pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06290 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 💻 cs.SE · cs.DB

Recognition: no theorem link

All LCA models are wrong. Are some of them useful? Towards open computational LCA in ICT

Vincent Corlay , David Bekri , Marie-Anne Lacroix , Maxime Pelcat , Maxime Peralta , Pierre-Yves Pichon , Leo Saillenfest , Olivier Weppe
show 1 more author
Sebastien Rumley
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE cs.DB
keywords life cycle assessmentICT environmental impactsmodel traceabilityopen modelscomputational LCAenvironmental modelingsystem boundariesdata obsolescence
0
0 comments X

The pith

ICT environmental assessments are networks of models that need explicit lineage and traceability to stay credible.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper claims that because direct measurements of environmental effects are impractical, ICT life cycle assessments are built almost entirely from models. These models interact as systems, so they require unusually strict attention to how they are constructed, calibrated, linked, and kept current. Current methods often fail at this, producing misuse, mismatched scopes, hidden aggregations, and outdated components. The authors therefore define four requirements for reliable results and offer a framework that enforces them through dependency graphs, open repositories, and automatic checks. A reader would care because decisions about technology regulation and sustainability rest on these assessments; without better handling the results can mislead policy and investment.

Core claim

Life Cycle Assessment of ICT systems relies heavily on models since direct biosphere measurements are complicated to perform. ICT LCAs therefore form systems of models that require an extra-high level of carefulness in construction, calibration, integration, and interpretation. Current practices make this rigor difficult to achieve, as illustrated by emblematic examples of model misuse and structural problems with database choice, scope mismatches, opaque aggregation, and model integration. The paper derives four requirements for credible ICT LCA—explicit model lineage, clearly defined model scope, end-to-end traceability, and managed non-obsolescence—and proposes a framework that meets them

What carries the argument

The open computational LCA framework that represents models as explicit dependency graphs, stores them in a versioned open repository, enforces integrity constraints automatically, and organizes them with a defined taxonomy.

If this is right

  • Assessments can be verified by following the explicit lineage back to source assumptions and data.
  • Clearly defined scopes prevent incompatible models from being aggregated without detection.
  • End-to-end traceability allows automatic enforcement of consistency when sub-models are combined.
  • Managed non-obsolescence keeps results from resting on superseded data or model versions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Adoption could encourage shared maintenance of core ICT models by multiple organizations, similar to how open codebases evolve.
  • The same dependency-graph approach might transfer to other model-heavy domains such as energy-system planning or material-flow analysis.
  • Regulators could use the framework's taxonomy and constraints as a checklist for accepting LCA studies in policy documents.
  • A direct test would re-analyze a published ICT LCA under the new rules and measure the change in reported uncertainty bounds.

Load-bearing premise

That the documented problems with model handling are the main barriers to credible ICT LCA and that the proposed open framework can reduce those problems in practice without creating new practical barriers.

What would settle it

A side-by-side audit of multiple ICT LCAs performed with and without the dependency-graph repository, checking whether the open version produces fewer undetected scope mismatches or outdated data instances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06290 by David Bekri, Leo Saillenfest, Marie-Anne Lacroix, Maxime Pelcat, Maxime Peralta, Olivier Weppe, Pierre-Yves Pichon, Sebastien Rumley, Vincent Corlay.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: LCA curses and corresponding requirements (Sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of an LCA process with input/output [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is increasingly used to quantify and regulate the environmental impacts of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) systems. Since direct biosphere measurements are complicated to perform, we claim that the environmental impact assessment of ICT relies heavily on models. In this paper, we first revisit the fundamentals of LCA: we emphasize that ICT LCAs effectively form systems of models, and we argue that such systems require an extra-high level of carefulness in construction, calibration, integration, and interpretation. We then document how this level of rigor is challenging to achieve with current practices. This is illustrated with emblematic examples of model misuse and an analysis of structural challenges related to database choice, scope mismatches, opaque aggregation, and model integration. From this analysis, we derive four key requirements for credible ICT LCA: explicit model lineage, clearly defined model scope, end-to-end traceability, and managed non-obsolescence. Finally, we propose a framework that operationalizes these requirements using explicit dependency graphs, an open and versioned LCA-oriented model repository, automatic enforcement of integrity constraints, and a well-defined model taxonomy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that ICT life cycle assessments (LCAs) constitute systems of models necessitating an exceptionally high degree of carefulness in their construction, calibration, integration, and interpretation. It highlights current shortcomings through emblematic examples of model misuse and structural challenges including database selection, scope mismatches, opaque aggregation, and model integration. Based on this analysis, four requirements for credible ICT LCA are derived: explicit model lineage, clearly defined model scope, end-to-end traceability, and managed non-obsolescence. The paper concludes by proposing a framework to meet these requirements through explicit dependency graphs, an open and versioned LCA-oriented model repository, automatic enforcement of integrity constraints, and a well-defined model taxonomy.

Significance. Should the proposed framework prove effective upon implementation, it could substantially enhance the reliability of environmental impact assessments for ICT systems, which are critical for regulatory compliance and sustainable design. The paper merits credit for its systematic identification of challenges from real-world practices and for outlining a structured approach to address them. However, the absence of any implemented prototype or validation study limits the immediate impact, making the significance contingent on future empirical demonstration.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract and proposal section: The central claim that the four requirements plus the framework (dependency graphs, open repository, integrity constraints, taxonomy) will operationalize credible ICT LCA is unsupported by evidence. The manuscript provides no prototype, pilot application, or quantitative comparison demonstrating reduced error rates, improved traceability, or feasibility at scale, leaving the transition from documented challenges to a solved problem untested.
  2. Section on structural challenges and derivation of requirements: The justification for the requirements rests on illustrative examples rather than systematic prevalence data or error-rate measurements across ICT LCA studies. Without such grounding, it is unclear whether the identified issues (model misuse, scope mismatches, etc.) are the primary barriers or whether the proposed mechanisms would demonstrably mitigate them without introducing new adoption costs.
minor comments (2)
  1. Title: The provocative title aligns with the 'all models are wrong' theme but could be supplemented with a subtitle specifying the ICT focus and the proposed framework to better match the manuscript's measured tone and content.
  2. Throughout: Terms such as 'explicit dependency graphs' and 'model taxonomy' are introduced without formal definitions or references to existing LCA standards (e.g., ISO 14040) or software engineering practices (e.g., dependency management tools), which would aid clarity for the target audience.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 2 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. The comments correctly identify that our manuscript is primarily an analytical and proposal-oriented contribution rather than an empirical validation study. We address each major comment point by point below, clarifying the intended scope of the work while acknowledging its limitations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and proposal section: The central claim that the four requirements plus the framework (dependency graphs, open repository, integrity constraints, taxonomy) will operationalize credible ICT LCA is unsupported by evidence. The manuscript provides no prototype, pilot application, or quantitative comparison demonstrating reduced error rates, improved traceability, or feasibility at scale, leaving the transition from documented challenges to a solved problem untested.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript contains no prototype, pilot study, or quantitative validation of error reduction. The paper's central contribution is the identification of structural challenges in current ICT LCA practice and the logical derivation of four requirements, followed by a high-level architectural proposal for meeting them. The claim is not that the framework has been shown to solve the problems, but that it provides a structured way to operationalize the requirements through explicit mechanisms (dependency graphs, versioned repositories, integrity constraints, and taxonomy). This is a conceptual framework paper; empirical demonstration is explicitly left for future implementation work. We will add a short paragraph in the conclusion to emphasize the proposal nature of the framework and the need for subsequent validation studies. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Section on structural challenges and derivation of requirements: The justification for the requirements rests on illustrative examples rather than systematic prevalence data or error-rate measurements across ICT LCA studies. Without such grounding, it is unclear whether the identified issues (model misuse, scope mismatches, etc.) are the primary barriers or whether the proposed mechanisms would demonstrably mitigate them without introducing new adoption costs.

    Authors: The examples are presented as emblematic cases that expose recurring structural problems (database selection, scope mismatches, opaque aggregation, and integration difficulties) rather than as a statistical survey. These issues are well-documented in the broader LCA literature for complex systems and are particularly acute in ICT due to rapid technological change and multi-tier supply chains. The requirements are derived directly from the nature of these challenges; we do not claim they are the sole barriers or that the proposed mechanisms are cost-free. A systematic prevalence study would strengthen the argument but lies outside the scope of this analysis-focused manuscript. We will not add new data collection but can include a brief note on the illustrative character of the examples. revision: no

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Absence of a working prototype or empirical validation demonstrating feasibility and error reduction at scale
  • Lack of systematic prevalence data or quantitative error-rate measurements across ICT LCA studies

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; conceptual derivation from observed challenges to proposed requirements

full rationale

The paper reviews LCA fundamentals, illustrates model misuse and structural issues (database choice, scope mismatches, opaque aggregation, integration) with examples, then derives four requirements (explicit model lineage, defined scope, end-to-end traceability, managed non-obsolescence) and proposes a framework (dependency graphs, open repository, integrity constraints, taxonomy) to operationalize them. This chain is logical and conceptual with no equations, fitted parameters, quantitative predictions, or self-citations used as load-bearing premises. No step reduces by construction to its inputs; the framework is offered as a new implementation idea grounded in documented practices rather than a renaming or self-definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the premise that ICT LCAs are model systems whose credibility is limited by current practices; no free parameters are fitted, but the framework introduces new entities (dependency graphs, model taxonomy) whose utility is asserted rather than measured.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Direct biosphere measurements are complicated to perform for ICT systems
    Stated in the opening of the abstract as justification for model reliance.
  • domain assumption Current practices exhibit emblematic model misuse and structural challenges
    Used to derive the four requirements; no systematic survey or data is referenced in the abstract.
invented entities (2)
  • explicit dependency graphs no independent evidence
    purpose: To represent model lineage and integration relationships
    Introduced as part of the framework to operationalize traceability; no independent evidence of prior use in LCA is cited.
  • open and versioned LCA-oriented model repository no independent evidence
    purpose: To manage non-obsolescence and enable reuse
    New proposed infrastructure component; independent evidence would require demonstrated adoption or pilot data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5526 in / 1522 out tokens · 39723 ms · 2026-05-10T18:51:07.227911+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Greenhouse gases — Carbon footprint of products — Requirements and guidelines for quantification

    2018. Greenhouse gases — Carbon footprint of products — Requirements and guidelines for quantification. https://www.iso.org/standard/71206.html 2nd edition

    2018

  2. [2]

    2025.Environmental Assessment of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Digital Technology on Use Cases

    ADEME. 2025.Environmental Assessment of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Digital Technology on Use Cases. Study / Research Report. Agence de la transition écologique (ADEME). https://librairie.ademe.fr/societe-et- politiques-publiques/8073-9720-environmental-assessment-of-the-direct-and- indirect-effects-of-digital-technology-on-use-cases.html Models di...

    2025

  3. [3]

    Susanna Andreasi Bassi, F Biganzoli, N Ferrara, A Amadei, A Valente, S Sala, and F Ardente. 2023. Updated characterisation and normalisation factors for the Environmental Footprint 3.1 method.Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg(2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Maier, Jarin K

    II Ascough, James C., Holger R. Maier, Jarin K. Ravalico, and Marcus W. Strudley

  5. [5]

    doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.01.002

    Combining Bayesian methods and Monte Carlo simulation for analysis of uncertainty in life cycle assessment.Environmental Modelling & Software23, 10–11 (2008), 1308–1319. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.01.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.01.002 2008

  6. [6]

    2010.How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything (1st ed.)

    Mike Berners-Lee. 2010.How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything (1st ed.). Profile Books, London. Later revised and expanded editions published in 2015 and 2020

    2010

  7. [7]

    2020.How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything (updated edition ed.)

    Mike Berners-Lee. 2020.How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything (updated edition ed.). Profile Books, London

    2020

  8. [8]

    Mathilde Billaud, Christian Clemm, David Sánchez, Marina Proske, Marvin Jügel, Lutz Stobbe, Nils F Nissen, and Martin Schneider-Ramelow. 2023. ICs as drivers of ICT carbon footprint: an approach to more accurate die size assessment. In Going Green CARE INNOV ATION 2023

    2023

  9. [9]

    George E. P. Box. 1976. Science and Statistics.J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.71, 356 (1976), 791–799. doi:10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949

    work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949 1976

  10. [10]

    Andreas Busa and Malcolm Hegeman. 2019. Life Cycle Assessment of Dell R740. https://www.delltechnologies.com/asset/en-us/products/servers/technical- support/Full_LCA_Dell_R740.pdf. Accessed: 2025-02-19

    2019

  11. [11]

    Prob- lematic Paper Screener

    Guillaume Cabanac, Cyril Labbé, and Alexander Magazinov. 2022. The “Prob- lematic Paper Screener” Automatically Selects Suspect Publications for Post- Publication (Re)Assessment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.04895(Oct. 2022). doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2210.04895

    work page arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    2012.Refining the Pedigree Matrix Approach in ecoinvent: Towards Empirical Uncertainty Factors

    Andreas Ciroth. 2012.Refining the Pedigree Matrix Approach in ecoinvent: Towards Empirical Uncertainty Factors. Technical Report. GreenDelta, Berlin, Germany. https://lca-net.com/files/Pedigree_report_final_May2012.pdf Version 7.1

    2012

  13. [13]

    Andreas Ciroth, Stéphanie Muller, Bo Pedersen Weidema, and Pascal Lesage. 2016. Empirically based uncertainty factors for the pedigree matrix in ecoinvent.The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment21, 9 (2016), 1338–1348. doi:10.1007/ s11367-013-0670-5 Published online 20 December 2013; part of the ecoinvent database v3 documentation. All LCA mode...

    2016

  14. [14]

    Effectiveness and Safety of Lattice Radiotherapy in Treating Large Volume Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta -Analysis,

    European Commission. 2025.2025 Environmental Implementation Review. Tech- nical Report

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Coroamă, Pernilla Bergmark, Mattias Höjer, and Jens Malmodin

    Vlad C. Coroamă, Pernilla Bergmark, Mattias Höjer, and Jens Malmodin. 2020. A Methodology for Assessing the Environmental Effects Induced by ICT Services. Part I: Single Services. InProceedings of the 7th International Conference on ICT for Sustainability (ICT4S 2020). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 36–45. doi:10.1145/3401335.3401716

    work page doi:10.1145/3401335.3401716 2020

  16. [16]

    2020.COVID-NMA: A Living Systematic Review of COVID- 19 Evidence

    COVID-NMA Initiative. 2020.COVID-NMA: A Living Systematic Review of COVID- 19 Evidence. https://covid-nma.com/ Accessed: 2026-03-31

    2020

  17. [17]

    Clément Desroches, Martin Chauvin, Louis Ladan, Caroline Vateau, Simon Gosset, and Philippe Cordier. 2025. Exploring the Sustainable Scaling of AI Dilemma: A Projective Study of Corporations’ AI Environmental Impacts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14334(2025). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.14334

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.14334 2025

  18. [18]

    Cooper Elsworth, Keguo Huang, David Patterson, Ian Schneider, Robert Sedivy, Savannah Goodman, Ben Townsend, Parthasarathy Ranganathan, Jeff Dean, Amin Vahdat, Ben Gomes, and James Manyika. 2025. Measuring the environ- mental impact of delivering AI at Google Scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15734 (2025). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2508.15734

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.15734 2025

  19. [19]

    European Commission. 2025. In focus: Data centres – an energy-hungry chal- lenge. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/focus-data-centres-energy-hungry- challenge-2025-11-17_en. Reports that data centres consume about 1.5% of global electricity, approximately 415 TWh per year

    2025

  20. [20]

    Sophia Falk, David Ekchajzer, Thibault Pirson, Etienne Lees-Perasso, Augustin Wattiez, Lisa Biber-Freudenberger, Sasha Luccioni, and Aimee van Wynsberghe

  21. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.00093 , year=

    More than Carbon: Cradle-to-Grave Environmental Impacts of GenAI Training on the NVIDIA A100 GPU.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.00093(2025). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2509.00093

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.00093 2025

  22. [22]

    Richard P. Feynman. 1985.Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!W. W. Norton & Company, New York

    1985

  23. [23]

    Matthias Finkbeiner, Lindsey Roche, and Peter Holzapfel. 2025. From analysis- LCA to message-LCA: a lost cause?The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment30 (April 2025), 803–810. doi:10.1007/s11367-025-02460-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11367-025-02460-9 2025

  24. [24]

    GDR DEFIE. 2024. GDR DEFIE: Défis de l’Électronique pour l’Écoconception. https://defie-cnrs.fr/. CNRS research network on sustainable electronics and ecodesign; accessed: 2026-02-20

    2024

  25. [25]

    GDR DEFIE. 2026. ElecImpact: An Open Life Cycle Assessment Database for Electronics. https://framagit.org/defie/elecimpact. Open LCA database for electronic systems developed by the GDR DEFIE working group; accessed: 2026- 02-20

    2026

  26. [26]

    2024.EcoLogits: Estimating the Environmental Footprint of Gen- erative AI Models

    GenAI Impact. 2024.EcoLogits: Estimating the Environmental Footprint of Gen- erative AI Models. https://ecologits.ai/latest/ Open-source software based on life-cycle assessment principles for estimating the environmental impacts of generative AI inference

    2024

  27. [27]

    2024.Digital with Purpose: De- livering a SMARTer2030

    Global Enabling Sustainability Initiative (GeSI). 2024.Digital with Purpose: De- livering a SMARTer2030. Technical Report. Global Enabling Sustainability Ini- tiative. https://www.gesi.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/GeSI-Digital-With- Purpose-Full-report.pdf Full report

    2024

  28. [28]

    Louis Golard, Youssef Agram, François Rottenberg, François Quitin, David Bol, and Jérôme Louveaux. 2024. A Parametric Power Model of Multi-Band Sub-6 GHz Cellular Base Stations Using On-Site Measurements. InIEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC). doi:10. 1109/PIMRC59610.2024.10817448

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Louis Golard, Robin Dethienne, Jérôme Louveaux, and David Bol. 2024. A Para- metric Life-Cycle Model for Assessing Environmental Impacts of 4G and 5G Cellular Base Stations.The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment(2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Carolina Graña Possamai, Guillaume Cabanac, Emilie Perrodeau, Laure Ghosn, Philippe Ravaud, and Isabelle Boutron. 2025. Inclusion of Retracted Studies in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA Internal Medicine(31 March 2025). doi:10.1001/ jamainternmed.2025.0256 Published online March 31, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Loïc Guibert, David Bekri, Louise Aubet, Steve Berberat, and Sébastien Rumley

  32. [32]

    InProceedings of Machine Learning Research - Proceedings of the Fourth Swiss AI Days, Vol

    Why Measuring AI Environmental Impact of Organisations is Non-Trivial?. InProceedings of Machine Learning Research - Proceedings of the Fourth Swiss AI Days, Vol. 309. PMLR

  33. [33]

    Reinout Heijungs and Mark A. J. Huijbregts. 2004. A review of approaches to treat uncertainty in LCA.International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment9, 2 (2004), 127–137. doi:10.1007/BF02978428

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02978428 2004

  34. [34]

    Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash, and Robert Pollin. 2014. Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff. Cambridge Journal of Economics38, 2 (2014), 257–279. doi:10.1093/cje/bet075

    work page doi:10.1093/cje/bet075 2014

  35. [35]

    2023.Your emails aren’t killing the planet: debunking the myth of emails’ carbon footprint

    Gabrielle Huston. 2023.Your emails aren’t killing the planet: debunking the myth of emails’ carbon footprint. https://mobilesyrup.com/2023/12/01/emails- carbon-footprint-not-killing-planet-earth-debunking-myth/ Summarizes expert critiques and clarifications by Mike Berners-Lee; accessed 2026-02-20

    2023

  36. [36]

    International Energy Agency. 2021. Japan 2021: Energy Policy Review. doi:10. 1787/72bb987a-en

    2021

  37. [37]

    International Energy Agency. 2025. Energy and AI. https://www.iea.org/reports/ energy-and-ai

    2025

  38. [38]

    2006.ISO 14040:2006 - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework

    ISO. 2006.ISO 14040:2006 - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework. Norm. International Organization for Standardization

    2006

  39. [39]

    2006.ISO 14044:2006 - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines

    ISO. 2006.ISO 14044:2006 - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines. Norm. International Organization for Standardization

    2006

  40. [40]

    Romain Jacob. 2025. What Does That Really Tell Us? Interpret- ing Numbers in Sustainability Reports. ETH Zurich Research Collec- tion. https://nsg.ethz.ch/publications/2025-09-26-what-does-that-really-tell-us- interpreting-numbers-in-sustainability-reports-20-500-11850-784322/ Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

    2025

  41. [41]

    George Kamiya and Vlad C. Coroamă. 2025. Data Centre Energy Use: Critical Re- view of Models and Results. https://www.iea-4e.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/ 05/Data-Centre-Energy-Use-Critical-Review-of-Models-and-Results.pdf Pre- pared for the IEA 4E TCP

    2025

  42. [42]

    Freja Konradsen, Kristine Sofie Holse Hansen, Agneta Ghose, and Massimo Pizzol

  43. [43]

    doi:10.1007/s11367-023-02246-x Open access

    Same product, different score: how methodological differences affect EPD results.The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment29, 2 (2024), 291–307. doi:10.1007/s11367-023-02246-x Open access

    work page doi:10.1007/s11367-023-02246-x 2024

  44. [44]

    Nikhil Krishnan, Sarah Boyd, Ajay Somani, Sébastien Raoux, Daniel Clark, and David Dornfeld. 2008. A Hybrid Life Cycle Inventory of Nano-Scale Semiconduc- tor Manufacturing. Open-access PDF available via eScholarship.Environmental Science & Technology42, 8 (2008), 3069–3075. doi:10.1021/es071174k Supplemen- tary information provided in PDF; gate-to-gate a...

    work page doi:10.1021/es071174k 2008

  45. [45]

    Pierre Le Gargasson, Maxime Pelcat, Nicolas Beuve, Muriel Pressigout, Luce Morin, and Daniel Menard. 2025. PCBnCO: A Carbon Intensity Model of FR-4 Printed Circuit Boards Based on Company Data. In2025 IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech). IEEE, Los Angeles, CA, USA. doi:10. 1109/SusTech63138.2025.11025732

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Philippe Loubet, Adrien Vincent, Annabelle Collin, Corinne Dejous, Anthony Ghiotto, and Christophe Jego. 2023. Life cycle assessment of ICT in higher education: a comparison between desktop and single-board computers.The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment28 (2023), 255–273. doi:10.1007/ s11367-022-02131-z

    2023

  47. [47]

    Adrian Lubecki, Jakub Szczurowski, and Katarzyna Zarębska. 2025. The im- portance of uncertainty sources in LCA for the reliability of environmental comparisons: A case study on public bus fleet electrification.Applied Energy377 (2025), 124593. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124593

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124593 2025

  48. [48]

    The Formula That Killed Wall Street

    Donald MacKenzie and Taylor Spears. 2014. “The Formula That Killed Wall Street”: The Gaussian Copula and Modelling Practices in Investment Banking. Social Studies of Science44, 3 (2014), 393–417. doi:10.1177/0306312713517157

    work page doi:10.1177/0306312713517157 2014

  49. [49]

    David E Mann and Steven M Christey. 1999. Towards a common enumeration of vulnerabilities. In2nd Workshop on Research with Security Vulnerability Databases, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, Vol. 9

    1999

  50. [50]

    Anders Nordelöf. 2019. A scalable life cycle inventory of an automotive power electronic inverter unit—Part II: manufacturing processes.The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment24, 4 (2019), 694–711. doi:10.1007/s11367-018- 1491-3 Manufacturing datasets; links to ecoinvent; complements the Part I parametric model

    work page doi:10.1007/s11367-018- 2019

  51. [51]

    Anders Nordelöf, Mikael Alatalo, and Maria Ljunggren Söderman. 2019. A scalable life cycle inventory of an automotive power electronic inverter unit—Part I: design and composition.The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 24 (2019), 78–92. doi:10.1007/s11367-018-1503-3 Parametric LCI model; Excel dataset available via Swedish Life Cycle Center (S...

    work page doi:10.1007/s11367-018-1503-3 2019

  52. [52]

    Anders Nordelöf, Emma Grunditz, Anne-Marie Tillman, Torbjörn Thiringer, and Mikael Alatalo. 2018. A scalable life cycle inventory of an electrical automotive traction machine—Part I: design and composition.The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment23, 1 (2018), 55–69. doi:10.1007/s11367-017-1308-9 Parametric LCI model with downloadable Excel (SPIN...

    work page doi:10.1007/s11367-017-1308-9 2018

  53. [53]

    Anders Nordelöf, Maarten Messagie, Anne-Marie Tillman, Maria Ljunggren Sö- derman, and Joeri Van Mierlo. 2014. Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles—what can we learn from life cycle assess- ment?The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment19 (2014), 1866–1890. doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0788-0 Open access; publi...

    work page doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0788-0 2014

  54. [54]

    Varun Gowda Palahalli Ramesh and Christina Lee. 2025. Interpretation of LCA Results and EPD Comparability. InLife Cycle Analysis Based on Nanoparticles Applied to the Construction Industry. Springer Nature, 147–161. doi:10.1007/978- 3-031-79115-4_9 Discusses that public EPDs present selected aggregated results while full LCI is in a non-public background report

    work page doi:10.1007/978- 2025

  55. [55]

    Rachel Potvin and Josh Levenberg. 2016. Why Google stores billions of lines of code in a single repository.Commun. ACM59, 7 (2016), 78–87

    2016

  56. [56]

    2017.Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist

    Kate Raworth. 2017.Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT. UK edition: Random House Business, London

    2017

  57. [57]

    Reinhart and Kenneth S

    Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff. 2010. Growth in a Time of Debt. American Economic Review100, 2 (2010), 573–578. doi:10.1257/aer.100.2.573 CF Companion ’26 , May 19–21, 2026, Catania, Italy Corlay et al

    work page doi:10.1257/aer.100.2.573 2010

  58. [58]

    David Sánchez, Marina Proske, and Sarah-Jane Baur. 2022. Life Cycle Assessment of the Fairphone 4. https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/ Fairphone-4-Life-Cycle-Assessment-22.pdf. Accessed: 2025-01-30

    2022

  59. [59]

    Tilman Santarius, Jan C. T. Bieser, Vivian Frick, Mattias Höjer, Maike Gossen, Lorenz M. Hilty, Eva Kern, Johanna Pohl, Friederike Rohde, and Steffen Lange

  60. [60]

    Annals of Telecommunications78, 5–6 (2023), 277–295

    Digital sufficiency: conceptual considerations for ICTs on a finite planet. Annals of Telecommunications78, 5–6 (2023), 277–295. doi:10.1007/s12243-022- 00914-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s12243-022- 2023

  61. [61]

    Ian Schneider, Hui Xu, Stephan Benecke, David Patterson, Keguo Huang, Parthasarathy Ranganathan, and Cooper Elsworth. 2025. Life-Cycle Emissions of AI Hardware: A Cradle-To-Grave Approach and Generational Trends.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01671(2025). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2502.01671

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.01671 2025

  62. [62]

    Science Based Targets initiative. [n. d.]. Science Based Targets initiative. https: //sciencebasedtargets.org. Global initiative enabling companies to set science- based emissions reduction targets in line with climate science

  63. [63]

    Nir Shlezinger and Yonina C. Eldar. 2023. Model-Based Deep Learning.arXiv (2023). arXiv:2306.04469 [eess.SP] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2306.04469

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.04469 2023

  64. [64]

    Matthew Sparkes. 2026. Computer finds flaw in major physics paper for first time. New Scientist(26 March 2026). https://www.newscientist.com/article/2520546- computer-finds-flaw-in-major-physics-paper-for-first-time/

    work page arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    The Carbon Literacy Project. 2022. The Carbon Cost of an Email: Update! https://carbonliteracy.com/the-carbon-cost-of-an-email/. Accessed 2026-02-20

    2022

  66. [66]

    Joseph Tooby-Smith. 2026. Formalizing the stability of the two Higgs doublet model potential into Lean: identifying an error in the literature.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.08139(2026). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.08139

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.08139 2026

  67. [67]

    2019.Environmental Rule of Law: First Global Report

    UNEP. 2019.Environmental Rule of Law: First Global Report. Technical Report. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/27279

    2019

  68. [68]

    LCIE Bureau Véritas. 2025. Négaoctet. https://codde.fr/nos-marques/negaoctet. Accessed: 20/02/26

    2025

  69. [69]

    Qi Wang, Nan Huang, Zhuo Chen, Xiaowen Chen, Hanying Cai, and Yunpeng Wu. 2023. Environmental data and facts in the semiconductor manufacturing industry: An unexpected high water and energy consumption situation.Water Cycle4 (2023), 47–54

    2023

  70. [70]

    Weidema, Christian Bauer, Roland Hischier, Christopher Mutel, Thomas Nemecek, Jürg Reinhard, Carl O

    Bo P. Weidema, Christian Bauer, Roland Hischier, Christopher Mutel, Thomas Nemecek, Jürg Reinhard, Carl O. Vadenbo, and Gregor Wernet. 2013.Overview and Methodology: Data Quality Guideline for the ecoinvent Database Version 3. Technical Report 1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories

    2013

  71. [71]

    Weidema and Mette S

    Bo P. Weidema and Mette S. Wesnæs. 1996. Data quality management for life cycle inventories—an example of using data quality indicators.Journal of Cleaner Production4, 3–4 (1996), 167–174. doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(96)00043-1

    work page doi:10.1016/s0959-6526(96)00043-1 1996

  72. [72]

    Olivier Weppe, Jérôme Chossat, Thibaut Marty, Jean-Christophe Prévotet, and Maxime Pelcat. 2024. Streamlined Models of CMOS Image Sensors Carbon Impacts. In2024 27th Euromicro Conference on Digital System Design (DSD). IEEE, 250–257

    2024

  73. [73]

    Olivier Weppe, Thibaut Marty, Sébastien Toussaint, Nicolas Brusselmans, Jean- Christophe Prévotet, Jean-Pierre Raskin, and Maxime Pelcat. 2025. Embodied Carbon Footprint of 3D NAND Memories. InProceedings of the 22nd ACM In- ternational Conference on Computing Frontiers: Workshops and Special Sessions (CF ’25 Companion). Association for Computing Machiner...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706594.3727962 2025

  74. [74]

    Cheng Zhang, Junfeng Jing, Liu Yun, Yu Zheng, and Haihong Huang. 2022. A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of high-voltage aluminum electrolytic capacitors in China.Journal of Cleaner Production370 (2022), 133244. doi:10. 1016/j.jclepro.2022.133244

    work page arXiv 2022

  75. [75]

    Cheng Zhang, Yu Zheng, Haihong Huang, Zhifeng Liu, and Junfeng Jing. 2023. Environmental impact assessment of aluminum electrolytic capacitors in a prod- uct family from the manufacturer’s perspective.The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment28 (2023), 80–94. doi:10.1007/s11367-022-02117-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11367-022-02117-x 2023