part 1: results report reducing the environmental and cost ... ep priority... · reducing the...

Part 1: Results Report

Reducing the environmental and

cost impacts of electrical products

The results of a research project for the Product Sustainability Forum to identify, quantify and understand the environmental impacts of electrical products sold on the UK market. This report summarises the research findings, identifying priority products, environmental hotspots and reduction opportunities for a wide range of electrical products.

Project code: RNF200-001 Research date: July – October 2011 Date: November 2012

The PSF is a collaboration of 80+ organisations made up of grocery and home improvement retailers and suppliers, academics, NGOs and UK Government representatives. It’s a platform for these organisations to measure, reduce and communicate the environmental performance of the grocery and home improvement products bought in the UK. Further information about the Forum can be found at www.wrap.org.uk/psf. Document reference: [e.g. WRAP, 2006, Report Name (WRAP Project TYR009-19. Report prepared by…..Banbury, WRAP]

Written by: Will Schreiber, Richard Sheane, Leigh Holloway

Analysis by: Kevin Lewis, Aida Cierco, Dr. Andrew Bodey, Xana Villa Garcia, Sam Matthews

Edited by: Justin French-Brooks and Anthea Carter

Front cover photography: Electrical and electronic product groups and sub-groups by technology type, developed during this project.

While we have tried to make sure this report is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in

connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is

accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or

suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at www.wrap.org.uk.

http://www.wrap.org.uk/psf

Reducing the environmental and cost impacts of electrical products 1

Executive summary

Introduction The purpose of this report is to help retailers and suppliers of electrical products (EPs) to identify their most significant opportunities to reduce product environmental impacts. This will enable them to focus effort when reducing business exposure to resource risks, reducing product resource costs and demonstrating corporate responsibility. This report contributes to the evidence base of the Product Sustainability Forum, which is comprised of leading retailers, suppliers and related stakeholders seeking to take an integrated approach to reducing product impacts. EPs in their broadest sense cover a wide range of sectors and industries, both domestic and commercial, encompassing electronics, lighting and heating and cooling appliances amongst others. EPs, particularly those experiencing high growth and fast turnover, are increasingly subject to environmental regulations due to their multiple environmental impacts and use of non-renewable resources.

This report assesses the scale of lifecycle environmental impacts of EPs placed on the UK market, according to five key metrics using a ‘hotspot’ approach. A hotspot means an area with the highest environmental impact and potential for reduction, taking into account cost considerations. The five environmental metrics selected are: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; energy use; material use; waste production; and water use. The hotspot approach relies on understanding the relative scale of impacts resulting from EPs being sold and used in the UK, to identify where intervention could have the greatest benefit for the least cost. It is important to note that the methodology is intended to inform high-level thinking and strategy, rather than model-specific changes, with a view to being a starting point for focused resource reduction opportunities in the EP sector.

For the vast majority of current EPs, the use phase will be the dominant component of a product’s GHG and

energy footprint. However, this research prioritises embodied emissions over lifecycle emissions because it is

considered that sufficient attention is being placed on the use-phase impacts by existing regulatory and policy

measures, such as the European Eco-Design Directive for energy related products.1 Emissions associated with the

materials themselves are becoming of increasing importance to policy makers as in-use efficiency gains are

realised through other reduction measures. This report forms Part 1 of three, and summarises the research findings. Part 2 looks at EP impacts on a product category-by-category basis, while Part 3 provides further information on the methodology used.

Research Findings Three principal research outputs are detailed in this report: a revised system of product categorisation, focusing

on 24 categories of EP; identification of UK hotspots by environmental impact and by product category; and more

specific opportunities to reduce EP impacts.

EP categorisation

Classifying EPs by their function, weight or hazardous material presence does not allow for the easy identification

of hotspots. By contrast, grouping EPs according their dominant technological characteristic enables the available

environmental impact data to be used across shared technologies. Multiplying the results by the quantities of that

group that are sold each year in the UK allows the largest impacts, the hotspots, to be identified across a wide

part of the EP market. The EP groups used in this research are shown in Figure (i) below. These groups were

further divided into 24 product categories.

1 Directive 2009/125/EC establishing a framework for the setting of eco-design requirements for energy related products.


Figure (i) EP groups used in this research (for further explanation see Table 2 in Section 2.2)

UK hotspots results Annual consumption of EPs in the UK increases the UK’s environmental footprint in a number of ways. The five environmental metrics investigated in this research are grouped into three for the purposes of reporting results: GHG and energy; materials and waste; and water. GHG and energy hotspots

GHG and energy impacts were assessed using representative lifecycle assessments (LCAs) for each EP category,

mapped to one year of UK product sales.

Figure (ii) below shows data on the embodied emissions only (i.e. excluding use phase) for the selected 24

product categories. It demonstrates that nine product categories are responsible for over three quarters of the

total embodied GHG footprint of EPs purchased in the UK each year. These are (in order of greatest impact):

complex processing electronics (e.g. desktop PCs, set-top boxes); spatial cooling; lighting; spatial heating; large

simple processing electronics (e.g. printers, alarm systems); laptops; televisions & monitors; pumps and motors

(large high power); and other multi-function appliances.

Figure (ii) Embodied GHG footprint for selected major EPs sold in the UK

Products contributing more than 5% of total UK EP embodied GHG emissions for which sufficient quality data is

available to recommend action are televisions (7%), vacuum cleaners (6%), washing machines (5%) and non-

domestic laptops (5%).


Materials and waste hotspots

The impacts resulting from materials used in EPs and waste produced were assessed. The analysis focuses

primarily on materials used within the core products but also considers peripherals and consumables where

significant. The results show that products of particular note in terms of materials and waste include:

vacuum cleaners and PC peripherals. These appear to be a significant source of material use due to the high

quantity of products sold – rather than large unit size;

major household appliances (e.g. washing machines and fridges/freezers) as these are large units with high

sales volumes; and

non-domestic ICT which is a significant product group for six of the materials and so represents a potential target for resource efficiency initiatives.

Many of the materials included in EPs, particularly electronics, face potential supply-chain risks due to increasing

demand for finite resources. The research identified a selection of key materials used in EPs and then grouped

them broadly into three categories – all of which it is recommended should be targeted to mitigate environmental

impacts and supply risk:

1. High volume metals and plastics which, although not scarce, represent the most significant source

of embodied emissions for the sector. These are often found in ‘simpler’ appliances (e.g. washing

machines) and can be more easily recycled.

2. Low volume elements which are high value (e.g. rare earth elements), poorly recycled and critical

to the functionality of more advanced high-end electrical goods e.g. computers, televisions, mobile

phones. These materials pose higher supply chain risks due to scarcity and concentration of supply.

3. Borderline materials that have facets of both groups (e.g. tin and antimony). These materials are

used in moderate quantities but also exhibit significant supply-side risk.

Water hotspots

Research into water impacts focused on (a) water intensity and (b) production area water scarcity, for the key EP

materials identified during the course of the research as being significant in EP design. Water consumed, or used,

by EPs during their consumer use phase were assessed for the few products where this is relevant (e.g. washing

machines). Water is potentially a renewable resource if used appropriately in the correct locations. In a water

stressed region, a high intensity material (e.g. gold) could have significant impacts on the local water system.

Understanding why these intensities are so great within each material type is highlighted as an important next

step to seeing how intensity-to-scarcity ratios may be reduced. This research quantified process water use for

two products for which data was available: washing machines and dishwashers.

Reduction opportunities

Although the use phase currently dominates the majority of GHG and energy requirements for most EPs, this will

increasingly change as technology improvements required by existing and forthcoming European regulations

stimulate innovation in this area.

There are a number of reduction strategies that are available to manufacturers, retailers and end-users of

products that could all result in a significant impact reduction for EPs. The majority of quantifiable solutions are

largely technical, including materials optimisation, lightweighting and end-of-life recovery of critical materials.

Specific attention should be paid towards product durability and life extension for ‘low-end’ EPs. These reduction

opportunities require no technological advancement to implement, yet they have the potential to save 1 MtCO2e

and 180,000 tonnes of material over single product lifespans by simply building products with comparable

durability to the average product within its category.


Contents

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Project goals ......................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Project outputs ...................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Interpretation of results ......................................................................................................... 8

2.0 Product categorisation ................................................................................................................. 9

2.1 A new approach to grouping EPs ............................................................................................. 9

2.2 EP product categories ............................................................................................................ 9

3.0 UK Environmental Hotspots Analysis ......................................................................................... 12

3.1 How hotspots are identified .................................................................................................. 12

3.2 Environmental impacts by product group ............................................................................... 12

3.2.1 GHG emissions ..................................................................................................... 12

3.2.2 Energy consumption .............................................................................................. 13

3.2.3 Materials .............................................................................................................. 13

3.3 UK EP hotspots .................................................................................................................... 14

3.3.1 GHG and energy hotspots ...................................................................................... 14

3.3.2 Materials and waste hotspots ................................................................................. 18

3.3.3 Water hotspots ..................................................................................................... 23

3.3.4 Combined material impacts .................................................................................... 25

4.0 Reduction opportunities ............................................................................................................. 28

4.1 Cost and impact reduction opportunities ................................................................................ 28

4.2 Alternative business models .................................................................................................. 31

4.3 Material opportunities .......................................................................................................... 34

5.0 Finding further information ....................................................................................................... 36

Appendix 1: Product list........................................................................................................................ 37

Report References ................................................................................................................................ 38

List of Figures Figure 1 How to use the proposed product categorisation to identify reduction opportunities .............................. 9

Figure 2 EP groups and sub-groups used in this research .............................................................................. 11

Figure 3 Lifecycle stages and environmental impact indicators for EPs ............................................................ 12

Figure 4 Lifecycle GHG emissions of selected EPs sold in the UK market in one year ........................................ 13

Figure 5 Lifecycle energy consumption of selected EPs sold in the UK market in one year ................................. 13

Figure 6 Total weight of selected EPs sold in the UK market in one year ......................................................... 14

Figure 7 Approximate one-year’s UK EP sales volumes and lifecycle GHG footprints for 24 product categories and

commercial lighting as a composite category. Includes in-use electricity consumption ...................................... 15

Figure 8 Approximate one-year’s UK EP sales volumes and embodied GHG footprints for 24 product categories

and commercial lighting as a composite category. Excludes in-use electricity consumption ............................... 16

Figure 9 Embodied GHG footprint for selected major EPs sold in the UK .......................................................... 17

Figure 10 Distribution of priority materials in selected EP groups .................................................................... 20

Figure 11 Extraction locations of raw materials used in EPs............................................................................ 20

Figure 12 Water intensity and water scarcity for key materials used in EPs ...................................................... 24

Figure 13 Lifecycle water consumption of dishwashers and washing machines purchased in the UK in 2009 based

on data referred to in Part 2 of this report (category summaries) ................................................................... 25

Figure 14 Scarcity and recycling rates of selected materials used in EPs .......................................................... 27

Figure 15 Quantified lifecycle carbon reduction opportunities, and their cost, across EPs sold in one year .......... 29

Figure 16 Lifetime carbon reduction opportunities and cost implications for one year of refrigerator/fridge-

freezer/freezer sales................................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 17 Quantified water use reduction opportunities for washing machines ................................................. 31

Figure 18 Reduction priority matrix for EP categories .................................................................................... 32

Figure 19 Lifecycle GHG emissions for a television with a three-year replacement cycle (UK footprint) ............... 33

Figure 20 Television replacement cost scenario (UK footprint) ........................................................................ 33


Figure 21 Estimated impacts of premature product failure in key EPs (embodied GHG emissions) ..................... 34

Figure 22 Key supply and demand attributes of scarce metals used in electronics ............................................ 35

List of Tables Table 1 Description of four main project outputs for understanding EP hotspots ................................................ 8

Table 2 Categorisation of EPs by dominant technological characteristic ........................................................... 10

Table 3 Top ten EPs with highest embodied GHG emissions on the UK market (based on available data) ........... 18

Table 4 Top five lifecycle and embodied GHG emission EPs (based on available data) ...................................... 18

Table 5 Estimated distribution by percentage mass of materials embodied in EPs sold in the UK in a typical year 19

Table 6 Role of critical materials in the production of high volume materials .................................................... 21

Table 7 Fraction of global material production used in EPs – selected critical and high volume materials ............ 21

Table 8 Full lifetime use-phase material consumption for a selection of EPs based on one year’s UK retail sales . 22

Table 9 Supply and environmental risk indices for key EP materials (0 = low risk, 10 = high risk) ..................... 26

Table 10 Characterisation of reduction opportunities ..................................................................................... 29

Table 11 Top five most cost-effective GHG reduction measures ...................................................................... 30

Table 12 Quantified material reduction opportunities for selected EPs ............................................................. 31

Acronyms and abbreviations

CCTV closed-circuit television

CFC chlorofluorocarbon

CRT cathode ray tube

EP electrical product

ePSU external power supply unit

GHG greenhouse gas

GPS global positioning system

GWh gigawatt hour

HFC hydro-fluorocarbon

HVAC heating ventilation and air conditioning

ICT information and communications technology

ktCO2e thousand tonnes carbon dioxide-equivalent

LCA lifecycle assessment

LCD liquid crystal display

LED light-emitting diode

MtCO2e million tonnes carbon dioxide-equivalent

NiMH nickel-metal hydride

PDA personal digital assistant

PDP plasma display panel

PC personal computer

PV photovoltaic

TJ terajoule

WEEE waste electrical and electronic equipment


Acknowledgements

Stakeholders contributed from a range of industry sectors, including manufacturers, facility managers and e-

waste handlers. The following organisations supported the project by providing their knowledge, guidance and

data to improve the analysis and recommendations presented in this document:

B&Q

Computer Aid

Inman

Interserve

ISE

Morphy Richards

MITIE

Panasonic

Reliance FM

Panasonic

Sainsbury’s

Skanska

Sony


1.0 Introduction

1.1 Project goals This report summarises research to identify, quantify and understand the significant environmental hotspots

associated with electrical products (EPs) in the UK. EPs are considered in their broadest sense covering a wide

range of sectors and industries, both domestic and commercial, encompassing electronics, lighting and heating

and cooling appliances amongst others. For the purposes of this work, a hotspot means an area with the highest

environmental impact and potential for reduction taking into account cost considerations. Hotspots are therefore

potential targets for future research and action to achieve large-scale environmental and cost reductions.

To understand EP hotspots, the research focused on determining the scale of impacts resulting from products

being placed on the UK market. The outputs of the research allow for:

rapid diagnosis of hotspots across EP categories;

identification of which product types offer the largest scope for reductions; and

estimated potential environmental and cost savings for a selection of EPs.

In combination with further assessment, the research will allow decision makers in the EP sector to take action to

reduce key areas of their product environmental footprint.

This report provides an approximation of the impacts associated with EPs, primarily at the EP category level. As

such, it is important to note that the methodology used is intended to inform high-level thinking and strategy, as

the results consolidate a broad range of materials and impacts to highlight the significant EP hotspots. It is

therefore a starting point for focused reduction opportunities in the EP sector.

Engaging with key industry representatives in EP manufacturing, retail and facility management industries has

been a priority during this research and a list of contributors is provided at the beginning of this report. Although

the EP industry is constantly evolving, there is broad agreement that the hotspots approach is appropriate for

sector targeting, engagement and follow-up analysis.

1.2 Project outputs The project outputs are presented in three parts: Part 1 (this document) outlines the key research results, Part 2

presents the EP Category Summaries, identifying environmental impacts associated with individual EP categories,

whilst Part 3 focuses on the methodology used in the research and provides more detailed findings.

The research has resulted in four main outputs for understanding EP hotspots:

product classification by primary technology;

hotspot analysis for selected EPs;

hotspot reduction opportunities; and

summaries for key EP categories.

Each of these is described in further detail in Table 1 below.


Table 1 Description of four main project outputs for understanding EP hotspots

1.3 Interpretation of results This research can be used for the following purposes:

Prioritisation. Determining what types of EP have the potential for significant reductions in environmental

impact and associated cost savings.

Engagement. The results provide an accessible resource identifying the primary hotspot impacts across a

range of environmental metrics. This approach has been developed specifically to support people new to

product environmental impact assessment so that they can quickly assess their product range.

Assessment. Categorising products based on their dominant technological characteristics, and then using the

scaling methodology developed through this research, can be used in the future to update and/or develop

new hotspot analyses.

Insight. Industry engagement during the process has highlighted a number of areas where immediate action

can be taken. These insights are presented throughout the research.

Further research. Areas that warrant further work have been identified and targeted. This research provides

a strategic overview of the EP sector across multiple environmental metrics. Significant gaps have been

highlighted and recommendations presented for follow-up actions.

Due to the limitations in the methodology used and data presented, the analysis should not be used for the

following:

Product-level decision making. The scaling method applied in the analysis is indifferent to brands, models

and product-specific technology (e.g. halogen and light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs), unless explicitly indicated

in the report.

Organisational footprint reporting. The product categorisation and footprint methodology will enable

organisations to calculate their own hotspot analysis, but does not provide a sufficiently robust method for

external reporting on their supply-chain impacts.

Baseline setting. A hotspots footprint provides an approximation of impacts to identify areas for targeting.

The assumptions and data applied are not appropriate for setting, or measuring against, impact reduction

targets.

Product Categorisation

Categorising EPs by their dominant technological characteristic enables quick

assessment of environmental impacts associated with a product group.

This approach provides the basis for calculating UK hotspots and identifying

reduction opportunities. It is described in section 2 of this report.

UK Hotspots Analysis

The main body of analysis that provides an overview of the significant environmental

impacts associated with a range of EPs and their cost implications.

It provides a directional steer to identify intervention opportunities and prioritise

selected industry areas. It is presented in section 3 of this report.

Reduction Opportunities

Identifies key opportunities for reducing environmental impacts associated with EPs

and realising cost savings. Quantified reduction opportunities, based on existing

studies, are presented and scaled to the UK economy for a selection of products.

These are presented in section 4 of this report.

Category

Summaries Summary documents are provided for each product category.

These documents present an overview of the main environmental impacts, reduction

opportunities and resources available for each product category. They can be found

in Part 2 of this research.


2.0 Product categorisation

2.1 A new approach to grouping EPs This research uses a new approach to categorising EPs, grouping them according to their dominant technological

characteristics. This approach is well established in organisations as a way of providing useful insights for a range

of products but has not generally been applied to EPs for environmental purposes. Existing methods of classifying

EPs are typically based on product function (e.g. cleaning) or waste classification (e.g. hazardous), classifications

that may not enable cross-product technology transfer and assessment. For example, the European Waste

Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive2 system of classification is not useful for assessing the

environmental impacts of products, because products using disparate technologies are grouped together. For

example, microwave ovens, fridge-freezers and hobs are all placed in WEEE Category 1 – Large Household

Appliances, despite their functional and technological differences.

To identify the hotspots for a range of EPs, many of which have never been subjected to detailed lifecycle

assessment (LCA), the new categorisation system groups products together by their like components. Presenting

products in this manner highlights reduction opportunities across technologies and products. For example, a

blender and a vacuum cleaner have been placed in the same category since each could benefit from improved

motor technologies and efficiencies. Although some categories, such as heating and cooling, group together a

number of products that may not have the exact same environmental profile (e.g. kettles and irons), the

underlying heating technologies are close enough to allow for similar initiatives to be applied to each product.

2.2 EP product categories Categorisation by dominant characteristic allows for the rapid identification of primary product attributes and

reduction opportunities. Five broad categories have been used in this research due to their principal technology

use. These five categories were selected because all EPs are underpinned by one of the stated technologies or, in

the case of renewable energy, its primary output.

Electronics. Electrical circuit boards and information processing and/or display are the primary functions of

these products (e.g. computer).

Pumps and Motors. Products that contain a pump or motor as its primary operational purpose (e.g. lawn

mower).

Heating and Cooling. Appliances, white goods and climate control equipment that is used to change

temperatures (e.g. fridge).

Lighting. All lighting technologies (e.g. LED bulb).

Renewable Energy. For the purposes of this project, household solar PV and wind turbines.

By identifying the appropriate product category, users can quickly understand the hotspots associated with a

product group, identify reduction opportunities, and understand more about the environmental implications of

design and product lifespans. This approach is illustrated in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 How to use the proposed product categorisation to identify reduction opportunities

The product categorisation used to group EPs in this project is shown in Table 2 and Figure 2 below.

2 Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 27 January 2003, on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Published in Official Journal L37, 13 February 2003. Amended by Directive 2003/108/EC on 8 December 2003 - Official Journal L 345, 31 December 2003.


Group Sub-group Distinction Characteristic Category Example products included in category

Typical Asset Life

Electronics Display-based Televisions/Monitors 1 TVs & monitors 5 - 10 Years

Laptops 2 Laptops <5 Years

Other 3 Mobiles, MP3 players, Tablets <5 Years

Processing-based Complex 4 Set Top Boxes, Cameras, Desktop PCs <5 Years

Simple Large 5 Printers, Alarm Systems <5 Years

Other 6 Calculators, Thermostatic Kits 5 - 10 Years

External Power Supplies 7 Adaptors 5 - 10 Years

Pumps & Motors

Mains power Multi-function 8 Spa/Aquarium equipment, Heat Pumps >10 Years

Single function Large 9 Garden Power, Ventilation 5 - 10 Years

Other 10 Vacuum Cleaner, Blender 5 - 10 Years

Battery power 11 DIY Equipment, Electric Toothbrush 5 - 10 Years

Heating & Cooling

Spatial Cooling 12 Refrigerators/Fridges-freezers, HVAC 5 - 10 Years

Heating 13 Electric Ovens, Heaters >10 Years

Appliances Multi-function Dishwashers 14 Dishwashers 5 - 10 Years

Other 15 Washing Machines, Dryers 5 – 10 Years

Other High power 16 Coffee machines, Kettles, Irons <5 Years

Medium power 17 Hair dryer <5 Years

Microwave ovens 18 - >10 Years

Lighting All High Intensity Discharge

19 - 5 - 10 Years

Halogen 20 - <2 Years

Fluorescent 21 - 5 - 10 Years

LED 22 - >10 Years

Renewable Energy

Solar PV 23 - >10 Years

Household wind turbine 24 - 5 - 10 Years

Table 2 Categorisation of EPs by dominant technological characteristic


Figure 2 EP groups and sub-groups used in this research


3.0 UK Environmental Hotspots Analysis 3.1 How hotspots are identified The environmental hotspots of a product are defined as the most significant impacts across its lifecycle stages,

according to each of five environmental impact indicators. These are shown below in Figure 3, with lifecycle

stages along the top and indicators down the side.

Raw

materials Manufacturing Distribution Use End of Life Unit

Greenhouse gases

emitted

kgCO2e

Energy used

MJ

Materials used

kg

Waste produced

kg

Water used

Litre

Figure 3 Lifecycle stages and environmental impact indicators for EPs

For each of the five environmental impact indicators, direct and indirect aspects are included where the data

allows. This includes the upstream and downstream impact activities for products e.g. raw material extraction,

product use. Full supply chain coverage is strongest for GHG emissions, due to methodology maturity and global

research output, and much more limited supply chain coverage was available for other impact areas, such as

waste and water. In terms of the original datasets, the comparability and completeness across environmental

metrics is therefore inconsistent. This was overcome using aggregation methods for each impact and taking a

normalisation approach to scaling impacts.

The variability in cross-metric studies, in particular the scaling of materials for products not assessed through the

LCA process, resulted in multiple research methodologies being applied. The main drawback with the adopted

approach is that there are a limited number of sufficient quality data sets available to allow for a full multi-metric

assessment for all impact categories.

All sales data used in this study are sourced from market reports (e.g. Mintel) and other official statistics and

therefore cover those products for which studies are available. Further detail on the methodologies applied to

produce these results, and the limitations of the approach used, can be found in the Part 3 report.

3.2 Environmental impacts by product group

3.2.1 GHG emissions Total lifecycle emissions of the selected EPs sold in the UK market in one year are approximately 196 MtCO2e.

The proportions accounted for by each product group are shown in Figure 4 below. Lighting is mostly responsible

for these emissions (42%), with commercial lighting, which combines all lighting technologies in commercial

settings, being by far the most dominant sub-category contributing 34% of the total for UK EP (i.e. 34% of 196

MtCO2e). Other key sub-categories representing a significant proportion of the overall total are televisions

(15%), large high power pumps and motors (12%) and spatial cooling (10%). See the Part 3 report for further

details.


Figure 4 Lifecycle GHG emissions of selected EPs sold in the UK market in one year

3.2.2 Energy consumption Total lifecycle energy consumption of selected EPs sold in the UK market in one year is approximately 1.3 million

TJ (see Figure 5). Lighting is mostly responsible for this consumption (39%), with commercial lighting

representing 32% of the UK total.3 Again, other key sub-categories representing a significant proportion of the

overall total are televisions (15%), large high power pumps and motors (12%) and spatial cooling (10%).

Figure 5 Lifecycle energy consumption of selected EPs sold in the UK market in one year

3.2.3 Materials The total weight of selected EPs sold in the UK market in one year is approximately 1.4 million tonnes of

materials (see Figure 6).4 Heating and cooling products are responsible for the largest proportion of this total

(50%), with electric cookers and refrigerated display cabinets accounting for approximately 40% of the materials.

3 Annual energy requirements from new products placed on the market is approximately 13.7 TWh. See Appendix 2 in the Part 3 report for a comparison with total UK energy consumption. 4 This number is slightly lower than official Environment Agency reports for total materials placed on the market in 2010. The Environment Agency values are based on reported ‘placed on the market’ quantities from manufacturers, brand holders and retailers. WRAP’s analysis is based on estimates of product weights mapped to market analyses and is representative of the general material hotspots for EPs. For further information see Appendix 3 in the Part 3 report.

Electronics 24%

Pumps and Motors 13%

Heating and

Cooling 21%

Lighting 42%

Renewable Energy

0%

GHG - 196 MtCO2e

Electronics 26%

Pumps and Motors 12%

Heating and Cooling

23%

Lighting 39%

Renewable Energy

0%

Energy - 1,306 TJ (thousand)

Electronics 39%

Pumps and Motors

8%

Heating and Cooling

50%

Lighting 2%

Renewable Energy

1%

Materials - 1,415 kt


Figure 6 Total weight of selected EPs sold in the UK market in one year

3.3 UK EP hotspots

The hotspot results are presented here in three sections, based on the five environmental impact indicators:

GHG and energy;

materials and waste; and

water.

It should be noted that a range of sources and calculations were used to derive the results for each indicator. For

instance, a full LCA has been relied upon to capture GHG emissions and energy use resulting from lifecycle

processes, as these are often similar for different product groups within the same category, while the material

footprint is based solely on final product weight and material profiles, and excludes other lifecycle stages (e.g.

material production efficiencies, manufacturing waste). Further detail on key assumptions and sensitivity analysis

can be found in section 1 of the Part 3 report.

3.3.1 GHG and energy hotspots This section presents GHG footprints for full lifecycle emissions and embodied emissions for each of the product

categories. Lifecycle emissions account for all phases of a product’s lifespan – from raw material extraction to end

user disposal. Embodied emissions exclude the use phase, i.e. they cover from raw material extraction through to

manufacturing and distribution to which are added emissions from the end-of-life handling of products.

For the vast majority of current EPs, the use phase will be the dominant component of a product’s GHG and

energy footprint. However, this research prioritises embodied emissions over lifecycle emissions because it is

considered that sufficient attention is being placed on the use-phase impacts by existing regulatory and policy

measures such as the European Eco-Design Directive for energy related products.5 Emissions associated with the

materials themselves are becoming of increasing importance to policy makers as in-use efficiency gains are

realised through other reduction measures.

Product impacts can be scaled up in proportion to the UK economy, allowing the rapid identification of EP sectors

to target for reductions. The overall environmental benefit will depend on the emission profile of an individual

product and the volume sold onto the UK market. The largest benefits are likely to result from improvements to

products with high emissions profiles and high sales. Substantive benefits on a UK level may also result from

changes to products with either high sales and low emission profiles or low sales and high emission profiles.

Figure 7 below shows annual sales volumes as against full lifecycle GHG emissions for the 24 product categories

selected for this research (listed in Table 2 above) plus commercial lighting as a composite category. It shows

that commercial lighting is the greatest contributor to the total lifecycle GHG footprint of EPs in the UK, at 36%.

While these products are sold in high volumes, the primary reason for their GHG contribution is use-phase energy

consumption. This sales category is not present in the product categorisation due to its composition of multiple

lighting technologies. It has been separated out from the other lighting categories to reflect this.

While a total lifecycle footprint provides an overview of where the environmental impacts across the UK economy

are, they can often hide the material footprints of the selected product areas. For example, laptops account for a

small contribution to the total UK lifecycle footprint of EPs because they are energy efficient, despite having high

manufacturing emissions during the production process.

Figure 8 below shows data on the embodied emissions only (i.e. excluding use phase) for the same 24 product

categories. Product areas with substantially greater emissions than units indicate a high embodied material

footprint. This typically takes place where energy intensive materials and/or processes are used during the

product’s manufacture.

5 Directive 2009/125/EC establishing a framework for the setting of eco-design requirements for energy related products.


Figure 7 Approximate one-year’s UK EP sales volumes and lifecycle GHG footprints for 24 product categories and commercial lighting as a composite category. Includes in-use electricity consumption

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

GH

G E

missio

ns

(Life

tcycle

MtC

O2 e

) Sale

s U

nits

(m

illio

n)

UK EP GHG Footprint (full lifecyle emissions)

Volume (millions) Lifecycle GHG Emissions


Figure 8 Approximate one-year’s UK EP sales volumes and embodied GHG footprints for 24 product categories and commercial lighting as a composite category. Excludes in-use electricity consumption

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

GH

G E

missio

ns

(Em

bodie

d k

tCO

2 e)

Sale

s U

nits

(m

illio

ns)

UK EP GHG Footprint (embodied emissions)

Volume (millions) Embodied GHG Emissions


Figure 9 shows the embodied GHG footprint for the selected product categories. It demonstrates that nine

product categories are responsible for over three quarters of the total embodied GHG footprint of EPs purchased

in the UK each year. These are (in order of greatest impact): complex processing electronics (e.g. desktop PCs,

set-top boxes); spatial cooling; lighting; spatial heating; large simple processing electronics (e.g. printers, alarm

systems); laptops; televisions & monitors; pumps and motors (large high power); and other multi-function

appliances.

Figure 9 Embodied GHG footprint for selected major EPs sold in the UK

Although this research groups individual EPs into product categories to facilitate hotspots analysis, some products

were sufficiently identifiable as being significant in their own right, and suitable targets for improvement with

regard to embodied GHG emissions.

Products contributing more than 5% of total UK EP embodied GHG emissions for which sufficient quality data is

available to recommend action are:

televisions (6%) – base model blend of LCD, PDP and CRT screens and sizes;

vacuum cleaners (6%) – base model vacuum cleaner;

washing machines (5%) – base model washing machine, dryer; and

non-domestic laptops (5%)6 – base model laptop.

Products that initially indicated a high resource impact in terms of embodied GHG emissions but that had lower quality data were:

electric cookers (9%) – footprint profile for this category may not scale appropriately to electric ovens;

commercial lighting (5%) – mixture of lighting technology, distribution and sector profiles are not known; and

electronic security and access control (5%) – separation of product profiles e.g. CCTV and burglar alarms.

Subsequently, WRAP commissioned project RNF200-013 to further research the specific footprints of the products

listed above as they required improved data for more accurate analysis. This additional research used refined

estimates which suggest that these three products (electric cookers, commercial lighting and electronic security

and access control) are not considered hotspot targets for embodied GHG emissions.

The top ten EPs that have been identified as contributing the most, in terms of embodied energy, to the UK GHG

and energy footprint are presented in Table 3. These products represent those EPs that are sold in sufficient

quantities and mass to make a material difference to the total UK EP footprint.

6 Although both domestic and non-domestic laptops have a similar market presence, the embodied emissions of non-domestic ones are considered higher due to additional materials and weight of these products.


Product EP Group Volume

(thousands) Weight (tonnes)

Embodied GHG

(kTCO2e)

Embodied Energy

(TJ)

Televisions Televisions 9,900 110,000 740 16,000

Vacuum cleaners Large high power pumps &

motors

5,800 75,000 720 12,000

Washing machines Other multi-function

appliances

2,500 170,000 620 9,000

Non-domestic

laptops

Laptops 6,500 25,000 600 9,300

Domestic lighting-

fluorescent

Lighting 97,000 10,000 520 6,200

Microwave ovens Microwave ovens 3,200 60,000 520 8,000

Refrigerated

display cabinets

Spatial cooling 110 84,000 470 7,700

Non-domestic

printers

Large simple processing

electronics

3,300 35,000 450 7,000

Fridges Spatial cooling 2,100 79,000 440 7,200

Personal laptops Laptops 6,300 19,000 440 6,800

Table 3 Top ten EPs with highest embodied GHG emissions on the UK market (based on available data, rounded to 2 significant figures)

Whilst some of these products are sold in relatively small volumes and have large impacts (e.g. washing

machines), others are present due to their large market presence (e.g. domestic lighting – fluorescent). It is

important to identify this distinction when determining which categories to engage, as priority should be placed

on those sectors that have the potential to achieve the greatest reductions. Appendix 4 in the accompanying Part

3 report contains information on quantified reduction opportunities.

Taking full account of the use phase of EPs provides a slightly different order of products, due to their unique

power consumption and lifespan profiles. Where products have both high embodied and lifecycle GHG footprints,

multiple reduction opportunities may become possible.

Table 4 provides a comparison of the top five products that contribute the most to the UK EP footprint in terms of

(a) lifecycle GHG emissions and (b) embodied GHG emissions. Televisions are present in both tables, and thus

represent a product group that could be assessed for full lifecycle reductions.

Top 5: Lifecycle GHG Top 5: Embodied GHG

1. Commercial lighting 1. Televisions

2. Televisions 2. Vacuum cleaners

3. Non-domestic centrifugal ventilation

3. Washing machines

4. Non-domestic monitors 4. Non-domestic laptops

5. Domestic lighting - halogen 5. Domestic lighting - fluorescent

Table 4 Top five lifecycle and embodied GHG emission EPs (based on available data)

3.3.2 Materials and waste hotspots This section presents the impacts resulting from materials used in EPs, including waste produced. It focuses

primarily on materials used within the core products but also considers peripherals and consumables where

significant.

Table 5 below identifies the key materials found in EPs sold in the UK in a typical year. Products of particular note

include:


vacuum cleaners and PC peripherals. These appear to be a significant source of material use due to the high

quantity of products sold – rather than large unit size;

major household appliances (e.g. washing machines and fridges/freezers) as these are large units with high

sales volumes; and

non-domestic ICT (printers and monitors), which is a significant product group for six of the materials.

Material % of

total

mass7

Major contributing products

Steel 49 Washing machines, PC peripherals, non-domestic ICT[1], electric cookers

Plastics 27 PC peripherals, vacuum cleaners, non-domestic ICT, TVs, washing machines

Iron 6 Fridges/freezers, refrigerated display cabinets, TVs,

Copper 5 Vacuum cleaners, DVD systems, microwaves, washing machines, PC peripherals

Glass[2] 4 TVs, commercial lighting, domestic lighting, domestic solar PV, washing machines

Aluminium 2 TVs, fridges/freezers, DVD systems, washing machines, refrigerated display cabinets

Wood[3] 0.4 Home audio/hi-fi

Ceramics 0.3 Televisions, PC peripherals, non-domestic ICT, electronic security & access control

CFC11[4] 0.1 Fridges/freezers, refrigerated display cabinets, air conditioning

Oil 0.1 Refrigerated display cabinets, fridges/freezers

Tin 0.1 PC peripherals, non-domestic ICT, washing machines, ePSUs, TVs, non-domestic PCs

Zinc 0.05 PC peripherals, Non-domestic ICT, electronic security & access control, TVs

Epoxy 0.03 Set-top boxes, DVD systems, home audio/hi-fi, microwaves, vacuum cleaners, TVs

CFC12[4] 0.04 Fridges/freezers, refrigerated display cabinets, air conditioning

Nickel 0.03 PC peripherals, non-domestic ICT, electronic security & access control, ePSUs

Total 94.5

Table 5 Estimated distribution by percentage mass of materials embodied in EPs sold in the UK in a typical year

Product mass, total consumption and end-of-life options all affect how much material is present in the UK due to

purchased EPs. Total mass, by itself, provides just part of the picture of priorities for reductions. For example,

strictly by weight it appears that washing machines present the greatest material opportunity for reductions.

However, the majority of components in these products are ‘low risk’ metals (e.g. steel). Therefore, if supply or

economic risks are key considerations, further detail is needed in addition to total mass.

This research focuses on priority materials that are essential for the manufacture of EPs. It is worth noting that

none of the materials in Table 5 appears on the European Commission ‘critical raw materials’ list,8 and only tin

and copper appear on a list of resources prioritised in recent Defra research.9 Tin, mainly found in solder, has the

highest supply risk rating of those on the list, as defined by the British Geological Survey.10

Reported materials composition data (European Commission 2010) is not explicit about the quantities of low

volume materials used in the production of EPs, such as rare earth metals. These are grouped together in an

‘other’ category.

7 Extrapolated from United Nations University (2008) [1] ‘ICT’ includes printers and monitors, ‘PCs’ include desktops and laptop computers. [2] [2] Glass content will be lower as screen technologies have moved away from CRT to LED-based systems. [3] Wood content probably reflects historic use in casings (e.g. TVs) and so does not reflect current production of all products in this group. It has been included for completeness. [4] CFCs are no longer placed on the market (alternative refrigerants are used e.g. HFC-134a). However these substances still appear in WEEE waste streams. 8 European Commission (2010) 9 AEAT (2010) 10 British Geological Survey (2011)


Figure 10 below shows the distribution of a range of priority materials in the five EP groups assessed. As can be

seen from the dominant blue bars, electronics account for the vast majority of high value, and even some low

value, materials. This data does not capture materials used in the manufacturing process that are not present in

the final product (e.g. graphite used in the production of steel, oil when used in the production of certain

plastics).

Figure 10 Distribution of priority materials in selected EP groups

Countries of production

The extraction locations of materials used in EPs are shown below in Figure 11. To produce this chart, extraction

masses were normalised for each material type. China dominates the production of materials required for EPs.

The importance of EPs for the global economy places China in a position of considerable influence. For example,

its recent restriction of rare earth exports is allowing it to keep increasing amounts of the manufacturing supply-

chain within its borders.11

Figure 11 Extraction locations of raw materials used in EPs

11 European Commission (2010)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Electronics Pumps & Motors Heating & Cooling Lighting Renewable Energy


Low volume, critical materials

In addition to the material content of products, a review of critical12 material inputs to upstream manufacturing of

larger volume materials was undertaken. As can be seen from Table 6 below, three key materials used in high

volumes to manufacture EPs rely, to a greater or lesser extent, on a number of low volume, scarce inputs for

their production. One example is the use of antimony as a plastic flame retardant.

This dependency can be hidden in analyses which only examine material composition of end products. By taking

a supply chain view of production, it is clear that reducing demands on high volume materials e.g. steel, plastics,

will have knock-on benefits of reducing demand for critical materials used in their production, e.g. graphite.

High vol.

material

Critical material Role of critical material in production of high volume

material13

Steel Graphite Graphite to raise the carbon content of steel

Fluorspar Used to lower melting point and increase the fluidity of slag

Plastic14 Antimony Used as flame retardant (e.g. in plastics)

Germanium Catalyst in production of polymers e.g. Polyethylene terephthalate

Aluminium Magnesium Used in aluminium alloys

Fluorspar Used to lower melting point and increase the fluidity of slag

Fluorochemicals Fluorspar Used in production of many fluorochemicals e.g. HFC

Table 6 Role of critical materials in the production of high volume materials

To explore this issue further, a review of industry data on the end use of selected high volume and scarce

materials was undertaken, the results of which are presented in Table 7. This highlights the fact that a major

proportion of critical materials such as indium and gallium are used in EPs. Conversely only a small proportion of

the high volume materials are used in EPs (e.g. 1% of aluminium, 4% of iron and steel). See Appendix 6 of the

Part 3 report for full table.

Raw material Notable applications in EPs15 % of global

supply in

electronics16

Gallium Most gallium used in integrated circuits (e.g. mobile phones) 86%

Indium Most indium is used in flat-panel displays (e.g. phones, TVs) 76%

Antimony Most is used in flame retardants e.g. in plastics 50%

Tin Tin is used in solder and printed circuit boards 50%

Rare earth elements 19% in magnets (e.g. hard disc drives); 8% in NiMH batteries 21%

Germanium Used in semiconductors (e.g. mobile phones) and solar panels 15%17

Platinum Group

Metals

16% of palladium in capacitors; 80% of ruthenium in hard disks 11%

Gold Gold plating of connectors, switches, and other components 9%

Iron (& steel) Product housings, frames, lids, covers, screws and hinges 4%

Copper Cables, connectors and circuit boards in computers 2%

Aluminium Structural uses e.g. frames & casing; also heat exchangers 1%

Crude oil (plastic) Structural uses e.g. cases <1%

Table 7 Fraction of global material production used in EPs – selected critical and high volume materials

12 The term critical material is as defined as per European Commission (2010): “Raw material is labelled critical when the risks

of supply shortage and their impacts on the economy are higher compared with most of the other raw materials”. 13 As discussed in Oakdene Hollins (2011) 14 Common types include polystyrene, polypropylene, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene & polycarbonate. 15 Adapted from Oakdene Hollins (2011) 16 Fraction of global supply in electrical goods. Estimates from a variety of sources – see Appendix 6 of Part 3 report. 17 Does not include potential use as catalyst in production of polymers e.g. PET.


Materials used in UK EPs can be grouped crudely into three categories – all of which should be targeted to

mitigate environmental impacts and supply risk:

1. High volume metals and plastics which, although not scarce, represent the most significant source

of embodied emissions for the sector. These are often found in ‘simpler’ appliances (e.g. washing

machines) and can be more easily recycled.

2. Low volume elements which are high value (e.g. rare earth elements), poorly recycled and critical

to the functionality of more advanced high-end electrical goods e.g. computers, televisions, mobile

phones. These materials pose higher supply chain risks due to scarcity and concentration of supply.

3. Borderline materials that have facets of both groups (e.g. tin and antimony). These materials are

used in moderate quantities but also exhibit significant supply-side risk.

Use-phase material consumption

Some EPs also require the consumption of additional materials during their use phase. For example, printers

require ink and paper in order to fulfil their function. Material consumption for these types of products is essential

to delivering the intended function.

Use-phase material requirements have been assessed for dishwashers, printers, vacuum cleaners and washing

machines. Additional products may have other material requirements (e.g. coffee for a coffee machine), however

these have not been estimated in this research.

Table 8 below describes the specific product impacts assessed. The values presented represent total lifespan

consumption of the ancillary materials associated with a single year of retail sales of the corresponding

appliances. Note that the lifetime consumption of ancillary materials for washing machines is estimated at around

an order of magnitude greater than the weight of the washing machines placed on the market.

Product UK Retail Sales

(thousand

units)

Material Input Lifetime material

requirements

(thousand tonnes)

Washing machines 2,539 Detergent 949

Extras (e.g. bleach, softener) 804

Printers 9,494 Paper 128

Ink 1.8

Dishwashers 793 Detergent 72

Extras (e.g. rinse agent, salt) 88

Vacuum cleaners 5,767 Bags 8

Table 8 Full lifetime use-phase material consumption for a selection of EPs based on one year’s UK retail sales

See Appendix 6 in the Part 3 report for a summary of key environmental information related to EPs.


3.3.3 Water hotspots Research into water impacts focused on (a) water intensity and (b) production area water scarcity, for the key EP

materials identified during the course of the research.18 This approach allows for a detailed risk-based assessment

of key EP materials whilst overcoming the obstacles related to the current immaturity of water footprinting.

Water scarcity is the measure of stress in a local and/or regional system. The drivers of scarcity range from

natural variation to over-consumption of water resources. Where issues of scarcity are present, the decision to

select the location for a manufacturing or ore processing plant becomes important. Within the electronics

industry, concerns over water scarcity and stress within manufacturing are moving up the sustainability agenda

(e.g. Intel19). The water impact of production of semiconductors and printed circuit boards is becoming an

increasing focus for the industry.

The analysis therefore focused on deriving a risk-based analysis on the water scarcity and water intensity of key

EP materials.

Data from the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation was used to identify regions experiencing water stress.

Although this data source largely addresses water stress related to crop growth, the general indication is

appropriate for this hotspots analysis since it provides a consistent way of identifying which countries are

experiencing some level of water stress.

Figure 12 below shows water-based risk associated with current material production locations and refinement

technologies based on data listed in Appendix 6, Part 3 of this report.

18 Water intensity relates to the amount of water required to produce an output. A product with high material water intensity requires a large quantity of water to produce it. Water scarcity relates to the availability of water within a geographic region. Water stress relates to the balance of supply and demand of water in a geographic region. A region that is drier, or one that uses water in greater quantities than is available, is said to be experiencing water stress.

19 Intel (2009)


Figure 12 Water intensity and water scarcity for key materials used in EPs

One of the unique attributes of a water risk assessment is that, unlike materials themselves, water is potentially a

renewable resource if used appropriately in the correct locations. In a water stressed region, a high intensity

material (e.g. gold) could have significant impacts on the local water system. Understanding why these intensities

are so great within each material type is an important next step to seeing how intensity-to-scarcity ratios may be

reduced. Considering other outputs from the assessment, such as plastics production for EPs, highlights the areas

where industry can make significant progress to reducing their risk rating by sourcing their materials from less

water stressed regions.

In-use consumption

Some EPs consume water during the use phase in order to fulfil their primary function e.g. washing machines,

dishwashers, kettles. There are two types of in-use water consumption:

Process – water use is the medium by which a product will deliver its function.

Example: washing machines use water to clean clothes; water is discharged after cycle is complete and most

is returned to the same watershed.

Enhancement – consumption of water is enhanced through the product.

Example: kettles heat water that is then consumed.

Process water use can be quantified through machine specification and design and is less dependent on individual

consumer behaviour. High-powered appliances, such as kettles and electric showers, can use large quantities of

water, but the specific use will vary by use pattern.

This research quantified process water use for two products for which data was available: washing machines and

dishwashers. Initiatives to reduce water consumption in these products should focus on technological

Plastics Aluminium

Rare Earths

Silicon

Antimony

Magnesium

Indium

Tin

Silver

Gold

Cobalt

Nickel Gallium

Palladium

Copper

Steel W

ate

r Sca

rcity in M

ate

rial O

rigin

s

High

Low

High Low

Material Extraction/Refinement Water Consumption

EP Material Water Consumption v Water Scarcity

Tantalum

Lithium

Iron

Tellurium


improvements. This is highly relevant in the context of specific UK regions where water stress is creating an

increasing case for reductions. Figure 13 below shows that washing machines consume approximately 91% of the

total water consumed by these two process-based EPs.

Figure 13 Lifecycle water consumption of dishwashers and washing machines purchased in the UK in 2009 based on data referred to in Part 2 of this report (category summaries)

3.3.4 Combined material impacts An assessment was undertaken of the material supply chain risk and environmental impact of a selection of

materials found in EPs (see section 1 of the Part 3 report). The results of this assessment are presented in Table

9 below showing the risk associated with material supply, water stress and carbon emissions. This table can be

used to view the relative risks of each key EP material and identify the primary considerations that should be

taken into account when designing EPs. Each risk factor is related to individual assessments, and a high value in

one metric (e.g. water) will not necessarily correlate with another (e.g. supply chain risk). Similarly, a high

material impact does not indicate a high level of risk in itself.


Material Supply

risk

Water

impact

Carbon

impact

Gold 5.5 9 10

Platinum Group Metals 7.9 6 10

Indium 5.3 8 8

Tantalum 4.1 8 9

Silicon - 7 7

Beryllium 6.8 - -

Niobium 6.8 - -

Magnesium 5.4 7 7

Tin 6 8 5

Antimony 6.9 7 5

Gallium 4.8 5 9

Silver 3.3 7 8

Tungsten 6.1 - -

Germanium 6 - -

Rare earth elements 8.9 6 2

Lithium 3.5 7 5

Aluminium 2.0 6 5

Cobalt 3.9 5 4

Steel 2.1 7 3

Plastics (from crude oil) - 5 3

Copper 2.5 6 2

Nickel 2.3 4 4

Iron 2.1 6 2

Tellurium 1.2 4 4

Table 9 Supply risk and environmental impact indices for key EP materials (0 = low, 10 = high) based on data in Part 3, Section 1.4 of this report.

Where valuable materials are present in the UK, supply risk considerations would argue for a clear resource-

focused strategy to collect and recycle these materials from the supply chain. Unfortunately, many opportunities

are being lost to recover these materials from EPs once they reach their end-of-life stage either due to failure of

collection or material recovery. For example, Spain recently placed GPS devices on 15 EPs and found that of the

15 products that were tagged only six were disposed of correctly.20 In the UK, a study of the ICT disposal process

found that 35% of large organisations were not confident that their EPs were being disposed of properly.21

Obtaining materials from existing uses is a major issue for high value materials. Comparing the EP risk index with

current recycling rates, high value materials are not necessarily being recovered in high quantities from products.

Our results show no correlation between supply risk and recycling rate. This could be due to a variety of factors.

For example, 72% of antimony is used as a flame retardant in plastics; this dissipative use makes recycling

difficult. While these rates are not specific to EPs, they do show how broader material impacts may result in

future supply chain disruption.

Figure 14 below shows the relationship between supply-chain risks and current global material recycling rates.

20 See Mendez, R. (2011) 21 ComputerAid (2011) IT Decision Makers Research


Figure 14 Scarcity and recycling rates of selected materials used in EPs


4.0 Reduction opportunities

Reducing the overall lifecycle impacts of products means looking at each stage, from raw material extraction and

processing through manufacture, distribution and use to end-of-life treatment. The wide range of activities that

make up this lifecycle increases the range of potential reduction opportunities.

The main areas where strategies can be applied are:

materials – alternative, renewable, recycling and re-use;

processing – low energy, low waste;

distribution – more efficient distribution models;

use – more efficient technology, better user education or ‘intelligent’ products; and

end of life – extraction of value (material and financial).

There are also themes that run across these lifecycle stages, such as:

the development of new technologies that may result in different material requirements, more efficient use of

materials, better processing technologies, more efficient use patterns and longer life or ability to recycle

certain materials; and

new business models that may also have an effect on overall resource efficiency of products. A move to a

leasing model might bring about better control of product lifecycles and extract more value at end of life when

compared to the traditional model of manufacture, sell and dispose.

The practical application of such strategies may be specific to a product category, but the overall aims of each will

be the same at a strategic level, as will the influential parties that can promote and encourage these particular

strategies.

Marketers, designers and specifiers play a key role in the implementation of reduction strategies, as they

ultimately set the form and function of products and in doing so are setting whole lifecycle environmental costs at

that stage. When developing new products, the designer will choose particular materials which in turn set

processing routes. They will also define the use of certain technologies, which will affect the use impacts of a

product, its physical life expectancy and in many cases the point at which it will become redundant due to the

development of newer technology. Misconceptions, preconceptions and design price point will often discourage a

designer from investigating more sustainable pathways. For example, recycled materials can perform as well, if

not better, than virgin ones in both technical and aesthetic terms.

In many cases, the application of a new technology for market-led or technical reasons may result in an

environmental benefit. For example, the current move to slim light LED edge-lit LCD displays in televisions and

monitors not only gives a higher definition picture with clearer colours, but it also means less material is used in

manufacture and less energy is consumed in-use as the technology requires less power.

The materials, processing and end-of-life phase of a product’s life are affected directly by the decisions designers

and manufacturers make, and to a lesser extent the demands of buyers and specifiers. Manufacturers and brand

owners still have much more influence over product impacts and currently have the biggest part to play in

bringing resource efficient products to market. However, as discussed below, the role of non-technical solutions

and alternative business models will become increasingly important as resources and technologies improve at

ever-faster rates. Retailers have a significant role to play in supporting non-technical solutions and could work

with manufacturers and consumers on for example new, more resource efficient business models. .

4.1 Cost and impact reduction opportunities

It is difficult to estimate the cost reduction potential resulting from environmental improvements to EPs in the UK.

There is an increasing amount of literature available and technological advancement taking place throughout the

industry is delivering improvements; however, the actual quantification of these savings is often too broad to

associate directly with individual products. Cost and impact reduction opportunities can be present throughout a

product’s lifespan offering the manufacturer, retailer and user alike the opportunity to realise savings. Most


reduction opportunities can be classified into four categories: technical, process, lifespan and re-use optimisation,

as shown in Table 10 below.

Reduction

Opportunity Type

Description

Technical Selection of material and/or technology for product composition and function. These

changes may result in cost increases or reductions depending on the type of change

being made (e.g. improving durability).

Process Change in manufacturing and/or sales model to reduce the total impacts of a product;

the product itself remains unchanged.

Lifespan Product design changes and extended customer support to prolong the use of the item.

This is often linked to design for repair and re-use and providing access to reasonably

priced replacement parts.

Re-use End-of-life collection and recovery of components and materials for future applications.

Table 10 Characterisation of reduction opportunities

The European Commission has made substantial progress in highlighting broad technical reduction opportunities

for products. Due to these studies being initiated through the Energy-using Products Directive (now Energy-

related Products Directive), the focus on design excluded the broader behavioural and market mechanisms that

could lead to further improvements.

The Commission’s work estimates the cost of implementing measures that would lead to a lower environmental

impact for energy-using products at the national level, but for only a handful of categories due to significant gaps

in the data. Quantified reduction opportunities are presented here for the following products, using the cost

analysis applied in the preparatory studies for the Commission:

fridges/fridge-freezers/freezers;

electric cookers;

microwaves;

multi-function appliances (washing machines and dishwashers); and

vacuum cleaners.

Estimates of the potential scale of reductions are also presented for improved product durability for the above products and for televisions.

Greenhouse gases and energy

Figure 15 compares the total assessed producer cost and reduction potential across four of the five EP reduction

opportunities (excluding vacuum cleaners). As indicated in the chart, the greatest technical potential for

reductions is in the refrigerator/freezer/fridge-freezer product group. The top-level overview of measures

presented provides an initial indication of what product categories to look towards for significant technical

reduction opportunities. However, specific product opportunities have been used to a limited extent in this

research to promote cross-category reductions based on core category characteristics.

Figure 15 Quantified lifecycle carbon reduction opportunities, and their cost, across EPs sold in one year

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

400

800

1,200

1,600

Refr

igera

tors

/fre

eze

rs/f

ridge-

freeze

rs

Ele

ctric

cookers

Wash

ing

mach

ines

&

Dis

hw

ash

ers

Mic

row

aves

GH

G S

avin

gs (M

tCO

2e)

Cost

(£m

illio

n)

Cost Implications GHG Savings


Figure 16 below shows the variety of specific reduction opportunities for the refrigerators/freezers/fridge-freezers

product group.

Figure 16 Lifetime carbon reduction opportunities and cost implications for one year of refrigerator/fridge-freezer/freezer sales

Table 11 shows the top five most cost-effective GHG reduction measures. The single most cost-effective technical

GHG reductions could be achieved by encouraging manufacturers to improve cooker insulation. If the 1.5 million

electric cookers that were sold in the UK during 2009 implemented this change, approximately 24 kt of GHG

emissions would be saved and consumers would save approximately £5.2 million in energy costs over the course

of the products’ lifetime. This change would cost approximately £2 extra per cooker.

Product group Reduction measure Industry cost

implications

Lifetime ‘in-use’

environment savings

Cost of

reduction

measure per

product unit

Electric cookers Improved insulation

(door glazing)

£2 million 40 GWh

24 ktCO2e

£2 per unit

Fridges/fridge-

freezers/freezers

Increased casing and

door insulation

£97.5 million 1,500 GWh

870 ktCO2e

£24 per unit

Fridges/fridge-

freezers/freezers

Use of high efficiency

compressors

£265 million 2,900 GWh

1,700 ktCO2e

£65 per unit

Electric cookers Increase amount of

insulation (reflective

coating)

£10 million 110 GWh

63 ktCO2e

£7 per unit

Washing machines Larger load capacity £0.7 million 5 GWh

3 ktCO2e

< £1 per unit

Table 11 Top five most cost-effective GHG reduction measures

All carbon reduction opportunities presented are based on the total market presence of the products included in

the analysis for one year of UK retail sales. The savings shown are reflective of the lifetime savings of the

products sold within one year.

Materials

Reducing the material impact of products may not always result in environmental savings. For example, making

lighter products could reduce their lifetime, having a neutral or negative impact on the total resource required to

meet the market need. The key consideration for product specifiers, designers and buyers is questioning whether

or not the additional feature is an environmental win. Just as with GHG and energy impacts, however, the price

for achieving these reductions may not necessarily be cost effective.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

0

200

400

600

800

Use of highefficiency heat

exchangers

Use of highefficiency

compressors

Improvements tocontrol systems

Increase Vacuuminsulated panels

Increasedinsulation in

casings and doors

GH

G S

avin

gs (k

tCO

2e)

Cost

(£m

illio

n)

Cost Implications GHG Savings


The reduction measures in Table 12 below have been estimated to reduce the environmental footprints

associated with products. See Appendix 4 of the Part 3 report for details regarding the calculations and sources.

Product Reduction

measure

Industry cost

implications

Material impact Cost per tonne

savings

Washing machines Materials

optimisation in

motors

£8.5 million savings 10,000 tonne

material savings

-

Vacuum cleaners Develop lightweight

models

£0 overall 11,000 tonne

material savings

-

Washing machines Materials

optimisation in

castings/drums

£14 million

implementation cost

10,000 tonne

savings

£1,400 per tonne

Table 12 Quantified material reduction opportunities for selected EPs

Water

Most EPs do not actively consume water during their use phase. The water section of this report (Section 3.3.3)

describes some of the issues related to the water impacts of material production.

The only product with process water use during the consumer use phase, for which reduction opportunities are

available, is washing machines. For this product the best technical reduction opportunity lies in improving load

capacity. As shown in Figure 17, the cost of changing this in the industry, for one year of product’s sales, would

achieve a far greater cost-effective reduction compared to designing products with full electronic controls, and

would result in a 2% reduction of overall water consumption.22 This saving would only occur in terms of water

savings, and additional impacts would be expected in other impact areas (i.e. reduced net energy consumption

for the same volume of washes, but increase in the use of materials to build machines that can handle larger

loads).

Figure 17 Quantified water use reduction opportunities for washing machines

As discussed in Section 3.3.3, some of the materials used in EPs require water-intensive processes during their

extraction and refinement. For these materials, water intensity can be reduced either by changing location of

supply where this is feasible, or reducing the water-intensity of these materials by technical means such as closed

loop water recycling systems. Such changes could significantly reduce the impact of some materials.

4.2 Alternative business models

Technical changes to product composition and technology can deliver environmental improvements in the EP

sector. Going beyond this, shifting the business model to providing a service, rather than selling products, would

allow businesses to own materials in their EPs, and recover them more easily at end-of-life stage.

22 Lifecycle in-use water use of washing machines placed on the market estimated to be 381 million m3 (see Section 3.3.3).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

20

40

60

80

100

Full Electronic Control Larger loads

Wate

r Savin

gs

(millio

n m

3)

Cost

(£m

illio

n)

Cost Implications Water Savings


While there is great potential to move from sales to service models for some EP sectors, it is not applicable to all

products. Some of the key variables that were identified during this research, which will affect whether industry

and consumers will be supportive of such a move, are:

the cost of buying the product outright;

the frequency of use;

image and prestige; and

technological advancement.

The ideal product-type to promote an alternative business model would be one experiencing a high level of

premature product replacement and which has upgradable and reparable components. Figure 18 provides an

indication of the ideal intervention opportunities to develop a strong business case for alternative models. These

two variables provide the basis for a proposition balancing consumer expectations for product life and a

reasonable cost model for the business to recoup a profit.

Key reduction opportunities highlighted in Figure 18 beyond alternative business models include:

product benefit labelling – whole lifecycle costing, product-relevant measurement (e.g. lumens);

life extension – design for reparability, improving durability; and

incentivised return – discounts on new products, loyalty rewards, cash offers.

Figure 18 Reduction priority matrix for EP categories23

It is common for some EPs, notably electronics, to undergo significant changes within a relatively short period of

time. One area currently experiencing this change is the television and display market. For example, over the past

six years it has been suggested that the shift from cathode ray tube (CRT) to liquid crystal display (LCD)

technology has reduced the average weight of a television by 82%.24 At the same time, EU targeting of in-use

and standby energy requirements is driving substantial reductions in energy consumption, and thus carbon

emissions, associated with running these products. This rate of change is significant.

23 Consumer lifespan expectations are based on a comparison of Defra (2011) consumer attitudes research and product lifetime estimates from a variety of industry sources. 24 Pike Research (2011)


The example in Figure 19 below shows three different lifespan scenarios, using a hypothetical situation where a

50% efficiency gain occurs every three years, as against no efficiency gain, and the equipment is replaced every

three years.

Figure 19 Lifecycle GHG emissions for a television with a three-year replacement cycle (UK footprint)

While technological advancement is unlikely to be able to achieve this theoretical example, the environmental

case, from a GHG perspective, is clear: if significant efficiency savings can take place then premature replacement

may be a reduction opportunity in itself when sufficient improvement has been made. However, a switch may

have a higher impact where replacement occurs before technology has improved sufficiently to offset a new

product’s embodied footprint. Carbon, however, is not the only metric and additional materials, waste and cost

will be required to make new television sets.

Figure 20 shows the financial impact of premature product replacement. In the theoretical scenario presented, an

additional £5-6 billion would need to be spent to save approximately 4 MtCO2e, after a 75% improvement in

energy efficiency takes place (the difference between the blue and green lines on the graphs.) Use-phase energy

reductions are not, therefore, necessarily reason enough to encourage a premature disposal of this product.

Figure 20 Television replacement cost scenario (UK footprint)

This type of scenario illustrates four important points:

Lifetime emissions

(current life and efficiency) 33 MtCO2e

Lifetime emissions

(replacement every 3 years, no efficiency gains)

42 MtCO2e

Lifetime emissions

(replacement every 3 years, 50% efficiency gains

each purchase) 29 MtCO2e

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns (

MT

CO

2e

)

Lifetime costs

(current life and efficiency) £10.6 billion

Lifetime costs

(replacement every 3 years, no efficiency gains)

£19 billion

Lifetime costs

(replacement every 3 years, 50% efficiency gains

each purchase) £16.2 billion

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9Year 10

Cost

(£bill

ion)

+52%


1 The embodied footprint of the products we buy is significant, even if the use phase is the dominant

impact area of a product’s lifespan. Replacing products prematurely, or reducing the expected life of a

product, will lead to significantly more emissions than building products that last longer.

2 Efficiency gains may need to be substantial in order to outweigh the impacts of producing new products

to justify the additional embodied material footprint.

3 Product reparability may be less of an issue for fast-changing EPs. While there are certainly many

categories where reparability and durability are important reduction opportunities (e.g. washing

machines), other products may be fast moving and benefit from technological upgrades. Incentivising

return, either through rewards or alternative business models, is key to achieving broad reductions for

these products.

4 If addressing short lifespans is a reduction priority for a product group, those products could be

recovered and disassembled with an aim of re-using valuable materials and components. If these short

life products are disposed of without material recoverability then an increase in material, business and

consumer costs could make the model unsustainable.

Improving product durability is therefore a key reduction opportunity area to investigate. In general,

approximately 20% of products sold in the UK are ‘low-end’ and have reduced lifespans. Product life is therefore

lower for some segments of the market, which bring down the average lifespan of many products placed on the

market. Figure 21 below shows the estimated impact of low-end products consumed annually in the UK – the red

dashed areas show the potential embodied GHG emissions increase that could result from lower product

lifespans. Enhancing durability in fridges/fridge-freezers/freezers and televisions provides the greatest opportunity

for reductions, since low-end products in these categories are estimated to require two to three product

replacements during the lifetime of one higher-end product in the same category. If all the products listed below

operated for the same expected lifespan, approximately 1 MtCO2e and 180,000 tonnes of material could

potentially be saved. Further details are available on this approximation in Appendix 4, Part 2 of this report.

Figure 21 Estimated impacts of premature product failure in key EPs (embodied GHG emissions)

4.3 Material opportunities

From the point of view of mitigating GHG emissions and resource consumption from materials, the greatest

opportunities appear to be through plastic and steel resource efficiency. This is particularly the case for the

following products:

household appliances (e.g. washing machines, fridges);

televisions;

non-domestic ICT;

electronic security and access control;

vacuum cleaners; and

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Fridges Televisions Vacuum Cleaners WashingMachines

Microwaves Dishwashers

Em

bo

die

d G

HG

Em

issio

ns

(ktC

O2

e)

Annual sales of products Product replacement due to product failure


refrigerated display cabinets.

Reductions in the use of these high volume materials will have the added benefit of reducing supply chain

dependence on the following scarcer materials: graphite; fluorspar; antimony; germanium; and magnesium.

End-of-life opportunities exist to recover these materials – although significant cost and technological barriers do

remain, as highlighted in a recent Defra-funded project25 into business resource risk:

“A key aspect for this sector [electronics] that will assist addressing the resource risks is the development of

processes to recover the precious metals, like indium and rare earths from end of life products that will start to

enter the waste stream from equipment such as LCD screens.”

However, as noted in Oakdene Hollins (2011): “The high demand growth rates forecast for critical raw materials within emerging technologies … limit the

potential contribution of recycling to current consumption.”

It is further estimated that recycled materials could contribute up to 10% of demand required to meet predicted

EP sales. For this reason, other strategies are required to mitigate environmental impacts and supply chain risk,

e.g. substitution for alternative materials or material minimisation.

The greatest opportunities for end-of-life recovery of critical materials from EPs, as set out in a recently published

report for the Environment Agency and WRAP26 are as follows:

cobalt and graphite in portable Li-Ion batteries;

cobalt and rare earths in portable NiMH batteries;

indium in flat panel displays;

rare earth and platinum group metals in hard disk drives;

increased recovery of graphite and use of synthetic graphite in production of steel through graphite

electrodes;

recovery of fluorspar from steel pickling sludges; and

antimony (flame retardant) in plastics.

As shown in Figure 22 below, challenges relating to critical materials exist both on the supply side and the

demand side.

Figure 22 Key supply and demand attributes of scarce metals used in electronics27

25 AEAT (2010) 26 Oakdene Hollins (2011) 27 Adapted from conclusions of AEAT (2010)

Demand

•Electronic product growth

•Fast changing consumption patterns

•Population growth

Supply

•Concentration of resources in few nations

•Rising material prices

•Limited availability & difficult recycling

•Limited substitutability


5.0 Finding further information

This Part 1 report is supplemented by Parts 2 and 3. Part 2 provides category summaries identifying

environmental hotspots and reduction opportunities for 23 EP categories using the findings of this research.

Further information on the methodology used in this research is available in the Part 3 report, which expands

upon the technicalities of the environmental hotspots analysis, and provides information on data sources and

sensitivity analysis. Part 3 also provides materials data, including composition of EP categories, and quantified

reduction opportunities for certain EPs.

Finally, further details on the work of the Product Sustainability Forum to measure and reduce the environmental

impacts of products can be found at www.wrap.org.uk/content/product-sustainability-forum.

http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/product-sustainability-forum


Appendix 1: Product list

The products below have been included in the hotspot analysis. Here they are presented in their WEEE Category

where appropriate (column one), and their Category as used in this report (column three).

WEEE Category Product Category

1 – Large household

appliances

Air conditioning 12 – Spatial cooling

Dishwashers 14 – Dishwashers

Domestic electric heating 13 – Spatial heating

Electric cookers 13 – Spatial heating

Freezers 12 – Spatial cooling

Fridge/freezers 12 – Spatial cooling

Fridges 12 – Spatial cooling

Microwaves 18 – Microwaves

Refrigerated display cabinets 12 – Spatial cooling

Tumble dryers 15 – Other multi-function appliances

Ventilation 9 – Large high power pumps and motors

Washing machines 15 – Other multi-function appliances

2 – Small household

appliances

Desk fans 10 – Other high power pumps and motors

Electric water heaters 13 – Spatial heating

Electrical kitchen gadgets 10 – Other high power pumps and motors

Food preparation equipment 10 – Other high power pumps and motors

Health grills 16 – High power appliances

Hot beverage makers 16 – High power appliances

Irons 16 – High power appliances

Kettles 16 – High power appliances

Personal electrical appliances 17 – Medium power appliances

Toasters 16 - High power appliances

Vacuum cleaners 9 – Large high power pumps and motors

3 – ICT equipment Desktop PCs 4 – Complex electronics

Digital cameras 4 – Complex electronics

External Power Supplies 7 – External power supplies

Game consoles 4 – Complex electronics

Laptops 2 – Laptops

Mobile phones 3 – Other display-based electronics

PC peripherals (e.g. printers) 4 – Large simple processing electronics

PDA 3 – Other display-based electronics

Portable audio players 4 – Complex processing electronics

Security and access control 5 – Large simple processing electronics

Telephone equipment 6 – Other simple processing electronics

4 – Consumer electronics Audio separates 6 – Other simple processing electronics

DVD systems 4 – Complex electronics

Home audio/Hi-Fi 5 – Large simple processing electronics

Set top boxes 4 – Complex electronics

Televisions 1 – Televisions

5 – Lighting Commercial lighting 19 – High intensity discharge lighting

Fluorescent lighting 21 – Fluorescent lighting

Halogen lighting 20 – Halogen lighting

LED lighting 22 – LED lighting

6 – Tools DIY Energy using Products 10 – Other high power pumps and motors

Garden power 9 – Large high power pumps and motors

9 – Monitoring and control

equipment

Non-domestic heating accessories 6 – Other simple processing electronics

Other Domestic solar photovoltaic 23 – Solar PV

Domestic wind turbines 24 – Household wind turbine


Report References AEAT, 2010. Review of the Future Resource Risks Faced by UK Business and an Assessment of Future Viability. DEFRA, London, UK. Australian National Water Commission, 2011. Framework for assessing potential local and cumulative effects of mining on groundwater resources – project summary report. Available at: http://www.nwc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/18558/59_Local_and_cumulative_effects_on_mining_on_groundwater_resources.pdf [Accessed 29th October 2011]. British Geological Survey, 2011. Chemical element risk list 2010. Available at: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/whatsnew.html [Accessed 26th September 2011]. British Geological Survey, 2011. World Mineral Production 2005-2009. London, UK. British Plastics Federation, 2008. Oil Consumption. Available at: http://www.bpf.co.uk/Press/Oil_Consumption.aspx [Accessed 6th October 2011].

British Plastics Federation, 2011. Plastics recycling. Available at:

http://www.bpf.co.uk/sustainability/plastics_recycling.aspx [Accessed 22nd September 2011].

British Standards Institution, 2008. PAS 2050 Life cycle green house gas, carbon footprint. Available at: http://www.bsigroup.com/Standards-and-Publications/How-we-can-help-you/Professional-Standards-Service/PAS-2050/ [Accessed 4th October 2011]. Milton Keynes: BSI. Butterman, W.C. and Carlin, J.F. Jr, 2004. Mineral Commodity Profiles: Antimony. U.S. Department of The Interior U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-019Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-019/of03-019.pdf

[Accessed 7th October 2011]. Dubal Dubai Aluminium, 2007. DUBAL hosts International Aluminium Institute’s (IAI) 71st meeting in Dubai. Available at: http://www.dubal.ae/home.aspx [Accessed 6th October 2011]. CIA, 2010. CIA World Factbook, 2010. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html [Accessed 22nd September 2011]. Cohen, C., 2007. Earth’s Natural Wealth: An Audit. New Scientist. Available at: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426051.200-earths-natural-wealth-an-audit.html [Accessed 4th October 2011]. Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2011. Energy Consumption in the United Kingdom. Available at: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/ecuk/ecuk.aspx [Accessed 4th October 2011].

Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2011(b). Energy Trends. Available at: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/trends/trends.aspx [Accessed 25th October 2011]. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), 2011. Public understanding of product lifetimes and durability (1). Available at: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=17254 [Accessed 10th October 2011]. Ecoinvent, 2010. Ecoinvent database v 2.2. Environment Agency, 2011. Study into the feasibility of protecting and recovering critical raw materials through infrastructure development in the south east of England. Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/EPOW-recovering-critical-raw-materials-T5v2.pdf [Accessed 10th October 2011].

European Commission, 2011. Eco design Directive. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/ecodesign/index_en.htm [Accessed 4th October].

http://www.nwc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/18558/59_Local_and_cumulative_effects_on_mining_on_groundwater_resources.pdf

http://www.nwc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/18558/59_Local_and_cumulative_effects_on_mining_on_groundwater_resources.pdf

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/whatsnew.html

http://www.bpf.co.uk/Press/Oil_Consumption.aspx

http://www.bpf.co.uk/sustainability/plastics_recycling.aspx

http://www.bsigroup.com/Standards-and-Publications/How-we-can-help-you/Professional-Standards-Service/PAS-2050/

http://www.bsigroup.com/Standards-and-Publications/How-we-can-help-you/Professional-Standards-Service/PAS-2050/

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-019/of03-019.pdf

http://www.dubal.ae/home.aspx

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426051.200-earths-natural-wealth-an-audit.html

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/ecuk/ecuk.aspx

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/trends/trends.aspx

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=17254

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=17254

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/EPOW-recovering-critical-raw-materials-T5v2.pdf

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/EPOW-recovering-critical-raw-materials-T5v2.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/ecodesign/index_en.htm


European Commission, 2011. Lot 25:Non-tertiary coffee machines, Task 5: Definition of Base-Cases. Available at:

http://www.eceee.org/Eco_design/products/Lot25_non_tertiary_coffee_machines [Accessed 4th October 2011].

European Commission, 2010. Critical raw materials for the EU – Main report & Annex. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/raw-materials/critical/index_en.htm [Accessed 30th September 2011]. FAO, 2007. Areas of physical and economic water scarcity. Available at: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/art/2007/scarcity.html [Accessed 6th October 2011]. Gardner, G., 2008. Aluminium Production Continues Upward. Worldwatch Institute. Available at: http://www.worldwatch.org/ . [Accessed 7th October 2011]. GHGm, 2008. Social and Environmental Responsibility in Metals Supply to the Electronic Industry. Available at: http://www.eicc.info/PDF/Report%20on%20Metal%20Extraction.pdf [Accessed 10th October 2011]. Intel, 2009. Corporate Responsibility Report. Available at: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/corporate-responsibility/corporate-responsibility-2009-report.html [Accessed 10th October 2011]. International Aluminium Institute, 2008. Greenhouse gases. International Aluminium Institute. Available at: http://www.world-aluminium.org/?pg=140 [Accessed 10th October 2011]. International Cooper Study Group, 2004. Copper Flow Model (unpublished). International Copper Study Group. International Copper Study Group, 2010. The World Copper Factbook. Available at: http://www.icsg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=16 [Accessed 10th October 2011].

International Magnesium Association, 2008. Mg Showcase Issue 6, Consumer Electronics Issue. Available at:

http://www.intlmag.org/showcase/MgShowcase6_Oct08FINAL.pdf [Accessed 30th September 2011].

ITRI, 2011. ITRI Briefing – Historical trends in tin usage. Available at:

http://www.itri.co.uk/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=att_download&link_id=49603&cf_id=24 [Accessed

24th September 2011].

James F. Carlin, 2000. Antimony Recycling in the United States in 2000. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1196q/c1196q.pdf [Accessed 6th October 2011].

Mason et al., 2006. Energy Pay-Back and Life Cycle CO2 Emissions of the BOS in an Optimized 3.5 MW PV Installation. Progress in Photovoltaics Research and Applications, 14, pp. 179-190.

Mendez, R., 2011. El GPS desnuda el fraude en el reciclaje electrónico. Available at: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/GPS/desnuda/fraude/reciclaje/electronico/elpepusoc/20110920elpepusoc_4/Tes [Accessed 20th September 2011].

Minor Metals Trade Association, 2007. Metal Bulletin Monthly – Antimony. Available at: http://www.mmta.co.uk/uploaded_files/AntimonyMBM.pdf [Accessed 6th October 2011].

Nickel Institute, 2011. Applications and Materials Selection in the Electronics Industries. Available at:

http://www.nickelinstitute.org/en/NickelUseInSociety/MaterialsSelectionAndUse/Electronics/ApplicationsAndMateri

als.aspx [Accessed 29th September 2011].

Nokia, 2010. Available at: http://www.nokia.com/environment/devices-and-services/devices-and-accessories/eco-profile;JSESSIONID_NCOM=pQLzTTvZ7zhjdhW2CNJwJnVCyz2qLVLQ2RJJdBJSdXtG9zG1PS7v!-1181649718 [Accessed 20th September 2011].

O'Mara, W. C.; Herring, R. B.; Hunt, L. P., 1990. Handbook of semiconductor silicon technology. William Andrew. p. 473. Oakdene Hollins, 2011. Study into the feasibility of protecting and recovering critical raw materials through infrastructure development in the south east of England – Main report and Annex. Project Ref: LIFE08 ENV/UK/000208. Pike Research, 2011. Materials footprint reduction of televisions and computer monitors: 2004 – 2010. July 2011.

http://www.eceee.org/Eco_design/products/Lot25_non_tertiary_coffee_machines

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/raw-materials/critical/index_en.htm

http://www.fao.org/nr/water/art/2007/scarcity.html

http://www.worldwatch.org/

http://www.eicc.info/PDF/Report%20on%20Metal%20Extraction.pdf

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/corporate-responsibility/corporate-responsibility-2009-report.html

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/corporate-responsibility/corporate-responsibility-2009-report.html

http://www.world-aluminium.org/?pg=140

http://www.icsg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=16

http://www.intlmag.org/showcase/MgShowcase6_Oct08FINAL.pdf

http://www.itri.co.uk/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=att_download&link_id=49603&cf_id=24

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1196q/c1196q.pdf

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/GPS/desnuda/fraude/reciclaje/electronico/elpepusoc/20110920elpepusoc_4/Tes

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/GPS/desnuda/fraude/reciclaje/electronico/elpepusoc/20110920elpepusoc_4/Tes

http://www.mmta.co.uk/uploaded_files/AntimonyMBM.pdf

http://www.nickelinstitute.org/en/NickelUseInSociety/MaterialsSelectionAndUse/Electronics/ApplicationsAndMaterials.aspx

http://www.nickelinstitute.org/en/NickelUseInSociety/MaterialsSelectionAndUse/Electronics/ApplicationsAndMaterials.aspx

http://www.nokia.com/environment/devices-and-services/devices-and-accessories/eco-profile;JSESSIONID_NCOM=pQLzTTvZ7zhjdhW2CNJwJnVCyz2qLVLQ2RJJdBJSdXtG9zG1PS7v!-1181649718

http://www.nokia.com/environment/devices-and-services/devices-and-accessories/eco-profile;JSESSIONID_NCOM=pQLzTTvZ7zhjdhW2CNJwJnVCyz2qLVLQ2RJJdBJSdXtG9zG1PS7v!-1181649718


Plastics Europe, 2010. Plastics - the Facts. Available at: http://www.plasticseurope.org/ [Accessed 10th October 2011]. Rankin, W. J., 2011. Minerals, Metals and Sustainability: Meeting Future Material Needs. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia. Resource Efficiency Knowledge Transfer Network, 2008. Material security – ensuring resource availability for the UK economy. Chester, UK. Silver Institute, 2011. Silver Facts. Available at: http://www.silverinstitute.org/ [Accessed 6th October 2011] Spatari, S., Bertram, M., Fuse, K., Graedel, T. E., & Rechberger, H., 2002. The contemporary European copper cycle: 1 year stocks and flows. Ecological Economics, 42, 27042. Toy Retailers Association. 2006. Sales by Category (units). Available at: http://www.toyretailersassociation.co.uk/marketing/market-size-2006/sales-category-units [Accessed 20th October

2011]. Tremeac, B. and Meunier, F., 2009. Life cycle analysis of 4.5MW and 250W wind turbines. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 pp 2104–2110. U.S. Geological Survey, 2011. Mineral Commodity Summaries – Antimony. Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/antimony/antimmcs07.pdf [Accessed 6th October 2011. U.S. Geological Survey, 2011. U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries – Gallium. Available at:

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/gallium/mcs-2011-galli.pdf [Accessed 26th September 2011].

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011. U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries – Silicon. Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silicon/mcs-2011-simet.pdf [Accessed 26th September 2011].

U.S. Geological Survey, 2008. U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries – Tantalum. Available at:

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/niobium/mcs-2008-tanta.pdf [Accessed 26th September

2011].

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006. Minerals Yearbook – Niobium (Columbium) and Tantalum. Available at:

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/niobium/myb1-2006-niobi.pdf [Accessed 4th October 2011].

U.S. Geological Survey, 2005. Silver Use. Available at : http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/silver-use.xls.

[Accessed 29th September 2011].

United Nations University, 2008. Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_rep_unu.pdf [Accessed 4th October 2011].

Wesoff , E., 2011. First Solar Owns a Gold, Silver and Tellurium Mine? Available at :

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/first-solar-owns-a-tellurium-mine/ [Accessed 22nd September

2011].

Zweibel, K., 2010. The Impact of Tellurium Supply on Cadmium Telluride Photovoltaics. Science. 328 (5979) pp. 699–701.

http://www.plasticseurope.org/

http://www.silverinstitute.org/

http://www.toyretailersassociation.co.uk/marketing/market-size-2006/sales-category-units

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/antimony/antimmcs07.pdf

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/gallium/mcs-2011-galli.pdf

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silicon/mcs-2011-simet.pdf

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/niobium/mcs-2008-tanta.pdf

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/niobium/myb1-2006-niobi.pdf

http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/silver-use.xls

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_rep_unu.pdf

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/first-solar-owns-a-tellurium-mine/

www.wrap.org.uk/psf

part 1: results report reducing the environmental and cost ... ep priority... · reducing the...

Documents