Keywords
Product Carbon Footprint (PCF)
sustainable Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
office equipment
Information and Communications Technology (ICT)
How to Cite
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of the article is to publicise the issue of carbon footprint emission from office equipment because this problem is not yet widely recognised in the ICT industry. Methodology/approach: The product carbon footprint (PCF) of various information and communication technologies (ICT) was assessed - 196 products of 12 groups representing a broad spectrum of office equipment - covering the entire life cycle (LCA) from production to disposal. Findings: The level of carbon footprint of a given office device depends on its size, including its energy demand. It should be noted that although smaller devices individually have a smaller carbon footprint, due to their common use (many pieces), they may generate emissions similar to larger ones. Originality/value: The results of the carbon footprint statistics of ICT devices included in the result section may constitute valuable input for companies to calculate the carbon footprint in offices. They can also be used as a data set for the carbon footprint calculator of ICT devices.
References
ASUS. (n.d.). Product desing & manufacturing. https://www.asus.com/content/product-design-manufacturing/
Awan, U., Sroufe, R., & Shahbaz, M. (2021). Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: A literature review and recommendations for future research. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(4), 2038-2060. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2731
Chebaeva, N., Lettner, M., Wenger, J., Schöggl, J. P., Hesser, F., Holzer, D., & Stern, T. (2021). Dealing with the eco-design paradox in research and development projects: The concept of sustainability assessment levels. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 125232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125232
Chinn, M. D., & Fairlie, R. W. (2007). The determinants of the global digital divide: A cross-country analysis of computer and internet penetration. Oxford Economic Papers, 59(1), 16-44. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpl024
Choi, C., & Yi, M. H. (2018). The Internet, R&D expenditure and economic growth. Applied Economics Letters, 25(4), 264-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2017.1316819
Chovancová, J., Petruška, I., & Litavcová, E. (2020). Dependence of Co2 Emissions on Energy Consumption and Economic Growth in The European Union: A Panel Threshold Model. Economics and Environment, 78(3), 73-89. https://doi.org/10.34659/2021/3/21
Cillo, V., Petruzzelli, A. M., Ardito, L., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(5), 1012-1025. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1783
Energy Star. (n.d.). The International EPD System. https://www.energystar.gov/
EPD. (n.d.). The International EPD System. https://www.environdec.com/
EPEAT. (n.d.). EPEAT is the premier global ecolabel for electronics and technology products. https://epeat.net/
Fu, B., Shu, Z., & Liu, X. (2018). Blockchain enhanced emission trading framework in fashion apparel manufacturing industry. Sustainability, 10(4), 1105. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041105
Gaubinger, K., & Rabl, M. (2013). Structuring the front end of innovation. In O. Gassmann & F. Schweitzer (Eds.), Management of the Fuzzy Front End of Innovation (pp. 15-30). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01056-4_2
Greenly. (2022). Guide : The ultimate guide to Carbon Footprint 2022. https://greenly.earth/en-gb/ressources/barometer-carbon-footprint-2022
Greenly. (n.d.). Lifecycle assessment Infographic. https://greenly.earth/en-gb/ressources/life-cycle-assessment-infographic
Guziana, B., & Dobers, P. (2013). How sustainability leaders communicate corporate activities of sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(4), 193-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1292
HP. (n.d.). Products. https://support.hp.com/us-en/products
Kaware, S. S., & Sain, S. K. (2015). ICT Application in Education: An Overview. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach and Studies, 2(1), 25-32. http://ijmas.com/upcomingissue/04.01.2015.pdf
Kimani, S. M., Kanno, T., Tawaraya, K., & Cheng, W. (2020). Floating Azolla Cover Influences Evapotranspiration from Flooded Water Surfaces. Wetlands, 40(5), 1425-1432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-020-01282-9
Kozáková, J., Skýpalová, R., & Pieńkowski, D. (2024). Environmental responsibility of corporate management in the Visegrad region – comparative study of the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia. Economics and Environment, 87(4), 692. https://doi.org/10.34659/eis.2023.87.4.692
LG. (n.d.). Products application. https://www.lg.com/global/greener-products-application
Luthra, S., Kumar, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Mangla, S. K., & Garza-Reyes, J. A. (2020). Industry 4.0 as an enabler of sustainability diffusion in supply chain: an analysis of influential strength of drivers in an emerging economy. International Journal of Production Research, 58(5), 1505-1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1660828
Massaro, M., Secinaro, S., Dal Mas, F., Brescia, V., & Calandra, D. (2021). Industry 4.0 and circular economy: An exploratory analysis of academic and practitioners’ perspectives. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(2), 1213-1231. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2680
McAloone, T. C., & Pigosso, D. C. A. (2017). Ecodesign implementation and LCA. In M. Hauschild, R. Rosenbaum & S. Olsen (Eds.), Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice (pp. 545-576). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_23
Panagiotopoulou, V. C., Stavropoulos, P., & Chryssolouris, G. A. (2022). A critical review on the environmental impact of manufacturing: a holistic perspective. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 118, 603-625. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00170-021-07980-w
Pattara, C., Russo, C., Antrodicchia, V., & Cichelli, A. (2017). Carbon footprint as an instrument for enhancing food quality: overview of the wine, olive oil and cereals sectors. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 97(2), 396-410. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.7911
Rondoni, A., & Grasso, S. (2021). Consumers behaviour towards carbon footprint labels on food: A review of the literature and discussion of industry implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 301, 127031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127031
Tao, F., Zuo, Y., Xu, L. D., Lv, L., & Zhang, L. (2014). Internet of things and BOM-Based life cycle assessment of energy-saving and emission-reduction of products. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 10(2), 1252-1261. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2014.2306771
Tokarski, D., & Bielecki, M. (2024). Conditions and possibilities of using e-logistics in manufacturing enterprises. Economics and Environment, 88(1), 725. https://doi.org/10.34659/eis.2024.88.1.725
van Capelleveen, G., Pohl, J., Fritsch, A., & Schien, D. (2018). The footprint of things: A hybrid approach towards the collection, storage and distribution of life cycle inventory data. EPiC Series in Computing, 52, 350-364. https://doi.org/10.29007/8pnj
Wiedmann, T., & Minx, J. (2007). A Definition of ‘ Carbon Footprint. ISAUK Research Report, 07-01. https://wiki.epfl.ch/hdstudio/documents/articles/a%20definition%20of%20carbon%20footprint.pdf
Wright, L. A., Kemp, S., & Williams, I. (2011). “Carbon footprinting”: Towards a universally accepted definition. Carbon Management, 2(1), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.10.39
Zheng, J., & Wang, X. (2021). Can mobile information communication technologies (ICTs) promote the development of renewables?-evidence from seven countries. Energy Policy, 149, 112041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112041
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Economics and Environment