Electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) has significant environmental impacts, and although remanufacturing is promoted as a circular strategy, its environmental performance and the robustness of life cycle assessments (LCAs) are strongly influenced by methodological choices. This paper presents a systematic review of peer-reviewed academic and conference articles published between 2007 and 2025 on LCA of remanufactured EEE, with a particular focus on the methodological choices involved in conducting these assessments. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria of this review, providing consistent evidence that the remanufacturing of EEE can deliver substantial environmental benefits. However, rebound effects remain insufficiently addressed. The assessment revealed that use phase is frequently excluded from system boundaries, resulting in product-based functional units. Moreover, the review identified the existing gaps and provided valuable recommendations for a comprehensive LCA of remanufactured EEE. Key recommendations include enhancing methodological clarity and transparency and integrating rebound effects. The incorporation of primary use phase data for EEE is particularly important due to the significance of use phase energy consumption. Scenario analysis in system boundary selection should be conducted to better reflect neutral and supporter perspectives in remanufacturing contexts. Future studies should include ecotoxicity and human health impact categories, reflecting the presence of hazardous substances in EEE. Results should be reported cautiously, avoiding broad claims and clearly acknowledging uncertainty. Finally, greater alignment around clear and consistent definitions of remanufacturing can improve the credibility and comparability of the studies. Harmonising LCA methodologies enhances comparability, supporting informed decision-making and robust analyses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anand et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: