Part II — Dimensions of Technology Evaluation

Chapter 8. Environmental Sustainability and Lifecycle Evaluation — Part 1 of 3

8.1 Introduction

Technology requires resources.

These may include:

energy;

water;

minerals;

land;

biological materials;

infrastructure.

Technological systems can also generate:

emissions;

waste;

pollution;

ecosystem disruption.

Consequently, environmental evaluation is an essential component of responsible technology assessment.

However, environmental evaluation cannot focus only on the period during which a technology is used.

A technology may have low operational emissions but substantial environmental impacts during extraction, manufacturing or disposal.

Lifecycle thinking is therefore essential.

8.2 Lifecycle Thinking

FIGURE 8.1 — Technology Lifecycle — Lifecycle Thinking Conceptual Framework

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

Lifecycle evaluation principle

Environmental evaluation should consider the entire technology lifecycle rather than focusing on a single stage. Impacts associated with raw-material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, deployment, operation, maintenance, reuse or repair, recycling, and final disposal should therefore be considered as interconnected stages of the technology system.

Source: Author's conceptualisation based on the lifecycle-thinking approach.

8.3 Life-Cycle Assessment

Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a structured methodology for evaluating environmental impacts associated with products, services, technologies and systems throughout their lifecycle. Rather than examining a technology only at the point at which it is used, LCA considers the resources, energy, emissions, wastes and other environmental consequences associated with the different stages through which the technology passes.

The underlying principle is that environmental performance should be considered across the complete system rather than being judged from a single stage of operation. A technology may appear environmentally efficient during its use phase while generating substantial environmental burdens during extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, infrastructure development or end-of-life treatment. Conversely, a technology with relatively high manufacturing requirements may provide environmental benefits over a sufficiently long operating life.

ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 provide internationally recognized principles, frameworks, methodological requirements and guidelines for conducting LCA. These standards support a systematic approach to defining the purpose of an assessment, establishing system boundaries, collecting inventory data, assessing environmental impacts and interpreting results.

An LCA can examine a broad range of environmental flows and impacts, including:

resource consumption;

extraction of raw materials;

energy consumption;

electricity requirements;

water consumption;

greenhouse-gas emissions;

air emissions;

wastewater;

solid waste;

hazardous waste;

land use;

mineral depletion;

fossil-resource depletion;

ecosystem impacts;

human-health impacts;

impacts associated with transportation;

impacts associated with recycling and disposal.

The importance of LCA has increased as technological systems have become more complex. Contemporary technologies frequently depend upon extensive global supply chains. A single electronic device, for example, may involve minerals extracted in one country, refined in another, manufactured in several locations, assembled elsewhere and distributed through international logistics networks before reaching its final user.

Consequently, the environmental consequences of a technology may be geographically dispersed and temporally distributed. The location where a technology is used is not necessarily the location where most of its environmental impacts occur.

This is particularly relevant to digital technologies. A user may interact with a smartphone, computer or AI application without seeing the electricity generation, semiconductor manufacturing, mineral extraction, data-centre infrastructure, network equipment and transportation systems that support the service. The visible product or service therefore represents only one component of a much larger technological system.

Emerging technologies present additional difficulties for LCA because complete lifecycle data may not yet exist. New technologies may have uncertain functionality, rapidly changing designs, limited production histories and uncertain future adoption patterns. Moni et al. (2020) emphasize that emerging technologies can involve uncertain functionality, incomplete data and uncertain scale-up characteristics, making conventional LCA more difficult to conduct.

The problem is particularly significant when a technology is being evaluated before commercial-scale deployment. At such an early stage, researchers may have to rely upon laboratory data, engineering assumptions, pilot-scale information, analogous technologies, projected energy requirements or scenario modelling. Such assessments can nevertheless be valuable, provided that assumptions, uncertainties and limitations are explicitly identified.

An LCA should therefore not be interpreted as producing an absolutely certain environmental result. It is better understood as a systematic evidence-based assessment whose reliability depends upon the quality of the available data, the assumptions employed and the boundaries established for the study.

Another important issue is the possibility of burden shifting. An intervention may reduce one environmental impact while increasing another. For example, reducing electricity consumption may require additional materials, manufacturing processes or infrastructure. Increasing durability may require additional material inputs but reduce replacement frequency. Recycling may reduce demand for virgin materials but require additional energy and transportation.

The purpose of lifecycle assessment is therefore not simply to identify whether a technology is environmentally "good" or "bad." Its purpose is to identify environmental burdens, understand where they occur, compare alternatives on a consistent basis and identify opportunities for improvement.

8.4 Goal and Scope

An LCA begins by defining its goal and scope. This stage establishes why the assessment is being conducted, what questions it is intended to answer and what aspects of the technological system will be included.

The goal may be to:

understand the environmental profile of an existing technology;

compare alternative technologies;

identify environmental hotspots;

support product or process improvement;

inform procurement decisions;

support sustainability strategies;

evaluate alternative materials;

assess environmental consequences of technological innovation;

inform policy or organizational planning;

examine potential trade-offs between technologies.

The scope establishes the methodological boundaries within which the assessment will be conducted.

Important elements include:

intended application;

reason for conducting the study;

intended audience;

comparative purpose, where applicable;

system boundary;

functional unit;

lifecycle stages;

geographical scope;

temporal scope;

data requirements;

impact categories;

assumptions;

allocation procedures;

treatment of uncertainty.

The system boundary is particularly important because it determines which processes are included and excluded from the assessment.

A narrow boundary might examine only the operational phase of a technology.

For example:

Raw materials → Manufacturing → Use

A broader boundary might include:

Raw materials → Processing → Manufacturing → Transportation → Deployment → Operation → Maintenance → Reuse → Recycling/Disposal

An even broader analysis may consider supporting infrastructure, energy-generation systems, auxiliary equipment, supply chains and indirect activities where these are relevant to the purpose of the study.

The choice of system boundary can substantially influence the results. If one technology is evaluated only during its use phase while another is evaluated across manufacturing, transportation, operation and disposal, the comparison is not methodologically equivalent.

For example, comparing the operational electricity consumption of two devices without considering their manufacturing requirements may produce a different conclusion from a comparison that includes raw-material extraction, semiconductor production, transportation, expected lifespan, maintenance and end-of-life treatment.

Comparisons can therefore become misleading when different system boundaries are used.

The geographical boundary is also significant. Electricity generation has different environmental characteristics depending upon the energy mix of the location. Manufacturing in a region with carbon-intensive electricity may have a different environmental profile from manufacturing the same product using a lower-carbon electricity system.

Similarly, water scarcity varies geographically. One unit of water consumption does not necessarily have the same environmental significance in a water-abundant region and a water-stressed region.

The temporal boundary is also important. Technologies evolve rapidly, particularly in areas such as computing, artificial intelligence, batteries, telecommunications and renewable energy. An LCA based on technology and electricity conditions from one period may not accurately represent a later configuration.

This creates a particular methodological challenge for emerging technologies. A lifecycle assessment may need to distinguish between current performance and anticipated future performance rather than treating projections as established facts.

8.5 Functional Unit

The functional unit provides a common basis for comparison in LCA. It defines the quantified function or service that the system is expected to provide.

This is important because technologies should generally be compared according to the functions they perform rather than simply according to their physical characteristics.

Examples of functional units include:

one kilometre of passenger transport;

one passenger-kilometre of transportation;

one kilowatt-hour of electricity delivered;

one tonne of material processed;

one litre of treated water;

one medical diagnosis;

one thousand digital transactions;

one hour of computing service;

one unit of information storage for a specified period;

one square metre of building space provided for a specified period.

The distinction between a product and its function is fundamental.

Suppose two transportation technologies are being compared. Comparing one electric vehicle with one conventional vehicle may not provide a meaningful environmental comparison because the vehicles may differ in size, passenger capacity, expected lifetime and distance travelled.

A functional comparison might instead examine the environmental impacts associated with transporting one passenger over one kilometre under specified operating conditions.

Similarly, comparing two lighting technologies based only on the physical number of lamps may be misleading. A more meaningful comparison would consider the environmental impacts associated with providing a specified amount of illumination for a specified period.

The functional unit therefore provides the basis for normalizing environmental flows.

It allows researchers to ask:

How many resources are required to provide the same function?

How much energy is consumed to provide the same service?

How much waste is generated while providing the same output?

How much greenhouse-gas emission is associated with delivering the same function?

This principle becomes increasingly important when evaluating digital and AI-based technologies.

For example, comparing two AI systems simply on the basis of model size may not adequately represent their environmental performance. A more useful analysis might consider energy consumption or emissions associated with completing a defined number of tasks at a specified level of performance.

The functional unit should therefore reflect the actual purpose of the technology.

8.6 Carbon Emissions

Carbon emissions are an important environmental indicator in technology assessment. However, the term "carbon emissions" is often used broadly and should be interpreted carefully.

Environmental assessment may distinguish among:

direct emissions;

indirect emissions;

embodied emissions;

operational emissions;

supply-chain emissions;

lifecycle greenhouse-gas emissions.

Direct emissions occur from activities directly controlled by the organization or technology.

Indirect emissions arise from activities such as purchased electricity, transportation, material production and other parts of the supply chain.

Embodied emissions refer broadly to greenhouse-gas emissions associated with producing materials, components, infrastructure and equipment before they are used.

Operational emissions arise during the use of the technology.

Lifecycle emissions encompass emissions across the relevant stages of the technological system.

This distinction is particularly important because technologies may have very different emission profiles across their lifecycle.

A device may have low operational energy consumption but relatively high embodied emissions because of energy-intensive manufacturing and material processing. Conversely, a technology with greater operational energy requirements may have a longer useful life or lower manufacturing burden.

Digital technologies illustrate the complexity particularly well.

Energy and associated emissions may occur across:

user devices;

network equipment;

telecommunications infrastructure;

servers;

data centres;

storage systems;

cooling systems;

electricity-generation infrastructure;

semiconductor manufacturing;

component production;

transportation;

maintenance and replacement.

The environmental assessment should therefore avoid focusing solely on the user's device.

For cloud-based services, for example, the user's visible interaction may represent only a small part of the technological infrastructure required to deliver the service. Data must be transmitted through networks, processed by computing infrastructure and often stored for varying periods.

Artificial intelligence introduces an additional layer of complexity because computational requirements can occur during different stages.

These may include:

data collection;

data preparation;

model development;

model training;

model evaluation;

model deployment;

inference;

storage;

monitoring;

updating;

hardware manufacture;

cooling;

infrastructure replacement.

Training and deployment should therefore not automatically be treated as the only relevant sources of environmental burden. The complete technological system may be considerably broader.

The energy source also matters. The same computational workload can be associated with different greenhouse-gas emissions depending upon the electricity system supplying the required energy.

Consequently:

Energy consumption ≠ automatically identical carbon impact.

Two technologies may consume the same amount of electricity while producing different greenhouse-gas emissions because the electricity is generated from different combinations of renewable, nuclear, fossil-fuel and other sources.

This distinction demonstrates why lifecycle assessment requires more than simply measuring electricity consumption.

8.7 Energy Consumption

Energy is a fundamental component of most technological systems.

Energy requirements may arise during:

extraction;

material processing;

manufacturing;

transportation;

construction;

installation;

operation;

cooling;

maintenance;

recycling;

disposal.

The total energy requirement of a technology can therefore be considerably larger than the energy consumed during its visible operational phase.

For digital technologies, energy efficiency is particularly important because computing infrastructure operates continuously and at increasingly large scales. Data centres, telecommunications networks and distributed computing infrastructure require electricity not only for computation but also for cooling, power management, storage and supporting systems.

Energy assessment should therefore consider both the quantity and characteristics of energy consumed.

Relevant questions include:

How much energy is required?

At which lifecycle stage is energy consumed?

What type of energy is used?

What is the source of the electricity?

How does energy demand change with scale?

What infrastructure is required to supply the energy?

Does increased efficiency produce additional demand through greater usage?

The last question introduces the possibility of rebound effects. An improvement in efficiency may reduce the energy required for each individual task but may also encourage greater use of the technology. Consequently, total environmental impacts do not necessarily decline in proportion to improvements in per-unit efficiency.

8.8 Water Consumption

Water is another important dimension of lifecycle environmental assessment.

Technological systems may require water during:

mining;

material processing;

semiconductor manufacturing;

electricity generation;

industrial production;

cooling;

cleaning;

recycling.

The relationship between technology and water is particularly important because water availability differs considerably across geographical regions.

A technology may therefore have relatively low water requirements in one location but create greater environmental pressure when deployed at scale in a water-stressed region.

Digital infrastructure can also have water-related implications. Data centres may use water directly for cooling depending upon their cooling technologies and local conditions. Electricity generation can also involve water consumption, creating an indirect water footprint.

This illustrates an important principle of lifecycle thinking: environmental impacts can occur through both direct and indirect pathways.

8.9 Resource Depletion and Critical Materials

Many modern technologies depend upon minerals and materials whose extraction can create significant environmental pressures.

These materials may be required for:

batteries;

semiconductors;

telecommunications equipment;

electric vehicles;

renewable-energy technologies;

computing hardware;

sensors;

advanced manufacturing systems.

The environmental assessment should therefore consider not only energy and carbon emissions but also material requirements and resource availability.

Critical-material considerations may include:

quantity of material required;

geographical concentration of supply;

extraction conditions;

processing requirements;

recycling potential;

material substitution possibilities;

expected demand growth;

technological dependence.

The transition toward electrification and renewable-energy systems illustrates why environmental evaluation must avoid reducing sustainability to a single indicator.

A technology may contribute to decarbonization while simultaneously increasing demand for particular minerals or creating new recycling challenges.

This does not mean that such technologies should be considered environmentally unsuccessful. Rather, it demonstrates the importance of examining multiple dimensions simultaneously.

8.10 Waste and End-of-Life Assessment

The end-of-life stage is an important component of technology lifecycle assessment.

Technological products may eventually be:

repaired;

refurbished;

reused;

remanufactured;

recycled;

recovered for materials;

incinerated;

placed in landfill;

exported for processing elsewhere.

The environmental consequences depend upon the characteristics of the technology and the available end-of-life infrastructure.

Electronic equipment presents particular challenges because it can contain valuable materials alongside substances requiring careful management.

Design therefore has an important role in determining end-of-life outcomes.

Products that are difficult to disassemble may be harder to repair or recycle. Products designed with modular components may potentially have longer useful lives because individual components can be replaced without replacing the entire product.

This connects lifecycle assessment with the concept of circular economy.

Instead of a linear model:

Raw materials → Production → Use → Disposal

a circular model seeks to maintain materials and products within productive use for as long as possible:

Raw materials → Production → Use → Repair → Reuse → Refurbishment → Remanufacturing → Recycling → Recovery

The objective is not simply to eliminate waste but to reduce the need for virgin resource extraction and preserve value within the technological system.

8.11 Lifecycle Trade-Offs

A major strength of LCA is its ability to identify trade-offs.

Technological decisions frequently involve competing environmental objectives.

For example:

increasing durability may require additional material;

reducing operational energy may require more complex manufacturing;

increasing computing capacity may increase electricity demand;

improving performance may require additional hardware;

recycling may require energy and transportation;

reducing one emission may increase another environmental burden.

Therefore, an environmental improvement in one category does not automatically represent an improvement across the entire lifecycle.

This is sometimes described as the problem of burden shifting.

A technology assessment that examines only one indicator may unintentionally encourage decisions that reduce one environmental burden while transferring the burden elsewhere.

For this reason, LCA is particularly valuable when multiple environmental impact categories are assessed together.

8.12 Uncertainty and Data Quality

LCA results are influenced by the quality and completeness of the underlying data.

Data may be:

directly measured;

obtained from databases;

estimated;

modelled;

derived from comparable technologies;

based on industry averages;

projected for future conditions.

Emerging technologies often involve greater uncertainty because historical data are limited.

Important sources of uncertainty may include:

uncertain future demand;

changing technology specifications;

uncertain equipment lifetime;

changing electricity mixes;

uncertain recycling rates;

uncertain user behaviour;

uncertain manufacturing locations;

technological learning;

future regulatory requirements.

Researchers should therefore document assumptions and conduct sensitivity analysis where appropriate.

Sensitivity analysis asks how much the conclusions change when important assumptions are changed.

For example, an assessment might examine how results differ if:

the technology lasts five years rather than ten;

electricity is generated using a different energy mix;

recycling rates increase;

utilization rates are higher or lower;

hardware is replaced more frequently.

This is especially valuable when comparing emerging technologies whose future conditions cannot be known with certainty.

8.13 LCA and Emerging Technologies

Emerging technologies create a distinctive challenge for lifecycle assessment because their future characteristics may differ substantially from their present characteristics.

A technology may experience:

rapid improvements in efficiency;

changes in materials;

changes in manufacturing methods;

economies of scale;

changing energy requirements;

increased or reduced resource intensity;

changing rates of adoption;

changes in infrastructure requirements.

An LCA conducted at an early stage should therefore distinguish clearly between observed data and assumptions about future development.

Scenario-based assessment can be useful in such circumstances.

For example, researchers may construct alternative scenarios representing:

low adoption;

moderate adoption;

high adoption;

current technology;

improved future technology;

alternative electricity systems;

different equipment lifetimes;

different recycling rates.

Such scenarios do not predict the future with certainty. Rather, they help decision-makers understand how environmental outcomes may change under different plausible conditions.

8.14 LCA and Technology Decision-Making

LCA can provide important evidence for organizational and technological decision-making.

Organizations may use lifecycle information when deciding:

whether to adopt a technology;

which supplier to select;

which materials to use;

how long equipment should remain in service;

whether repair or replacement is preferable;

how infrastructure should be designed;

how products should be packaged;

how waste should be managed;

whether a technology contributes to sustainability objectives.

However, LCA should normally be treated as one component of decision-making rather than as the sole determinant.

Technological decisions may also involve:

economic feasibility;

technical performance; safety; social consequences;

legal requirements;

ethical considerations;

organizational strategy;

user acceptance;

resilience;

cybersecurity;

accessibility.

This reinforces the broader argument of this chapter that technology assessment is inherently multidimensional.

8.15 From Life-Cycle Assessment to Life-Cycle Thinking

LCA provides a formal analytical methodology, while life-cycle thinking represents a broader way of approaching technological decisions.

Life-cycle thinking encourages decision-makers to ask what happens before, during and after the visible use of a technology.

Instead of asking only:

"How efficiently does this technology operate?"

the assessment becomes:

"What resources are required to create it, how is it transported, how does it operate, how long does it remain useful, what maintenance does it require, what happens when it becomes obsolete, and what materials can be recovered afterward?"

This broader perspective is especially important in the digital and AI era because technological services can appear intangible even when they depend upon substantial physical infrastructures.

Digital information may appear weightless, but the systems required to create, transmit, process and store that information require physical devices, buildings, electricity, networks, cooling systems, minerals and human labour.

Consequently, the apparent dematerialization of technology does not necessarily mean the disappearance of material and environmental impacts.

8.16 Implications for Sustainable Technology

Life-Cycle Assessment contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of sustainable technology.

A sustainable technology should not be evaluated solely according to whether it performs its immediate function efficiently. Its broader lifecycle should also be considered.

Relevant questions include:

What materials does the technology require?

Where do those materials originate?

How energy-intensive is manufacturing?

What transportation is required?

How much energy and water are consumed during operation?

How long can the technology remain functional?

Can it be repaired or upgraded?

Can components be reused?

Can materials be recovered?

What waste is generated?

What happens when the technology becomes obsolete?

What environmental burdens may increase when adoption expands?

These questions help move technological assessment from a short-term operational perspective toward a longer-term systems perspective.

Ultimately, LCA demonstrates that the environmental consequences of technology cannot be understood by examining only the moment of use. Technologies have histories and futures. They begin with resources and processes, operate within infrastructures, require energy and maintenance, interact with users and organizations, and eventually reach stages of reuse, recycling or disposal.

The central contribution of lifecycle thinking is therefore to make these often-hidden relationships visible. By examining the complete chain of activities associated with a technology, decision-makers can identify environmental hotspots, recognize trade-offs, reduce burden shifting and design more sustainable technological systems.

8.7 Energy Consumption

Technology may consume energy during:

manufacturing;

operation;

cooling;

transportation;

data processing.

Energy consumption is one of the most important considerations in evaluating the environmental performance of modern technological systems because virtually every stage of a technology's lifecycle requires some form of energy. Energy may be required to extract and process raw materials, manufacture components, transport products between facilities, construct supporting infrastructure, operate equipment, maintain systems, process information and manage end-of-life activities.

The energy requirements of a technology should therefore not be understood solely as the electricity consumed by the end user. A laptop, smartphone, electric vehicle, industrial robot or AI system may require substantial energy before it reaches the point of use. Manufacturing facilities, semiconductor fabrication plants, mining operations, logistics networks, telecommunications infrastructure and data centres can all form part of the broader energy footprint.

AI and high-performance computing can require substantial computational resources. The rapid expansion of large-scale computing has increased attention to the electricity requirements associated with model development, training, inference, data storage and supporting infrastructure. The environmental significance of these activities depends not only on how much computing is performed but also on the efficiency of hardware, utilization rates, cooling requirements, data-centre design and the electricity systems supplying the computing infrastructure.

It is also important to distinguish between energy efficiency and total energy consumption. A technology can become more energy efficient on a per-task basis while total energy consumption continues to increase because the technology is being used more extensively. For example, more efficient computing equipment may reduce energy consumed per computation while increasing the overall volume of computation performed. Consequently, efficiency improvements should be assessed alongside changes in scale, frequency and intensity of use.

The environmental evaluation should consider both:

energy consumed by the technology

and

emissions associated with the energy source.

The same energy demand may have different environmental consequences depending on the electricity mix.

Electricity generated predominantly from renewable sources may have a different greenhouse-gas profile from electricity generated predominantly from fossil fuels. Similarly, electricity systems differ in their dependence on natural gas, coal, nuclear power, hydropower, solar energy, wind energy and other sources. Consequently, an assessment based solely on kilowatt-hours may not adequately describe the environmental consequences of technological operation.

The location and timing of energy consumption can also matter. Electricity-generation systems vary geographically, while electricity demand can change during the day and across seasons. Some technologies may therefore have opportunities to reduce environmental impacts by shifting energy-intensive activities toward periods when lower-carbon electricity is more available.

Energy assessment should also consider the supporting infrastructure required to deliver energy. Data centres, telecommunications networks, industrial facilities and transportation systems require power distribution infrastructure, backup systems, cooling systems and other supporting equipment. These requirements contribute to the broader technological lifecycle.

Cooling is particularly important for high-performance computing and data-intensive technologies. Computational equipment generates heat during operation and may require air cooling, liquid cooling or other thermal-management systems. The energy used for cooling can therefore form an important component of the overall energy demand.

The lifespan of equipment is another important consideration. If a device requires substantial energy and materials during manufacturing but remains operational for many years, its initial environmental burden may be distributed across a longer period of useful service. Conversely, frequent replacement may increase the environmental burden associated with manufacturing, transportation and disposal.

Energy consumption can also be influenced by user behaviour. Two identical technologies may produce different lifecycle results because they are used differently. A device operated continuously will have a different energy profile from one used occasionally. Similarly, an AI service receiving millions of requests may have a very different total energy requirement from the same service operating at a small scale.

This introduces the importance of functional units and utilization rates. Energy consumption should, where possible, be related to the function being delivered rather than considered only as an absolute quantity.

For example, the assessment may examine energy required per:

kilowatt-hour of electricity delivered;

passenger-kilometre of transportation;

unit of manufactured output;

medical diagnosis;

computational task;

transaction processed;

hour of digital service;

unit of information stored.

Such measures make it possible to compare technologies according to the services they provide.

Energy assessment should also consider technological rebound effects. When a technology becomes cheaper or more efficient to operate, users may increase their consumption. A more efficient computing system, for example, may encourage organizations to undertake substantially more computation. Consequently, improvements in energy efficiency do not necessarily produce proportional reductions in total energy demand.

The relationship between energy and technology therefore extends beyond simple efficiency calculations. A comprehensive assessment considers energy requirements across the lifecycle, the source of the energy, infrastructure requirements, scale of deployment, utilization, equipment lifespan and changes in user behaviour.

8.8 Water Consumption

Water may be used in:

manufacturing;

cooling;

energy production;

resource extraction.

Water is an important but sometimes overlooked component of technology assessment. Although many technological products do not appear to be directly associated with water, water can be embedded throughout their supply chains. Mining, mineral processing, semiconductor manufacturing, electricity generation, industrial production and cooling systems may all require significant quantities of water.

The water requirements of technology can therefore occur at multiple stages of the lifecycle. Raw-material extraction may require water for processing and separation. Manufacturing facilities may require water for cleaning, cooling and production processes. Electricity generation may require water depending on the generation technology and cooling system. Data centres may also use water directly or indirectly through their cooling systems and electricity supply.

Water scarcity can vary significantly by geographical location.

Therefore, environmental evaluation should be geographically sensitive.

A litre of water consumed in a water-abundant region does not necessarily have the same environmental significance as a litre consumed in a severely water-stressed region. The timing of water consumption may also matter. Seasonal shortages can make water use more consequential during particular periods.

The assessment should therefore consider not only how much water is consumed but also where, when and for what purpose the consumption occurs.

Water quality is another important consideration. Technological processes may generate wastewater containing chemicals, dissolved minerals, heavy metals or other pollutants. Consequently, water assessment should distinguish between water withdrawal, water consumption, water discharge and potential impacts on water quality.

Water withdrawal refers broadly to water taken from a source for use, while water consumption generally refers to the portion that is not returned to the original source in a form or at a time that makes it readily available for reuse. These distinctions can be important when evaluating industrial and technological systems.

The relationship between water and energy also demonstrates why environmental categories cannot always be examined independently. Electricity generation may require water, while water treatment and distribution require energy. A technology that reduces energy consumption may have implications for water consumption, and a technology that reduces water requirements may require additional energy or materials.

Semiconductor manufacturing provides an important example of this interconnectedness. Advanced electronic components require highly controlled manufacturing environments, and water can be used extensively in various stages of production. As technological demand for increasingly sophisticated computing devices expands, the water requirements of associated manufacturing systems become relevant to lifecycle assessment.

AI and digital infrastructure can also have indirect water footprints. Computing infrastructure requires electricity, and the production of that electricity may involve water depending on the energy-generation system. Data-centre cooling may additionally require direct water consumption depending on the cooling architecture and local environmental conditions.

Consequently, a complete environmental assessment of digital technology should not assume that digitalization automatically means low material or environmental consumption.

Water assessment should also consider opportunities for reduction and circularity. Technologies may incorporate closed-loop cooling systems, water recycling, wastewater treatment and alternative cooling approaches. Such interventions can reduce freshwater demand, although their own energy and infrastructure requirements should also be considered.

Geographical context is therefore fundamental. The environmental significance of technological water consumption depends on local hydrology, competing demands, ecosystem requirements, climate conditions and the availability of alternative water sources.

8.9 Mineral and Material Requirements

Advanced technologies often require specific minerals and materials.

Examples include materials used in:

batteries;

semiconductors;

renewable-energy systems;

electronics.

The evaluator should consider:

quantity;

extraction impacts;

supply concentration;

recycling;

substitution possibilities.

This demonstrates that environmental and supply-chain risks can overlap.

Modern technological systems depend upon a complex network of materials. Electronic devices require numerous metals and engineered materials, while batteries, electric vehicles, renewable-energy systems, telecommunications equipment and advanced computing infrastructure may require specialized inputs.

The environmental assessment should therefore examine the material composition of technology rather than focusing exclusively on its energy consumption.

Material requirements may create environmental pressures during extraction, processing, transportation and refinement. Mining can involve land disturbance, water consumption, energy use, waste generation and changes to local ecosystems. Processing and refining can also require substantial energy and infrastructure.

The geographical concentration of material production can create additional supply-chain considerations. When important materials are produced or processed in a relatively small number of locations, disruptions may affect technological availability and manufacturing costs.

This demonstrates that environmental sustainability and supply-chain resilience are frequently interconnected.

Material assessment should also consider the distinction between abundant and constrained resources. A technology that requires large quantities of relatively abundant material presents different resource considerations from one that depends upon materials with limited availability, concentrated supply or difficult substitution.

The quantity of material required per unit of technological output is another important consideration. Technological innovation may reduce material intensity through miniaturization, improved efficiency, alternative materials or more efficient manufacturing processes. However, increasing demand can offset reductions in material intensity.

For example, if a device requires fewer materials per unit but global demand for the device increases substantially, total material requirements may still increase.

Recycling provides one mechanism for reducing dependence on virgin material extraction. However, recycling effectiveness depends upon product design, material composition, collection systems, separation technologies, economic incentives and the quality of recovered materials.

Some products are difficult to recycle because multiple materials are tightly integrated. Others may contain small quantities of valuable materials distributed across complex assemblies. Designing products for disassembly and material recovery can therefore improve their circularity.

Substitution is another important strategy. If a particular material creates substantial environmental or supply-chain risks, alternative materials may potentially be used. However, substitution should itself be assessed carefully because the alternative material may introduce different environmental, technical or economic consequences.

Material substitution therefore illustrates the importance of lifecycle thinking. Replacing one material with another does not automatically eliminate environmental impacts; it may simply change the location or type of impact.

Technology evaluation should also consider the expected lifetime of materials within the technological system. Materials that remain in service for many years may provide greater value per unit of extracted resource than materials associated with short product lifetimes and frequent replacement.

Repair, refurbishment, remanufacturing and component replacement can extend the period during which the original material investment remains productive.

The material dimension of technology therefore extends from extraction through manufacturing and use to recovery and end-of-life management.

8.10 E-Waste

Electronic technologies can generate waste.

Evaluation should consider:

product lifespan;

repairability;

upgradeability;

recyclability;

hazardous materials;

recovery systems.

Electronic waste, commonly referred to as e-waste, is an increasingly important consequence of technological development. Rapid innovation can result in products becoming obsolete, incompatible or economically unattractive to repair even when they remain physically functional.

A short product lifespan can increase the frequency with which new devices must be manufactured. This can increase demand for raw materials, manufacturing energy, transportation and packaging while also increasing the volume of discarded equipment.

A technology with a short replacement cycle may produce greater waste even if each individual device is more energy efficient.

This creates an important distinction between product-level efficiency and lifecycle sustainability. A new device may consume less electricity during operation than an older device, but if replacing the older device results in premature disposal and requires the manufacture of an entirely new product, the lifecycle implications become more complex.

Repairability is therefore an important aspect of technological sustainability. Technologies designed to permit repair can potentially remain useful for longer periods. Replaceable batteries, modular components, accessible repair procedures and availability of replacement parts can all contribute to extending product lifetimes.

Upgradeability can similarly reduce unnecessary replacement. If a device can receive hardware or software upgrades rather than being completely replaced, the original material and manufacturing investment may remain productive for longer.

Software support is particularly relevant to digital products. A physically functional device may become obsolete if security updates, operating-system support or application compatibility are discontinued. Therefore, technological lifespan should not be understood solely as the period during which hardware continues to function.

The concept of planned obsolescence also deserves consideration in lifecycle analysis, although determining intentionality requires evidence rather than assumption. Regardless of the underlying cause, frequent replacement cycles can increase material and waste flows.

E-waste may contain both valuable and potentially hazardous materials. Appropriate collection, separation, recovery and treatment systems are therefore important.

Recycling can recover materials that might otherwise be lost. However, not all electronic waste is recycled through formal systems, and recycling processes themselves require energy, infrastructure and appropriate technologies.

The global movement of electronic waste also creates environmental and social considerations. Equipment may be exported, resold, dismantled or processed in locations different from where it was originally used. Consequently, the apparent environmental performance of a product in one country may depend partly upon waste-management practices elsewhere.

The evaluator should therefore consider the entire end-of-life pathway rather than assuming that a product labelled "recyclable" will necessarily be recycled.

Design plays a central role in determining end-of-life outcomes. Products designed for disassembly can make component recovery easier. Standardized components can facilitate repair and replacement. Clear material identification can support sorting and recycling.

E-waste assessment should consequently move beyond the question of how much waste a technology generates and examine whether the technological system enables materials to remain economically and environmentally useful after the initial product reaches the end of its first service life.

8.11 Circular Economy

Circular economy principles seek to reduce waste and maintain materials in productive use.

Relevant strategies include:

reduce;

reuse;

repair;

refurbish;

remanufacture;

recycle.

Technology evaluation should therefore ask:

“Can the technology be maintained and reused?”

rather than simply:

“Can it be manufactured?”

The circular economy represents a shift from a predominantly linear model of production and consumption toward a system in which products, components and materials remain in use for as long as possible.

A conventional linear model can be represented as:

Raw materials → Manufacturing → Distribution → Use → Disposal

A circular approach seeks to create additional loops:

Raw materials → Manufacturing → Use → Repair → Reuse → Refurbishment → Remanufacturing → Recycling → Recovery

The objective is to preserve the value embodied in products and materials rather than allowing them to become waste after a single period of use.

For technology, circularity begins at the design stage. A product that cannot be opened, repaired, upgraded or disassembled may be difficult to incorporate into a circular system. Circular technology therefore requires consideration of design, manufacturing, ownership, maintenance, logistics, consumer behaviour and end-of-life systems.

Reducing material consumption is the first consideration. Technologies can potentially be designed to use fewer materials while maintaining required functionality. Miniaturization, lightweighting and material efficiency can reduce resource requirements, although these approaches must be assessed for their effects on durability and repairability.

Reuse extends the productive life of a product without necessarily requiring extensive reprocessing. A computer, smartphone or industrial component may be transferred to another user or application after its first owner no longer requires it.

Repair restores functionality when a component fails. Repair can prevent an otherwise usable product from becoming waste.

Refurbishment may involve restoring a used product to an appropriate condition for continued use. Refurbished technology can potentially extend product lifetimes while reducing demand for newly manufactured products.

Remanufacturing goes further by recovering and rebuilding components or products according to specified performance requirements. This can preserve substantial amounts of material and embodied energy.

Recycling occurs when materials are recovered from products and processed for use in new products or applications. Recycling is important but should not automatically be treated as the first or most desirable circular strategy. In many circumstances, extending the useful life of a complete product or component can preserve more value than breaking it down into constituent materials.

This creates a hierarchy of circular strategies in which maintaining the function of products and components can be more resource-efficient than recovering materials only after the product has become unusable.

Digital technology also introduces opportunities for circularity through software and digital monitoring. Predictive maintenance systems can identify potential equipment failures before they occur, potentially extending equipment lifetimes. Digital product information can support maintenance, repair, component identification and material recovery.

However, digitalization can also create new forms of technological dependency. A product may remain physically usable but become difficult to operate if proprietary software, cloud services, authentication systems or security updates are discontinued. Circular technology therefore requires attention to both physical and digital longevity.

Organizations can support circularity through procurement policies that consider total lifecycle costs rather than simply the initial purchase price. Contracts may incorporate requirements for repair services, spare parts, software support, refurbishment, take-back schemes and responsible end-of-life management.

Consumers and users also influence circular outcomes. Product replacement decisions, repair behaviour, second-hand markets and willingness to use refurbished equipment can affect the overall lifecycle of technology.

The circular economy therefore changes the central question of technological design.

Instead of asking only:

“Can this technology be manufactured efficiently?”

the question becomes:

“Can this technology remain useful, repairable, adaptable, reusable and recoverable throughout an extended lifecycle?”

This perspective connects environmental sustainability with economic value, product design, organizational strategy and technological innovation. It also reinforces the central principle of lifecycle thinking: the environmental consequences of technology are not confined to its manufacture or operation but extend across the entire period during which materials, components, products and infrastructures remain part of the technological system.