Obsolescence in LCA–methodological challenges and solution approaches

  • Marina ProskeEmail author
  • Matthias Finkbeiner



Obsolescence, as premature end of use, increases the overall number of products produced and consumed, and thereby can increase the environmental impact. Measures to decrease the effects of obsolescence by altering the product or service design have the potential to increase use time (defined as the realized active service life) of devices, but can themselves have (environmental) drawbacks, for example, because the amount of material required for production increases. As such, paying special attention to methodological choices when assessing such measures and strategies using life cycle assessment (LCA) needs is crucial.


Open questions and key aspects of obsolescence, including the analysis of its effects and preventative measures, are discussed against the backdrop of the principles and framework for LCA given in ISO 14040/44, which includes guidance on how to define a useful functional unit and reference flow in the context of real-life use time.

Results and discussion

The open and foundational requirements of ISO 14040/14044 already form an excellent basis for analysis of the phenomenon obsolescence and its environmental impact in product comparisons. However, any analysis presumes clear definition of the goal and scope phase with special attention paid to aspects relevant to obsolescence: the target product and user group needs to be placed into context with the analysed “anti-obsolescence” measures. The reference flow needs to reflect a realized use time (and not solely a technical lifetime when not relevant for the product under study). System boundaries and types of data need to be chosen also in context of the anti-obsolescence measure to include, for example, the production of spare parts to reflect repairable design and/or manufacturer-specific yields to reflect high-quality manufacturing.


Understanding the relevant obsolescence conditions for the product system under study and how these may differ across the market segment or user types is crucial for a fair and useful comparison and the evaluation of anti-obsolescence measures.


Durability Functional unit Lifetime LCA Obsolescence Use time 



Marina Proske is a member of the interdisciplinary researcher group “Obsolescence as a challenge for sustainability” (Obsoleszenz als Herausforderung für Nachhaltigkeit—OHA) which is being funded from July 2016 to June 2021 by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research in the context of the Research for Sustainability programme.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Allacker K, Mathieux F, Pennington D, Pant R (2017) The search for an appropriate end-of-life formula for the purpose of the European Commission Environmental Footprint initiative. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:1441–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrae A, Vaija MS (2017) Precision of a streamlined life cycle assessment approach used in eco-rating of mobile phones. Challenges 8(2):21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ardente F, Cellura M (2011) Economic allocation in life cycle assessment - the state of the art and discussion of examples. J Ind Ecol 16(3):387–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ardente F, Mathieux F (2014) Environmental assessment of the durability of energy-using products: method and application. J Clean Prod 74:62–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bajenescu TI, Bazu MI (2012) Reliability of electronic components: a practical guide to electronic systems manufacturing. Media, Springer Science & BusinessGoogle Scholar
  6. Bakker C, den Hollander M, van Hinte E, Zljlstra I (2014a) Products that last – product design for circular business models. TU DelftGoogle Scholar
  7. Bakker C, Wang F, Huisman J, den Hollander M (2014b) Products that go round: exploring product life extension through design. J Clean Prod 69:10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Behrendt S, Göll E (2018) Produkte länger nutzen, Project Evolution2Green – Transformationspfade zu einer Green EconomyGoogle Scholar
  9. Bertling J, Hiebel M, Pflaum H, Nühlen J (2014) Arten und Entstehungstypen frühzeitiger Produktalterung – Entwicklung eines Obsoleszenz-Portfolios. UmweltMagazin, pp:3–2014Google Scholar
  10. Bobba S, Ardente F, Mathieux F (2015) Technical support for environmental footprinting, material efficiency in product policy and the European platform on LCA – durability assessment of vacuum cleaners. JRC.
  11. Boyd SB, Horvath A, Dornfeld DA (2010) Life-cycle assessment of computational logic produced from 1995 through 2010. Environ Res Lett 5:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Claxton S, Cooper T, Goworek H, Hill H, McLaren A, Oxborrow L (2017) Pilling in knitwear: a clothing longevity problem beyond design. In: Product lifetimes and the environment. conference proceedings, 8–10 November, Delft, NL,
  13. Clemm C, Winzer J, Dethlefs N, Proske M, Hofmann F, Reichgardt L, Lang K-D (2018) Stärkere Verankerung der Ressourceneffizienz und Abfallvermeidung in produktpolitischen Instrumenten, UmweltbundesamtGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper JS (2003) Specifying functional units and reference flows for comparable alternatives. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper T (2005) Slower consumption – reflections on product life spans and the “throwaway society”. J Ind Ecol 9:1–2Google Scholar
  16. Cooper DR, Gutowski TG (2015) The environmental impacts of reuse – a review. J Ind Ecol 21(1):38–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cooper T, Oxborrow L, Claxton S, Goworek H, Hill H, McLaren A (2017) New product development and testing strategies for clothing longevity: an overview of UK research study. In: Product lifetimes and the environment, conference proceedings, 8–10 November, Delft,
  18. Cox J, Griffith S, Giorgi S, King G (2013) Consumer understanding of product lifetimes. Resour Concerv Recy 79:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Day C, Beverley K, Lee A (2015) Fast fashion, quality and longevity: a complex relationship. In: Product lifetimes and the environment, conference proceedings. June, Nottingham, pp 17–19Google Scholar
  20. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013) Towards the Circular Economy – Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition, Volume 1Google Scholar
  21. ETSI ES 203 199 V1.3.1 (2015–02) Environmental engineering (EE); methodology for environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) goods, networks and servicesGoogle Scholar
  22. ETSI TR 103 476 V1.1.2 (2018–02) Environmental engineering (EE); circular economy (CE) in information and communication technology (ICT); definition of approaches, concepts and metricsGoogle Scholar
  23. Finkbeiner M (2014) Product environmental footprint—breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:266–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Finkbeiner M, Inaba A, Tan R, Christiansen K, Klüppel H-J (2006) The new international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frischknecht R, Althaus H-J, Bauer C, Doka G, Heck T, Jungbluth N, Kellenberger D, Nemecek T (2007) The environmental relevance of capital goods in life cycle assessments of products and services. Int J Life Cycle Assess.
  26. Grant A, Ries R, Kibert C (2014) Life cycle assessment and service life prediction – a case study of building envelope materials. J Ind Ecol 18(2):187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Günther A, Langowski HC (1997) Life cycle assessment study on resilient floor coverings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(2):73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gutowski TG (2018) A critique of life cycle assessment; where are the people? Procedia CIRP 69:11–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hankammer S, Jiang R, Kleer R, Schymanietz M (2017) Are modular and customizable smartphones the future, or doomed to fail? A case study on the introduction of sustainable consumer electronics. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Higgs T, Cullen M, Yao M, Stewart S (2010) Review of LCA methods for ICT products and the impact of high purity and high cost materials. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology,
  31. ISO 14040:2006 (2006) Environmental management – life cycle assessment – Principles and frameworkGoogle Scholar
  32. ISO 14044:2006 (2006) Environmental management – life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
  33. ISO/TR 14049:2012 (2012) Environmental management — life cycle assessment — illustrative examples on how to apply ISO 14044 to goal and scope definition and inventory analysisGoogle Scholar
  34. Jaeger-Erben M, Hipp T (2018) All the rage or take it easy – expectations and experiences in the context of longevity in electronic devices. Descriptive analysis of a representative online survey in Germany Obsolescence Research Group (ed) OHA texts 1/2018Google Scholar
  35. JRC (2010) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook - general guide for life cycle assessment - detailed guidance. First edition, European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability. LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  36. Kjaer LL, Pigosso DCA, McAloone TC, Birkved M (2018) Guidelines for evaluating the environmental performance of product/service-systems through life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 190:666–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Laitala K (2014) Consumers’ clothing disposal behaviour – a synthesis of research results. Int J Consumer Studies 38:444–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Laitala K, Klepp IG, Henry B (2017) Use phase of wool apparel: a literature review for improving LCA. In: Product lifetimes and the environment, conference proceedings. November, Delft, pp 8–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lehmann A, Bach V, Finkbeiner M (2016) EU product environmental footprint—mid-term review of the pilot phase. Sustainability 8:92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Makov T, Fishmen T, Chertow MR, Blass V (2019) What affects the secondhand value of smartphones – evidence from eBay. J Ind Ecol 23(3):549–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Manhart A, Blepp M, Fischer C, Graulich K, Prakash S, Priess R, Schleicher T, Tür M (2016) Resource efficiency in the ICT sector. Final Report, Öko-InstitutGoogle Scholar
  42. McLaren A, Oxborrow L, Cooper T, Hill H, Goworek H (2015) Clothing longevity perspectives: exploring consumer expectations, consumption and use. In: Product lifetimes and the environment, conference proceedings. June, Nottingham, pp 17–19Google Scholar
  43. Middendorf A, Benecke S, Nissen NF, Wittler O, Lang K-D (2015) Establishing EcoReliability of electronic devices in manufacturing environments. Procedia CIRP 26:436–442. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ostertag R (2008) Supply-Chain-Koordination im Auslauf in der Automobilindustrie: Koordinationsmodell auf Basis von Fortschrittszahlen zur dezentralen Planung bei zentraler Informationsbereitstellung, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  45. PEF (2013) COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations (Text with EEA relevance) (2013/179/EU)Google Scholar
  46. Polizzi di Sorrentino E, Woelbert E, Sala S (2016) Consumers and their behavior: state of the art in behavioural science supporting use phase modeling in LCA and eco-design. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Prakash S, Dehoust G, Gsell M, Schleicher T (2016) Einfluss der Nutzungsdauer von Produkten auf ihre Umweltwirkung: Schaffung einer Informationsgrundlage und Entwicklung von Strategien gegen „Obsoleszenz”, UmweltbundesamtGoogle Scholar
  48. Proske M, Jaeger-Erben M (2019) Decreasing obsolescence with modular smartphones? - an interdisciplinary perspective on lifecycles. J Clean Prod 223:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Proske M, Clemm C, Richter N (2016) Life cycle assessment of the Fairphone 2, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  50. Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment – part 1: goal and scope and inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Richter JL, Dalhammar C, Tähkämö L (2017) Considering optimal lifetimes for LED lamps: a mixed approach and policy implications. In: In product lifetimes and the environment, conference proceedings, 8–10 November, Delft,
  52. Schischke K, Proske M, Nissen NF, Lang K-D (2016) Modular products: smartphone design from a circular economy perspective, EGG2016+. Berlin.
  53. Schrijvers DL, Loubet P, Sonnemann G (2016) Critical review of guidelines against a systematic framework with regard to consistency on allocation procedures for recycling in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:994–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thiébaud-Müller E, Hilty LM, Schluep M, Widmer R, Faulstich M (2018) Service lifetime, storage time, and disposal pathways of electronic equipment: a Swiss case study. J Ind Ecol 22:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van der Hart E, Potting J, Kroeze C (2016) Comparison of different methods to include recycling in LCAs of aluminium cans and disposable polystyrene cups. Waste Manag 48:565–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Nes N, Cramer J (2005) Influencing product lifetime through product design. Bus Stateg Environ 14:286–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wieser H, Tröger N, Hübner R (2015) Die Nutzungsdauer und Obsoleszenz von Gebrauchsgütern im Zeitalter der Beschleunigung. Eine empirische Untersuchung in österreichischen Haushalten, AK Wien, ViennaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technische Universität Berlin, Fakultät IV - Elektrotechnik und Informatik, Forschungsschwerpunkt Technologien der MikroperipherikBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Fraunhofer IZM, Department Environmental and Reliability EngineeringBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Technische Universität Berlin, Institute of Environmental Science & Technology, Sustainable EngineeringBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations