Requirements on a standardized mobile device eco-rating - Dr. Anders S.G. Andrae, Huawei

1. Requirementson a standardized mobiledevice eco-rating - Dr. Anders S.G. Andrae, Huawei

2. Requirements on a standardized mobile device eco-rating • Author/ Email: Dr. Anders Andrae/anders.andrae@huawei.com

3. The growing importance of greening mobile end-user devices • On average 1 ton mobile phone scrap could include • 128 kg copper • 0.347 kg gold • 0.15 kg palladium • 3.63 kg silver • 15 kg nickel • 6 kg lead • 1 kg antimony • 10 kg tin (from Navazo et al. Forthcoming) • In 2014 scrapped mobile phones, smartphones, and tablets could add ≈0.234 million tonnes scrap. • Annual global municipal solid waste generation is ≈1.3 billion tonnes. Adapted from Andrae, A.S.G, & Corcoran, P. M. (2013). Emerging Trends in Electricity Consumption for Consumer ICT.

4. Perspective on Device electricity (TWhrs) in 2012 Adapted from Andrae, A.S.G, & Corcoran, P. M. (2013). Emerging Trends in Electricity Consumption for Consumer ICT. GeSI SMARTer2020 report from GeSI show similar result.

5. Recommended Criteria for ITU-T on Eco-Rating ERs range from satisfyingly transparent (understandable which input gives a certain output) to black box (not fully clear how the ER works) • VDF/TF new eco-rating is a very good basis/concrete tool to finish the Recommendation in 2013 in a unified and transparent manner. • Comments on ”LIFE CYCLE, Basic LCA”: • More transparency on how CO2e, water, and resources are evaluated. • Add Location of Production of Screen, IC, PCB, and type of Screen for more sophistication. Robust criteria from other ER could be added. • Use stage scenario not clear. • Comments on ”RESPONSIBLE DESIGN”: • More options needed for certain questions due to diversity of phones. • “Usage of Bioplastics” should be added as a criterion. • ” Fully separable” packaging materials unclear. • “Pure material stream” needs to be defined according to some standard.

6. Issues Current Eco-Rating vs LCA • The difference is due to representative data better reflecting the upstream than current Eco-Ratings

7. Issues Current Eco-Rating CO2 vs LCA CO2 Issue 1: Differences between vendors CO2e scores based on LCA and CO2e scores based on ”locked” ER metrics. • Current ≈16 criteria are not enough to describe the life cycle impact of different vendors mobile device models. • Add choices which help the vendor to reflect the reality of the upstream and downstream in a better way Issue 2: Difference in CO2e score for same model for different ER • Found a 20% difference in CO2e scores for different ER ”Life Cycle” section for the same phone model • Spread of ”problem” not investigated

8. Overall issues for vendors • Clarity • It should be totally clear for individual vendors (manufacturers) how a certain ER is obtained. • Transparency • E.g. it shall be understood explicitly which CO2e score gives a certain ER for the corresponding Specification (e.g. 40 kg CO2e gives 2.1 for Basic LCA). • Validation • Clarify how the validation is done for each Specification (e.g. Responsible Design) and Criteria (e.g. Proportion of Pure material stream which can be separated)

9. Requirements & Suggestions • Requirements • Add LCA elements for further diversification between devices. • Any Criterion which cannot be easily validated needs to go. • Each operator should make totally clear for individual vendors (manufacturers) how a certain ER is obtained. • Suggestions: • Fully calculated examples of some imaginary phones will help for black-box oriented ER schemes • Analyse further differences between vendors CO2e scores based on ”full” LCA and CO2e scores based on ”locked” ER metrics (e.g. kg CO2e/touch screen area). • Analyse further differences between vendors models in between different ERs.

10. Thankyou