Comparing environmental product footprint for electronic and electric equipment: a multi-criteria approach

Figures & data

Figure 1 The proposed methodological approach.

Table 1 The proposed set of criteria.

Criterion	Source	Description
C.1	EPEAT	Reduction/elimination of environmentally sensitive materials
C1.1	EPEAT	Compliance with provisions of European ROHS directive upon its effective date
C1.2	EPEAT	Reporting on amount of mercury used in light sources (mg)
C1.3	EPEAT	Elimination of intentionally added short chain chlorinated paraffins flame retardants and plasticizers in certain applications
C1.4	NEW	Reporting on amount of Chlorofluorocarbon
C.2	EPEAT	Materials selection
C2.1	EPEAT	Declaration of postconsumer recycled plastic content (%)
C2.2	EPEAT	Declaration of renewable/bio-based plastic materials content (%)
C2.3	EPEAT	Declaration of product weight (lbs)
C.3	EPEAT	Design for EOL
C3.1	EPEAT	Identification of materials with special handling needs
C3.2	EPEAT	Elimination of paints or coatings that are not compatible with recycling or reuse
C3.3	EPEAT	Easy disassembly of external enclosure
C3.4	EPEAT	Marking of plastic components
C3.5	EPEAT	Identification and removal of components containing hazardous materials
C3.6	EPEAT	Minimum target of 65% of reusable/recyclable
C.4	EPEAT	Product longevity/life cycle extension
C4.1	EPEAT	Availability of additional three-year warranty or service agreement
C4.2	EPEAT	Easiness in upgrading (e.g. by common tools)
C.5	EPEAT	Energy conservation
C5.1	EPEAT	ENERGY STAR®
C5.2	NEW	Energy label for appliances
C5.3	NEW	Ecolabel
C5.4	NEW	Energy consumption for the production of raw materials (MJ/ton)
C.6	EPEAT	EOL management
C6.1	EPEAT	Provision of product take-back service
C6.2	EPEAT	Provision of rechargeable battery take-back service
C6.3	NEW	Provision of recoverable components
C.7	EPEAT	Corporate performance
C7.1	EPEAT	Demonstration of corporate environmental policy consistent with ISO 14001
C7.2	EPEAT	Self-certified environmental management system for design and manufacturing organizations
C7.3	EPEAT	Corporate report consistent with performance track or Global Reporting Initiative
C.8	EPEAT	Packaging
C8.1	EPEAT	Reduction/elimination of intentionally added toxics in packaging
C8.2	EPEAT	Separable packing materials
C8.3	EPEAT	Declaration of recycled content in packaging

Figure 2 The proposed AHP model and development of the alternatives.

Table 2 Statistical data about quantity of waste collected for large household appliances in EU 27.

	Quantitity per year (ton)
Area	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
Austria	10,969.3	32,896.6	31,102.1	34,926	34,559.1	32,225.3
Belgium	29,373	31,383.4	32,856.1	39,171.6	45,701.8	47,440.6
Bulgaria	–	–	16,499.5	31,589.5	24,010.4	32,832.6
Cyprus	3020	3450	2260.7	1956.1	–	–
Czech Republic	–	–	16,723.3	21,643.5	28,190.1	22,725.5
Germany	–	462,066	232,277	260,269	287,140.8	249,149.3
Denmark	–	31,462	51,933	35,579	37,157	35,404
Estonia	–	3445.9	3382.3	2950.8	1869.7	2380.3
Greece	132	8711	24,939.3	34,456.9	48,737.5	29,101.6
Spain	–	–	238,440	251,403	86,448.8	92,626.3
Finland	9352	21,548	24,580	26,643	25,805.1	27,698.3
France	NA	3897	103,865	173,570	228,469	241,137
Hungary	10,867.6	13,573.4	23,113.8	28,321.9	28,592.5	21,337.1
Ireland	–	–	25,293	25,440	26,290.3	25,263
Italy	54,463	57,553	112,689	106,386	130,554	144,554
Liechtenstein	–	–	–	–	–	–
Lithuania	552	4925	6038	6187	3722.5	5054.9
Luxembourg	–	1898.6	1741.3	1704.7	2064.3	2051.8
Latvia	–	–	3083.4	2989.9	2096.9	2024.8
Netherlands	42,332	40,078	38,540	38,946	47,811	63,951
Norway	43,645	43,649	46,613	46,933	45,347	44,031
Poland	NA	2746	7535.2	17,682.3	51,509.9	54,227.9
Portugal	23.8	2339.8	19,675.5	21,736.6	22,125	28,772
Romania	–	517.7	1625.5	8923.7	21,385.6	14,119.9
Sweden	22,308	59,488	76,723	70,229.4	69,240	75,341
Slovenia	–	–	3251	3660	4220	3894.9
Slovakia	1863	4880.7	9213.4	12,457.8	14,573.2	12,325.4
United Kingdom	–	–	117,387.2	492,748	253,904.7	244,645.8

Source: Eurostat.

Table 3 Main features characterizing the case study sample.

Model	Energy label class	Dual input	Declared electricity consumption (Kwh/kg)	Declared water consumption (l/kg)
A1	A+++ AB	NO	0.13	7.40
A2	A+++ AA	NO	0.13	7.40
A3	A++ AA	NO	0.13	7.56
A4	A++ AA	NO	0.15	4.73
A5	A+AA	NO	0.15	6.56
A6	A++ AA	NO	0.15	7.56
A7	A++ AB	NO	0.15	7.00
A8	A++ AA	NO	0.15	7.00
A9	A+AB	NO	0.15	9.44
A10	A+AB	YES	0.17	7.67

Table 4 Estimated values for first level criteria pairwise comparison.

	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	C8	Weight
C1	1	2	3	4	3	3	5	5	0.289
C2		1	2	2	3	2	4	4	0.190
C3			1	4	3	2	4	4	0.170
C4				1	3	1/2	3	3	0.071
C5					1	1/2	2	2	0.086
C6						1	3	3	0.111
C7							1	3	0.036
C8								1	0.043
Consistency: 0.050

Table 5 The quantitative pairwise comparison for all sub-criteria in the proposed AHP model.

Figure 3 Results obtained for all levels in the proposed AHP model.

Table 6 The pairwise comparison matrix for the intensities.

	E	G	A	S	P	Weights
E	1	3	5	6	8	0.507
G	–	1	3	5	6	0.268
A	–	–	1	3	5	0.118
S	–	–	–	1	3	0.068
P	–	–	–	–	1	0.036

Table 7 Final performance rating estimated for each electronic product in the analysed sample.

	C1		C2			C3						C4		C5		C6		C7			C8
#	C1.1	C1.4	C2.1	C2.2	C2.3	C3.1	C3.2	C3.3	C3.4	C3.5	C3.6	C4.1	C4.2	C5.2	C5.4	C6.1	C6.3	C7.1	C7.2	C7.3	C8.1	C8.2	C8.3
A1	E	P	G	G	G	E	G	A	A	G	E	A	E	P	P	A	A	P	E	A	E	P	A
A2	G	G	A	E	A	G	S	E	A	G	A	E	A	G	G	S	G	A	G	G	G	G	A
A3	G	G	A	A	A	A	P	G	A	G	E	G	G	G	G	A	A	S	P	A	A	A	A
A4	A	G	P	A	S	E	E	A	G	G	G	E	P	E	P	G	P	P	G	G	S	E	A
A5	A	A	S	S	P	G	G	E	G	G	A	G	P	P	A	S	G	A	E	A	P	P	A
A6	S	S	S	E	A	A	A	S	E	G	S	P	A	P	E	P	P	A	E	A	E	P	A
A7	E	G	G	S	G	E	E	E	G	G	A	P	E	A	P	S	G	A	P	G	A	G	A
A8	G	S	G	S	S	A	A	G	G	G	S	G	P	A	A	S	G	G	E	G	S	A	A
A9	P	P	A	G	E	E	E	G	E	G	S	A	A	A	G	S	G	S	E	G	S	A	A
A10	E	A	S	P	E	A	G	G	A	A	G	A	E	A	G	G	G	P	A	S	E	A	G

Table 8 Overall weights and ranking estimated for the analysed electronic products in the case study.

			Weights
			0.057	0.231	0.100	0.026	0.063	0.016	0.011	0.060	0.010	0.041	0.030	0.017
	Total	Priorities	C1.1	C1.4	C2.1	C2.2	C2.3	C3.1	C3.2	C3.3	C3.4	C3.5	C3.6	C4.1
A1	0.427	0.127	0.072	1.000	0.134	0.134	0.134	0.072	0.134	0.266	0.266	0.134	0.072	0.266
A2	0.186	0.055	0.134	0.134	0.266	0.072	0.266	0.134	0.522	0.072	0.266	0.134	0.266	0.072
A3	0.207	0.061	0.134	0.134	0.266	0.266	0.266	0.266	1.000	0.134	0.266	0.134	0.072	0.134
A4	0.421	0.125	0.266	0.134	1.000	0.266	0.522	0.072	0.072	0.266	0.134	0.134	0.134	0.0723
A5	0.383	0.114	0.266	0.266	0.522	0.522	1.000	0.134	0.134	0.072	0.134	0.134	0.266	0.134
A6	0.477	0.142	0.522	0.522	0.522	0.072	0.266	0.266	0.266	0.522	0.072	0.134	0.522	1.000
A7	0.206	0.061	0.072	0.134	0.134	0.522	0.134	0.072	0.072	0.072	0.134	0.134	0.266	1.000
A8	0.352	0.105	0.134	0.522	0.134	0.522	0.522	0.266	0.266	0.134	0.134	0.134	0.522	0.134
A9	0.445	0.133	1.000	1.000	0.266	0.134	0.072	0.072	0.072	0.134	0.072	0.134	0.522	0.266
A10	0.237	0.070	0.072	0.266	0.522	1.000	0.072	0.266	0.134	0.134	0.266	0.266	0.134	0.266
			Weights
			0.0535	0.014	0.071	0.037	0.074	0.021	0.005	0.009	0.006	0.0248	0.012
	Total	Priorities	C4.2	C5.2	C5.4	C6.1	C6.3	C7.1	C7.2	C7.3	C8.1	C8.2	C8.3
A1	0.427	0.127	0.072	0.522	0.524	0.266	0.266	1.000	0.072	0.266	0.072	1.000	0.266
A2	0.186	0.055	0.266	0.134	0.144	0.522	0.134	0.266	0.134	0.134	0.134	0.134	0.266
A3	0.207	0.061	0.134	0.134	0.144	0.266	0.266	0.522	1.000	0.266	0.266	0.266	0.266
A4	0.421	0.125	1.000	0.072	0.524	0.134	1.000	1.000	0.134	0.134	0.522	0.072	0.266
A5	0.383	0.1143	1.000	0.522	0.242	0.522	0.134	0.266	0.072	0.266	1.000	1.000	0.266
A6	0.477	0.142	0.266	0.522	0.0729	1.000	1.000	0.266	0.072	0.266	0.072	1.000	0.266
A7	0.206	0.061	0.072	0.266	0.524	0.522	0.134	0.266	1.000	0.134	0.266	0.134	0.266
A8	0.352	0.105	1.000	0.266	0.242	0.522	0.134	0.134	0.072	0.134	0.522	0.266	0.266
A9	0.445	0.133	0.266	0.266	0.144	0.522	0.134	0.522	0.072	0.134	0.522	0.266	0.266
A10	0.237	0.070	0.072	0.266	0.144	0.134	0.134	0.134	0.266	0.522	0.072	0.266	0.134

Table 9 Final ranking estimated by the AHP model.

Alternative	Estimated value	Ranking (°)
A1	0.127800	3
A2	0.055674	10
A3	0.061913	8
A4	0.125968	4
A5	0.114653	5
A6	0.142650	1
A7	0.061748	9
A8	0.105344	6
A9	0.133271	2
A10	0.070979	7