Projects that reduce GHG emissions and are issued Riverse Carbon Credits typically also contribute to a circular economy. The assessment of a project's circularity is considered under the co-benefits criteria, and represents the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) number 12.2.

The Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) is the selected measure of circularity, due to its comprehensive assessment of material flows and alignment with global standards, notably established by The Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

The MCI examines mass of material flows throughout a product's lifecycle. It evaluates how efficiently materials circulate within a closed-loop system, assigning “more circular” scores to systems that minimize waste and optimize resource reuse. The formula uses input parameters such as material feedstock amount and type (e.g. from recycled, reused or biological sources), recycling rates, and lifespan extension potential to quantify a product's circularity.

A detailed description and formulas for calculating the MCI are documented in the dedicated methodology document, on pages 22 to 31, following the Product-level Methodology under the Whole product approach). Figure 3, modified from Cottafava, D. and Ritzen, M. (2021) summarizes the MCI material flows.

The MCI is a unitless indicator that varies from 0 to 1, where 0 represents a fully linear product and 1 is fully circular. The project scenario MCI is compared to the baseline scenario MCI, measuring how much more circular the project scenario is than the baseline.

The MCI methodology has been applied to electronic device refurbishment using the input data presented in Table 7.

Table 7 All variables needed to calculate the Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) for the Riverse Electronic Device Refurbishing methodology are detailed below. The full methodology and equations can be found in the dedicated methodology document.

Small IT and telecommunication equipment constitute about 2% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and is one of the fastest growing sectors in emissions. In addition to climate change impacts, these electronic devices also require mining rare minerals and materials, and make up a rapidly growing stream of hazardous waste.

Most environmental impacts of electronic devices come from their manufacturing stage. Therefore, a major lever to reduce GHG emissions in this sector is to increase the lifetime of devices, so that fewer devices are produced. One method for increasing device lifetime is device repair and refurbishing.

Refurbishing of electronics involves restoring previously owned and used electronic devices to a functional state. It requires a diagnosis, cleaning, repairs, replacing parts, and testing to ensure performance. Extending the lifespan of these devices reduces the production of new devices and reduces electronic waste. Refurbishment of electronic devices is gaining mainstream acceptance from consumers but still faces barriers from high costs of repair, market fragmentation, and lack of consumer trust.

General

General GHG reduction quantification rules can be found in the Riverse Standard Rules.

Calculations of GHG emissions for the baseline and project scenarios shall follow the method detailed below, based on ISO 14064-2:2019.

Electronic device refurbishing projects are only eligible for avoidance Riverse Carbon Credits.

Electronic device refurbishing projects serve two functions: waste treatment from a device’s first life (Device A), and the provisioning of a “new” device in its second life (Device B). Both of these functions are included in the project and baseline scenario. See Figure 1 and Figure 2 for a depiction of project and baseline scenario system boundaries.

The baseline scenario represents the functionally equivalent set of activities that would occur in the absence of the project. Therefore, the baseline scenario is the average e-waste treatment of Device A, and the market mix for production of a new Device B. This market mix includes the fraction of refurbished devices that are already on the market (see Appendix 6).

The distribution, packaging, use, and waste treatment of Device B are not included in the calculations because they are assumed to be the same in both scenarios. Therefore, the downstream system boundary is Device B at the factory gate.

Calculations and data collection are based on annual project operations.

Functional Unit

Electronic device refurbishing projects are multifunctional (see General section above) so the functional unit is twofold:

• production of one electronic device (Device B), plus

• treatment of the corresponding amount of e-waste treated (from Device A) to generate this one device.

Data Sources

The required primary data for GHG reduction calculations from projects are presented in Table 2:

Table 2 Summary of primary data needed from projects and their source. Asterisks (*) indicate which data are required to be updated annually during verification (see Monitoring Plan section).

Secondary data taken from the literature are used to define default values for the following elements:

• Device expected lifetime (new and refurbished)

• Device mass (if not provided by the Project Developer)

• Emission factors from device production (when not available in the ecoinvent database, see paragraph below)

These values and their sources are provided in Table 3 in the #assumptions section

The ecoinvent database version 3.10 (hereafter referred to as ecoinvent) shall be the main source of emission factors unless otherwise specified. Ecoinvent is preferred because it is traceable, reliable, and well-recognized. The ecoinvent processes selected are detailed in #jfq1kp34xji7

Assumptions

1. Electronic devices are evaluated in categories of device types rather than specific device models to facilitate data collection. It is assumed that devices in the same device type category have similar characteristics (mass, emission factor, lifetime), as defined in Table 3.

2. Some devices are not able to be refurbished to a functioning state, but contain some functional parts. Typically, the device is disassembled to harvest those scrap parts to use as spare parts for other refurbished devices. To maintain a conservative approach, these devices are assumed to go to electronic waste recycling.

3. In the baseline scenario, the distance for e-waste collection of Device A and transport to the waste treatment center is assumed to be 100 km.

4. The distribution of devices in the baseline and project scenarios is assumed to be the same, and is therefore excluded from quantifications. This is a conservative assumption, because new devices in the baseline scenario are likely manufactured in Asia or the USA and transported long distances. In contrast, the project scenario consists of mostly inter-EU shipping of devices across much shorter distances.

5. Packaging, use, and waste treatment of Device B are assumed to be the same in the baseline and project scenarios, and are therefore excluded from quantifications.

6. Refurbished devices are assumed to have shorter lifetimes than new devices, as presented in Table 3. To account for this difference, it is assumed that the amount of device production avoided in the baseline scenario is proportional to the ratio of new and refurbished device lifetimes. See section #substitution for more details. Lifetimes for Apple and non-Apple devices are assumed to be the same.

7. Detailed project data on the refurbishing process is rarely available. It is a manual process, and most impacts in the life cycle come from production of spare parts. Therefore, impacts of the refurbishing process are assumed to equal the ratio of impacts of new and refurbished devices in the detailed life cycle assessment on electronic device refurbishing, published by The French Agency for Ecological Transition (Agence de la transition écologique, ADEME), referred to hereafter as the ADEME study. Refurbishing impact ratios for Apple and non-Apple devices are assumed to be the same. See #refurbishing-process Full refurbishment impacts section, for more details.

Table 3 Summary of assumed lifetimes, masses, and emission factors of new and refurbished electronic devices.

Residual value of input devices is detailed in #refurbishing-process, Residual value of input devices section and refers to the allocation of impacts from the production of Device A to the refurbished Device B, based on its residual economic value. This is calculated using the ratio of the buyback price to the price of the newly manufactured device. This ratio is calculated for each device type, and assumed to be the same for all models within that category.

Project Scenario

The project scenario consists of refurbishing used electronic devices, which serves two functions: 1) waste treatment of the device after its first life (Device A) and 2) refurbishing to produce a “new“ device (Device B). This process is broken down into 3 life cycle stages, and displayed in Figure 1:

• Device A e-waste collection

• Device A e-waste treatment of scrap materials

• Device B refurbishing process

E-waste collection

The mass of e-waste collected equals the total mass of input used devices collected at the refurbishing site annually.

Total mass of devices shall be calculated using the number of devices collected for each device type (provided by the Project Developer), multiplied by the assumed mass of each device type shown in Table 3.

For calculating transport distance, Project Developers shall provide the country and/or city where used electronic devices are transported from, and provide the average distance from the collection source to the refurbishing project site.

It is assumed that transport within Europe is done 100% by truck, and overseas transport is done by long-distance air freight.

E-waste treatment of non-refurbished devices

Devices collected by the project that cannot be refurbished undergo e-waste recycling. Refurbishing projects typically have contracts with e-waste recycling companies that collect and recycle such devices.

Project Developers shall provide the fraction of devices that are recycled, and they will be modeled as mechanical e-waste recycling with shredding and separation (see ecoinvent processes in Appendix 1).

Some non-refurbished devices may be kept onsite to harvest spare parts in the future, but due to limited project data on this topic, they are assumed to be recycled.

Devices that are sold by the project in a non-functional state shall be treated in the calculations as recycled devices.

Refurbishing process

This life cycle stage is composed of four main processes, each described below:

• light refurbishing impacts

• full refurbishing impacts

• residual value of input devices, and

• secondary transport of devices.

Light refurbishment impacts: The refurbishing process is split into two categories: light and full refurbishment, representing the degree of intervention needed to restore the device to a functioning state. Light refurbishment involves cosmetic and software improvements, and does not require the replacement of parts (e.g. new battery, new screen…). This distinction was chosen because most environmental impacts from the refurbishing process come from production of new replacement pieces.

• Light refurbishment includes inputs of cleaning alcohol, tissues, and cloth, and is modeled after the detailed LCA of electronic device refurbishing from the ADEME study.

Full refurbishment impacts: Full refurbishment includes light refurbishment plus repair and replacement of non-functional pieces. Detailed project data on all replacement pieces and inputs are rarely available, so full refurbishment impacts are modeled following the ADEME study.

• Results from this study are used to obtain the ratio of impacts of a refurbished device to the impacts of the corresponding new device (Appendix 3). This ratio is then applied to the new device production impacts summarized in Table 3 to obtain the desired amount of emissions from refurbishing. The emissions from refurbishing are modeled using the mix of ecoinvent processes used in light refurbishment described above, plus production of commonly replaced parts including screens, batteries, microphones and speakers.

Residual value of input devices: In life cycle assessments, when a project uses waste as an input, it typically enters the project system boundary with zero environmental impacts. Refurbishing projects collect and refurbish used devices that are not always at the end of their life, and are not truly waste. They may still be functional and hold residual value from their first life. This is evidenced by the fact that Project Developers sometimes pay for used devices, as opposed to waste collection, where the waste generator has to pay for waste treatment.

• In this case, some environmental impacts from the device’s first life should be allocated to the refurbished device. It is assumed that only devices that undergo light refurbishment were in good condition and had residual value, and are allocated a share of GHG emissions from the device’s first life. On the other hand, devices that undergo full refurbishment are assumed to be non-functional waste and are not allocated any environmental impacts from their first life.

• The residual value and corresponding allocated emissions are based on the ratio of the buyback price to the selling price of a new manufactured device. An average ratio shall be used for each device type, and is shown in Table 4. Alternatively, Project Developers may provide a similar project-specific database with their own buyback data.

Table 4 Residual value of device types. See Appendix 7 for more details for smartphone, iPhone, tablet, and iPad. The average value of these device types was applied to the remaining device types due to a lack of device-specific buyback data.

Secondary transport of devices: After the device is collected by the refurbishing project and sorted, it may be sent to a different refurbishment site, for example to do speciality repairs. Project Developers shall report such secondary transport by providing the distance transported, and the number and type of devices making this transport.

Baseline scenario

The baseline scenario consists of two main functions: 1) waste treatment of the device after its first life (Device A) and 2) provisioning of a new device (Device B). The system boundary of the baseline scenario is shown in Figure 2. This is broken down into 3 life cycle stages, which are detailed in the following sections:

• Device A collection

• Device A e-waste treatment

• Manufacturing of Device B

The structure of the baseline scenario is the same whether the project consists of ongoing operations or an expansion. In the former, project data from all annual site operations is considered, and the baseline scenario is defined as the functional equivalent of all annual operations. For an expansion project, only project data related to the expansion is considered, because the normal annual operations would be the same in the baseline and project scenario, and can therefore be excluded.

E-waste collection

It is assumed that e-waste is transported by truck 100 km to its waste treatment center.

The mass of e-waste collected in the baseline scenario equals the total mass of input used devices collected by the refurbishing project annually.

Total mass of devices shall be calculated using the number of devices collected for each device type (provided by the Project Developer), multiplied by the assumed mass of each device type shown in Table 3.

Project Developers may provide more precise information on the mass of collected devices if it is available.

E-waste treatment

The treatment of e-waste is split between recycling, landfilling and incineration (Figure 2).

The proportion of e-waste recycled is based on national statistics obtained from the Eurostat database for small IT devices, as defined by the WEEE directive. Data for other countries where used devices are frequently sourced are taken from the UN Global E-waste Monitor, and extrapolated where necessary. The dataset and more detailed information are in Appendix 4.

First, the fraction of e-waste that is not separately collected is assumed to be collected with municipal waste and incinerated or landfilled. In 2021, for example, this was an average of 31% for the countries included in Eurostat.

The repartition between landfilling and incineration (with and without energy recovery) was taken from Eurostat, and the total repartition for all EU countries from 2020 was used. This resulted in 52% incineration and 48% landfilling.

Then, the fraction of e-waste that is separately collected is considered (average of 69% in the EU in 2021).

• This can be further broken down into the fraction successfully recycled/reused (average of 79% for EU countries in 2021) and the fraction that could not be recycled/reused (21%). Country specific fractions are used and are presented in Appendix 4.

• The separately collected e-waste that could not be recycled/reused is assumed to be incinerated and landfilled, with the same proportions described in the Baseline scenario section #e-waste-treatment.

New device production

The number of new devices to consider in the baseline scenario corresponds to the number of devices successfully refurbished and sold in a functional state in the project scenario. Note that this does not necessarily equal the number of used devices collected, because a fraction of devices can not be successfully refurbished.

To quantify avoided GHG emissions, the baseline scenario must consider the market share of the project technology already in use. Currently, new device purchases come from both new manufacturing and existing refurbishing activities, and this is reflected in the baseline scenario (see Figure 2). The proportions of new and refurbished devices are detailed in Table 5.

Table 5 Market share of refurbished devices sold annually in Europe. See Appendix 6 for more details.

The process of manufacturing a new device is taken from the ecoinvent database, without modifications for the following device types: laptop, PC, tablet, and screen (See Appendix 1).

GHG emissions from manufacturing Apple devices (iPhones, iPads, iMacs, and Macbooks) are taken from the production-stage impacts reported in Apple’s Product Environmental Reports. An average emission factor for recent models of devices was taken, and the emission factors considered are presented in Appendix 2.

The emission factor for smartphones was based on ecoinvent data and adjusted to better represent average smartphones. This was necessary because

1. smartphones are one of the most frequently refurbished devices, so special attention should be paid to them

2. smartphone emission factors are notoriously variable, and

3. it has been noted that ecoinvent smartphone emission factors are underestimated. See Appendix 5 for full details.

The difference in lifetime between refurbished and new devices, described in the #substitution, is accounted for in this life cycle stage. The amount of new device production avoided in the baseline scenario is proportional to the ratio of new and refurbished device lifetimes.

The impacts of refurbishing devices are described in the Refurbishing process section above.

Avoided GHG emissions

Avoided GHG emissions are calculated by subtracting the sum of the project scenario GHG emissions from the sum of the baseline GHG scenario emissions.

Uncertainty assessment

Uncertainty shall be evaluated at both the methodology level and the project level. The project level uncertainty assessment must consider the uncertainty in the methodology, which is inevitably passed down to each project.

The uncertainty assessment below must be complemented by a project-specific uncertainty assessment. The outcome of the assessment shall be used to determine the percent of avoided emissions to eliminate with the discount factor.

The assumptions that are estimated to have high uncertainty (i.e. high variability and high impact) are:

• The amount of devices avoided in the baseline scenario is proportional to the ratio of new and refurbished device lifetimes (see #assumptions, and #substitutionsections).

• The ratio of new and refurbished device GHG emissions from ADEME can be extrapolated to represent the refurbishing process of all similar devices (see#assumptionssection).

• The residual economic value of used devices represents the GHG emissions that should be allocated from production Device A first life to the refurbished Device B (see#assumptionssection).

The assumptions that are estimated to have medium uncertainty are:

• Similar devices have similar characteristics (mass, emission factor, lifetime), leading to grouping devices into device type categories rather than assessing specific device models and brands (see #assumptionssection).

• The distribution of Device B in the baseline and project scenarios is assumed to be the same (see #assumptionssection).

The assumptions that are estimated to have low uncertainty (i.e. high variability and high impact) are:

• Non-functioning parts are assumed to be recycled (see#assumptionssection).

• The distance for e-waste collection of Device A in the baseline scenario is assumed to be 100 km (see#assumptionssection).

• Packaging, use, and waste treatment of Device B are assumed to be the same in the baseline and project scenarios (see#assumptionssection).

The baseline scenario selection has low uncertainty and is mostly standardized. It accounts for project-specific information regarding the number, type and fate of devices, and national e-waste management statistics.

The equations used in this methodology consist of basic conversions and have low uncertainty.

Many estimates and secondary data are used in this methodology to enable a reasonable amount of project data collection. These data have varying levels of uncertainty, and are assessed in Table 6.

The uncertainty at the methodology level is estimated to be medium. This translates to an expected discount factor of at least 6% for projects under this methodology.

Table 6 Presentation of all secondary data and estimates used, and an assessment of their uncertainty.

Project developers shall demonstrate that they meet all eligibility criteria outlined in the , and described below with a specific focus on electronic device refurbishment.

Eligibility criteria that do not require specific methodology instructions are not described here. This includes:

• Measurability

• Real

• Technology readiness level

• Minimum impact

Additionality

To demonstrate additionality, Project Developers shall perform regulatory surplus analysis, plus either investment or barrier analysis, using the .

For any type of barrier analysis, audited financial documents shall be provided as proof. These documents should either demonstrate the financial status to prove financial barriers, or show that the project could not independently fund solutions to overcome institutional or technological barriers.

No double counting

Project developers shall sign the , committing to follow the requirements outlined in the , including not double using or double issuing carbon credits.

No additional measures for double issuance are required because double issuance among actors in the supply chain is unlikely, given that device collectors and marketplaces are not eligible under this methodology.

Co-benefits

Common co-benefits of electronic device refurbishing projects, and their sources of proof, are detailed in Table 1. Project developers may suggest and prove other co-benefits not mentioned here.

SDG 13 on Climate Action by default is not considered a co-benefit here, since it is implicitly accounted for in the issuance of carbon credits. If the project delivers climate benefits that are not accounted for in the GHG reduction quantifications, then they may be considered as co-benefits.

Table 1 Summary of common co-benefits provided by electronic device refurbishing projects. Co-benefits are organized under the United Nation Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) framework.

Substitution

Refurbished devices must be valid substitutes for new device production as modeled in the baseline scenario (i.e. the avoided new devices).

Project developers must demonstrate and provide evidence of the quality of their refurbished devices, showing they are valid substitutes for new ones. This evidence may include documentation of quality control checks, the device grading system, and the quality thresholds that devices must meet to be sold instead of recycled.

Devices sold by the project that are not functional shall not be considered as substitutes for new devices, and will not be counted towards avoided emissions from new device production. The avoided emissions from e-waste treatment are still counted.

Environmental and social do no harm

Project Developers shall prove that the project does not contribute to substantial environmental and social harms.

Additional proof may be required for certain high-risk environmental and social problems.

The Project Developer, the Riverse Certification team, or the VVB may suggest additional risks to be considered for a specific project.

ESDNH risk evaluation

• Improper on-site storage of non-functional e-waste

• Energy intensive processing

• Greenhouse gas emissions from transport for collection

• Greenhouse gas emissions from transport for shipping

• Worker health and safety

• Frequent replacement of devices due to shortened lifetime (rebound effect)

• Frequent replacement of devices due to economic incentives (rebound effect)

Leakage

Target alignment

The scope of the reduction is the system boundary used in GHG quantification, described in the Baseline scenario and Project scenario sections below.

Appendix 1 : Ecoinvent processes

Table A1 List of ecoinvent 3.10 processes used in the GHG reduction quantification model

*removed the power adapter production and waste treatment, and the device waste treatment

**removed the device waste treatment

Appendix 2: Emission factors of Apple devices

Table A2 Mass and GHG emissions from production for iPhones gathered from Apple Product Environmental Reports, for a selection of recent models.

Table A3 Mass and GHG emissions from production for iPads gathered from Apple Product Environmental Reports, for a selection of recent models

*2021 is also considered in the average iPad emissions to have a bigger sample

Table A4 Mass and GHG emissions from production for MacBooks gathered from Apple Product Environmental Reports, for a selection of recent models

Table A5 Mass and GHG emissions from production for iMacs gathered from Apple Product Environmental Reports, for a selection of recent models

Appendix 3: Refurbishing Impact Ratio

Table A6 The Refurbishing Impact Ratio is calculated by dividing the Results refurbished device column by the Results new device column. This fraction is then applied to the emission factors for new device impacts used in this study to obtain the emissions from the refurbishing process (Table 3).

where,

Table A7 The amount of full refurbishment activity input to each device type to obtain the desired emission factor for refurbished devices, as presented in Table 3. Calculated by dividing the desired emission factor for refurbished devices by the emission factor for one full refurbishment activity. The full refurbishment activity is described in Appendix 1.

Appendix 4: WEEE statistics

Table A8 The national WEEE waste treatment rates are summarized. Sources are indicated in the column names. Percent of all small IT e-waste that is recycled/reused (column 3) was calculated by multiplying the Percent small IT e-waste separately collected (column 1) by Percent of separately collected small IT e-waste that is recycled/reused (column 2). Percent of all small IT e-waste in municipal waste stream (column 4) was calculated by subtracting Percent of all small IT e-waste that is recycled/reused (column 3) from 100%. Note that when percentages were >100, they were automatically set to 100.

Appendix 5: Ecoinvent activity smartphone changes

• Smartphones are the most frequently refurbished device type, so avoided emission calculations are particularly sensitive to their emission factor

A comparison of detailed life cycle inventories was the preferred approach, but was not possible due to a lack of transparent data on smartphone composition. Notably, the amounts of the most impactful smartphone components (mainboard, printed wiring boards, and integrated circuits) could not be found to adjust inputs to the ecoinvent process.

For Apple iPhones (devices with most sales globally), the identified values are presented in Table A2, with an average of 64±15 kg CO2eq/device. Emission factors for other smartphones are summarized in the table below, and show an average emission factor of 49±13 kg CO2eq/device. These values shall be used for the emission factors for iPhones and other smartphones, respectively.

These values are around 25-50% greater than the smartphone production emission factor from ecoinvent 3.10.

To implement this change in the model, the amount of key inputs (mainboard, printed wiring boards, and integrated circuits) in the ecoinvent smartphone process was increased to reach the desired final emission factor.

Additionally, exchanges for the charger production, smartphone waste treatment, and cable waste treatment were removed from the process, to align with the project system boundaries.

Table A9 The non-Apple GHG emissions from manufacturing of smartphones gathered from manufacturer environmental reports, for a selection of recent and popular smartphone models. EF stands for emission factor.

Appendix 6: Market share of new and used devices

The market share of new and used devices sold annually in Europe was used to determine the repartition of avoided new and refurbished devices in the baseline scenario. Most data were available for smartphones, taken from survey responses from 2022, and are presented in Table A10. The average values used for the GHG reduction quantification are a market share of 13% for refurbished smartphones, and 87% for new smartphones, as shown in Table 5.

Table A10 Breakdown of refurbished and new smartphones sold in European countries in 2022.

Similar detailed data were not available for other device types. Survey responses on the interest in buying a given refurbished device type were used to adjust the smartphone data in Table A10 proportionally to other device types (Table A11). The results from PCs were applied to laptops, and the results for TVs were used as a proxy for screens.

Table A11 Survey results asking respondents if they would be interested in buying the device type refurbished are summarized. The ratio of the results for smartphones compared to other device types was used to proportionally adjust the average percentage of refurbished smartphones gathered in Table A10.

Appendix 7: Residual value calculations

Table A12 Sample prices for a new Apple iPhone.

Table A13 Sample prices for a new Samsung smartphone.

Table A14 Sample prices for a new Apple iPad.

Table A15 Sample prices for a new Samsung tablet.

Download the template

This methodology covers projects that refurbish electronic devices, extend their usable lifetime, reduce electronics waste and avoid production of new devices. The eligible device types include smartphones, tablets, laptops, desktop computers, and screens.

Projects eligible under this methodology are the activities that carry out the technical aspects of refurbishment. Activities that only collect used devices (e.g. buyback schemes) or serve as marketplaces for refurbishers are not eligible projects.

Marketplaces may act as intermediaries between Riverse and refurbishers to assist in the certification process. Signed agreements shall be provided ensuring that the refurbishers are the principal and final beneficiaries of carbon finance.

Devices eligible under this methodology include: small consumer electronics such as smartphones, laptops, tablets, desktop computers, and screens. Other device types may be included in future versions of this methodology.

This methodology distinguishes between two types of refurbishing processes:

• Light refurbishing is focused on fixing cosmetic damage or software issues. It is a more simple process because it doesn’t involve replacing parts.

• Full refurbishing is an intensive process that involves light refurbishing plus replacing some device components and reassembling products. It is more costly and rigorous.

Both full and light refurbishing activities are eligible for Riverse Carbon Credits (RCCs) under this methodology.

Note that the project shall be defined as the project activities that are justified as additional. This may include a refurbishing site’s entire operations or only an expansion project. See the Additionality section and the for more details.

Project scope

One project corresponds to the refurbishing sites within one registered company located within one country.