Critical review of four comparative life cycle assessments of printed and electronic communication

Background

The reviewed studies were selected by the Graphic Association of Denmark. The reviewed studies are:

• Sanchez V M and Møller J (2011), LCA on the prevention of unsolicited mail in the Vestforbrænding municipalities. DTU Environment. Kgs. Lyngby.
• Schmidt A and Kløverpris N H (2009), Environmental impacts from digital solutions as an alternative to conventional paper-based solutions. e-Boks.
• Moberg Å, Johansson M, Finnveden G, Jonsson A (2009), Screening environmental life cycle assessment of printed, web based and tablet e-paper newspaper, Second edition. Reports from the KTH Centre for Sustainable Communications. Stockholm.
• Enroth M (2009), Environmental impact of printed and electronic teaching aids, a screening study focussing on fossil carbon dioxide emissions. Advances in Printing and Media Technology, Vol. 36, 2009.

Review method and scope

Schmidt and Pizzol combine a systematic comparison with expert assessment of four studies selected by the Graphic Association of Denmark. Their matrix covers all four LCA phases: goal and scope, inventory, impact assessment and interpretation.

Why the results are not definitive

The review finds that most studies assume one printed page and one electronic page provide the same function, but only one supports this with empirical evidence. It also identifies gaps in forest carbon and indirect land-use change, inconsistent waste-paper modelling, and limited consideration of digital infrastructure. Electricity mix and reading time can materially affect results. Although electronic options generally show lower impacts when reading time is short, the authors conclude that the four studies do not establish a comprehensive comparison across purposes.