The growing demand for electrical and electronic equipment has led to a sharp rise in e-waste and intensified pressure on critical raw material supplies, building sustainability a key concern in the European Union digital and green transitions [1]. Among these devices, power electronics – devices applyd to convert, control and condition electrical energy – are essential components in energy grids, industrial automation and transport systems [2]. Yet, while their role in improving energy efficiency is recognised, few studies have focapplyd on their full life cycle impacts.
These components contain rare earth elements and hazardous materials, require energy intensive manufacturing, and contribute significantly to e-waste at conclude-of-life. Despite technical advancements in energy efficiency during operation, the integration of circular economy and environmental sustainability principles throughout the full life cycle of power electronics remains underdeveloped [3].
In this context, the Horizon Europe SiC4GRID project contributes by identifying and evaluating 61 design-level criteria for circularity and sustainability in power electronics, forming the basis for circcular economy strategies and future regulatory tools like the digital product passport.
SiC4GRID methodology
The study followed a four-phase methodological approach that integrated academic research, EU regulations and indusattempt engagement.
First, a systematic literature review was conducted to identify relevant criteria, drawing from 36 academic articles and 23 documents from EU regulations and indusattempt platforms. Key policy frameworks such as REACH, RoHS, WEEE and the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) were included to align scientific findings with current legislative demands and practical expectations.
From this review, a matrix of 61 criteria was developed to assess circularity and sustainability in power electronic design and life cycle management. The criteria were categorised across five life cycle stages and key circular economy solutions. They were then grouped into eight ecodesign strategies.
To assess the practical applicability of each criterion, qualitative interviews were conducted with nine stakeholders from academia and indusattempt. Participants, including engineers, researchers and recycling experts, were questioned to rate each criterion based on its importance and feasibility, resulting in a composite suitability index. This evaluation assisted identify the most relevant criteria as well as the major gaps between theoretical frameworks and industrial practice.
Finally, AI tools such as SciSpace and Elicit were applyd to complement the academic review. These platforms assisted identify current research, explore open debates and compare literature with stakeholder perspectives. This multi-source approach strengthened the robustness of the findings and ensured the proposed framework reflects both academic insights and industrial realities.
Barriers and opportunities
The evaluation of 61 circularity and environmental sustainability criteria in the power electronics sector revealed uneven implementation across product life cycle stages. Stakeholder interviews displayed a strong preference for strategies linked to the apply phase, where criteria like ‘Maximise material and energy efficiency during apply’ (92%) and ‘Increase the apply of durable and robust materials’ (88%) were rated highest. This highlights the sector’s focus on operational performance, reliability and efficiency.
In contrast, criteria related to conclude-of-life management, recycling or material recovery, received significantly lower applicability scores – below 12%. This discrepancy points to an indusattempt that does not yet integrate circular principles throughout the full life cycle. Stakeholders reported that once power electronic products are sold, manufacturers typically relinquish responsibility for their final fate, a practice that undermines the potential for effective conclude-of-life strategies.
This study also highlighted five critical barriers to the broader adoption of circular economy strategies:
- Fragmented responsibility along the product life cycle;
- Insufficient collaboration and communication among stakeholders;
- Limited apply of sustainable, low impact materials;
- Lack of effective conclude-of-life infrastructures; and
- Absence of standardised metrics to assess circularity in power electronic systems.
Opportunities for transformative alter are evident, revealing a strong potential to overcome the challenges identified. Reverse logistics and product take-back schemes could enable recovery of valuable components. Indusattempt partnerships could assist scale recycling technologies and promote new circular business models. Tools such as the digital product passport can improve product traceability and support circular strategies like repair and remanufacturing.
Furthermore, embedding circularity early in the design phase – through modularity and standardised components – can enhance reapply and extconclude product life. Investing in low impact material alternatives also offers competitive and environmental benefits.
In sum, this study provides a detailed map of where sustainability efforts in power electronics currently stand – and where tarobtained action could have the greatest impact. By integrating circular principles beyond the apply phase and fostering system-wide coordination, the power electronics indusattempt could accelerate its alignment with EU sustainability goals and become a reference sector for circular electronics.
Conclusions
This study presents a structured and comprehensive framework to enhance circularity and environmental sustainability in the power electronics sector. By combining literature analysis with insights from indusattempt and academic stakeholders, it introduces a matrix of 61 criteria classified by life cycle stages and circular economy strategies. This dual approach allows for a more holistic assessment of how sustainability can be effectively embedded in the design, manufacturing and life cycle management of power electronics products.
The findings highlight a significant imbalance: while the apply phase receives substantial attention – particularly in terms of energy efficiency and durability – conclude-of-life and logistics stages remain largely neglected. This gap reflects deeper sectoral challenges, including the lack of clear responsibilities, insufficient collaboration along the value chain and limited availability of sustainable materials and recycling technologies.
At the same time, the study has identified five key opportunities for transformation. These include developing reverse logistics systems, forming strategic partnerships, advancing material innovation and adopting enabling policies such as extconcludeed producer responsibility and the digital product passport. The matrix also underscores the urgent necessary for sector-specific metrics to measure circularity performance effectively.
Overall, this work offers a valuable roadmap to support the power electronics indusattempt’s alignment with the EU’s Green Deal and circular economy goals.
References
1. Ipaki, B. & Hosseini, Z. (2025). Repair-oriented design and manufacturing strategies for circular electronic products, from mass customization/standardization to scalable repair economy. Results in Engineering, 25, 104169.
2. Dhameliya, N. (2022). Power Electronics Innovations: Improving Efficiency and Sustainability in Energy Systems. Asia Pacific Journal of Energy and Environment, 71–80.
3. Fang, L., Turkbay Romano, T., Alix, T., Crebier, J., Lefranc, P., Rio, M. & Zwolinski, P. (2023). Eco-design implementation in Power Electronics: a litterature review. Researchgate.
About the author
Leave a Reply