patterns (see the clarification about tablets in the reminder of this section);

-the fact that, in terms of timing, the Ecodesign Regulation on computers will be finalised 1 or 2 years later than the one on mobile phones/tablets. Postponing the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling requirements on mobile phones/tablets in the short to medium term would leave mean to forego significant environmental benefits;

-the political momentum around the potential measures on smartphones.

In terms of product categories, the remit/scope of the Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013 on computers ‘vis a vis’ the (potential) Ecodesign Regulation on mobile phones and tablets is clarified in table below.

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Ecodesign Regulation | Product categories covered |
| Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013 | (a) desktop computers;  (b) integrated desktop computers;  (c) notebook computers, including tablet computers;  (d) desktop thin clients;  (e) workstations;  (f) mobile workstations;  (g) small-scale servers. |
| (potential) Ecodesign Regulation on mobile phones and tablets | (a) smartphones;  (b) slate tablets;  (c) cordless phones;  (d) mobile phones other than smartphones. |

 

Thanks to the above table, a clear ‘demarcation line’ can be established between the two Regulations on terms of scope/coverage. A specific product category, i.e. the one of tablets, deserves some additional explanations, given that ‘tablet computers’ (also known as ‘notebook tablets’) are in scope to the already existing Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013, whereas ‘slate tablets’ are in scope to the (potential) Ecodesign Regulation on mobile phones and tablets.

In general terms, tablets - except for notebook tablets - are a product group far closer to smartphones, with whom they generally share the electronic circuitry, operating system and the apps installed, than to computers. As such, in conceptual terms they are to be covered by the (potential) Ecodesign Regulation on mobile phones and tablets, under the definition of ‘slate tablets’ (see below).

As per the definitions of the Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013, a tablet computer is ‘a product which is a type of notebook computer that includes both an attached touch-sensitive display and an attached physical keyboard’. The main distinguishing feature of this specific category of tablets (quite a niche one, in the current market) is the presence of the attached physical keyboard to the product.

In order:

-to avoid overlaps with this definition, and consequently a ‘clash’ of scope between two different Regulations

-at the same time, to minimise the ‘grey areas’ (i.e. specific product subcategories that would be covered neither by the Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013 nor the Ecodesign Regulation on mobile phones and tablets)

-to keep the rationale expressed above, i.e.

oto have the ‘bulk’ of tablets on the market covered by the Regulation having in scope the products with more commonalities in terms of product architecture, usage and behavioural patterns, i.e. the (potential) Regulation on smartphones

oto keep in scope to the Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013 only the specific subcategory of ‘tablet computers’

the following definition of ‘slate tablets’ has been formulated.

‘Slate tablet’ means a device that that meets all of the following criteria:

(1) has an integrated display with a viewable diagonal size greater than or equal to 7.0 inches and less than 17.4 inches;

(2) does not have an integrated, physically attached keyboard in its designed configuration;

(3) primarily relies on a wireless network connection;

(4) is powered by an internal battery and cannot work without it

(5) is designed and placed on the market with an operating system (OS) designed to be used/analogous to operating systems used also in smartphones.

With this approach, neither risks of overlaps, nor of ‘grey areas’ between the two Regulations (Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013 and the (potential) Ecodesign Regulation on mobile phones and tablets) are expected.

The following examples show how tablets currently on the market would fall in scope either of the Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013 or of the (potential) Ecodesign Regulation on mobile phones and tablets

Aligned with these definitions, relevant potential “border-case” products can be grouped as follows:

‘Slate tablets’:

iPad Pro (keyboard sold separately, OS: iPadOS, which can be considered “analogous to smartphone OS”),

Lenovo Tab P11 (shipped with a detachable keyboard, so no physically attached keyboard, OS: Android),

Lenovo Tab M10 (no keyboard, OS: Android),

Lenovo Yoga Tab 13 (no keyboard, OS: Android)

Wortmann TERRA PAD 1006 (no keyboard, OS: Android)

Amazon Fire HD 10 Plus (available with and without detachable keyboard, OS: Android)

‘Tablet computers’:

Microsoft Surface Pro 8 (detachable keyboard, OS: Windows),

Microsoft Surface Book 3 (detachable keyboard, OS: Windows),

Dell Latitude 7320 Detachable (detachable keyboard, OS: Windows),

Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 3 Chromebook (permanently attached keyboard; OS: Chrome OS),

Lenovo Yoga 7 (permanently attached keyboard; OS: Windows),

Acer Chromebook Convertible (permanently attached keyboard, OS: Chrome OS)

CSL Panther Tab (detachable keyboard, OS: Windows)

Hyrican ENWO Tab (detachable keyboard, OS: Windows).

The proposed ‘repartition’ of scope between the Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013 and the (potential) Ecodesign Regulation on mobile phones and tablets aims to minimise the chances of ‘grey areas’, though there could always be specific products that would be covered neither by the Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013 nor the Ecodesign Regulation on mobile phones and tablet. To date, there are only a few products on the market that, despite being ‘notebook tablets’ because of their operating systems not for use also in smartphones, have the keyboard not attached, but sold as an accessory, or no keyboard at all
[26](#footnote27)
. These products can be put in scope to the computer Ecodesign Regulation 617/2013, at the time of finalisation of its review.

Option 2: voluntary agreement/Eco Rating scheme

The option of a voluntary agreement was covered by the published impact assessment inception report as in early 2021 an environmental scoring system proposed by MNOs and supported by several manufacturers was under development and it could not be ruled out, that this industry initiative develops into a self-regulatory initiative, which could be considered a valid alternative to an Ecodesign regulation. As of early 2022 this scheme is in place, but fails to meeting basic criteria of a voluntary agreement. This option of a voluntary agreement therefore is discarded in the analysis, but the forecasted effect of the Eco Rating scheme on the market is considered as part of the baseline.

The status and specifics of the Eco Rating scheme are as follows explaining also why this initiative despite its merits does not qualify as a voluntary agreement:

Several telecom network operators and handset manufacturers established an Eco Rating system for mobile phones that was published in May 2021. It is based on ITU-T L.1015
[27](#footnote28)
 and ITU L.Sup32
[28](#footnote29)
 standards, and is aligned with several other current initiatives, such as the material efficiency standards under mandate M/543 (EN 45550 to EN 45559), different eco-label criteria, the Methodology for ecodesign of energy-related products (MEErP) and others. The rating was initiated several years ago, and several mobile network operators considered joining the rating system. The Eco Rating covers a range of scoring criteria on:

·Durability;

·Reparability, reusability and upgradability;

·Recyclability and recoverability;

·Use of hazardous and restricted substances;

·Use of recycled and renewable materials;

·Packaging and accessories.

And a screening life cycle assessment with parameterized activity data and generic background datasets. The screening life cycle assessment approach is aligned with the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) methodology – with the caveat that there are no PEF category rules for this product group yet -, and largely relies on a parameterized assessment model, based on generic background data. The final assembly step is supposed to be modelled with primary data on energy consumption. Similarly, transports and distribution are meant to be modelled with actual means of transportation.

Eco Rating criteria cover aspects beyond the scope of Ecodesign requirements, such as content of potentially hazardous substances. Some of these substances are restricted by the European RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU, but others are not. Another criterion is the warranty period, which is also outside the scope of potential Ecodesign requirements.

The Eco Rating does not cover cordless phones and tablets. Furthermore, it does not meet the requirements of a formal self-regulatory initiative as an alternative to an ecodesign Regulation, since it is led by telecom providers and not by manufacturers. Moreover, its total market coverage is currently around 25%. For a Voluntary Agreement to be considered as an alternative, the market share should be at least 80% according to the Commission's guidelines for self-regulation measures (C/2016/7770). The Eco Rating also does not include specific threshold requirements, nor overall quantified improvement targets to be achieved. As such, the market response depends entirely on the provision of information and the approach does not allow for stringent target setting procedures for conformity assessment (European Commission 2021). Eco Rating was rolled out in 2021 and scores are communicated by individual network operators in several EU member states. There is the potential of a future evolution of the rating system, e.g. the possibility that other operators as well as other stakeholders in the industry (manufacturers, retailers, NGOs, public institutions, etc.) could also have access to this methodology, but this is highly uncertain as the Eco Rating scores are used sparely in marketing by MNOs and did not (yet) lead to a de-listing of brands, which do not report Eco Rating scores. Without further evolution this Option is considered to have a “one time effect”, but it should be acknowledged that the Eco Rating is meant to be revised and updated regularly. This would lead to a constant evolution of the market towards reduced environmental impacts throughout the life cycle of the products. Under optimal conditions, i.e. outstanding visibility of the score at the point-of-sales and in MNOs online shops, including convenient options for comparing devices, half of the 25% market share (12.5 %) are forecasted choose a device with a significantly better scoring. Given the current shortcomings of the implementation as of 2022, i.e. no full coverage of the product portfolio of MNOs as Apple devices are not scored, and display of scores typically as one of many specification characteristics, it is rather likely that only 5% of the overall EU smartphone market is steered towards more environmentally-friendly devices. This 5% penetration rate is considered in the calculation of the baseline.

Option 3.1: Ecodesign requirements for smartphones and tablets & Options 3.2a and 3.2b: Ecodesign requirements regulating also mobile phones other than smartphones and cordless phones

Option 3.1 follows the ecodesign requirements set out in Annex II of the working document on the potential Ecodesign Regulation (this working document was presented and discussed at a meeting of the Ecodesign Consultation Forum convened on 28 June 2021), but without regulating the mobile phones other than smartphones (i.e., feature phones) and cordless phones due to the lower improvement potential for these two sub-segments. Option 3.2 extends the Ecodesign requirements presented under Option 3.1 also to mobile phones other than smartphones (so-called feature phones) and cordless phones. Option 3.2 covers two level of ambition: Option 3.2a with specific reparability and durability requirements plus energy efficiency information requirements and Option 3.2b with additional information requirements on material content, recyclability and selected upstream greenhouse gas emissions. As the preparatory study identified a relevant potential for reducing environmental impacts and Life Cycle Costs for a range of requirements, priority is given to measures addressing:

-Reparability and reusability, including facilitating repair by consumers, but not adversely affecting the durability of devices and in particular:

oAvailability of spare parts;

oAccess to repair and maintenance information;

oMaximum delivery time of spare parts;

oMaximum price of spare parts;

oDisassembly requirements;

oRequirements for preparation for reuse.

-Reliability and in particular:

oResistance to accidental drops;

oScratch resistance;

oProtection from dust and water;

oBattery endurance in cycles;

oBattery management and fast charging;

oSoftware updates and operating system support.

-Marking of plastic components;

-Further information requirements (Options 3.1 and 3.2b only):

oRecyclability requirements

oMaterial content information

oUpstream greenhouse gas emissions

Several additional potential requirements have been analysed in the preparatory study and finally have been discarded from the proposed Ecodesign requirements. These are listed in 
[Table](#_Ref95409391)
[21](#_Ref95409391)
 with a justification, why these requirements have been discarded.

Table 21: Analysed but discarded ecodesign requirements

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Potential requirement | Main reasons for discarding this requirement |
| Reparability requirements regarding board-level repairs (desoldering and resoldering of semiconductor components) | Low relevancy for out of warranty repairs (<<1% of repair cases), major technological and cost challenges for third parties |
| Reparability requirements: Mainboards as spare parts for third parties | Low relevancy for out of warranty repairs, low environmental benefit as the mainboard components are those with the highest environmental impacts, high repair costs due to high component costs |
| Reparability requirements: Spare parts beyond displays and batteries available for consumers | Requirement would for consistency also require a product design which allows for repairs by non-professionals, thus requiring major design changes to enable repair of less often failing parts |
| Reparability requirement: Battery replaceable without tools | Although there are precedents for such designs, this is seen as having a major impact on current device designs and limits design options significantly |
| Reparability requirements: Separable tablet digitizer unit and display module to ease separate replacement of cover glass / digitizer unit | Major performance issues (user experience, display brightness, energy consumption, overall drop resistance) |
| No fast charging by default | Evidence on battery ageing due to fast charging is outdated with current battery technology, aspect sufficiently covered by the battery endurance requirement (to be tested with fast charging, if supported by the device) |
| Disclosure of Life Cycle Assessment / Product Environmental Footprint data | Lack of Product Category Rules for a standardised assessment approach |
| Incentivising protective cover use by allowing durability tests to be performed with protective cover, if shipped with the product | Risk of unintended side effects: Additional production impacts from protective covers, which in the end might not be used or being replaced by the user |
| Specific minimum requirements on drop resistance for tablets | No statistical evidence to define appropriate minimum requirements, statistics indicate lower relevancy of incidental drops compared to smartphones |
| Specific minimum requirement on ingress protection against water damage due to immersion (IPx7) for smartphones and tablets | Design conflict with reparability and recyclability |
| Minimum recyclability requirements | Too small difference in the market for an effective specific requirement, no product specific standard to assess recyclability yet |
| Extended list of declarable critical raw materials | Conflict with product performance (not incentivizing reduction of e.g. Gallium in products to avoid RF interface performance constraints) |
| Information requirement on bio-based plastics content | Negligible environmental benefit |

The ecodesign measures for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a and 3.2b are detailed in the paragraphs below. For the full information on the legal formulation, please refer to Annex II of the working document
[29](#footnote30)
. Requirements are supposed to apply from 2023 onwards. The nature and rationale, market readiness level, as well as the expected impacts on durability, reparability and energy efficiency of products are also described under Annex 4.

Statistical evidence, environmental impacts and stated cost figures below
[30](#footnote31)
 have been researched and calculated in the course of the preparatory study and were subject to the related stakeholder process, which did not yield any questioning of stated cost data.

Reparability and reusability

The analysis in the Ecodesign preparatory study indicated a positive impact of enhanced reparability and reusability. The main environmental and cost benefits are achieved, if product lifetime is extended through better reparability and reusability. Most important – as identified in the preparatory study - are enabling repairs through better spare parts availability, repair-friendly design (related to the tools needed and fastening technologies employed), information to localise defects and on the correct repair processes, and reduced repair costs (due to simpler, less demanding repair processes). Facilitating repair by professional repairers is similarly important as better reparability by end-users. However, repair by consumers can involve safety issues, if the design of some devices is not significantly changed. Devices with slim form factors that make batteries and displays easily replaceable for laymen and with commonly available tools and featuring high ingress protection (IP) classes are not yet widely available. Specific requirements that can improve reparability and reusability are in particular the availability of spare parts, access to repair and maintenance information, maximum delivery time of spare parts, maximum price of spare parts, disassembly requirements and requirements for preparation for reuse.

It should be noted, that defects are a major limiting factor for product lifetime, but the barriers to repair are manifold (design, spare part and tool availability, costs, information gaps, etc.). For this reason only an interrelated set of requirements addressing these barriers simultaneously will unfold the full potential. Measures reflect the findings on defects, repairs and reasons for discontinuing device use presented in Annex 5.

The details for the specific requirements for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a and 3.2b are presented below.

Availability of spare parts

Manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives shall make available to professional repairers at least the following spare parts (when present), including required fasteners, if not reusable. Those spare parts that shall also be made available to end-users are indicated by “(u)”:

Table 22: Spare parts availability for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a/3.2b 
  
(availability to end-users indicated by (u))

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Smartphones  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a /3.2b) | Tablets  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Feature phones  (incl. in Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Cordless phones  (incl. in Options 3.2a/3.2b) |
| Battery (u) [31](#footnote32) | Battery (u) [32](#footnote33) | Battery (u)153 | Battery (u), battery compartment cover (u) |
| Display assembly (u) | Display assembly (u) | Display unit (u) | Display unit |
| Charger (u) | Charger (u) | Charger (u) | Charger (u) |
| Back cover or back cover assembly | Back cover or back cover assembly | Back cover or back cover assembly | Back cover |
| Front-facing camera assembly | Front-facing camera assembly | Front-facing camera assembly |  |
| Rear-facing camera assembly | Rear-facing camera assembly | Rear-facing camera assembly |  |
| External connectors | External connectors | External connectors | External connectors |
| Buttons | Buttons | Buttons | Buttons |
| Microphone | Microphone | Microphone | Microphone |
| Speaker(s) | Speaker(s) | Speaker | Speaker |
| SIM tray and memory card tray | SIM tray and memory card tray | SIM tray and memory card tray |  |
| Hinge assembly | Hinge assembly | Hinge assembly |  |
| Mechanical display folding mechanism; | Mechanical display folding mechanism; | Mechanical display folding mechanism; |  |
| Mechanical display rolling mechanism | Mechanical display rolling mechanism | Mechanical display rolling mechanism |  |

Relevancy of the target parts is confirmed by repair statistics and consumer surveys as follows: Displays and batteries, but also backcovers, are confirmed to be those parts, which fail or break most often (approx. 75-90% of defects). Much less frequently defects affect the other listed parts (10-25%). Access figures to third-party repair instructions demonstrate that replacement of these other parts is also relevant. There is little information yet about failures of folding or display rolling mechanisms, but typically any mechanical moving part is subject to relevant failure rates.

The preparatory study established that the lack of spare parts prevented 4% of the respondents in a study on consumer repair attitudes to repair their smartphones (van den Berge and Thysen 2020). This is apparently the share of repair cases, which can be addressed with better spare parts availability.

Access to repair and maintenance information

The manufacturer, importer or authorised representative shall provide access to the repair and maintenance information to professional repairers (smartphones and tablets only in option 3.1, all devices in options 3.2a, 3.2b):

·the unequivocal appliance identification;

·a disassembly map or exploded view;

·wiring and connection diagrams, as required for failure analysis;

·electronic board diagrams, as required to the level of detail needed to replace listed parts;

·list of necessary repair and test equipment;

·technical manual of instructions for repair;

·diagnostic fault and error information (including manufacturer-specific codes, where applicable);

·component and diagnosis information (such as minimum and maximum theoretical values for measurements), except for personal identifiable information, unless if relevant for a repair operation;

·instructions for software and firmware (including reset software);

·information on how to access data records of reported failure incidents stored on the device (where applicable and except for personal identifiable information such as related to user behavior, location information);

·the procedure for user authorisation of parts replacement when required for a repair, and software tools, firmware and similar auxiliary means required for full functionality of the spare part and device after repair, such as remote or onsite authorisation of serial numbers.

This information requirement complements the spare parts availability requirement above as for a successful repair appropriate information and guidance is essential. Although there is some documentation provision effort on the manufacturers side, such kind of information is considered to be largely existing already for in-house repair and no significant additional costs are expected for compiling this information.

Maximum delivery time of spare parts

Importers or authorised representatives shall ensure the delivery of the spare parts within 5 working days after having received the order (smartphones and tablets only in option 3.1, all devices in options 3.2a, 3.2b).

Delivery time of spare parts is a critical factor for repairs, as users of mobile devices typically depend on the proper functioning of the devices. 5 days seems to be a compromise between this need to get the repair done and the logistics effort on the manufacturers’ side to guarantee these delivery times across the EU market. It is assumed, that spare parts will be already on stock within the EU when being ordered for a repair and that these spare parts are not produced “on demand” outside the EU. This requires a proper forecast of spare parts needs by the manufacturer, and potentially putting on stock larger amounts of spare parts once these parts are subject to a pre-announced component discontinuation (“last time buy”).

Maximum price of spare parts

Manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives shall indicate a maximum pre-tax price for spare parts (smartphones and tablets only in option 3.1, all devices in options 3.2a, 3.2b).

The main effect of this requirement will be an informed choice by consumers for products where repair is less costly and to avoid that manufacturers charge excessive spare parts costs to undermine the spare parts availability requirement.

This requirement results in better transparency in the market and is likely to reduce repair costs for consumers. The costs for manufacturers are not likely to increase due to this requirement, but the margin for costly repairs might be lower then.

Use of standardised parts and components

As the vast majority of cordless phones is powered by standard AA or AAA size batteries it is considered important to keep this level of repair-friendliness. Compatible AA and AAA batteries are widely available at low costs, resulting in a very low barrier for replacing weak batteries. As there is a market trends towards non-standardised integrated batteries in cordless phones (market share <15%) it is considered important not to leave this aspect unregulated. The requirement in Options 3.2a and 3.2b is as follows:

·cordless phones shall be designed for the use of rechargeable batteries with standardised physical dimensions

Given that there are no such standardised battery sizes for smartphones, feature phones and tablets, no such requirement is formulated. Such a requirement would require a standardisation of these batteries first and consequently such a measure could be considered for a later review of the regulation only.

Disassembly requirements

Manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives shall ensure that the process for battery replacement meets the following criteria, following definitions set out in EN 45554:2020:

Table 23: Disassembly requirements for batteries for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a/3.2b

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Criterion | Smartphones  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Tablets  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Feature phones  (incl. in Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Cordless phones  (incl. in Options 3.2a/3.2b) |
| Fasteners and connectors | Reusable | Reusable | Reusable | Reusable |
| Tools | Feasible with:  — the use of no tool, or  — a tool or set of tools that is supplied with the product or spare part, or  —basic tools as listed in Annex A.4 of EN 45554:2020. | Feasible with:  — the use of no tool, or  — a tool or set of tools that is supplied with the product or spare part, or  —basic tools as listed in Annex A.4 of EN 45554:2020. | Feasible with:  — the use of no tool, or  — a tool or set of tools that is supplied with the product or spare part, or  —basic tools as listed in Annex A.4 of EN 45554:2020. | Feasible with:  — the use of no tool, or  — a tool or set of tools that is supplied with the product or spare part, or  —basic tools as listed in Annex A.4 of EN 45554:2020. |
| Working environment | Use environment | Use environment | Use environment | Use environment |
| Skill level | Layman | Layman | Layman | Layman |
| Exemptions | Battery demonstrated to last 500 cycles @ 83% [33](#footnote34) , 1000 cycles @ 80% and at least dust tight and protected against immersion in water up to 1 meter depth. | Battery demonstrated to last 500 cycles @ 83%155, 1000 cycles @ 80% | Battery demonstrated to last 500 cycles @ 83%155, 1000 cycles @ 80% and at least dust tight and protected against immersion in water up to 1 meter depth. |  |

Manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives shall ensure that the process for display replacement meets the following criteria, following definitions set out in EN 45554:2020.

Table 24: Disassembly requirements for displays for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a/3.2b

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Criterion | Smartphones  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Tablets  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Feature phones  (incl. in Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Cordless phones  (incl. in Options 3.2a/3.2b) |
| Fasteners and connectors | Removable | Removable | Removable | Removable |
| Tools | Feasible with commercially available tools | Feasible with commercially available tools | Feasible with commercially available tools | Feasible with commercially available tools |
| Working environment | Workshop environment | Workshop environment | Workshop environment | Workshop environment |
| Skill level | Generalist | Generalist | Generalist | Generalist |

Manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives shall ensure that the process for all other listed spare parts and batteries covered by the exemption for durable batteries meets the following criteria, following definitions set out in EN 45554:2020.

Table 25: Disassembly requirements for other listed spare parts for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a/3.2b

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Criterion | Smartphones  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Tablets  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Feature phones  (incl. in Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Cordless phones  (incl. in Options 3.2a/3.2b) |
| Fasteners and connectors | Removable | Removable | Removable | Removable |
| Tools | Feasible with commercially available tools | Feasible with commercially available tools | Feasible with commercially available tools | Feasible with commercially available tools |
| Working environment | Workshop environment | Workshop environment | Workshop environment | Workshop environment |
| Skill level | Expert | Expert | Expert | Expert |

As the most frequently failing parts, displays and batteries, are required to be available also for consumers
[34](#footnote35)
, the product design is required to allow for such do-it-yourself repairs, in terms of joining technology used, tools required, working environment and skill level. The requirement for displays however acknowledges, that replacing these parts requires some repair skills, if proper sealing of the display unit is meant to remain a design option. For all other parts, for which spare part availability is required, the design has also to ease repairs, but acknowledging the major design changes, which might be required, if these repairs are meant to be undertaken also by consumers, and respecting the fact that these other parts are much less frequently subject to defects, the skill level targets at professional repair staff (“expert”). This applies also to the backcover, although being among the parts being subject to a rather high defect rate, as the backcover typically also acts as a frame and base for several other components.

The current dominating design of embedding batteries in mobile devices as outlined in the problem definition (Annex 5) is a major barrier for battery replacement. Frequently thermal energy, solvent, and/or prying force has to be applied in order to remove the battery. This may also increase the risk of physical damage to the battery and other components during the removal process. Professional repair operators are assumed to have the skills, tools and knowledge to remove and replace batteries independently of the type of adhesive employed, but the use of strong adhesives may increase the time spent on the process and therefore the involved repair cost for the user. There are adhesive based solutions available on the market, which allow for user replaceable batteries. According to findings of the preparatory study close to 50% of the best-selling smartphones sold in Europe in 2019 had a type of pull tab adhesive solution in place
[35](#footnote36)
. These and other more convenient design options are meant to lower the barrier for successful battery repairs. Furthermore, such designs are expected to reduce battery repair cost by approx. 5 Euros (less time spent on repair, less risk of damages), if repairs are done by professional repair shops. In case repairs are actually done by the users themselves, purchase and shipping of the battery, potentially ordering of tools, remains as costs, which will be significantly lower than in the case of a professional repair service.

The display is the single most part to fail, mainly due to accidental drops. In current designs display assembly are typically not easy replaceable due to the use of – occasionally excessive – use of glue, designs where the risk of ripping flex cables in the process is high or where numerous other parts have to be removed first, before giving access to the display. In general there is a huge spread in the market regarding how easy a display can be replaced. Setting a minimum standard for displays to be replaceable by experienced users helps to remove a significant barrier for repairs, in particular as display replacements by manufacturers are partly offered at excessive costs.

As both, battery and display, represent only a minor share of the environmental footprint of the device (each 5-10% of the impact), it is always worthwhile from an environmental perspective to replace display or battery to extend the product life.

Requirements for preparation for reuse

Confidence in data erasure and ease of data transfer is very important for the second life of devices. The preparatory study identified concerns regarding data privacy as a major barrier for reuse: Still working or reparable devices after “first life” are frequently just kept at home in hibernation instead of making the device available for a second use cycle. Reusing phones and tablets avoids the production of new devices, thus, of related environmental impacts, and can provide consumers with a low-cost option compared to a new phone or tablet.

The best approach to reliable data erasure is data encryption by default and a factory reset that deletes the encryption key
[36](#footnote37)
. However, it is also important that the user receives information about data erasure once the use of the device is discontinued. Information on the battery life are also key indicators that can support reuse of the devices. The following Table summarizes the requirements for preparation for reuse for the Options 3.1 and 3.2a/3.2b.

 Table 26: Requirements for preparation for reuse for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a/3.2b

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Smartphones  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Tablets  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Feature phones  (incl. in Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Cordless phones  (incl. in Options 3.2a/3.2b) |
| Manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives shall ensure, that devices:  (a) encrypt user data by default;  (b) include a software function, that resets the device to its factory settings and erases by default the encryption key;  (c) record the following data from the battery management system in the system settings or another location accessible for end-users:  •Date of manufacturing of the battery;  •Date of first use of the battery;  •Number of full charge/discharge cycles (reference: rated capacity);  •Estimated state of health (full charge capacity relative to the rated capacity in %). | | Manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives shall ensure, that devices include a software function, that resets the device to its factory settings and erases by default address book, text messages and call history; | |

Reliability

A product, which features a low defect rate will be used longer than a less durable device. Any defect, even under improved reparability conditions, is a trigger point, which might lead to the decision to upgrade to a new device. Minimizing defect rates by design is thus a sound strategy to extend product lifetimes, but is sometimes seen to be in conflict with aesthetic features. Eco-design requirements can significantly foster a better durability, in particularly of the most critical components, displays and batteries.

Besides the reparability related aspects there are several more aspects related to durability and lifetime extension in general. These aspects are summarised as reliability aspects and cover the following measures: resistance to accidental drops, scratch resistance, protection from dust and water, battery endurance in cycles, battery management and fast charging and software updates and operating system support.

Resistance to accidental drops

Manufacturers of the products within the scope of the regulation shall ensure that the products pass a repeated drop test without loss of functionality. The repeated free fall test requirements are summarised in the following Table for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a/3.2b:

Table 27: Repeated free fall test requirements for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a/3.2b

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Smartphones  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Tablets  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Feature phones  (incl. in Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Cordless phones |
| 100 falls | Information requirement only | 100 falls | NA |

The number of specified falls rather represents an extreme case, but as stated in the preparatory study, roughly 5% of users experience weekly accidental drops of their smartphone, which means roughly 100 drops in 2 years, this requirement is rather meant to cover also these 5% of users. Furthermore, drop conditions in real life might significantly deviate from standardised test conditions (fall height, acceleration, floor conditions, tumbling), thus a safety margin in test conditions seems appropriate. Finally, drop resistance is subject to statistical variation and the sample size is an important aspect for this criterion. Sample size is defined to be five units, with a pass rate of 60%.

This specific durability requirement significantly contributes to an extended lifetime of mobile phones as the most typical reason for defects is addressed. Tests confirmed, that most frequently in such drop tests the display is subject to defects (Dobs et al. 2020), being also the defect experienced with such devices in real life.

Test costs, except device costs for the statistically needed sample size of 5, are moderate, as the actual tests in a tumble barrel is completed within approx. 10 minutes. The functionality check takes another 15 to 30 minutes.

Additional costs for most durable cover glasses is in the range of 1-3 Euros per device, as stated in the preparatory study. As drop resistance is not only about the cover glass but also requires thorough overall design and integrated shock absorbing features, overall price increase to pass the specific requirement will be slightly higher. This is however compensated for the average user by the extended product lifetime and less need for replacement purchases, but also saves on avoided repair costs.

Scratch resistance

Screen scratches as such do not affect the functionality of devices, but are a trigger for device replacement for aesthetic reasons. Furthermore, the resale value of devices with visible signs of use and wear is significantly lower (roughly 20-30% lower), being a major barrier to equipment reuse. These considerations are less relevant for cordless phones, thus cordless phones are not covered by this requirement.

The scratch resistance requirements are summarised in the following Table for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a/3.2b:

Table 28: Scratch resistance requirements for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a/3.2b

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Smartphones  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Tablets  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Feature phones  (incl. in Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Cordless phones |
| The screen of the device should pass the hardness level 4 on the Mohs hardness scale. | | | NA |

Break-resistant cover glasses are typically also scratch resistant. For most smartphones meant to meet the drop resistance requirement, scratch resistance does not mean additional costs.

Protection from dust and water

A distinction of protection levels against water and dust ingress as listed in Table 29 addresses major differences in protection levels: For dust protection levels up to IP4x are irrelevant due to specified particle sizes. Water protection up to IPx3 is considered to be of low effectiveness (dripping and spraying of water), but to ensure at least a minimum level of water ingress protection IP44 can be considered a specific requirement.

Table 29: IP codes scoring – relevant protection levels and specific requirement (in bold)

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Dust ingress protection | |  | Water ingress protection | |
| Level | Object size |  | Level | Description of the protection |
| IP\_x |  |  | IPx\_ |  |
| up to 3 | (n.a.) |  | up to 3 |  |
| 4 | >1 mm |  | 4 | Splashing of water |
| 5 | Dust protected |  | 5 | Water jets |
| 6 | Dust tight |  | 6 | Powerful water jets |
|  |  |  | 7 and above | Immersion, up to 1 m depth |

Requirements related to protection from dust and water are summarised in the following Table for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a/3.2b. Due to the typical indoor use of cordless phones protection against water (e.g., rain) is less relevant for cordless phones and consequently no specific requirement is proposed for these.

Table 30: Protection from dust and water for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a/3.2b

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Smartphones  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Tablets  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Feature phones  (incl. in Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Cordless phones |
| Devices should be protected against the ingress of solid foreign objects of size bigger than 1 mm and splashing of water (IP44). | | | NA |

The trend towards better ingress protection in recent years (see Annex 5) resulted in a significant reduction of defects related to water and humidity ingress. As the reparability requirements should not lead to designs with less ingress protection a separate requirement on protection from dust and water is set, which guarantees at least a moderate level of protection from such defects.

Costs to achieve IP44 are very moderate, and actually a significant share of the market already today meets this requirement (minimum 50%, see Annex 5). Therefore, this requirement is not related to relevant additional product costs, and anyway pays off for the consumer due to less defects experienced.

Battery endurance in cycles and per cycle

Requirements related to battery endurance in cycles are summarised in the following Table for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a/3.2b. Given that cordless phones are subject to other charging patterns (most of the time placed fully charged in the charging cradle) the cycle test with full charge / discharge cycles does not represent actual use patterns. As batteries for cordless phones are furthermore required to be of standard size, thus easily replaceable at low costs (approx. 7 Euros for one extra battery set), no battery endurance requirement is set for cordless phones.

Table 31: Battery endurance in cycles for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a/3.2b

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Smartphones  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Tablets  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Feature phones  (incl. in Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Cordless phones |
| At least 500 cycles at 80 percent remaining charge capacity. | At least 500 cycles at 80 percent remaining charge capacity. | At least 500 cycles at 80 percent remaining charge capacity. | NA |

Battery management

Battery management can positively influence the performance of batteries by avoiding conditions that can accelerate battery degradation, such as high charge levels for extended periods of time and continuous maintenance charge. For this reason, the battery management should implement features to limit times at high charge. Users shall have the option to deactivate such features, if needed for their use patterns. As the charging cycles is different for cordless phones and as the possible user interaction would be challenged by the limited possibilities of the user interface of cordless phones menus, such a requirement does not cover cordless phones. Requirements related to battery management are summarised in the following Table for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a/3.2b:

Table 32: Battery management and fast charging requirements for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a/3.2b

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Smartphones  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Tablets  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Feature phones  (incl. in Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Cordless phones |
| include an optional charging method selectable by the user which terminates the charging process automatically, when the battery is charged to 80% of its full capacity | | | NA |
| provide a power management feature which by default ensures that once the battery is fully charged there is no further charging power supplied to the battery unless the charge level drops below 95% of its maximum charge capacity; users might disable this feature. | | |  |

Costs to implement such features relate mainly to software programming and are considered minor. Hardware changes are not required in most cases.

Software updates and operating system support

Manufacturers of the products within the scope of the regulation shall provide the following updates/upgrades free of charge. Requirements are summarised in the following Table for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a and 3.2b:

Table 33: Operating system update and upgrade requirements for Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a/3.2b

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Smartphones  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Tablets  (incl. in Option 3.1 & Option 3.2a/3.2b) | Feature phones  (incl. in Options 3.2a/3.2b) | Cordless phones |
| Availability of operating system security updates for at least 5 years and the availability of functionality updates for at least 3 years. | | | NA |

Long and continued support of the OS with updates and upgrades removes one of the main barriers for extended use of smartphones and tablets (see Annex 5). According to the preparatory study almost 20% of users bought a new device as software or applications stopped working on their device. These 20% are at stake for a prolonged lifetime through extended OS support. However, it does not solve the problem that third party software developers might not provide software versions that are compatible with all maintained OS versions. Since OS support depends most of the time on third party support (e.g., by Google for Android, SoC providers), a very ambitious specific requirement might be in conflict with future third party technologies. However, in 2021 Google and Qualcomm announced a strategy for longer Android OS support (Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. 2021) for which reason a mandatory specific requirement of availability of security updates for at least 5 years and the availability of OS version upgrades for at least 3 years is feasible.

Assumption on additional costs per device is based on approximately 1000 different smartphone models being on the EU market, with on average 150.000 sold units, and updates being in the cost range of “several hundred thousand US dollars per model” (Clark 2016), i.e. 2 Euros per device per major functionality update. The forecasted resulting longer product lifetime yields for the consumer cost savings higher than these additional costs. It should be noted, that costs for such updates increase for older models as limitations of the embedded hardware needs to be mitigated by software adaptations, which increases development costs. OS update costs are therefore not linear.

Given that cordless phones are not known to be subject to software induced obsolescence due to the less complex operating systems, no requirement is set for cordless phones.

Marking of plastic components

WEEE consists of a very broad variety of polymers and marking larger/heavier plastic components can contribute to better separation. Under Option 3.2b for this reason and to be consistent with similar requirements for other types of products, plastic components heavier than 50 g shall be marked by specifying the type of polymer with the appropriate standard symbols or abbreviated terms set between the punctuation marks ‘>’ and ‘<’ as specified in available standards. The marking shall be legible.

Plastic components are exempt from marking requirements in the following circumstances:

·the marking is not possible because of the shape or size;

·the marking would impact on the performance or functionality of the plastic component;

·and marking is technically not possible because of the moulding method.

For the following plastic components no marking is required:

·packaging, tape, labels and stretch wraps;

·wiring, cables and connectors, rubber parts and anywhere not enough appropriate surface area is available for the marking to be of a legible size;

·PCB assemblies, PMMA boards, optical components, electrostatic discharge components, electromagnetic interference components, speakers;

·transparent parts where the marking would obstruct the function of the part in question.

As these types of products rarely contain plastics parts heavier than 50g (potentially found in backcovers of tablets or the basestation or charging cradle for cordless phones), this measure is relevant for few products only. For consistency reasons with Ecodesign requirements for other product groups with typically a higher share of plastic parts above 50g this requirement is set here. The cost effect for manufacturers is considered negligible or even zero, as marking of plastic parts is already common practice.

Recyclability requirements

It is crucial that the end of life of electrical and electronic equipment is already considered during the design phase. For this reason manufacturers, importers or their authorised representatives shall ensure that joining, fastening or sealing techniques do not prevent the removal of the components indicated in point 1 of Annex VII of Directive 2012/19/EU on WEEE or in Article 11 of Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, when present. Furthermore, the dismantling information needed to access crucial components such as batteries should be made available free of charge.

This requirement applies to Option 3.1 and Options 3.2a and 3.2b and complements the requirements set by the WEEE Directive.

Information requirements

Specific information can reduce information asymmetries and lead to better environmental performance. For this reason, manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives shall provide the following information (Option 3.1 for smartphones and tablets only, and Options 3.2a and 3.2b for smartphones, feature phones, tablets and cordless phones):

·Compatibility with removable memory cards, if any;

·Energy efficiency index (EEI);

·Ingress protection rating;

·Minimum battery endurance in cycles in number of cycles;

·Instructions for access to battery health information;

·Instructions for battery maintenance;

·Instructions for de-installation of operating system updates, and re-installation of the operating system version running on the device prior to an update;

·If the package does not include a charger the following information: “For environmental reasons this package does not include a charger. This device is compatible with USB-C chargers.”

Additional information requirements under Option 3.1 (for smartphones and tablets only) and Option 3.2b (for smartphones, feature phones, tablets and cordless phones) comprise:

·Whether the semiconductor chips are produced in a factory with a high reduction rate for fluorinated greenhouse gas emissions;

·Whether the display is produced in a factory with a high reduction rate for fluorinated greenhouse gas emissions;

·Whether air cargo is involved in shipping the device from final assembly to the location where the product is put on the market in the European Union;

·List of up to ten components, where electricity consumption is based on 100% renewable energy in the manufacturing stage with the highest electricity consumption of this particular supply chain;

·Indicative weight range of selected critical raw materials and environmentally relevant materials
[37](#footnote38)
 (tantalum, neodymium, gold);

·Recyclability rate Rcyc;

·Optionally, the percentage of recycled content for the product or a part thereof;

Justification and rationale for individual information requirements are provided in 
[Table](#_Ref95491444)
[34](#_Ref95491444)
.

Table 34: Justification and rationale for information requirements

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Information requirement | Rationale |
| Compatibility with removable memory cards, if any | ·As memory components contribute significantly to the total environmental footprint of mobile devices (approx. 10-25% depending on specification), the user shall be motivated not to buy devices with highest memory spec, if memory can be extended as needed, and to motivate the reuse of (removable) memory components  ·No additional costs |
| Energy efficiency index (EEI) | ·Energy efficiency established on the basis of battery endurance per cycle is important to transparently allow for a consumer choice of energy efficient devices; incentivizing long run time per single battery charge can save up to 30% of use energy, and can contribute to a longer overall product life (slower battery ageing due to less frequent charging)  ·Create better visibility for devices with outstanding energy efficiency  ·Low test costs (maximum few days of lab testing per model) |
| Ingress protection rating | ·Ingress protection is important for product durability as among non water ingress protected devices water damages represent a major cause for product defects (>20%), frequently to a non-repairable extend (short-cuts, corrosion); as such, a high IP rating contributes to lifetime extension  ·Create better visibility for devices which are unlikely to experience water damages  ·Low test costs (few minutes test time in a specific test chamber) |
| Minimum battery endurance in cycles in number of cycles | ·Battery performance degradation is one of the major reasons to replace a mobile device; increased battery endurance can significantly contribute to an extended product lifetime (measure is among those with the highest environmental and consumer costs savings potential); market spread: Best performing devices in the range of 50% longer battery life compared to low performing devices  ·Create better visibility for devices with particularly long living batteries  ·But: relevant test costs in the range of few 1000 Euros per model due to long test times (several months)  ·Slightly higher costs for high-quality batteries are overcompensated for consumers by the less frequent need for replacement purchases |
| Instructions for access to battery health information | ·Battery state-of-health information is important for reuse as it helps to estimate whether reuse is worthwhile (confidence in used products)  ·As a secondary aspect, battery health data also helps to understand if short battery endurance on one charge is due to battery health or other factors (frequently: excessive power drain due to applications running in the background)  ·Data is typically already available from the battery management system, just needs to be displayed in a user-friendly manner  ·Negligible costs for manufacturers, potentially higher reuse sales value for consumer |
| Instructions for battery maintenance | ·Charging patterns play a significant role for battery lifetime and degradation; well informed user behaviour can help to increase battery lifetime significantly  ·No costs for manufacturers, but potential significant savings for consumers due to less frequent replacement purchases |
| Instructions for de-installation of operating system updates, and re-installation of the operating system version running on the device prior to an update | ·An OS upgrade might result in perceived or real performance losses, as e.g. hardware might not fully support the new OS version; such a user experience can lead to a premature replacement of the device, which can be mitigated, if at least the status before the upgrade can be re-established.  ·Significant costs for manufacturers to integrate roll back option  ·Uncertainty: Roll back to be supported also by third-party app providers |
| If the package does not include a charger the following information: “For environmental reasons this package does not include a charger. This device is compatible with USB-C chargers.” | ·Providing users with not needed chargers leads to avoidable production emissions (approx. 5% of total production related environmental footprint), less emissions from shipping (due to package sizes being reduced by approx. 40%) and reduced electronics waste (approx. -20% weight in the case of mobile phones); important information for users is with which chargers the device is actually compatible  ·Significant cost savings for manufacturers, relevant savings for consumers (2-5 Euros per device) |
| Whether the semiconductor chips are produced in a factory with a high reduction rate for fluorinated greenhouse gas emissions;  Whether the display is produced in a factory with a high reduction rate for fluorinated greenhouse gas emissions;  Whether air cargo is involved in shipping the device from final assembly to the location where the product is put on the market in the European Union;  List of up to ten components, where electricity consumption is based on 100% renewable energy in the manufacturing stage with the highest electricity consumption of this particular supply chain | ·Among the most relevant contributors to environmental life cycle impacts are greenhouse gas emissions for chip and display manufacturing (up to 10% are fluorinated greenhouse gases, which could be subject to abatement), use of renewable energy throughout the supply chain, and air cargo; hence, with few indicators a relevant share of emissions can be covered; transparency is required for informed consumer decisions and stimulates improvement actions by the manufacturers  ·Several large manufacturers are already used to quantifying relevant emissions for EPEAT [38](#footnote39)  ·Costs of implementing improvements are moderate (few Euro-cents per device), sea and ground transport however might result in delayed market introduction of new models  ·Saved societal costs (less environmental damage) overcompensate additional product costs |
| Indicative weight range of selected critical raw materials and environmentally relevant materials159 | ·Relevant elements comprise: Tantalum, neodymium, gold; similarly relevant critical raw materials have been discarded due to possible disadvantageous side effects (gallium: RF interface performance; indium: display performance; platinum group metals: reliability)  ·Information about material content can help to improve future targeted recycling processes to recover relevant critical raw materials (tantalum, neodymium) and materials with high environmental footprint (neodymium, gold); as there is little evidence on the current spread of these elements in mobile devices an information requirement provides transparency and potentially a data source to implement specific requirements in a future revision  ·Alignment with Ecodesign Regulation for other product groups  ·Analytical costs to establish or verify material content data is in the range of estimated 1000 – 3000 Euros per model |
| Recyclability rate Rcyc | ·Current recyclability rates of mobile devices are particularly low (approx. 20%) as the focus is on some high-value target metals  ·Incentivizing high recyclability rates by design changes (best performing devices are at approx. 40%) helps to secure relevant raw materials for the EU industry  ·Creating transparency on recyclability in the market will lead to an evidence base for potentially specific minimum requirements in a future review of the requirements  ·Design changes result in increased product costs (potentially in the range of 1 – 5 Euros); low costs for calculating the recyclability rate as such  ·No cost benefit for consumers |
| Optionally, the percentage of recycled content for the product or a part thereof | ·Using recycled content can reduce the environmental footprint of mobile devices by up to few percent  ·As manufacturers increasingly communicate about recycled content, it is important to create a sound basis for such claims; implementing a reference to EN 45557:2020 for such claims establishes such common ground  ·Negligible costs for calculating the recycled content in compliance with EN 45557:2020  ·But: Verification only possible through documentation checks, not through analytical means |

Option 3.3: Ecodesign requirements with scoring index on reparability

This sub-option is based on Option 3.2b, complementing the minimum Ecodesign requirements with a reparability score for smartphones and tablets. Annex 8 describes in detail how the reparability score for smartphones and tablets developed by the JRC can be used for the calculation of reparability scores and classes. Combining specific ecodesign requirements with such a reparability score is a novelty for legislation and calculating the effects can therefore not be based on any prior experience with such a policy strategy. There are indications, that reparability is relevant to a certain extent as a purchase criterion for consumers and transparency regarding this aspect is likely to yield a pull effect on the market. Anecdotal evidence from the French market, where such a scoring system has been introduced in early 2021 also indicates that some manufacturers improve their service strategy to gain a better scoring. For the purpose of estimating the effects on the market it is assumed that repair rates increase over time with the introduction of a repair score, by a moderate 10 percentage points. The changes in the modelling are listed below.

Table 35: Assumed effects of a reparability score on repair rates

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Low-end smartphones | | Mid-range smartphone | | High-end smartphone | | Tablet |
| Option 3.1&3.2: Specific and generic ecodesign requirements, but no reparability scoring | | | | | | | |
| repair rate battery (of broken devices) | 70% | | 70% | | 70% | | 70% |
| display repair rate of broken devices) | 60% | | 60% | | 60% | | 60% |
| other repair of broken devices | 50% | | 45% | | 40% | | 45% |
| Option 3.3: Specific and generic ecodesign requirements, including reparability scoring | | | | | | | |
| repair rate battery (of broken devices) | | 80% | | 80% | | 80% | 80% |
| display repair rate of broken devices) | | 70% | | 70% | | 70% | 70% |
| other repair of broken devices | | 60% | | 55% | | 50% | 55% |

These changes result in approximately one month lifetime extension per device on average, based on the lifetime model introduced in the preparatory study. Under theoretical optimal conditions of a 100% repair rate across all defects and product segments the average product lifetime would increase hypothetically by roughly 5 months, just to give an impression of the uncertainty range for this calculation.

Requirements, including the reparability score, are supposed to apply from 2023 onwards.

Concerning the consumer acceptance/understanding of a ‘multi-dimensional’ label (i.e. displaying energy efficiency together with parameters related to material efficiency), an analysis of the available evidence from recent studies in the field has been carried out. In particular, it appears clear that this information could be communicated via a product label. On this topic, a relevant study was finalised by the JRC in 2021
[39](#footnote40)
. The JRC conducted an online experiment with EU consumers on two categories of products: smartphones and microwaves ovens. The objective was to assess the relative effectiveness of three sustainability labelling approaches:

·positive labels - only identifying products with the best sustainability performance,

·negative labels - only identifying products with the worst sustainability performance, and

·graded labels - conveying the relative sustainability of all products.

Results suggest that graded labels are the most effective to steer consumer toward more sustainable purchase decisions.

Different formats of a (graded) label to depict reparability scores were tested in a consumer study conducted by CentERdata in the context of a framework contract with the European Commission. The results of this consumer study were published in 2020
[40](#footnote41)
. This study examined the most effective way of communicating reparability information to consumers through exploring the effects of different reparability information designs with the aim of incentivising repair rather than replacement behaviour. Based on qualitative focus group research in the Netherlands and Germany as well as input from (visual) communication experts, various icon and scale formats were developed and subsequently tested in a large-scale online experiment among nearly 10.000 consumers in seven EU Member States. In addition, the impact of the location of the information was examined, on the EU energy label versus not, and of the presence of the EU logo.

Among the labels tested was the icon with repair tools (Fig.A), also in the context of an energy label with multiple icons (Fig.B). Respondents were presented with three product sets: smartphones, TVs, and washing machines.

Fig.A: Reparability label tested

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_49004.jpg)

Fig.B: Reparability icon within a more complex energy label.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_49005.jpg)

According to this consumer study, communicating product reparability information to consumers was effective in steering choices towards more reparable product alternatives in the online experiment. Out of the six product alternatives in each product set, the product with the best reparability class attracted 23% of the choices, on average, when reparability information was provided via a small label on the product information display. The exact same product attracted only 18% of the choices, on average, when reparability information was absent. Thus, the communication of reparability information in the experiment resulted in an increase in the choice share for the product with the best reparability score relative to the baseline attractiveness of this product. In the specific case of smartphone, in case of pre-information about the meaning of the icon, the preference for a product with best reparability features was almost double (from 15% to 29%). The results still suggest that these icon types benefit from an information campaign, which may be due to the similarity of icons used (in the case of the repair tools icon) or because exposure to the campaign makes it easier to grasp the meaning of the icon (which is more likely for the more complex repair process icon).

Option 4: Energy Labelling

This Option follows the obligations set out in the working document of the Commission Delegated Regulation supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of smartphones and tablets. This draft Regulation establishes requirements for the labelling of, and the provision of supplementary product information on, smartphones and tablets. The following information should be included in the label:

·QR code;

·Supplier’s name or trade mark;

·Supplier’s model identifier, meaning the code, usually alphanumeric, which distinguishes a specific mobile phone or tablet model from other models with the same trade mark or supplier’s name;

·Scale of energy efficiency classes from A to G;

·The energy efficiency class determined in accordance with Annex II of the working document;

·Battery endurance per cycle in accordance with Annex III of the working document;

·Battery endurance in cycles in accordance with Annex IV of the working document;

·Ingress protection rating in accordance with Annex IV of the working document;

·Repeated free fall reliability class determined in accordance with Annex II of the working document.

The energy efficiency index (EEI) of a smartphone or tablet should be calculated using the following equation:

EEI =

Where:

Crated is the rated battery capacity in mAh

ENDdevice would be an aggregated and normalised value in hours, calculated from cycle tests. These test cycles represent typical use patterns and cover:

Smartphone test scenario:

·phone call,

·web browsing over Wi-Fi,

·video streaming, data transfer (FTP download and upload),

·video playback,

·gaming,

·standby

Tablet test scenario:

·web browsing over Wi-Fi,

·video streaming, data transfer (FTP download and upload),

·video playback,

·gaming,

·standby

The determined EEI defines the energy efficiency class.

The energy efficiency classes provide transparency regarding the important feature of battery endurance per cycle, which is stated in consumer surveys as an important feature and purchase criterion, but which is not yet established on a comparable, harmonised basis. Corresponding to other Energy Labels implemented under Regulation (EU) 2017/1369, energy efficiency has to reflect the service delivered per energy input, therefore battery endurance per cycle is correlated with the battery capacity. The EEI approach is not only meant for transparency on efficient use of energy, but as a secondary effect also incentivizes an overall longer battery lifetime: The more efficiently the smartphone or tablet runs on a single battery charge the less frequent the battery has to be charged. As batteries degrade with every charging cycle, batteries with a high EEI require less frequent charging and thus enter a limiting state later. The incentive on manufacturers to have their products appear in the top classes of the energy label is expected to act as a strong driver, in particular in the light of the dramatic visibility of the EPREL public database
[41](#footnote42)
.

As battery endurance per cycle as an absolute value is an important information for consumers to compare device performance, the absolute value is depicted separately on the label.

Three further criteria on the label refer to durability aspects of the devices:

·Battery endurance in cycles;

·Ingress protection rating;

·Repeated free fall reliability class.

These criteria have been chosen, as they represent to three most common reasons for defects or parts replacement: A degraded battery with low state-of-health, damages due to water ingress, and accidental drops most frequently resulting in broken displays. As such, these three criteria assemble aspects of a lifetime label, and create transparency in the market for informed consumer choices and to incentivize manufacturers to foster durability of devices by design.

The Energy Label is supposed to be introduced in 2023.

Option 5.1: Ecodesign requirements combined with Energy Labelling.

Option 5.1 combines the ecodesign requirements (Option 3.2a) and energy labelling (Option 4) for smartphones and tablets. The battery endurance (per cycle) assessed with an Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) in Option 3.2a is more prominently translated to an additional Energy Label.

Option 5.2: Ecodesign requirements together with a scoring index on reparability plus Energy Label.

This Option combines the Ecodesign requirements with a scoring index on reparability (Option 3.3) and Energy Labelling requirements (Option 4). On the basis of the evidence from recent studies (see subsection ‘Option 3.3: Ecodesign requirements with scoring index on reparability’ under this Annex), the reparability score, as described under Annex 8, is depicted on the Energy Label, on top of those criteria listed under Option 4. As the Reparability score complements the specific reparability requirements of the Ecodesign regulation, only in this combined option the Reparability score is a reasonable component of the Energy Labelling requirements. The energy label for smartphones and tablets is shown in the figure below.

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_49006.jpg)

The proposed energy label gives relevant quantitative information both on the energy and the material efficiency aspects. 

The energy aspect is – obviously – covered by the energy efficiency class.

Concerning the material efficiency aspects, the label would put under a positive light devices that are:

odurable, thanks to the information on

othe battery long term performance (‘battery endurance in cycles’)

o the water and dust protection rating (‘ingress protection rating’)

othe impact resistance (‘repeated free fall reliability class’)

oand/or reparable (thanks to the reparability scoring).

This would imply that the ‘pull’ effect of the label (i.e. allowing more environmentally aware consumers to select products that have a superior environmental performance) would not only apply for energy efficiency, but also for material efficiency; this transparency reduces the information asymmetry present today. The energy label, by further “pulling” the market share of the best products, would complement the ecodesign measure that is “pushing out” the worst products from the EU market (‘push-pull’ effect).

:   [(1)](#footnoteref2)

    https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2020-Standard-chargers-for-mobile-phones\_en
:   [(2)](#footnoteref3)

     
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12610-Intellectual-property-review-of-EU-rules-on-industrial-design-Design-Regulation-_en>
:   [(3)](#footnoteref4)

     
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12567-Sustainable-products-initiative_en>
:   [(4)](#footnoteref5)

    From the start of the preparatory study in March 2020, until publication of the Regulations on the Official Journal of the European Union in September 2022, there would be 30 months. The European Court of Auditors estimated the duration of the theoretical regulatory process for adopting implementing measures under the Ecodesign and energy-labelling framework in the order of 40-42 months, with examples of measures taking up to 96 months to come to finalisation.
:   [(5)](#footnoteref6)

     
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12467-Consumer-policy-strengthening-the-role-of-consumers-in-the-green-transition_en>
:   [(6)](#footnoteref7)

    OJ L 175, 27.6.2013, p. 13–33.
:   [(7)](#footnoteref8)

    It should be noted that the proposed Battery Regulationhas not yet been adopted by the European Parliament and the Council.
:   [(8)](#footnoteref9)

    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
:   [(9)](#footnoteref10)

    Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU
:   [(10)](#footnoteref11)

    “[…] Our industry organisations, representing the heating, cooling, refrigeration, household appliance, commercial cleaning appliance and lighting sectors, strongly support Ecodesign and Energy Labelling which, for a number of product groups, have proven very successful and contributed to the EU’s energy and climate goals by pushing and pulling the market towards more energy efficient products. […]”, from the joint letter of 6 industry associations on ecodesign [https://www.applia-europe.eu/topics/121-joint-industry-letter-on-ecodesign]
:   [(11)](#footnoteref12)

    “How consumers benefit from ecodesign year after year”, The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), https://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2016-109-benefits\_of\_ecodesign\_for\_eu\_households\_executive\_summary.pdf
:   [(12)](#footnoteref13)

    Support Ecodesign and energy labels, NGOs tell Regulatory Scrutiny Board”[https://www.coolproducts.eu/policy/support-ecodesign-and-energy-labels-ngos-tell-regulatory-scrutiny-board/]
:   [(13)](#footnoteref14)

    “Environmental NGOs and repair groups call for a significant increase in resources dedicated to the development of EU Ecodesign and Energy Labelling policies” [https://www.coolproducts.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NGO-letter-on-ecodesign-delays.pdf]
:   [(14)](#footnoteref15)

    Communication From The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee, The Committee Of The Regions And The European Investment Bank - A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy. COM/2015/080 final. (Energy Union Framework Strategy)
:   [(15)](#footnoteref16)

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities for people and business COM/2015/550 final. 28 October 2015. (Deeper and fairer internal market)
:   [(16)](#footnoteref17)

    COM(2020) 562 final, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0562
:   [(17)](#footnoteref18)

     Ecodesign policy measures at product level (and, less frequently, as horizontal level, i.e. addressing several products groups) are usually in the form implementing regulations, derived from the "framework" Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC. Energy labelling policy measures are in the form of delegated regulations, derived from the "framework" Energy Labelling Regulation. The full list of the existing Ecodesign and Energy labelling measures can be found at 
    <https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-products>
:   [(18)](#footnoteref19)

    The last Ecodesign working plan 2016-19 also qualitatively assessed the material efficiency aspects.
:   [(19)](#footnoteref20)

    See article 15 of the Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC
:   [(20)](#footnoteref21)

    the "no action" scenario represents the business-as-usual condition, where the EU takes no initiative in terms of new regulatory measures
:   [(21)](#footnoteref22)

    For the assessment of voluntary agreements presented as alternatives to implementing measures, information on at least the following issues should be available: openness of participation, added value, representativeness, quantified and staged objectives, involvement of civil society, monitoring and reporting, cost-effectiveness of administering a self-regulatory initiative and sustainability.
:   [(22)](#footnoteref23)

    Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/2125 of 30 November 2016 on guidelines for self-regulation measures concluded by industry under Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council; OJ L 329, 3.12.2016, p.109
:   [(23)](#footnoteref24)

     
    <https://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/product-bureau/product-groups/447/home>
    .
:   [(24)](#footnoteref25)

       As highlighted in the preparatory study, cordless phones differ from mobile phones (as they only are “mobile” when used, whereas they sit most of the time in the charging cradle). Yet, they share a number of similarities with feature phones and there is potential for improvement at minimal cost. Moreover, stakeholders were not questioning their inclusion in the scope but were rather in favour.
:   [(25)](#footnoteref26)

     
    <https://computerregulationreview.eu/welcome.html>
:   [(26)](#footnoteref27)

    See the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Fold and Microsoft Surface Go 3.
:   [(27)](#footnoteref28)

    ‘Criteria for evaluation of the environmental impact of mobile phones’
:   [(28)](#footnoteref29)

    ‘Supplement for eco-specifications and rating criteria for mobile phones Eco Rating programmes’
:   [(29)](#footnoteref30)

     
    <https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/418195ae-4919-45fa-a959-3b695c9aab28/library/27d6da9b-e309-4627-a902-d05ff287f159?p=1&n=10&sort=modified_DESC>
:   [(30)](#footnoteref31)

    These cost figures refer to individual products or components, but it should be kept in mind, that by far not all costs materialise for all products (i.e., not all products need to be repaired), which means the market wide costs effect is typically much lower in such cases. See the economic impacts analysis for market wide totals.
:   [(31)](#footnoteref32)

    Alternatively the manufacturer shall ensure that the battery endurance in cycles achieves a minimum of 1000 full charge cycles, and after 1000 full charge cycles the battery must, in addition, have in a fully charged state, a remaining capacity of at least 80 percent of the rated capacity and the device is at least dust tight and protected against immersion in water up to 1 meter depth.
:   [(32)](#footnoteref33)

    Alternatively the manufacturer shall ensure that the battery endurance in cycles achieves a minimum of 1000 full charge cycles, and after 1000 full charge cycles the battery must, in addition, have in a fully charged state, a remaining capacity of at least 80 percent of the rated capacity.
:   [(33)](#footnoteref34)

    Interim checkpoint in the cycle test introduced to potentually shorten the test duration
:   [(34)](#footnoteref35)

    With the exemption of particularly durable batteries, which are less of a lifetime limiting factor for the overall device
:   [(35)](#footnoteref36)

    But access to the battery was still challenged by the fasterner and joining technologies sealing the device as such.
:   [(36)](#footnoteref37)

    In case the encryption is in place already at end of (first) life, factory reset is a matter of minutes, whereas a full data erasure process (with potentially parts of the storage not being deleted as intended) can take few hours to complete, which is considered a barrier.
:   [(37)](#footnoteref38)

    Despite its relevance, as it emerges from this impact assessment, cobalt is not included in this list, as this (i.e. information on the content in cobalt of the battery) is already foreseen Article 13 of the Battery Regulation.
:   [(38)](#footnoteref39)

    Specific criterion under EPEAT for fluorinated greenhouse gas abatement rates, as specified in the IEEE 1680 series
:   [(39)](#footnoteref40)

     Dessart, F.J., Marandola, G., Hille, S.L. and Thøgersen, J., Comparing the impact of positive, negative, and graded sustainability labels on purchase decisions, European Commission, 2021, JRC127006
:   [(40)](#footnoteref41)

    https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/46076b42-669a-11eb-aeb5-01aa75ed71a1
:   [(41)](#footnoteref42)

     
    [https://ec.europa.eu/info/energy-climate-change-environment/standards-tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-requirements/energy-label-and-ecodesign/product-database\_it#consultare-la-banca-dati](https://ec.europa.eu/info/energy-climate-change-environment/standards-tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-requirements/energy-label-and-ecodesign/product-database_it)

[Top](#document4)

Table of contents

Annex 10: Impacts of the policy options

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

I.
   Energy savings
   

II.
   GHG emissions and acidification
   

III.
   Circular economy perspective: material consumption
   

  

Annex 10: Impacts of the policy options

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

I.Compliance costs

Compliance costs refer to costs incurred by the relevant parties (businesses, citizens, etc.) to comply with any new requirement. These will include costs to re-design, change production lines, planning and managing stock of spare parts over extended times, etc.

II.Administrative burden

Administrative burden for economic operators

Administrative costs are the costs incurred by enterprises, the voluntary sector, public authorities and citizens in meeting new legal obligations to provide information on their action or production, either to public authorities or to private parties (European Commission, 2017).

One of the administrative burden for business, as was mentioned on Section 6, is related to the increase of testing costs due to these new design requirements and energy and reparability features (hire personnel, training on testing, adapting processes, establishing a new registration database, etc.). Tests can be run at different product development stages. Unit test is the first one, usually conducted on parts of the mobile devices by the developers at an early development stage. Factory tests are run during the manufacturing and assembly stage. Finally, certification tests are performed before the device is put on the market. Other barrier we can state regarding Ecodesign, Reparability scoring and Energy Label policy options are those from providing labels and presenting them at the point of sales and/or at online platforms.

Administrative burden for citizens

There is no administrative burden/cost for citizens.

Administrative burden for authorities 

There is a limited burden for surveillance authorities, in case of a level 1 market surveillance activity covering only a check of the CE mark as such and the Declaration of Conformity. A level 2 check covering datasheets, the technical documentation and test documentation to be provided by the supplier requires more human resources, but major costs will be experienced when physical checks and tests of the product are undertaken (level 3), which comprises battery endurance measurements, reliability tests, re-engineering activities to verify the recyclability rate, disassembly depth, accuracy of repair information and similar.

A strategy to test product compliance against all Ecodesign requirements is depicted in 
[Figure](#_Ref85489007)
[34](#_Ref85489007)
. The overall goal of this test sequence is to minimize the number of units to be tested. As some tests affect the integrity of the device and/or are destructive and/or have an impact on battery performance not all tests can be undertaken with the same device, least the battery tests and repeated free fall tests, which for statistical reasons have to be undertaken with batches of 5 units. Minimum number of test units is 11, if all tests are passed, if the manufacturer declared to have achieved compliance against the criterion of 200 repeated free falls without a protective cover, if the device is not a foldable or otherwise expandable phone, and if the device does not provide fast charging. A more realistic case is 21 units, where all tests are passed, but the manufacturer declared to have tested the device with a cover against the criterion of 200 repeated free falls and where the devices provide the option of fast charging. In case the device fails in individual tests and another test run is required as stipulated in the regulation, the number of required test units can increase significantly. The theoretical worst case for a compliant product, for which compliance is only verified by the market surveillance authority after a second test run with additional units is 74 test units, even with following the optimized test strategy depicted below, making reuse of test units for other tests wherever possible.

Product samples have to be provided for free by the supplier, but market surveillance authorities also purchase units under a cover identity, and then costs can only be reclaimed in case of non-compliance. This is actually a general rule, according to Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, Art. 15: “Member States may authorise their market surveillance authorities to reclaim from the relevant economic operator the totality of the costs of their activities with respect to instances of non-compliance.” Vice versa, the authorities have to bear test costs in case of product compliance. Typical test costs for other energy-related products against current Ecodesign criteria are roughly in the range of 2.000 – 7.000 €. Test costs for smartphones and tablets in particular are likely to cost significantly more than this due to the comprehensive test requirements and also the duration of some tests (battery endurance in cycles requires test durations of several months). Total test costs in the range of 20.000 – 30.000 € is more likely, plus product costs in case of purchases under cover identity, which is another 10.000 € in case of 21 units to be acquired and a typical purchase price of 500- €. As can be seen from the required number of test units, main cost driver for market surveillance authorities is the repeated free fall test and the battery lifetime tests. Test time for repeated free fall tests is rather short, maximum 3 hours per unit, but labour intensive, mainly to check the device for defects and malfunction after a given number of falls. The battery endurance in cycles test runs for several months, but the charging-discharging cycle and data logging is automated and requires little intervention.

These overall rather high costs for level 3 compliance checks are a general trend for reliability requirements, which require a sound statistical basis, i.e. a deviation from the typical approach to test first only one unit to verify compliance with any Ecodesign requirements. Such an approach is feasible for parameters, which are not subject to probability principles as is the case for reliability.

Figure 34: Smartphones – Test sequence strategy for market surveillance

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55002.jpg)

III.Business revenue

Smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones

[Figure](#_Ref78841280)
[35](#_Ref78841280)
 shows the business revenue for smartphones, features phones and cordless phones under the different policy options. To estimate revenues, the purchase prices of low-range, mid-range and high-range smartphones for different policy options estimated in European Commission (2021) have been considered and adapted to the requirements under the policy options: Purchase price calculations are based on the analysis of technical design options required to respond to the requirements. In comparison to Annex 4, the figures of Table 10 are rounded up. Resulting purchase prices are listed in 
[Table 36](#_Ref98430600)
.

Table 36: Purchase prices for smartphones, feature phones, cordless phones and tablets per policy option

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Low-end smartphone | Mid-range smartphone | High-end smartphone | Feature phone | Cordless phone | Slate tablet |
| Current product price (€) = option 1 | 200 | 500 | 1.000 | 80 | 50 | 330 |
| Option 3.1 | 205 | 504 | 1.005 | 80 | 50 | 334 |
| Rationale: Purchase price changes roughly correspond to those resulting from the implementation of the full range of technical design measures as listed in Annex 4, except for feature phones and cordless phones, which are not covered by this option. | | | | | | |
| Option 3.2a | 206 | 505 | 1.006 | 83 | 52 | 334 |
| Rationale: Purchase price changes roughly correspond to those resulting from the implementation of the full range of technical design measures as listed in Annex 4, but as some of the information related requirements, which are expected to have a slight cost reduction effect (mainly related to logistics), are not included in this option, prices are expected to be slightly higher than in the other options. | | | | | | |
| Option 3.2b | 205 | 504 | 1.005 | 83 | 52 | 334 |
| Rationale: Purchase price changes roughly correspond to those resulting from the implementation of the full range of technical design measures as listed in Annex 4. | | | | | | |
| Option 3.3 | 205 | 504 | 1.005 | 83 | 52 | 334 |
| Rationale: Purchase price changes roughly correspond to those resulting from the implementation of the full range of technical design measures as listed in Annex 4. For smartphones and tablets the reparability score incentivizes technical solutions, which lead on average to marginal further product price increases (< 0,50 €). | | | | | | |
| Option 4 | 200 | 500 | 1.001 | 80 | 50 | 331 |
| Rationale: For smartphones and tablets the energy label incentivizes technical solutions (but does not set specific minimum requirements making design changes mandatory), which lead on average to marginal further product price increases (20% of the maximum price increase as per full implementation of technical options). Feature phones and cordless phones are not covered by this option. | | | | | | |
| Option 5.1 | 205 | 504 | 1.005 | 83 | 52 | 334 |
| Rationale: Purchase price changes roughly correspond to those resulting from the implementation of the full range of technical design measures as listed in Annex 4. Energy label will provide further transparancy in the market, but is not expected to result in further cost relevant design measures, according to the cost analysis in Annex 4. Feature phones and cordless phones are not covered by the Energy Label, product purchase prices correspond to option 3.2b. | | | | | | |
| Option 5.2 | 205 | 504 | 1.005 | 83 | 52 | 334 |
| Rationale: Purchase price changes roughly correspond to those resulting from the implementation of the full range of technical design measures as listed in Annex 4. Energy label and reparability score will provide further transparancy in the market, but is not expected to result in further cost relevant design measures, according to the cost analysis in Annex 4. Feature phones and cordless phones are not covered by the Energy Label and reparability score, product purchase prices correspond to option 3.2b. | | | | | | |

As representative smartphone and, in order to observe how prices have been affected by different options, the 2030 purchase prices of a mid-range smartphone are follows (see 
[Table 36](#_Ref98430600)
): Option 1 = EUR 500; Sub-option 3.1 = EUR 504; Sub-option 3.2a = 505; Sub-option 3.2b = EUR 504; Sub-option 3.3 = EUR 504; Option 4 = EUR 500; Sub-option 5.1 = EUR 504, Option 5.2 = EUR 504.

For feature phones, new prices for 2030 are as follows: Option 1 = EUR 80; Sub-option 3.1 = EUR 80; Sub-option 3.2a = 83; Sub-option 3.2b = EUR 83; Sub-option 3.3 =EUR 83; Option 4 = EUR 80; Sub-option 5.1 = EUR 83, Option 5.2 = EUR 83.

2030 prices for cordless phones will come to be EUR 50 for Option 1. This price is maintained under sub-option 3.1 and Option 4, while it rises to EUR 52 under sub-options 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.2. Options including Ecodesign requirements (i.e., sub-option 3.1, 3.2a and 3.2b), Ecodesign requirements with an energy label (i.e., sub-option 5.1) and Ecodesign requirements with a repair index (i.e. sub-options 3.3 and 5.2), would imply a significant reduction on business revenue if the estimated price increase took place (due to expected lower sales of new devices given the extended lifetime and a high acquisition price under these options, that influence consumer behaviour). The option of establishing an Energy Label (Option 4) could also imply a reduction on revenues but much lower. The main reason is that with Energy Label, as lifetime does not improve as much as with Ecodesign, the number of devices sold will not change in the same amount. For example, while under Ecodesign (sub-option 3.1) sales are reduced by 33 million units in comparison with no-action scenario, an Energy Label (Option 4) will only reduce this value in 4 million units.

Figure 35: Smartphones, feature and cordless phones – Yearly business revenue, 2010-2030

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55003.jpg)

Tablets

Business revenues for tablets under the different policy options are depicted in 
[Figure](#_Ref85489111)
[3](#_Ref85489111)
6. To estimate revenues, the purchase prices of tablets estimated in European Commission (2021) have been used and adapted to the different options (see 
[Table 36](#_Ref98430600)
). The purchase price in 2030 for Option 1 is EUR 330, for sub-option 3.1 (Ecodesign) the price was estimated at EUR 334 (the same for sub-option 3.2a and 3.3), and for Option 4 (Energy label) the purchase price is EUR 331. The price in sub-option 5.1 and 5.2 is also EUR 334.

For tablets, business revenue declines by almost EUR 1,150 million under all options, except for Option 4 (EUR 144 million) in 2030.

Figure 36: Tablets – Yearly business revenue, 2010-2030

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55004.jpg)

Again, all options including Ecodesign requirements would imply the biggest reduction: EUR 1,150 million on business revenue under sub-options 3.1, 5.1 and 3.2a, and a reduction of EUR 1,240 million for sub-options 3.3 and 5.2, as consequence of the main decline on sales.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Figure 37 shows the age structure of active smartphone batteries in 2016 as an approximation for the age structure of smartphones in active use.

Figure 37: age structure of smartphones in active use ((Clemm et al. 2016b)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55005.jpg)

Starting from the above baseline, environmental improvements will mainly be achieved through lifetime extending measures, as foreseen by the ecodesign requirements, but also the energy label requirements due to using the energy label as vehicle to communicate a range of environmental parameters in a transparent manner, thus resulting in a likely market pull. Improved energy efficiency of the devices is demonstrated to have also a positive effect on battery lifetimes due to less frequent charging, and thus on overall product lifetime.

The dominating effect of lifetime extending measures, regarding the various domains repair, reuse and reliability, is an anticipated decline in new sales and related environmental impacts stemming from production, but also to a certain extent from shipping devices from the manufacturing location to the EU market. The decline in sales already factors in that a substantial share of consumers upgrades to new devices due to psychological obsolescence and not due to defects or similar design related aspects. Given that most of the environmental impacts are related to device production and to a lesser extent to the use phase, contrary to other energy-related products, extended product lifetime involves only a minor component of keeping less efficient devices in operation for longer periods of time.

Even with a short transition period until measures take effect, environmental improvements materialise at large only around 2027 when the lifetime extending effect of better reparability, reusability and reliability leads to longer product lifetimes and a reduction in replacement sales.

Information requirements regarding production and distribution related environmental parameters, such as emissions of fluorinated greenhouse gases and means of transportation, as foreseen by the generic ecodesign requirements are expected to stimulate improvements in emission reductions, which results in marginal increased life cycle costs for the consumer compared to the life cycle costs level reached by lifetime extending measures only, but which corresponds still to least life cycle costs in terms societal life cycle costs (European Commission 2021).

In general, all measures which increase to product lifetime (enhanced reparability, durability in Options 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.2) result mainly in production related environmental savings outside the EU (but greenhouse gas emissions being a global environmental issue), transports related savings due to less products to be shipped partially relating to logistics outside the EU and partially within the EU, and reduced electronics waste (fewer products discarded) within the EU. Measures targeting at the energy efficiency of devices (covered by information requirements in Options 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.3, and more prominently depicted with the Energy Label in Options 4, 5.1 and 5.2) result in environmental and cost benefits within the EU.

I.Energy savings

Smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones

[Figure](#_Ref85489155)
 38 shows the development of energy consumption of smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones under the different policy options and considering their total life cycle (production, distribution and use phase). The graph indicates that total energy consumption is reduced significantly by 2030 (roughly 40 PJ) with options involving ecodesign requirements (i.e., sub-options 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b and 5.1) and those sub-options combined with a repair index (i.e. sub-option 3.3 and sub-option 5.2). Energy consumption declines by 10 PJ with Option 4. In all cases, savings are driven by technology improvements and extension of the use lifetime of devices. 

Figure 38: Smartphones, feature and cordless phones. Yearly total energy 2010-2030

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55006.jpg)

Over 50% of total energy consumption for smartphones sold in 2030 relates to the production phase under all policy options. As the majority of manufacturers are located outside the EU, most impacts related to the production phase occur outside the EU. The use phase is responsible for 31% (Energy Label option) to 40% (Ecodesign, and Ecodesign plus Energy Label policy) of total energy consumption. This consumption can be attributed to the EU. The distribution phase accounts for 7% (sub-option 5.1) to 14% (Option 4) of total energy consumption. These impacts can be attributed to both EU and non-EU countries.

Tablets

[Figure](#_Ref78841586)
[39](#_Ref78841586)
 shows the development of life cycle energy consumption for tablets under the different policy options. In 2020, the no action-scenario predicts 27 PJ energy consumption. In 2030, the no action scenario is estimated to result in 1 PJ less energy consumption. As with phones, total energy consumption decreases significantly with options involving ecodesign requirements. With Energy Label scenario (Option 4) energy consumption will be reduced to 23 PJ in 2030. The potential energy under sub-options 3.1, 3.2a and 5.1 would be 19 PJ by 2030, being 18 PJ under sub-option 5.2.

Figure 39: Tablets. Yearly total energy, 2010-2030

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55007.jpg)

Over 50% of total energy consumption for tablets sold in 2030 relates to the production phase under all policy options. The use phase is responsible for 33% (Energy Label option) to 40.5% (Ecodesign, and Ecodesign plus energy label policy) of total energy consumption. The distribution phase accounts for approximately 7% (sub-option 5.1) to 12% (Option 4) of total energy consumption.

II.GHG emissions and acidification

Smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones

The trends for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are depicted on Figure 40. Under no action, GHG emissions in 2020 and 2030 are estimated at 7.3 and 7.1 million t CO2 eq, respectively. With sub-options 3.1 (Ecodesign requirements), 5.1 (Ecodesign requirements and Energy Label) and those including a repair index as well (i.e. 3.3 and 5.2) the Greenhouse Gas emissions drop significantly from 2023 onwards. For these scenarios, the related emissions are 2.7 to 2.9 million t CO2 eq. lower in 2030 than with “no action” (over 40% reduction). Under sub-option 3.2a, savings are about 31%, and higher for sub-option 3.2b (40%). Option 4 (Energy Label) reduces Greenhouse Gas emission but to a lesser extent 5%.

Figure 40. Smartphones, feature and cordless phones. Yearly Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2010-2030 (in Mt CO2 equivalent)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55008.jpg)

Over 58% of total greenhouse gas emissions for devices sold in 2030 relates to the production phase under all scenarios. The use phase is responsible for 24% (no action scenario) to 31% (Ecodesign and Energy label scenarios) of total greenhouse gas emissions. The distribution phase accounts for 10% (sub-option 5.1) to 17% (Option 1) of total greenhouse gas emissions.

The same trends are confirmed for acidification under the different policy scenarios (
[Figure](#_Ref85489292)

 41). Acidification is related to the SO2 emissions coming from production, use, distribution and end-of-life phases of devices, mainly related to electricity use. That one with the greatest contribution is production phase, while end-of-life stage presents the capacity to absorb SO2 emissions, especially from recycling.

Sub-options 3.1 (Ecodesign requirements), 5.1 (Ecodesign requirements and Energy Label), 3.2a and 3.2b (Extended Ecodesign options), 3.3 and 5.2 (with repair index) result in significant reductions in SO2 and other emissions contributing to acidification. Roughly 20 kt SO2 eq. reduction for 2030 (over 28%). Actually, a similarly high savings potential is achieved already from 2027 onwards in these scenarios. Option 4 (Energy Label) results in less emissions reduction (3 kt SO2 eq. (4%).

Figure 41. Smartphones, feature and cordless phones. Yearly acidification, 2010-2030 (in kt SO2 equivalent)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55009.jpg)

Tablets

With sub-options 3.1 (Ecodesign requirements), 3.2a (less ambitious ecodesign option) and 5.1 (Ecodesign requirements plus Energy Label) and those including a scoring on reparability (i.e. sub-option 3.3 and 5.2) the Greenhouse Gas emissions drop significantly from 2023 onwards (
[Figure](#_Ref85489329)
[42](#_Ref85489329)
). For these scenarios, the related emissions decrease respectively: 34%, 25%, 35%, 35% and 36% in 2030 in comparison with “no-action”. The saving potential of Energy Label (i.e., Option 4) is only 9%.

Figure 42: Tablets. Yearly Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2010-2030 (in Mt CO2 equivalent)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55010.jpg)

The same trends for the various policy scenarios are confirmed for acidification (
[Figure](#_Ref85489353)
[43](#_Ref85489353)
). Sub-options 3.1 (Ecodesign requirements), 3.2a (less ambitious ecodesign option) 5.1 (Ecodesign requirements and Energy Label) and specifically for sub-options (i.e. 3.3 and 5.2) result in significant reductions in SO2 and other emissions contributing to acidification. This is a reduction in 2030 of 21% for the first ones, and 22% for the second ones. Actually, a similarly high savings potential is achieved already from 2027 onwards in these scenarios. Option 4 (Energy Label) results in less emissions reductions (6%).

Figure 43: Tablets. Yearly acidification, 2010-2030 (in kt SO2 equivalent)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55011.jpg)

III.Circular economy perspective: material consumption

In the case of sub-option 3.3, products with a longer lifespan are
[1](#footnote2)
,
[2](#footnote3)
 expected to contribute to circular economy through reduction in impacts related to resource depletion, waste, emissions, and other environmental costs associated with the production, distribution, and disposal life‑cycle stages
[3](#footnote4)
,
[4](#footnote5)
,
[5](#footnote6)
,
[6](#footnote7)
,
[7](#footnote8)
. For example, a German Environment Agency study
[8](#footnote9)
 concluded that for all product groups examined, long-life products did better than short-life variants in all environmental categories. Similarly, the PROMPT project shows that, for all the appliances analysed, those with shorter lives always perform worse for all environmental indicators.
[9](#footnote10)
 According to Defra
[10](#footnote11)
, there is an argument in particular for optimised lifetime extension strategies, especially for products in which manufacturing, supply chain and waste management impacts dominate over the life cycle. According to a European Environmental Bureau (EEB) study (2019), extending the lifespan of all washing machines, smartphones, laptops, and vacuum cleaners in the EU by one year would lead to annual savings of around 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2030. In addition, it can promote the reuse of goods by providing more certainty regarding the remaining lifespan after first use.

There will also be positive environmental impacts because the products will have a longer lifetime and thus be less frequently replaced, and the potential for circularity (i.e., re-sale and reuse)
[11](#footnote12)
 is increased by measures under this option. Other indirect positive environmental impacts are expected because avoiding early failure of products prevents their early replacement and therefore reduces environmental impacts related to the production, transport, and disposal of products.

As consumer behaviour is a significant factor in the case of these products, the minimum requirements will lead to choice editing (using policy measures to restrict the choices and push consumers towards more sustainable options) and thus bring environmental benefits. Overall, the environmental benefits of including a scoring on reparability would be significant.
[12](#footnote13)
 This will increase those resulting from Ecodesign requirements and Energy label, making sub-option 5.2 the most ambitious.

Smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones

Total material consumption of which smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones, accessories and packaging sold in 2030 are made is calculated to be roughly 86,000 t
[13](#footnote14)
 with Option 1 (
[Table](#_Ref78840925)
[37](#_Ref78840925)
). Total material consumption is reduced under all options: 32% (sub-option 3.1), 31% (sub-option 3.2a), 36% (sub-option 3.2b), 1% (Option 4), and 37% (sub-option 5.2). The consumption of Critical Raw Materials also decreases along with the declining sales. The amount of Tantalum is reduced from 3.9 t in the “no action” scenario to 3.0 t with sub-options 3.1 (Ecodesign requirements) and 5.1 (Ecodesign requirements and Energy Label). Same trends can be observed for the other Critical Raw Materials. Figures for sub-sub-options 3.3 and 5.2 are not available, but expected to be at least as good in terms of material reduction as those of sub-options 3.2 and 5.1.

Table 37: Smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones.
  
Annual material consumption, all units sold in 2030

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55012.jpg)

Tablets

In the “no action” scenario the overall amount of material used for tablets, accessories and packaging made in 2030 is calculated to be roughly 30.400 t
[14](#footnote15)
 (
[Table](#_Ref78840947)
 38). Total material consumption is reduced under all options: 27% (sub-option 3.1and 3.2a), 2% (Option 4) and 28% (sub-option 5.1). The consumption of Critical Raw Materials, provided that the composition of tablets is also reduced along with the declining sales of devices. For example, the amount of Tantalum is reduced from 0.9 t in the no action option to 0.8 t with sub-option 3.1 (Ecodesign requirements) and 5.1 (Ecodesign requirements and Energy Label). Same trends can be observed for the other Critical Raw Materials. Again, figures for sub-options 3.3 and 5.2 are not available but expected to be at least as good in terms of material reduction as those of sub-options 3.1 and 5.1.

Table 38: Tablets. Annual material consumption, all units sold in 2030

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55013.jpg)

IV.Risks related to excess spare parts inventory

Given the relevance of the requirements on reparability (under the policy options 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.3, 5.1, 5.2), and in particular of those related to spare parts availability, some further considerations are necessary, in particular concerning the estimation of the associated environmental impacts.

In first place, it should be noted that the environmental aspects have been already taken into account in the definition of the list of components, which should be available as spare parts (as described with more detail under annex 9). In fact, this list is already the results of a ‘trade-off’ between the need of including the components that are more prone to fail, and their environmental impacts. This led, in particular, to the exclusion from this list of the mainboard (as explained in Table 20 of annex 9, the mainboard components are those with the highest environmental impacts, which are accounted for when assessing the policy options with increased reparability).

As a second consideration, the requirement of providing spare parts for a given period of time (Options 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.3, 5.1, 5.2) involves the risk that spare parts are produced but might not be needed in the end, i.e. being obsolete stock. This obsolete stock inventory is related to additional environmental impacts and costs. The requirements however target at minimizing this risk: From the list spare parts the mainboard is exempted as it represents a significant upstream environmental impact. All other components individually represent maximum 10% (display) of the environmental impact of the device. The amount of the stock inventory depends on thorough planning by the manufacturers: for all spare parts, except for batteries, it is assumed that defects occur at roughly constant failure rates after the initial phase of early failures is passed. Spare parts demand over time will provide manufacturers therefore with sound insights in field failure rates and allows for demand forecasts. Manufacturers also have various options to counter potential overstock, including

·platform designs, where parts can be used also for next product generations (see e.g. the fact, that among iPhones some parts are compatible with different models),

·providing spare parts beyond the minimum required period,

·harvest used devices for spare parts (in case of underestimating demand).

Given the short required delivery time of 5 days for spare parts, these parts have to be on stock, presumably in the EU, to be readily available for orders.

A sensitivity analysis provides insights in potential negative effects resulting from overstock. This has been calculated for the 6 product segments entry-level smartphones, mid-range smartphones, high-end smartphones, feature phones, cordless phones and tablets, with the assumption that the obsolete overstock varies between 10% and 50% of the actual spare parts demand. Obsolete stock here refers to the hypothetical case that an OEM puts on stock 10% to 50% more spare parts units than actually will be required and ordered for repairs. This practice might be due to an approach by the OEM to be on the safe side to be in compliance with the requirement to supply spare parts for a given period of time and/or due to false forecasts of spare parts needs. This overstock is allocated to individual devices according to the expected actual demand of spare parts per product. As not every product will experience a defect, for average products only a given share of a spare part is allocated. The changes in environmental impacts are listed in 
[Table](#_Ref95917478)
 39 for entry-level smartphones.

Table 39: Impacts of excess spare parts stock – entry-level smartphones

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55014.jpg)

Even if the excess stock reaches a level of 50% of actually needed spare parts, the environmental impacts per device are only slightly higher: the total energy demand and actually all other impacts rise by approximately only 0,25%.

Similar trends can be observed for the other product segments: In the case of mid-range smartphones environmental impacts increase by approximately 0,6%, if an obsolete stock of 50% on top of the real demand is envisaged (results for excess spare parts factor 1,5 in 
[Table](#_Ref95918356)
 40).

Table 40: Impacts of excess spare parts stock – mid-range smartphones

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55015.jpg)

In the case of high-end smartphones environmental impacts increase by approximately 0,75%, if an obsolete stock of 50% on top of the real demand materialises (
[Table](#_Ref95919384)
 41). In case of greenhouse gas emissions, to pick an exemplary indicator, this means an increase of close to 500g of CO2 eq. compared to 45,57 kg CO2 eq. greenhouse gas emissions over the full life cycle, if the spare parts stock exactly meets forecasted demand.

Table 41: Impacts of excess spare parts stock – high-end smartphones

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55016.jpg)

In the case of feature phones environmental impacts increase by approximately 0,55%, if an obsolete stock of 50% on top of the real demand materialises (
[Table](#_Ref95919938)
 42). In case of greenhouse gas emissions, to pick an exemplary indicator, this means an increase of close to 70g of CO2 eq. compared to 12,99 kg CO2 eq. greenhouse gas emissions over the full life cycle, if the spare parts stock exactly meets forecasted demand.

Table 42: Impacts of excess spare parts stock – feature phones

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55017.jpg)

For cordless phones excess stock of spare parts is not an issue as the most relevant part to be replaced among cordless phones are batteries and the requirements specify the use of standard battery sizes, i.e. spare parts needs can always be met by providing batteries freely available on the market.

Table 43: Impacts of excess spare parts stock – cordless phones

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55018.jpg)

In the case of tablets environmental impacts increase by approximately 0,8%, if an obsolete stock of 50% on top of the real demand materialises (
[Table](#_Ref95920482)
 44).

Table 44: Impacts of excess spare parts stock – tablets

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55019.jpg)

Overall, this sensitivity analysis leads to the conclusion, that the issue of obsolete spare parts stock even under the worst case scenario of 50% excess stock only results in very minor additional environmental impacts across all analysed indicators.

As spare parts, just as the vast majority of all mobile phones and tablets, are produced outside the EU, the resulting additional environmental impacts of obsolete stock would be related to impacts outside the EU. The resulting electronics waste then occurs within the EU.

V.External societal costs and benefits

Manufacture of electronic devices has a significant impact over the environment. For this, it is essential to reflect in some way this impact in economic terms and compare how it evolves under different options. Updated societal costs are estimated in the Preparatory Study (2021) under MEErP (2011) methodology, considering some environmental indicators and their rate external marginal cost to society (€/unit).

Smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones

[Figure](#_Ref85489384)
 44 shows the external annual societal damages under different policy options, based on the cost figures introduced in European Commission (2021). With Option 4 (Energy Label) social external damages will be reduced by 2030 (EUR 120 million), although the biggest reduction is achieved with those including repair index, sub-option 3.3 (EUR 895 million) and 5.2 (EUR 925 million). The extended ecodesign options, i.e. sub-option 3.2a and 3.2b will also imply a significant drop of EUR 730 million and EUR 870 million, respectively. The same for sub-options 5.1 (EUR 890 million). Sub-option 3.1 reduces external societal costs by almost EUR 830 million in 2030.

Figure 44: Smartphones, feature and cordless phones.
  
External annual damages evolution, 2010-2030

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55020.jpg)

Tablets

The external annual damages of tablets under different policy options are depicted in 
[Figure](#_Ref85489439)
45. With Option 4 (Energy Label), external damages will be reduced by EUR 33 million in 2030. However, a major reduction in external damages is achieved again with sub-option 3.1 (Ecodesign requirements, EUR 144 million), sub-option 3.2a (less ambitious ecodesign option, EUR 133 million) and 5.1 (Ecodesign requirements and Energy Label, EUR 149 million) and those including repair index, i.e. sub-option 3.3 (EUR 149 million) and 5.2 (EUR 153 million).

Figure 45: Tablets. External annual damages evolution, 2010-2030

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_55021.jpg)

:   [(1)](#footnoteref2)

    Iraldo et al. (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; Ardente and Mathieux (2014) Environmental assessment of the durability of energy-using products: method and application. Journal of cleaner production; and Reale et al. (2019) Consumer Footprint-Basket of Products indicator on Household appliances. Technical report. European Commission, Joint Research Centre. 2019.
:   [(2)](#footnoteref3)

    The results of a JRC study showed that, “for the global warming potential, prolonging the lifetime of a washing machine and dishwasher case studies is environmentally beneficial when the potential replacement product has up to 15 % less energy consumption during the use. For the abiotic depletion potential impact, mainly influenced by the use of materials during the production phase, prolonging the lifetime of both machines was shown always to be beneficial, regardless of the energy efficiency of newer products. Freshwater eutrophication showed a great influence by the impact of the detergent used during the use phase; thus, prolonging the device’s lifetime is still beneficial for this impact category, although the benefits are negligible compared to the life cycle impacts of the products.” See 
    <https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/72cd56e4-bab7-11e6-9e3c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-126402524>
:   [(3)](#footnoteref4)

     Estevan et al.(2017) Life Cycle Costing State of the art report. Local Governments for Sustainability, European Secretariat
:   [(4)](#footnoteref5)

    Bakker et al. (2014) Products that go round: Exploring product life extension through design. J Clean Prod
:   [(5)](#footnoteref6)

    Bakker et al. (2019) Products that Last 2.0: Product Design for Circular Business Models. BIS Publishers
:   [(6)](#footnoteref7)

    Cooper (2016) Longer lasting products: Alternatives to the throwaway society. CRC Press
:   [(7)](#footnoteref8)

    Ruth et al. (2005) Design Strategies to Postpone Consumers' Product Replacement: The Value of a Strong Person-Product Relationship, The Design Journal
:   [(8)](#footnoteref9)

    Prakash et al. (2016) Einfluss der Nutzungsdauer von Produkten auf ihre Umweltwirkung: Schaffung einer Informationsgrundlage und Entwicklung von Strategien gegen „Obsoleszenz “. Dessau-Roßlau: UBA Texte
:   [(9)](#footnoteref10)

    Berwald et al.(2020) Environmental evaluation of current and future design rules. PROMPT
:   [(10)](#footnoteref11)

    Defra (2011) Longer Product Lifetimes – Summary Report
:   [(11)](#footnoteref12)

    EEA(2017) Circular by design – Products in the circular economy
:   [(12)](#footnoteref13)

    Donati et al. (2020) indicate some of these circular economy measures result in reduction of several environmental indicators: −10.1% Global Warming Potential,−12.5% Raw Material Extraction (RME),−4.3% Land Use (LU) and−14.6% Blue Water Withdrawal (BWW).
:   [(13)](#footnoteref14)

    This includes part of the metal production waste from machining housing parts and spare parts which will be used for repairs of these units over their lifetime.
:   [(14)](#footnoteref15)

    This also includes part of the metal production waste from machining housing parts and spare parts which will be used for repairs of these units over their lifetime.

[Top](#document5)

Table of contents

Annex 10: Impacts of the policy options

SOCIAL IMPACTS

I.
   Employment
   

II.
   Affordability
   

  

Annex 10: Impacts of the policy options

SOCIAL IMPACTS

With products with longer lifetime, one could expect an increase of jobs in the second-hand sector (repair, refurbishment, remanufacturing). This will require the workforce to learn new skills. The skills needed are related to different fields (digital, electrical, electronic and mechanical), as the repair and refurbishment of mobile phones (and tablets) entails the need of specific knowledge for (at least):

• Identifying different types of mobile phones, and, further, the parts of a mobile cell phone;

• Recognising potential hazards in the repair of mobile phones;

• Using the correct hardware and software tools to repair mobile phones;

• Assemblying and disassemblying a mobile phone;

• Identifying mobile phone faults and solve them.

Based on consultations with repairers’ organisation, it emerged that, while the assembly and disassembly operations at component level (e.g.: battery) are considered routinary workwhich can be learnt in a relatively simple way, the repair operations entailing the need of using hardware/software tools and identifying the fault modes are the most complicated ones.

There are several organisations from the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) sector active in repair and refurbishing sectors and this will bring positive social impact, as these organisations often recruit people from vulnerable social groups.

Consumers may face an increase in purchase price, but it is likely to be compensated by a lower life-cycle cost because of increased durability resulting in longer lifetime of products and improved efficiency. However, the increase in acquisition price, up to 5% and not more than 5 EUR, would be limited, so even lower income groups of society with limited purchasing power would not face major difficulties in purchasing these products.

I.Employment

The estimated figures are direct jobs, i.e., jobs in the value-added chain. Indirect employment effects may be a factor 3 to 5 higher, but no consensus agreed factor is available (European Commission, 2019)
[1](#footnote2)
.

Smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones

The biggest effects on EU employment are related to the numbers involved in the repair and maintenance sector. With Method A (
[Figure](#_Ref85489489)
 46), it can be estimated that under no action and if 10% of old smartphones (information for France shows that refurbished smartphones accounted for 10% of the overall sales volumes in the country in 2017; Dekonink, 2018)
[2](#footnote3)
 and 2% of old feature phones were to be refurbished, about 22,700 jobs would be required for this process in 2030. The increase in the level of employment is small under Option 4 (23,000 jobs). It raises up to 25,400 jobs in sub-options 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b, and 5.1, and up to 25,600 under sub-options 3.3 and 5.2.

Figure 46: Smartphones, feature and cordless phones. Annual employment in the EU repair and maintenance sector, 2021-2030 (Method A)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54002.jpg)

European Commission (2018)
[3](#footnote4)
 estimates that 67% of the repairs in the Information and Communication Technologies sector are done by professionals and 33% are undertaken by other types of repairs (repair cafés, self-repair, etc.). Assuming that self-repair, repair cafés, etc. do not require formal jobs, only professionals (67% of the total estimated) are of interest: 17,200 jobs under sub-option 5.2 (method A) is the highest value (see Annex 4 for further details on the number of jobs by market player).

Sensitivity analysis

Under a more ambitious refurbishment scenario assuming a 20% rate for smartphones and 4% for feature phones from 2022 - 2030, 46,000 to 51,000 jobs would be achieved in this sector. A 20% refurbishment rate is supported by a behavioural experiment which found that 20% of consumers tend to buy a second-hand smartphone (Cerulli-Harms et al., 2018)
[4](#footnote5)
. Applying an even more ambitious rate of 30% for smartphones and of 6% for feature phones, the number of jobs increases significantly: 68,000 - 77,000 jobs would be required to refurbish the devices, depending on the policy option. Assuming that these devices are refurbished in Europe, this indicates that there may be employment opportunities in the EU refurbishment sector. This assumption rests on the following considerations. There are several advantages to refurbishing devices in Europe as compared to outside. First and foremost, having a refurbishment service company nearby means that consumers have better access to the devices and can physically compare them. In general, this provides more confidence during the purchasing process. Secondly, from a logistics standpoint, turnaround time is minimised by proximity, and so too are shipping costs. Based on this, it is assumed that refurbishment taking place in the EU is both a consumer preference and an overall time and cost saving measure benefiting the value chain. Similar assumptions are made in recent papers
[5](#footnote6)
, 
[6](#footnote7)
 analysing the environmental impacts of repairing refurbishing, and/or recycling smartphones; in both cases it is assumed that collection, recycling, refurbishing and remanufacturing all take place in the EU.

Assuming that only professional repair involves employment, the maximum number of jobs when 20% of old smartphones (4% of old feature phones) were to be refurbished is 34,300 (under sub-option 5.2). Approximately 51,500 EU-wide jobs would be required with sub-option 5.2 when a 30% refurbish rate is assumed for smartphones (6% for feature phones).

For tablets, as with phones, the biggest effects on employment are related to the numbers involved in the repair and maintenance sector (
[Figure](#_Ref85489522)
 47). With Method A: under “no action” and in a scenario where 10% of old devices were to be refurbished, about 7,350 jobs would be required for this process by 2030. This implies a current negative trend in labour sector. This reduction on the level of employment is smaller with other options, e.g., 7,600 jobs under sub-options 3.1, 3.2a and 5.1, and 7,700 jobs under sub-option 3.3 and 5.2. Option 4 barely improves the “no-action” number of jobs, this is 7390. Considering that only professional repair requires jobs, the maximum level of employment would be 5,140. (See Annex 4 for details). 

Figure 47: Tablets. Annual employment in the EU repair and maintenance sector, 2021-2030 (Method A)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54003.jpg)

Sensitivity analysis

Under a 20% refurbishment rate from 2022 - 2030, the negative trend will switch achieving 15,300 jobs under sub-options 3.1, 3.2a and 5.1, and 25.331 under sub-options 3.3 and 5.2. With Option 4 (Energy Label), the number of jobs would be 14,800. Applying a more ambitious rate of 30%, 22,160 (Option 4) to 22,900 (sub-option 3.1 and 5.1) would be required, being 23.000 for reparability index sub-options and sub-option 3.2a. Assuming that only professional repair involves new employment, the maximum number of new jobs when 20% of old devices were to be refurbished is 10,270 (with sub-options 3.2a, 3.3 and 5.2). Approximately 15,400 professional jobs (sub-options 3.2a, 3.3 and 5.2) would be required when a 30% refurbish rate is assumed.

II.Affordability

From the perspective of individual consumers, the policy options only lead to a slightly higher price, and finally a higher per product cost over the lifetime of the device (energy consumption during a longer period of time and more expenses on repairs). However, due to extended lifetimes the costs per year of use are lower than with the status quo.

Moreover, the issue of affordability due to slightly increased prices for new devices is less of an issue if the reuse market grows in response to the potential Ecodesign requirements on new devices. An increasing number of devices available for reuse will imply lower prices on the reuse market.

Consumer expenditure

Consumer expenditure consists of acquisition costs, maintenance/ repair costs and running costs.

Smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones

For the aggregate composed by smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones the total consumer expenditure in 2020 in the EU is calculated at EUR 77,200 million (
[Figure](#_Ref85489551)
[48](#_Ref85489551)
). This level of expenditure decreases under all considered options: 23% (sub-options 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b and 5.1), 3% (Option 4) and 24% (sub-options 3.3 and 5.2).

This reduction is due to longer product lifetimes and, to a minor degree, savings in electricity costs. Whereas total purchasing costs go down, the repair costs share increases (
[Figure](#_Ref85489585)
 49). For all policy options the scenario analysis shows a clear trend towards increasing costs for repairs.

Figure 48. Smartphones, feature and cordless phones- Total annual consumer expenditure 2010-2030 in the EU

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54004.jpg)

Figure 49: Smartphones, feature and cordless phones – Repair and maintenance costs 2010-2030

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54005.jpg)

Tablets

Although expenditures for repairs almost double (see 
[Figure](#_Ref85489733)
 50) as found in European Commission (2021), lifetime extension brings down overall costs for the consumer on average for the policy scenarios involving Ecodesign requirements (
[Figure](#_Ref85489753)
51).

Option 4 will imply a minor reduction of total annual consumer expenditure compared to “no action”, this is 9%. As commented, the remaining options including Ecodesign requirements would provide more benefits to consumers in terms of expenditure and compared to the baseline scenario: a reduction of 13% under sub-options 3.1, 3.2a, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.2.

Figure 50: Tablets – Repair and maintenance costs

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54006.jpg)

Figure 51: Tablets – Total annual consumer expenditure 2010-2030

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54007.jpg)

Table 45: Compliance costs

|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Compliance costs | | | | | |
|  | | Businesses | | Administrations | |
|  | | One-off | Recurrent | One-off | Recurrent |
| Option 3.1 | Direct costs | ++  Establishing production and supply chain changes to fulfil minimum requirements (including testing facilities and training)     Durability testing equipment in their product design departments  Capital expenditures needed for adaptation of manufacturing processes, logistics and supply chains | + +  Personnel to design new, compliant products  Personnel with Ecodesign competencies Including life-cycle assessment competencies where relevant.  Higher personnel activity dedicated to support of professional transitions from activities reduced by these requirements towards those favoured by them (specifically: maintenance, repair/upgrade, refurbishing, remanufacturing)  Higher activity in after-sales, maintenance, repair, refurbishing, re-manufacturing activities  Personnel cost to carry testing and verification | + +  Setting up the enforcement process (including training) (MS)  Government expenditures for conformity review (circularity aspects, premature obsolescence)  Establishing minimum requirement (EC) | ++ Monitoring compliance with the requirements (MS) |
|  | Indirect costs | ++  Higher up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, more thorough design, reversible assembly methods (possibly compensated by longer service times) | + +  Increased cost of products due to higher costs of minimum requirement obligations |  | + |
| Option 3.2a | Direct costs | ++  Establishing production and supply chain changes to fulfil minimum requirements (including testing facilities and training)  Durability testing equipment in their product design departments  Capital expenditures needed for adaptation of manufacturing processes, logistics and supply chains | ++  Personnel to design new, compliant products  Personnel with Ecodesign competencies Including life-cycle assessment competencies where relevant.  Higher personnel activity dedicated to support of professional transitions from activities reduced by these requirements towards those favoured by them (specifically: maintenance, repair/upgrade, refurbishing, remanufacturing)  Higher activity in after-sales, maintenance, repair, refurbishing, re-manufacturing activities  Personnel cost to carry testing and verification | ++  Setting up the enforcement process (including training) (MS)  Government expenditures for conformity review (circularity aspects, premature obsolescence)  Establishing minimum requirement (EC) | ++  Monitoring compliance with the requirements (MS) |
|  | Indirect costs | ++  Higher up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, more thorough design, reversible assembly methods (possibly compensated by longer service times) | ++  Increased cost of products due to higher costs of minimum requirement obligations |  | + |
| Option 3.2b | Direct costs | ++  Establishing production and supply chain changes to fulfil minimum requirements (including testing facilities and training)  Durability testing equipment in their product design departments  Capital expenditures needed for adaptation of manufacturing processes, logistics and supply chains | ++  Personnel to design new, compliant products  Personnel with Ecodesign competencies Including life-cycle assessment competencies where relevant.  Higher personnel activity dedicated to support of professional transitions from activities reduced by these requirements towards those favoured by them (specifically: maintenance, repair/upgrade, refurbishing, remanufacturing)  Higher activity in after-sales, maintenance, repair, refurbishing, re-manufacturing activities  Personnel cost to carry testing and verification | ++  Setting up the enforcement process (including training) (MS)  Government expenditures for conformity review (circularity aspects, premature obsolescence)  Establishing minimum requirement (EC) | ++  Monitoring compliance with the requirements (MS) |
|  | Indirect costs | ++  Higher up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, more thorough design, reversible assembly methods (possibly compensated by longer service times) | ++  Increased cost of products due to higher costs of minimum requirement obligations |  | + |
| Option 3.3 | Direct costs | +++  Establishing production and supply chain changes to fulfil minimum requirements (including testing facilities and training)  Durability testing equipment in their product design departments  Capital expenditures needed for adaptation of manufacturing processes, logistics and supply chains | +++  Personnel to design new, compliant products  Personnel with Ecodesign competencies Including life-cycle assessment competencies where relevant.  Higher personnel activity dedicated to support of professional transitions from activities reduced by these requirements towards those favoured by them (specifically: maintenance, repair/upgrade, refurbishing, remanufacturing)  Higher activity in after-sales, maintenance, repair, refurbishing, re-manufacturing activities  Personnel cost to carry testing and verification | +++  Setting up the enforcement process (including training) (MS)  Government expenditures for conformity review (circularity aspects, premature obsolescence)  Establishing minimum requirement (EC) | + ++  Monitoring compliance with the requirements (MS) |
|  | Indirect costs | +++  Higher up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, more thorough design, reversible assembly methods (possibly compensated by longer service times) | +++  Increased cost of products due to higher costs of minimum requirement obligations |  | + |
| Option 4 | Direct costs | +  Establishing production and supply chain changes to fulfil minimum requirements (including testing facilities and training)  Durability testing equipment in their product design departments  Capital expenditures needed for adaptation of manufacturing processes, logistics and supply chains | +  Personnel to design new, compliant products  Personnel with Ecodesign competencies Including life-cycle assessment competencies where relevant.  Higher personnel activity dedicated to support of professional transitions from activities reduced by these requirements towards those favoured by them (specifically: maintenance, repair/upgrade, refurbishing, remanufacturing)  Higher activity in after-sales, maintenance, repair, refurbishing, re-manufacturing activities  Personnel cost to carry testing and verification | +  Setting up the enforcement process (including training) (MS)  Government expenditures for conformity review (circularity aspects, premature obsolescence)  Establishing minimum requirement (EC) | + Monitoring compliance with the requirements (MS) |
|  | Indirect costs | +  Higher up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, more thorough design, reversible assembly methods (possibly compensated by longer service times) | +  Increased cost of products due to higher costs of minimum requirement obligations |  | + |
| Option 5.1 | Direct costs | +++  Establishing production and supply chain changes to fulfil minimum requirements (including testing facilities and training)  Durability testing equipment in their product design departments  Capital expenditures needed for adaptation of manufacturing processes, logistics and supply chains | +++  Personnel to design new, compliant products  Personnel with Ecodesign competencies Including life-cycle assessment competencies where relevant.  Higher personnel activity dedicated to support of professional transitions from activities reduced by these requirements towards those favoured by them (specifically: maintenance, repair/upgrade, refurbishing, remanufacturing)  Higher activity in after-sales, maintenance, repair, refurbishing, re-manufacturing activities  Personnel cost to carry testing and verification | +++  Setting up the enforcement process (including training) (MS)  Government expenditures for conformity review (circularity aspects, premature obsolescence)  Establishing minimum requirement (EC) | + ++  Monitoring compliance with the requirements (MS) |
|  | Indirect costs | +++  Higher up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, more thorough design, reversible assembly methods (possibly compensated by longer service times) | +++  Increased cost of products due to higher costs of minimum requirement obligations |  | + |
| Option 5.2 | Direct costs | +++  Establishing production and supply chain changes to fulfil minimum requirements (including testing facilities and training)  Durability testing equipment in their product design departments  Capital expenditures needed for adaptation of manufacturing processes, logistics and supply chains | +++  Personnel to design new, compliant products  Personnel with Ecodesign competencies Including life-cycle assessment competencies where relevant.  Higher personnel activity dedicated to support of professional transitions from activities reduced by these requirements towards those favoured by them (specifically: maintenance, repair/upgrade, refurbishing, remanufacturing)  Higher activity in after-sales, maintenance, repair, refurbishing, re-manufacturing activities  Personnel cost to carry testing and verification | +++  Setting up the enforcement process (including training) (MS)  Government expenditures for conformity review (circularity aspects, premature obsolescence)  Establishing minimum requirement (EC) | + ++  Monitoring compliance with the requirements (MS) |
|  | Indirect costs | +++  Higher up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, more thorough design, reversible assembly methods (possibly compensated by longer service times) | +++  Increased cost of products due to higher costs of minimum requirement obligations |  | + |

Economic impacts, yearly figures for 2030

Smartphones, feature phones, cordless phones and tablets

Table 46: Economic impacts - Smartphones, feature phones, cordless phones and tablets

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54008.jpg)

The symbol (+) is a way of representing the level of impact of each option for qualitative aspects and compared to Option 1, where: + = very small/small impact

++ = moderate impact

+++ = high/very high impact

Colours mean the type of impact, positive (green) or negative (red).

  

Smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones

Table 47: Economic impacts - Smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54009.jpg)

  

Tablets

Table 48: Economic impacts - Tablets

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54010.jpg)

Environmental impacts, yearly figures for 2030

Smartphones, feature phones, cordless phones and tablets

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54011.jpg)

Smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54012.jpg)

Tablets

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54013.jpg)

Social impacts, yearly figures for 2030

 Smartphones, feature phones, cordless phones and tablets

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54014.jpg)

Smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54015.jpg)

Tablets

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54016.jpg)

  

Summary of impacts- Smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones

The following table summarises the effect of the 8 policy options on smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones. Savings across the various environmental indicators and the overall effect in social and economic are greatest for all policy options involving Ecodesign Requirements. Whereas in general, an Energy Label as stand-alone measure would have a lower effect, its combination with Ecodesign is considerable. In addition, to incorporate a reparability scoring on the top of devices increases the expected effects over all fields.

Table 49: Summary table of impacts (smartphones, feature phones and cordless phones)- Yearly figures for 2030

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54017.jpg)

Summary of impacts- Tablets

The effect of the various policy options on tablets is summarised in the following table. The policy option of Ecodesign including feature phones and cordless phones (sub-option 3.2b) does not apply to this product segment. Similar conclusions can be highlighted as for smartphones, being options including Ecodesign requirements (especially with a repair index) those with greater impacts.

Table 50: Summary table of impacts (tablets) - Yearly figures for 2030

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54018.jpg)

  

Sensitivity analysis - All options and all devices included (yearly figures for 2030)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:SWD%282023%29101.ENG.xhtml.SWD_282023_29101_ENG_xhtml_54019.jpg)

:   [(1)](#footnoteref2)

    European Commission, 2019. Ecodesign Impacts Accounting, Overview Report 2018
:   [(2)](#footnoteref3)

    Dekonink, B. (2018), “Smartphones reconditionnés : un marché en pleine accélération’’, Les Echos

    (https://tinyurl.com/y6hj2oab).
:   [(3)](#footnoteref4)

    Socio-economic analysis of the repair sector in the EU. Study to support ecodesign measures to improve reparability of products. Final Report and Annex: Member State Reports
:   [(4)](#footnoteref5)

    Cerulli-Harms, A. et al. (2018), “Behavioural Study on Consumers' Engagement in the Circular

    Economy - Final report” (https://tinyurl.com/y98plym5).
:   [(5)](#footnoteref6)

    https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11367-021-01869-2.pdf
:   [(6)](#footnoteref7)

     
    <https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Fairphone_2_LCA_Final_20161122.pdf>

[Top](#document6)

Table of contents

Annex 11: Comparison of the options

Annex 12: The SME Test – Summary of results

1.Publication bibliography

Annex 11: Comparison of the options

Option 3

Effectiveness in achieving the specific objectives: The effectiveness of the sub-option 3.1 is high as it directly targets the problems and specific objectives. Though it is a bit early to assess the impacts of the French implementation of the reparability index, it is gaining attention and a recent survey shows its good uptake by consumers
[1](#footnote2)
. Therefore, assuming a similar consideration by the citizens across EU, the sub-option 3.3 is expected to be quite effective.

Efficiency: The first sub-option 3.1 will be quite efficient though varies across 3.2 (3.2a and 3.2b) and 3.3. Sub-option 3.2a is less demanding in terms of ecodesign requirements, so expected benefits are lower compared to sub-option 3.2b. However, its cost is similar what results in less efficiency. For 3.2b higher environmental benefits but at higher costs as well thus less efficient, compared to 3.3. Also, the efficiency of 3.2 depends on how the market of cordless and feature phones evolve (expected to be declining). For some sectors, such as repair, refurbishment etc. the economic impacts will be positive in the case of 3.3 as the measures will result in growth of these markets.

Coherence: Sub-option 3.3 sets minimum requirements (circularity aspects) on products placed on the market and will be coherent with existing waste, product and resource policies and circular economy.

Option 4

Effectiveness in achieving the specific objectives: This option focuses only on the energy labelling thus its effectiveness will be limited to the specific objective on energy label requirements. Also, it is applicable to smartphones and tablets only. However, success of existing energy label in changing consumer behaviour could add to its effectiveness. Also, including durability/reparability information on the energy label could improve its effectiveness further.

Efficiency: This option has the lowest economic impact, but it also has limited social and environmental benefits, which will result into not very high efficiency.

Coherence: It will be coherence with energy related policies and not sufficient direct link with resource and waste policies.

Option 5

Effectiveness in achieving the specific objectives: although sub-option 5.1 already brings good results in terms of effectiveness, those related to sub-option 5.2 are even greater given the fact that it will bring an integrated approach, ecodesign, energy labelling and circular economy requirements. It would be effective in principle as it covers all fundamental principles of sustainability and circularity.

Efficiency: The efficiency of sub-option 5.2 will be similar to sub-option 3.3 (probably a little higher).

Coherence: Same as option 3.

Table 1 Summary of Benefit assessment (yearly figures for 2030), all devices

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | | | | | | | | |
| Description |  | | | | | | | Comments |
|  | Option 3.1 | Option 3.2a | Option 3.2b | Option 3.3 | Option 4 | Option 5.1 | Option 5.2 |  |
| Direct benefits | | | | | | | | |
| New SMEs in repair/maintenance sector (nº firms) | |  | | --- | | +++ | | +++ | +++ | +++ | + | +++ | +++ | Business. This refers how SMEs will evolve as consequence of new repairers but also by the growth of existing firms |
| Promoting investment in the production of more energy efficient devices | ++ | ++ | ++ | +++ | ++ | ++ | +++ | Business. In overall, more requirements (Ecodesign, energy and/or reparability) will imply more investment |
| Reduced GEI emissions (Mn tCO2 eq.) | -3 | -3 | -3 | -3 | -1 | -3 | -4 | Society |
| Reduced acidification (kt SO2 eq.) | -22 | -22 | -23 | -23 | -4 | -23 | -24 | Society |
| Reduced energy consumption (PJ) | -44 | -43 | -47 | -48 | -13 | -48 | -49 | Consumer |
| Employment creation in repair/maintenance sector (nº jobs) | +3,000 | +3,040 | +3,000 | +3,200 | +300 | 3,000 | + 3,200 | Society |
| Reduced total annual consumer expenditure (Mn €) | -19,260 | -19,500 | -19,300 | -20,000 | -2,800 | -19,300 | -20,600 | Consumer. Lower cost due to the extended lifetime and energy consumption reduction |
| Reduced societal external annual damages (Mn €) | -980 | -850 | -1,020 | -1,040 | -150 | -1,040 | -1,080 | Society |
| Contribute to circular economy Material use reduction (less tons in comparison with Option 1) | -36,000 | -35,300 | -39,100 | Material reduction is expected (decrease of more than 39,1000 tons of materials). In addition, it can promote the reuse of goods by providing more certainty regarding the remaining lifespan after first use. | -1,600 | -40,300 | Material reduction is expected (decrease of more than 40,300 tons of materials). In addition, it can promote the reuse of goods by providing more certainty regarding the remaining lifespan after first use. | Society |
| Indirect benefits | | | | | | | | |
| Ensure user’s health, compatibility across other devices and workers safety during production process | ++ |  | ++ | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | Society This is related to the benefit of reduce material consumption under different options, since consumers and workers will be exposed to lower dangerous or toxic substances. Also, common requirements will assure compatibility among different devices. |
| Positive impact on the deployment and the diffusion of innovation | ++ |  | ++ | (+++)  Promotion of repair skills among users | + | ++ | (+++)  Promotion of repair skills among users | Business. How innovations to achieve new requirements, will be promoted through the supply chain. |

(1) Estimates are relative to the baseline for the policy option as a whole; (2) Please indicate which stakeholder group is the main recipient of the benefit in the comment section;(3) For reductions in regulatory costs, please describe details as to how the saving arises (e.g. reductions in compliance costs, administrative costs, regulatory charges, enforcement costs, etc.; see section 6 of the attached guidance).

Table 2 Summary of Cost assessment

 

  

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Costs (all devices) | | | | | | | |
| Option 3.1 | | Citizens/Consumers | | Businesses | | Administrations | |
|  | | One-off | Recurrent | One-off | Recurrent | One-off | Recurrent |
| Higher compliance cost | Direct costs |  |  | (++) Increase in costs due to establish production and supply change to fulfil minimum requirements, testing equipment, etc. | (++) Increase regarding new personnel, develop after-sales, maintenance activities, etc. | (++) Increase in costs due to set up the enforcement process, government expenditure for conformity review, establishing minimum requirements | (++) Increase due to monitor compliance with the requirements (MS) |
|  | Indirect costs |  |  | (++) Increase in up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, etc. | (++) Slight increase in up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, etc. |  | (++) |
| Reduces business revenue (Mn €) |  |  |  |  | Business revenue will reduce annually up to –19,400 in 2030 |  |  |
| Reduces SMEs in manufacture and retail sector (Nº firms) |  |  |  |  | (-) Negatively affected because of lower sales, although other factors must be considered |  |  |
| Higher repair costs (Mn €) |  |  | Repair costs will increase annually up to +350 in 2030 |  |  |  |  |
| Acquisition price (€/unit) |  | (+)  Increase due to higher costs as consequence of incorporating new requirements |  |  |  |  |  |
| Costs (all devices) | | | | | | | |
| Option 3.2a | | Citizens/Consumers | | Businesses | | Administrations | |
|  | | One-off | Recurrent | One-off | Recurrent | One-off | Recurrent |
| Higher compliance cost | Direct costs |  |  | (++) Increase in costs due to establish production and supply change to fulfil minimum requirements, testing equipment, etc. | (++) Increase regarding new personnel, develop after-sales, maintenance activities, etc. | (++) Increase in costs due to set up the enforcement process, government expenditure for conformity review, establishing minimum requirements | (++) Increase due to monitor compliance with the requirements (MS) |
|  | Indirect costs |  |  | (++) Increase in up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, etc. | (++) Slight increase in up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, etc. |  | (++) |
| Reduces business revenue (Mn €) |  |  |  |  | Business revenue will reduce annually up to –19,800 in 2030 |  |  |
| Reduces SMEs in manufacture and retail sector (Nº firms) |  |  |  |  | (-) Negatively affected because of lower sales, although other factors must be considered |  |  |
| Higher repair costs (Mn €) |  |  | Repair costs will increase annually up to +500 in 2030 |  |  |  |  |
| Acquisition price (€/unit) |  | (+)  Increase due to higher costs as consequence of incorporating new requirements |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Costs (all devices) | | | | | | | |
| Option 3.2b | | Citizens/Consumers | | Businesses | | Administrations | |
|  | | One-off | Recurrent | One-off | Recurrent | One-off | Recurrent |
| Higher compliance cost | Direct costs |  |  | (++) Increase in costs due to establish production and supply change to fulfil minimum requirements, testing equipment, etc. | (++) Increase regarding new personnel, develop after-sales, maintenance activities, etc. | (++) Increase in costs due to set up the enforcement process, government expenditure for conformity review, establishing minimum requirements | (++) Increase due to monitor compliance with the requirements (MS) |
|  | Indirect costs |  |  | (++) Increase in up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, etc. | (++) Increase in up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, etc. |  | (++) |
| Reduces business revenue (Mn €) |  |  |  |  | Business revenue will reduce annually up to –19,500 in 2030 |  |  |
| Reduces SMEs in manufacture and retail sector (Nº firms) |  |  |  |  | (-) Negatively affected because of lower sales, although other factors must be considered |  |  |
| Higher repair costs (Mn €) |  |  | Repair costs will increase annually up to +440 in 2030 |  |  |  |  |
| Acquisition price (€/unit) |  | (+) Increase due to higher costs as consequence of incorporating new requirements |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Costs (all devices) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Option 3.3 | | | Citizens/Consumers | | | | Businesses | | | | Administrations | | | |
|  | | | One-off | | Recurrent | | One-off | | Recurrent | | One-off | | Recurrent | |
| Higher compliance cost | Direct costs | |  | |  | | (+++) Significant increase in costs due to establish production and supply change to fulfil minimum requirements, testing equipment, etc. | | (+++) Significant increase regarding new personnel, develop after-sales, maintenance activities, etc. | | (+++) Significant increase in costs due to set up the enforcement process, government expenditure for conformity review, establishing minimum requirements | | (+++) Significant increase due to monitor compliance with the requirements (MS) | |
|  | Indirect costs | |  | |  | | (+++) Significant increase in up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, etc. | | (+++) Significant increase in up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, etc. | |  | |  | |
| Reduces business revenue (Mn €) |  | |  | |  | |  | | Business revenue will reduce annually up to –20,500 in 2030 | |  | |  | |
| Reduces SMEs in manufacture and retail sector (Nº firms) |  | |  | |  | |  | | (-) Negatively affected because of lower sales, although other factors must be considered | |  | |  | |
| Higher repair costs (Mn €) |  | |  | | Repair costs will increase annually up to +610 in 2030 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |
| Acquisition price (€/unit) |  | | (+) Increase due to higher costs as consequence of incorporating new requirements | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |
| Costs (all devices) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Option 4 | | | | Citizens/Consumers | | | | Businesses | | | | Administrations | | | |
|  | | | | One-off | | Recurrent | | One-off | | Recurrent | | One-off | | Recurrent | |
| Higher compliance cost | | Direct costs | |  | |  | | (+) Slight increase in costs due to establish production and supply change to fulfil minimum requirements, testing equipment, etc. | | (+) Slight increase regarding new personnel, develop after-sales, maintenance activities, etc. | | (+) Slight increase in costs due to set up the enforcement process, government expenditure for conformity review, establishing minimum requirements | | (+) Slight increase due to monitor compliance with the requirements (MS) | |
|  | | Indirect costs | |  | |  | | (+) Slight increase in up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, etc. | | (+) Slight increased cost of products due to higher costs of minimum requirement obligations | |  | | (+) | |
| Reduces business revenue (Mn €) | |  | |  | |  | |  | | Business revenue will reduce annually up to –2,400 in 2030 | |  | |  | |
| Reduces SMEs in manufacture and retail sector (Nº firms) | |  | |  | |  | |  | | (-) Negatively affected because of lower sales, although other factors must be considered | |  | |  | |
| Higher repair costs (Mn €) | |  | |  | | Repair costs will decrease annually up to –170 in 2030 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |
| Acquisition price (€/unit) | |  | | No changes (a minor increase for tablets) | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Costs (all devices) | | | | | | | |
| Option 5.1 | | Citizens/Consumers | | Businesses | | Administrations | |
|  | | One-off | Recurrent | One-off | Recurrent | One-off | Recurrent |
| Higher compliance cost | Direct costs |  |  | (+++) Significant increase in costs due to establish production and supply change to fulfil minimum requirements, testing equipment, etc. | (+++) Significant increase regarding new personnel, develop after-sales, maintenance activities, etc. | (+++) Significant increase in costs due to set up the enforcement process, government expenditure for conformity review, establishing minimum requirements | (+++) Significant increase due to monitor compliance with the requirements (MS) |
|  | Indirect cost |  |  | (+++) Significant increase in up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, etc. | (+++) Significant increase in up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, etc. |  |  |
| Reduces business revenue (Mn €) |  |  |  |  | Business revenue will reduce annually up to –19,500 in 2030 |  |  |
| Reduces SMEs in manufacture and retail sector (Nº firms) |  |  |  |  | (-) Negatively affected because of lower sales, although other factors must be considered |  |  |
| Higher repair costs (Mn €) |  |  | Repair costs will increase annually up to +440 in 2030 |  |  |  |  |
| Acquisition price (€/unit) |  | (+) Increase due to higher costs as consequence of incorporating new requirements |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Costs (all devices) | | | | | | | |
| Option 5.2 | | Citizens/Consumers | | Businesses | | Administrations | |
|  | | One-off | Recurrent | One-off | Recurrent | One-off | Recurrent |
| Higher compliance cost | Direct costs |  |  | (+++) Higher costs. Production and supply chain changes, equipment testing, and capital expenditure for adaption (manufacturing processes, logistics) | (+++) Higher costs. New personnel with Ecodesign competencies, to carry testing and verification, after-sales, maintenance activities, etc. | (+++) Higher costs. Setting up the enforcement process, government expenditure for conformity review, establishing minimum requirements | (+++) Higher costs. Monitoring compliance with the requirements |
|  | Indirect cost |  |  | (+++) Higher up-front cost of products due inter alia to more accurate assembly, better qualified manufacturing work force, etc. | (+++) Increased cost of products due to higher costs of minimum requirement obligations |  |  |
| Reduces business revenue (Mn €) |  |  |  |  | Business revenue will reduce annually up to –21,000 in 2030 |  |  |
| Reduces SMEs in manufacture and retail sector (Nº firms) |  |  |  |  | (-) Negatively affected because of lower sales, although other factors must be considered |  |  |
| Higher repair costs (Mn €) |  |  | Repair costs will increase annually up to +680 in 2030 |  |  |  |  |
| Acquisition price (€/unit) |  | (+) Increase due to higher costs as consequence of incorporating new requirements |  |  |  |  |  |

(1) Estimates to be provided with respect to the baseline; (2) costs are provided for each identifiable action/obligation of the policy option; (3) If relevant and available, please present information on costs according to the standard typology of costs (compliance costs, regulatory charges, hassle costs, administrative costs, enforcement costs, indirect costs; see section 6 of the BRG).

Table 3 Summary of coherence assessment

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Option 3 (3.1, 3.2a, 3.2b and 3.3) | Option 4 | Option 5 (5.1 and 5.2) |
| External coherence | ++ | ++ | ++ |

Overall comparison

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Overall comparison | Policy option 1 (baseline) | Policy option 3.1 | Policy option 3.2a | Policy option 3.2b | Policy option 3.3 | Policy option 4 | Policy option 5.1 | Policy option 5.2 |
| Effectiveness | 0 | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | +++ |
| Environmental Impacts | 0 | ++ | ++ | ++ | +++ | ++ | ++ | +++ |
| Economic Impacts | 0 | -- | -- | -- | -- | - | -- | -- |
| Social Impacts |  | + | + | + | ++ | + | ++ | +++ |

Annex 12: The SME Test – Summary of results

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| (1) Preliminary assessment of businesses likely to be affected | |
| In terms of market share, SMEs are certainly not the main player in the mobile phones and tablets OEM sector. However, when it comes to the analysis of the full life cycle stage of mobile phones and tablets, it is noteworthy that there are European SMEs – in the order of some thousands - working on services or activities related to these products (product assembly, repair and maintenance). | (See section 2 [Problem definition] as well as Annex 5) |
| (2) Consultation with SMEs representatives | |
| All categories of stakeholders identified in the stakeholder mapping, among which SMEs, participated in various consultation activities. SMEs (in the field or repair and maintenance services) actively participated throughout the preparatory process and meetings, in particular the Consultation Forum meeting. With reference to the latter, there was a general consensus in proceeding with the analysis and formulation of Ecodesign and Energy Labelling requirements. On top of this, SMEs mainly working in the field of repair, refurbishment and recycling judged as very relevant (a game changer, in some cases) the proposed material efficiency requirements on durability, reparability, upgradability, maintenance, reuse and recycling. | (See section 5 [What are the available policy options?], as well as Annex 2) |
| (3) Measurement of the impact on SMEs | |
| SMEs belonging to the repair and maintenance sector are expected to strongly benefit from the initiatives, in particular thanks to the proposed Ecodesign requirements on reparability and ease of disassembly. Not only will new repairers appear in the sector, but also existing ones will grow.  To a minor extent, workers of recycling plants would benefit from the proposed Ecodesign information requirements on the manufacturing phase of certain components (as described in Annex 9), as the use of toxic materials use would be reduced.  SMEs in the retail sector could be negatively affected because of the expected sales reduction under all considered options. However, it is difficult to establish the retail path with accuracy, because of many factors that can be considered and not all of them affect in the same way (for example, retailers can shift their supply to other devices with a better future projection, in term of sales). | (See section 6 [What are the impacts of the policy options?] as well as Annex 10) |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 4) Assess alternative options and mitigating measures | |
| Given that SMEs, in particular those belonging to the repair and maintenance sector, are expected to strongly benefit from the initiatives, there has been no need to assess alternative options and/or mitigating measures.  The detailed feedback from SMEs (as well as from other stakeholders) was helpful for the ‘fine tuning’ of the formulation of the proposed Ecodesign requirements. | (See Annex 9) |

Publication bibliography

Apple Inc. (2019): Environmental Responsibility Report. 2019 Progress Report, covering fiscal year 2018. Available online at https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple\_Environmental\_Responsibility\_Report\_2019.pdf, checked on 3/31/2021.

Berwald, Anton; Clemm, Christian; Prewitz, Carolin (2020): Environmental evaluation of current and future design rules. Deliverable no. 2.5 of the EU H2020 PROMPT project. Available online at https://prompt-project.eu/.

Bitkom e.V. (2020a): Smartphone-Markt: Konjunktur und Trends. Available online at https://www.bitkom.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/bitkom-pressekonferenz-smartphone-markt-20-02-2020-prasentation\_final.pdf, checked on 5/22/2021.

Bitkom e.V. (2020b): Deutsche horten fast 200 Millionen Alt-Handys. In Bitkom e.V., 4/16/2020. Available online at https://www.bitkom.org/Presse/Presseinformation/Deutsche-horten-fast-200-Millionen-Alt-Handys, checked on 6/10/2020.

Bookhagen, B.; Bastian, D.; Buchholz, P.; Faulstich, M.; Opper, C.; Irrgeher, J. et al. (2020): Metallic resources in smartphones. In Resources Policy 68, p. 101750. DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101750.

Cecere, Grazia; Corrocher, Nicoletta; Battaglia, Riccardo David (2015): Innovation and competition in the smartphone industry: Is there a dominant design? In Telecommunications Policy 39 (3-4), pp. 162–175. DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2014.07.002.

Chancerel, Perrine; Marwede, Max; Mathieux, Fabrice; Talens Peiro, Laura (2016): Feasibility study for setting-up reference values to support the calculation of recyclability / recoverability rates of electr(on)ic products: Publications Office.

Clemm, Christian; Berwald, Anton; Prewitz, Carolin; Nissen, Nils F.; Schneider-Ramelow, Martin (2020): Market Trends in Smartphone Design and Reliability Testing. Edited by Electronics Goes Green.

Clemm, Christian; Sinai, C.; Ferkinghoff, C.; Dethlefs, N.; Nissen, N. F.; Lang, K.-D. (2016): Durability and cycle frequency of smartphone and tablet lithium-ion batteries in the field. In : 2016 Electronics Goes Green 2016+ (EGG). 2016 Electronics Goes Green 2016+ (EGG), pp. 1–7.

clickrepair (2019): Smartphone-Reparatur-Studie 2019. Edited by WERTGARANTIE Beteiligungen GmbH. Hannover, Germany.

Cordella, Mauro; Alfieri, Felice; Clemm, Christian; Berwald, Anton (2021): Durability of smartphones: A technical analysis of reliability and repairability aspects. In Journal of Cleaner Production 286, p. 125388. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125388.

Cordella, Mauro; Alfieri, Felice; Sanfelix, Javier (2020): Guidance for the Assessment of Material Efficiency: Application to Smartphones. Edited by Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg (JRC116106).

Cox, Jayne; Griffith, Sarah; Giorgi, Sara; King, Geoff (2013): Consumer understanding of product lifetimes. In Resources, Conservation and Recycling 79, pp. 21–29. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.05.003.

Deloitte (2016): Study on Socioeconomic impacts of increased reparability – Final Report. Prepared for the European Commission, DG ENV. Available online at https://op.europa.eu/de/publication-detail/-/publication/c6865b39-2628-11e6-86d0-01aa75ed71a1.

Deubzer, Otmar (2007): Explorative study into the sustainable use and substitution of soldering metals in electronics. Ecological and economical consequences of the ban of lead in electronics and lessons to be learned for the future. [S.l.]: [s.n.] (Design for Sustainability Program publication, 15).

Dobs, Tom; Sánchez, David; Schischke, Karsten; Wittler, Olaf; Schneider-Ramelow, Martin (2020): Assessment of the influencing parameters of the tumble test for robustness testing of smartphones. In Proceedings of International Congress Electronics Goes Green 2020+, pp. 515–520.

EEA (2020): Europe’s consumption in a circular economy: the benefits of longer-lasting electronics. Available online at https://mk0eeborgicuypctuf7e.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Coolproducts-briefing.pdf.

EEA (2021): A framework for enabling circular business models in Europe. Available online at https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/a-framework-for-enabling-circular/a-framework-for-enabling-circular.

EEB (2019): Coolproducts don't cost the earth. Available online at https://mk0eeborgicuypctuf7e.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Coolproducts-briefing.pdf.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013): Towards the Circular Economy. Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition. Available online at https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Ellen-MacArthur-Foundation-Towards-the-Circular-Economy-vol.1.pdf.

EN 45554:2020: EN 45554:2020. Available online at https://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/f?p=204:110:0::::FSP\_PROJECT:65685&cs=19B548B0604010194C2AC96A048412874, checked on 5/22/2021.

European Commission (2014a): Attitudes of Europeans towards waste management and resource efficiency. Flash Eurobarometer 388.

European Commission (2018): Behavioural Study on Behavioural Study on Consumers’ Engagement in the Circular Economy. Available online at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/ec\_circular\_economy\_final\_report\_0.pdf.

European Commission (2019a): Impact assessment study on common chargers of portable devices. Available online at https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/-/publication/c6fadfea-4641-11ea-b81b-01aa75ed71a1.

European Commission (2019b): The European Green Deal. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS. Available online at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:b828d165-1c22-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1.0002.02/DOC\_1&format=PDF.

European Commission (2020a): Circular Economy Action Plan. Available online at https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/circular-economy/new\_circular\_economy\_action\_plan.pdf.

European Commission (2020b): Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL concerning batteries and waste batteries, repealing Directive 2006/66/EC and amending Regulation (EU) No 2019/1020. Available online at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4b5d88a6-3ad8-11eb-b27b-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC\_1&format=PDF.

European Commission (2020c): Attitudes Towards The Impact of Digitalisation on Daily Lives (Special Eurobarometer).

European Commission (2021): Ecodesign preparatory study on mobile phones, smartphones and tablets: Publications Office.

European Commission (2022): COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT. EU strategic dependencies and capacities: second stage of in-depth reviews. SWD(2022) 41 final.

European Commission, Brussels (2014b): Flash Eurobarometer 388 (Attitudes of Europeans Towards Waste Management and Resource Efficiency). With assistance of European Commission, Brussels DG Communication COMM A1 ´Strategy, Corporate Communication Actions And Eurobarometer´ Unit, TNS Dimarso, Brussels, Belgium, TNS BBSS, Sofia, Bulgaria, TNS Aisa S.R.O., Prague, Czech Republic, TNS GALLUP A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark, TNS Infratest, Munich, Germany et al.

European Court of Auditors (2021): EU actions and existing challenges on electronic waste. Available online at https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=58526, checked on 5/24/2021.

European Economic and Social Committee (2019): Identifying the impact of the circular economy on the Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Industry: opportunities and challenges for businesses, workers and consumers – mobile phones as an example. Available online at https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/qe-03-19-510-en-n.pdf, checked on 4/4/2021.

European Parliament and the European Council (2012): Consolidated text: Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (recast) (Text with EEA relevance). Available online at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2012/19/oj/eng, checked on 4/4/2021.

Eurostat (2020): Enlargement countries - information and communication technology statistics. Available online at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/pdfscache/32183.pdf, checked on 4/3/2021.

Fairphone (2017): Fairphone’s Report on Recyclability. Does modularity contribute to better recovery of materials? Available online at https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/FairphoneRecyclabilityReport022017.pdf, checked on 3/30/2021.

Federal Trade Commission (2021): Nixing the Fix: An FTC Report to Congress on Repair Restrictions. Available online at https://www.ftc.gov/reports/nixing-fix-ftc-report-congress-repair-restrictions.

FNAC DARTY; Harris Interactive; ADEME (2019): La 2e Édition du Barométre du SAV. Available online at https://labo.fnac.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Pres-web-2e%CC%80me-e%CC%81dition-Barome%CC%80tre-SAV-Darty-Juin-2019.pdf, checked on 2/6/2020.

Hennies, L.; Stamminger, R. (2016): An empirical survey on the obsolescence of appliances in German households. In Resources, Conservation and Recycling 112, pp. 73–82.

Houston, L.; Jackson, S. J. (Eds.) (2016): Caring for the next billion mobile handsets: opening proprietary closures through the work of repair: ICTD ’16 Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development.

IZT (2018): Machbarkeitsstudie zum Aufbau einer Qualitätsgemeinschaft Reparatur in Berlin. Available online at https://www.berlin.de/senuvk/umwelt/abfall/abfallstrategien/download/reparaturnetzwerk\_machbarkeitsstudie.pdf.

Jaeger-Erben, Melanie; Hipp, Tamina (2018): All the rage or take it easy -Expectations and experiences in the context of longevity in electronic devices. Descriptive analysis of a representative online survey in Germany. 1/2018. Edited by Obsolescence Research Group. Technische Universität Berlin, Fraunhofer IZM. Berlin, Germany (OHA texts).

Kemna, René; Wierda, Leo; Li, William; van den Boorn, Roy; van Elburg, Martijn; Viegand, Jan; Wu, Anson (2020): ICT Impact study. Technical Assistance, Final Report.

Lu, Tina (2017): Smartphone Users Replace Their Device Every Twenty-One Months. Counterpoint Research. Available online at https://www.counterpointresearch.com/smartphone-users-replace-their-device-every-twenty-one-months/, updated on 11/8/2017, checked on 6/1/2020.

Makov, Tamar; Fishman, Tomer; Chertow, Marian R.; Blass, Vered (2019): What Affects the Secondhand Value of Smartphones: Evidence from eBay. In Journal of Industrial Ecology 23 (3), pp. 549–559. DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12806.

Manhart, Andreas; Blepp, Markus; Fischer, Corinna; Graulich, Kathrin (2016): Resource Efficiency in the ICT Sector. Available online at https://www.greenpeace.de/sites/www.greenpeace.de/files/publications/20161109\_oeko\_resource\_efficency\_final\_full-report.pdf, checked on 7/9/2020.

Martinho, Graça; Magalhães, Diogo; Pires, Ana (2017): Consumer behavior with respect to the consumption and recycling of smartphones and tablets: An exploratory study in Portugal. In Journal of Cleaner Production 156, pp. 147–158. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.039.

Ng, Abigail (2019): Smartphone users are waiting longer before upgrading — here's why. Available online at https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/17/smartphone-users-are-waiting-longer-before-upgrading-heres-why.html, updated on 5/17/2019, checked on 6/1/2020.

OHA - Obsoleszenz als Herausforderung für Nachhaltigkeit (Ed.) (2019): Lange Nutzungsdauern zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit – Erste Ergebnisse der Befragung 2019, website. Available online at https://challengeobsolescence.info/befragung-2019/, checked on 9/23/2020.

Proske, Marina; Baur, Sarah-Jane; Rückschloss, Jana; Teusch, Christoph; Krause, Thomas; Poppe, Erik (2020a): Bestandsaufnahme Smartphones. Übersicht Modellhistorie und modulare Konzepte. Projektbericht MoDeSt.

Proske, Marina; Clemm, Christian; Richter, Nikolai (2016): Life Cycle Assessment of the Fairphone 2. Final Report. Berlin. Available online at https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Fairphone\_2\_LCA\_Final\_20161122.pdf.

Proske, Marina; Sánchez, David; Clemm, Christian; Baur, Sarah-Jane (2020b): Life Cycle Assessment of the Fairphone 3. Fraunhofer IZM. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Available online at https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Fairphone\_3\_LCA.pdf, checked on 9/27/2020.

Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (2021): Qualcomm and Google Announce Collaboration to Extend Android OS Support and Simplify Upgrades | Qualcomm. Available online at https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2020/12/16/qualcomm-and-google-announce-collaboration-extend-android-os-support-and, updated on 2/2/2021, checked on 2/2/2021.

Sabbaghi, Mostafa; Behdad, Sara (2018): Consumer decisions to repair mobile phones and manufacturer pricing policies: The concept of value leakage. In Resources, Conservation and Recycling 133, pp. 101–111. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.015.

Smedley, Stuart (2016): Greenpeace Smartphone Recycling Research; Survey Germany 22 July – 26 July 2016. File number 15-063306-29 Greenpeace Smartphone Recycling DE w v3 Public.xlsx.

Sofies and Bio Innovation Service (2019): Étude du marché et parc de téléphones portables français en vue d’augmenter durablement leur taux de collecte.

statcounter (2021): Mobile Vendor Market Share Europe. Available online at https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/europe, checked on 4/3/2021.

Triggs, Robert (2018): Why we are keeping phones for longer. Available online at https://www.androidauthority.com/keeping-phones-longer-833509/, updated on 6/1/2020, checked on 6/1/2020.

van den Berge, Renske; Thysen, Tom (2020): State-of-the-art knowledge on user, market and legal issues related to premature obsolescence. PROMPT Deliverable 2.6 Version 1. Available online at https://prompt-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/PROMPT\_20200430\_State-of-the-art-overview-of-the-user-market-and-legal-aspects.pdf, checked on 9/25/2020.

Velázquez-Martínez; Valio; Santasalo-Aarnio; Reuter; Serna-Guerrero (2019): A Critical Review of Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling Processes from a Circular Economy Perspective. In Batteries 5 (4), p. 68. DOI: 10.3390/batteries5040068.

WERTGARANTIE (2018): Tablet Repair Study 2018. Edited by WERTGARANTIE Beteiligungen GmbH. Hannover, Germany.

Wieser, Harald; Tröger, Nina (2018): Exploring the inner loops of the circular economy: Replacement, repair, and reuse of mobile phones in Austria. In Journal of Cleaner Production 172, pp. 3042–3055. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.106.

Wieser, Harald; Tröger, Nina; Hübner, R. (2015): The Consumers' Desired and Expected Product Lifetimes. In PLATE conference.

Wolf, Marc-Andree (2018): Quantitative environmental benefits of recycling and energy recovery. White paper. Available online at https://maki-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Environmental-benefits-recycling\_White-paper\_clean.pdf, checked on 3/30/2021.

:   [(1)](#footnoteref2)

     https://news.samsung.com/fr/sondage-indice-reparabilite

[Top](#document7)