IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/inecol/v26y2022i3p782-800.html

Functionality‐based life cycle assessment framework: An information and communication technologies (ICT) product case study

Author

Listed:
  • Lin Shi
  • Katharine J. Mach
  • Sangwon Suh
  • Adam Brandt

Abstract

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been widely applied to assessing the environmental impacts of information and communication technologies (ICT) products throughout their lifetime. Building upon LCA methodology, this study proposes a user‐oriented, functionality‐based LCA (FLCA) framework that evaluates the environmental impact of multifunctional ICT products such as smartphones. Incorporating the quality function deployment and LCA literature, we develop an approach that highlights the linkages among user behavior, product functionalities, and product environmental footprints. We use matrix algebra to outline a computational method and a streamlined process to operationalize such analysis. FLCA analyzes the impact of materials in the context of how they are used. To illustrate the concept with a simple example, our first case study calculates the manufacturing GHG emissions of a well‐known multifunctional product, a Swiss Army knife. In the second case study, we estimate the functionality‐based GHG emissions of a hypothetical smartphone. We consider various scopes of impact, including at the levels of device, infrastructure, and supply chains. Extending from LCA methods, FLCA moves away from a general understanding of functionality to a more granular perspective to accommodate the complexity in modern ICT products. Our study advances a user‐oriented perspective to understand product sustainability impacts. Additionally, it offers a method to provide empirical evidence of the “hidden” impacts of industrial products during consumption, enabling more precise linkage of the production‐consumption relationship through LCA toward better design to uncover and address users' needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Lin Shi & Katharine J. Mach & Sangwon Suh & Adam Brandt, 2022. "Functionality‐based life cycle assessment framework: An information and communication technologies (ICT) product case study," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(3), pages 782-800, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:26:y:2022:i:3:p:782-800
    DOI: 10.1111/jiec.13240
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13240
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jiec.13240?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paolacci, Gabriele & Chandler, Jesse & Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G., 2010. "Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(5), pages 411-419, August.
    2. Schaefer, Carsten & Weber, Christoph & Voss, Alfred, 2003. "Energy usage of mobile telephone services in Germany," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 411-420.
    3. Ming Yan & Chien Aun Chan & André F. Gygax & Jinyao Yan & Leith Campbell & Ampalavanapillai Nirmalathas & Christopher Leckie, 2019. "Modeling the Total Energy Consumption of Mobile Network Services and Applications," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Paiano, Annarita & Lagioia, Giovanni & Cataldo, Andrea, 2013. "A critical analysis of the sustainability of mobile phone use," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 162-171.
    5. James R Suckling & Jacquetta Lee, 2017. "Integrating Environmental and Social Life Cycle Assessment: Asking the Right Question," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(6), pages 1454-1463, December.
    6. Gabriele Paolacci & Jesse Chandler & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis, 2010. "Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(5), pages 411-419, August.
    7. Chan, Lai-Kow & Wu, Ming-Lu, 2002. "Quality function deployment: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 143(3), pages 463-497, December.
    8. Heather L. O'Brien & Elaine G. Toms, 2008. "What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(6), pages 938-955, April.
    9. Maryam Farhadi & Rahmah Ismail & Masood Fooladi, 2012. "Information and Communication Technology Use and Economic Growth," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-7, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    2. Frederiks, Arjan J. & Englis, Basil G. & Ehrenhard, Michel L. & Groen, Aard J., 2019. "Entrepreneurial cognition and the quality of new venture ideas: An experimental approach to comparing future-oriented cognitive processes," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 327-347.
    3. Sweldens, Steven & Puntoni, Stefano & Paolacci, Gabriele & Vissers, Maarten, 2014. "The bias in the bias: Comparative optimism as a function of event social undesirability," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 229-244.
    4. S. Venus Jin & Aziz Muqaddam, 2019. "Product placement 2.0: “Do Brands Need Influencers, or Do Influencers Need Brands?”," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 26(5), pages 522-537, September.
    5. Hsu, Dan K. & Burmeister-Lamp, Katrin & Simmons, Sharon A. & Foo, Maw-Der & Hong, Michelle C. & Pipes, Jesse D., 2019. "“I know I can, but I don't fit”: Perceived fit, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 311-326.
    6. Lutz, Christoph & Newlands, Gemma, 2018. "Consumer segmentation within the sharing economy: The case of Airbnb," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 187-196.
    7. Mariconda, Simone & Lurati, Francesco, 2015. "Does familiarity breed stability? The role of familiarity in moderating the effects of new information on reputation judgments," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 957-964.
    8. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela, 2018. "The price elasticity of charitable giving: New experimental evidence," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 88-91.
    9. Tobias Schlager & Ashley V. Whillans, 2022. "People underestimate the probability of contracting the coronavirus from friends," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    10. Hou, Chenxuan & Li, Tingting & Gu, Yanzhang, 2026. "Artificial intelligence versus human providers for personalized solutions? The influence of expected group size and perceived uniqueness on adoption intentions," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    11. Fehr, Dietmar & Vollmann, Martin, 2020. "Misperceiving Economic Success: Experimental Evidence on Meritocratic Beliefs and Inequality Acceptance," Working Papers 0695, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    12. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2013. "Experimental methods: Extra-laboratory experiments-extending the reach of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 93-100.
    13. Gerhard, Patrick & Hoffmann, Arvid O.I. & Post, Thomas, 2017. "Past performance framing and investors’ belief updating: Is seeing long-term returns always associated with smaller belief updates?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 38-51.
    14. Doerrenberg, Philipp & Duncan, Denvil & Löffler, Max, 2023. "Asymmetric labor-supply responses to wage changes: Experimental evidence from an online labor market," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    15. Orazi, Davide C. & Pizzetti, Marta, 2015. "Revisiting fear appeals: A structural re-inquiry of the protection motivation model," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 223-225.
    16. Haas, Nicholas & Hassan, Mazen & Mansour, Sarah & Morton, Rebecca B., 2021. "Polarizing information and support for reform," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 883-901.
    17. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, IZA Network @ LISER.
    18. Krüger, Tinka & Hoffmann, Stefan & Nibat, Ipek N. & Mai, Robert & Trendel, Olivier & Görg, Holger & Lasarov, Wassili, 2024. "How consumer animosity drives anti-consumption: A multi-country examination of social animosity," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 302042, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    19. Ericson, Keith Marzilli & Kessler, Judd B., 2016. "The articulation of government policy: Health insurance mandates versus taxes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 43-54.
    20. Armenak Antinyan & Luca Corazzini & Filippo Pavesi, 2018. "What Matters for Whistleblowing on Tax Evaders? Survey and Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 07/2018, University of Verona, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:26:y:2022:i:3:p:782-800. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1088-1980 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.