Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 874–882

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Solar photovoltaic module production: Environmental footprint, MARK

management horizons and investor goodwill☆
⁎
Sunderasan Srinivasan , Vamshi Krishna Reddy Kottam1
Verdurous Solutions Private Limited, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: This paper focuses attention on the environmental impacts of solar photovoltaic (PV) module production, use
Life-cycle environmental impact and disposal. The present study estimates the goodwill capital embedded within market valuations of the 9
Planning horizon publicly listed PV module manufacturing firms. These goodwill scores are correlated with the ‘solar scores’
Solar scores awarded by the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. Correlation between such scores and the generated goodwill
Investor goodwill
capital appears weak and inconclusive. The study also finds no significant correlation between long-term
planning demonstrated by managers within these firms, the environmental impacts of their processes and the
goodwill generated among investors. Informing investors of the variants of solar PV technologies, and of the
range of potential environmental consequences, could help appropriately internalize risks and rewards.

1. Background Such deployment, however, was concentrated within countries

Enlarged scales of production, low interest rate regimes and the
resulting declines in production costs, have rapidly transformed
solar photovoltaic (“SPV” or just “PV”) technology into an attractive
mainstream power generation option. In addition to traditional
ground and rooftop mounts, policy makers and activists have
recommended installing terrestrial solar PV arrays over canals,
reservoirs, agricultural fields, parking lots, transport corridors and
even bike trails, driveways, roads and eventually on highways, [41].
36,900 Mega Watts peak (10^6 kWp = 1000 MWp = 1 GWp) of
solar PV systems were built in calendar year 2013, taking the then
cumulative globally installed capacity to 134,000 MWp. Analysts
had estimated that in year-2014, 1.00% of the world's electricity
approximating 160,000 GWh was generated from solar PV systems
[40]. In year-2015 the cumulative installed base was in the region
of 229,000 MWp, 65% higher than the year-end-2013 installed
base. The year-end-2015 installed base met close to 1.30% of global
electricity demand [19]. Following this, 70,000 MWp of capacity
was added in year-2016, representing a 30% increase over year-
2015 volumes. This took the cumulative global installed base
beyond 300 GWp, according to the German Solar Association, [23].
with favourable policy environments and attractive tariffs. China
(43.50 GWp), Germany (39.70), Japan (34.40), the USA (25.60)
and Italy (18.90) accounted for installed capacities in excess of
10 GWp. Seven countries including the UK, India and Korea
besides, the 10 GW markets had installed in excess of 1 GWp in
year 2015 alone. In all, these seven countries along with France,
Australia and Canada accounted for 87% of worldwide year-2015
installations. Italy is estimated to have met close to 8% of its power
demand from solar PV. Such growth in installed solar PV capacity
was slated to lower global CO2 emissions by about 0.3–0.6% in year
2020, or in the region of 250 mega tonnes in absolute terms, [27].
On the supply side, between years 2010 and 2015, the top ten
module manufacturers had consistently accounted for over 50% of the
total shipments, [31]. In all, the market was supplied by a solar PV value
chain, comprising amongst others, 90 units each exceeding 1000 MW in
annual capacity – referred to as “gigafabs” – including 36 inverter
assembly units, 19 polysilicon plants and 19 module production plants
(including wafer-cell-module plants), [29]. Additional annual manufac-
turing capacity of about 60 GW was projected to be added through year
2021, most likely within prospective PV markets including India, Turkey
and parts of North Africa, [50].

☆
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are of the authors themselves and do not necessarily reflect those of any organization.
⁎
Correspondence to: Verdurous Solutions Private Limited, 154, Preeti Layout, India.
E-mail addresses: sunderasan@yahoo.com, sunderasan@verdurous.in (S. Srinivasan), vamshikrishna@verdurous.in (V.K.R. Kottam).
URL: http://www.verdurous.in (S. Srinivasan).
1
Author can be contacted at: Verdurous Solutions Private Limited http://www.verdurous.in.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.031
Received 21 February 2017; Received in revised form 4 July 2017; Accepted 11 August 2017
1364-0321/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Srinivasan, V.K.R. Kottam
2. Quantifying the environmental externality from solar PV
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had developed the
formula to compensate for the air pollutants from power generation
and for the consequent social changes including human health
problems, property damage and disruption to agriculture. The “value-
of-solar” premium, over and above the electricity tariff, was estimated
at about USD 40 per kW on average, for year-2014 based on a 25 year
life of the PV panel, and discounted at 3% per annum, adjusted for
inflation. Producers were to receive credit at the “value-of-solar” rate,
while utilities would continue to bill them for actual energy used, [11].
At this rate, the global installed base of end-2013 would have generated
social and environmental value of about USD 5.36 billion in year 2014.
To put this environmental return on investment in perspective, PV in
Germany alone had received investments worth over USD 100 billion
(€ 80 billion) through and including year-2013, while the amount paid
for PV power fed into the grid through and including year-2012 was of
the order of USD 40 billion (€ 32 billion), [10].
With declining equipment prices and rising deployment, the returns
earned through tariffs might be dominated by the returns earned
through the environmental value of solar. The divergence in environ-
mental credentials of various manufacturers is likely to gain promi-
nence further in time, as solar PV emerges as a dominant power
generation source, ahead of present-day mainstream sources. The
11 MW solar PV plant designed to be paired with 3 MW of existing
diesel generation capacity in Egypt, for instance, was estimated to
reduce GHG emissions by 42,700 t per year, presumably relative to the
next best option for providing such capacity, [20].
Table 1 presents a select listing of solar PV projects that were
registered under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change / Clean Development Mechanism (UNFCCC / CDM)
along with the reported estimated and actual emission reductions.
Availability of performance data is limited. The spectacular fall of
emission reduction certificate (CER) prices from about €9 in
September 2011 to below €1 in a matter of one year [6], might have,
perhaps, discouraged project developers from submitting monitoring
reports and requesting for CER issue for most CDM registered PV
projects.
First, such estimates including the metrics listed in Table 1 are
based on the environmental impact of the PV system when deployed on
the field – ignoring the production and disposal phases of the life-cycle.
Second, such assessments are known to treat all solar PV technologies
at par. All solar PV modules are not the same [17] and it is not
immediately apparent if the above estimates of environmental impact
take differences in environmental performance of manufacturers into
account.
Third, in market environments where solar PV-supplied elec-
tricity is more expensive relative to utility grid supplied electricity
generated from centralized plants, the difference in price is
presumed to represent the value of the environmental benefits
from the former: consumers and utilities pay the marginal pre-
mium for the solar PV power. For instance, in year-2011, house-
holds in the UK received a generation subsidy of 43.1 pence per
kWh of electricity from solar PV, relative to a retail price of 12
Table 1
CDM registered solar PV projects and estimated and reported emission reductions.
Project ref. Est. annual emission Actual average annual Variance
no. reduction emission reduction
(t CO2e) (t CO2e) (Actual-Est.)
497 565 626 61
1883 827 660 − 167
2079 2215 2394 179
5391 1990 1605 − 385
TOTAL 5597 5285 − 312
875
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 874–882
pence per kWh of electricity drawn from traditional sources and
supplied by the utility grid, inclusive of carbon taxes on fossil fuel
utilization, [53]. However, in markets where the levelised cost of
electricity (LCoE) for solar PV is equal to or even lower than other
forms of conventionally produced electricity, as in Germany, Italy
and Spain, [38] the assessment, valuation and pricing of the
environmental dividend is unclear. It may have been totally
ignored in certain instances.
Estimating the environmental benefits, placing a value on them,
and rewarding investors appropriately has been one way of brid-
ging the price-gap between solar PV and traditional mainstream
centralized generation. However, if economic costs were to achieve
parity with conventional centralized power generation by lower PV
project costs, and if transmission and integration costs, storage and
other grid-infrastructure costs were to be overlooked, the environ-
mental dividend is apparently not internalized. A price parity-
situation thus represents two contradictory perspectives: a cause
for celebration of ‘zero-subsidy’ solar PV projects, and a simulta-
neous sobering of investor enthusiasm owing to the environmental
benefits’ going unrecognized. Some authors have argued that the
feed-in-tariffs, tax credits and other instruments could serve as a
signal of continued policy commitment while enhancing bank-
ability of individual projects, [49]. In a ‘zero-subsidy’ environment,
there is no obvious mechanism to recognize and reward the super-
ior environmental credentials of the PV module manufacturers,
relative to their industry peers.
3. Granular analysis of product and process issues
“EcoLuxury” apartments powered exclusively by solar PV systems,
for instance, are routinely branded “net-zero energy apartments”, [37].
Such conventions ignore the energy input and the environmental
impacts from PV cell / module production, system transport and
assembly and the recycling and final disposal of end-of-life solar PV
modules and other system components. In reality, material and energy
inputs are required at each stage of raw material acquisition, material
processing, manufacturing, installation, use, decommissioning, recy-
cling and disposal. Each of these stages yield effluents as well, [24].
It is also observed that Life-cycle GHG emissions and heavy metal
emissions do not vary significantly across multi-crystalline, mono-
crystalline or ribbon silicon and thin-film Cadmium – Telluride (CdTe)
modules, benchmarked against emissions from conventional alterna-
tives that PV seeks to displace, [14]. Along similar lines, Sherwani et al.
[46], analyze the mass and energy flows over the production process of
solar PV systems, starting from silica extraction and culminating in
module assembly but not through utilization and disposal. Even if not
significant at unit measures, atomic layer deposition of thin films was
known to leave a significantly lower environmental footprint relative to
plasma enhanced chemical vapour deposition (PECVD) and sputtering.
Likewise, copper-based metallization was known to be substantially
more benign relative to silver-based metallization. In all, the projected
increases in cell efficiency, the progressive use of thinner wafer and
copper-metallization could lower the carbon footprint of silicon hetero-
junction cells from above 30 g CO2 eq/kWh to as low as 20 g CO2 eq/
kWh. Correspondingly, the energy payback time was expected to fall
below the one year mark [28].
Notwithstanding differences in energy inputs to and environ-
mental impacts of variants of solar PV technology, investing in
solar PV systems is consistently viewed as a step towards enhancing
environmental sustainability, and as an alternative to mainstream
options that contribute greatly to greenhouse gas emissions, [33].
Given the vast differences in emission profiles of PV and conven-
tional, especially coal-fired power generation, emissions and lea-
kages from the production, utilization and disposal of solar PV
systems are routinely ignored and assumed to be zero, (see for
instance, Sinan [48] and Hwaseong [18]).
S. Srinivasan, V.K.R. Kottam
This paper investigates manager motivations and the impact of the
environmental credentials of solar PV manufacturing processes on
investor goodwill.
4. Scale of the problem
Low technology prices emanating from process efficiency improve-
ments and scale economies, accruing largely from manufacturing
investments made in China and Taiwan intensified competition among
solar cell and module makers. For most part of the period between
years 2005 and 2013 but more intensely from year 2009 through 2013,
solar PV cell and module manufacturers led investors to believe that
they were pursuing a “loss-leader strategy” by pricing their product
below cost. On occasion, manufacturers were found compromising on
components that did not add greatly to costs but had a significant
influence on performance and useful lives, [36]. In some cases,
therefore, the low margins, led to indifferent product quality, short-
ening useful lives and increasing the average module's carbon
(/ environmental) footprint, [32].
The environmental consequences from solar PV system production,
utilization and disposal could be mitigated through increases in system
efficiencies, reductions in material consumption, changes in the up-
stream energy mix and in material production processes, and very
significantly, through scientific end-of-life recycling and disposal of all
system components, [5]. The International Renewable Energy Agency
(IRENA) had estimated that installed global PV capacity could exceed
4500 GWp by year 2050 [relative to 300 GWp in year 2016]. It had
been assessed that, in theory, some 78 million tonnes of usable
material, or the equivalent of about 2 billion PV modules, could be
extracted from repurposing and recycling end-of-life PV modules. Such
material was valued at about USD 15 billion, [39]. The Agency had also
called for more widespread promulgation of recycling and disposal
guidelines.
5. Beyond GHG emissions of technology options displaced
While coal-burning sources of electricity generation are estimated
to emit 960 t of CO2 equivalent per 1000 MWh, solar PV is estimated to
emit 32 t per 1000 MWh of electric power, primarily during the
manufacture and installation, [8]. Given this sizable disparity, the
adverse environmental impacts from production, transport and dis-
posal of solar PV modules and system components are often over-
looked, and emissions from the use of solar PV systems are routinely
assumed to be zero.
Given the prospects for dramatic scaling-up of PV system volumes
across the world, though, environmental impact from solar PV
modules, however small, undoubtedly warrant scrutiny. The not
insignificant environmental impacts of production, use and disposal
of battery banks, power electronics and other system components could
be analysed separately as well.
• Arguments favoring large-scale solar PV installation frequently
ignore the environmental consequences from mining of quartz-sand
for silicon cells and metal ores for thin-film cells.
• Solar cell production is energy intensive: the production of purified
silicon alone could account for about one half of the module's life-
cycle energy consumption [55]. The manufacture of mono- and
multi- crystalline silicon based modules involves energy intensive
purification and casting stages. Further, countries where the bulk of
the PV manufacturing industry is located have high fossil fuel
thermal generation (viz., China, Malaysia & Japan) which emits
significant amounts of greenhouse gas (GHG) and acidifying gases.
Consequently, the manufacturing stage of PV modules is the
principal contributor to climate change and acidification, [44].
• In year 2004, the energy payback for crystalline solar PV systems
installed in southern Europe was estimated at 1.70–2.70 years, [2].
876
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 874–882
Over the years PV module production has shifted to China and given
the higher proportion of coal in the Chinese energy generation mix,
it had been estimated that a Chinese made crystalline silicon (C-Si)
PV module installed in southern Europe would need to be used 20–
30% longer than an identical European-made module to generate
enough electricity to offset the carbon emissions from its production,
[21].
• This adverse impact could be mitigated, in part or in whole, by using
solar PV systems to generate and supply power for the production
process. However, large power plants might be required even to
meet a small proportion of the power consumed in the “gigafabs”:
Chinese PV module manufacturer Yingli Green Energy had installed
20MWp of PV to meet a mere 8% of its power requirements [16].
• Effluent gases and potentially hazardous run-off are generated at
various stages of purification, crystallization, wafering and module
assembly. Nitrogen Trifluoride cleaning of a-Si and nanocrystalline-
Si thin film module lines has been highlighted for global warming
potential, [12].
• A part of the untreated toxic waste could be released into water
bodies and agricultural lands, especially when manufacturers face
steep losses in the face of progressive lowering of prices and
accumulating inventories, [26]. In August 2011, for instance, runoff
from solid waste laced with fluoride that was stored in a factory
owned and operated by New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)-listed
Chinese firm Jinko Solar swept into a nearby river following heavy
rainfall, killing fish in the river, and pigs in sties along the river's
banks. Jinko Solar was forced to suspend production operations and
to put remedial measures in place, [25].
• Customers installing rooftop solar PV plants use the utility's grid
infrastructure as a notional battery, feeding power during sunshine
hours and drawing down after sundown to suit their consumption
patterns. Over and above reinforcing dependence on the utility grid,
such net-metering arrangements add to network management costs
on the one hand, and to eroding utility profits on the other [3].
• To ease concerns relating to the environmental impacts from
ancillary product, select manufacturers have minimized the use of
paper and wood in favour of recyclable packing material. Also,
herbivorous animals including emu and goat have been employed to
manage weed growth around ground-mount solar PV systems, with
better results than mowing or chemical herbicide application [34].
• Despite these measures, routinely ignored end-of-life disposal of
solar PV systems remains a matter of grave concern, especially from
cadmium and other heavy metals and from the dispersion of toxins
into water and the air around, [52]. Year 2010 end-of-life modules
were estimated at 7800 t in Europe alone. In year 2011, a total of
1400 t, estimated at 70% of European end-of-life modules, were
collected by recyclers. During the first quarter of year 2012 alone,
the collection topped 1000 t, [54]. By some estimates, a large
majority of PV modules collected for recycling were usually those
that suffered damage during transportation or installation, while
modules brought in at the end of their useful lives constituted a
mere 1% [42].
• From year-2010 through March 2016, the PV Cycle network of
collection points throughout Europe had treated 13,728 t, with over
7720 t emanating from Germany alone, [43]. As of mid-2014, some
8 million tonnes of solar PV had been installed, [22], and the same
would need recycling and disposal over the decade straddling years
2030 – 2040. As of June 2016, China, India and other large PV
markets outside of the European Union had not developed PV-
specific waste regulations and disposal guidelines [39].
• Life cycle emissions of all PV module technologies have decreased.
Yet, even as mono-crystalline silicon modules report the highest
efficiency, such performance comes at the cost of higher life cycle
emissions. Silicon based modules contribute significantly larger
amounts of GHG emissions than Copper–Indium–Gallium–
Selenide (CIGS) or Cadmium–Telluride (CdTe) modules, [47].
S. Srinivasan, V.K.R. Kottam
• Alongside performance improvements, solar modules need to be
easier to recycle as well. Materials such as silver, carbon fibre,
silicon, tin etc. going into contemporary solar PV modules are
difficult and expensive to recycle. Reducing their use in modules
would make solar PV greener. While project developers have
benefited from emission mitigation revenues, premium tariffs and
other incentives, solar PV module manufacturers have had to
constantly enhance efficiencies of production processes merely to
stay in business in the wake of falling prices. Under these circum-
stances, manufacturers might need special incentives to improve on
the environmental characteristics of their product, [7].
6. Evolving energy input – output balance
For several years now, researchers have recommended scrupulous
handling and efficient use of material and employing production
technologies and processes that did not require the use of large
quantities of hazardous, toxic, corrosive or explosive gases, [13].
Given that some risks present during cell and module fabrication while
others could materialize during end-of-life disposal, estimating and
comparing the environmental attributes of alternative PV technologies
therefore, mandates life-cycle considerations.
Alsema and Nieuwlaar [1] had estimated that the energy payback
for a ground-mounted solar PV system built in 1999 was between 3 and
4 years, subject to the energy intensity of production, and the energy
eventually generated by the installation. The authors had projected that
the energy payback from a similar system in year 2020 could range
between 1 and 2 years. The European Photovoltaic Industry
Association [9] had estimated that as of March 2011, the energy
payback period for a solar PV installation was already of the order of
1.4 years, though this estimate had to be qualified by production and
deployment scenarios, [56]. For instance, Serrano-Luján et al. [45] had
estimated an energy payback of 2.06 years for a Spanish grid-connected
222 kWp Cadmium – Telluride (Cd-Te) PV plant installation.
Further, while disciplined maintenance and upkeep are assumed to
yield an estimated annual output of electric power, it is not immedi-
ately apparent if estimates of energy pay-back had considered perfor-
mance degradation at higher temperatures, or the damage suffered by
modules during transport and installation and the consequent energy
consumption for recycling. If these were to be included, the payback
period might rise by a few months, perhaps, with each operational PV
module required to earn incremental returns on behalf of the dysfunc-
tional and discarded modules. Fukurozaki, Zilles and Sauer [15]
provide for a 1% loss during handling and 2% replacement of damaged
modules over the lifetime of an installation and estimate energy
payback periods ranging between 2.47 and 3.13 years.
7. Grading environmental credentials
Solar PV module product quality is relatively straightforward to
gauge. For instance, DNV GL (www.dnvgl.com) conducts a range of
tests to assess PV module quality and long-term reliability and releases
supplier-specific PV module reliability scores to help investors and
developers with making informed investment and procurement
decisions [30]. Such laboratory tests, however, do not convey
information relating to the risks associated with production processes
or with short-termism in management decision-making which might be
detrimental to long-term investor interests. Curiously, such tests
indicate that the largest manufacturers might not necessarily be
providing the highest quality of product, [51].
Since 2009, research and advocacy organization, the Silicon Valley
Toxics Coalition (SVTC), has quantified the environmental and safety
issues concerning the solar PV module production. The white papers
published include details of the toxic materials used in manufacturing
and the potential end-of-life disposal risks of solar PV. Since year 2010,
SVTC has surveyed PV module manufacturers on parameters relating
877
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 874–882
to sustainability and transparency and has published an annual ‘Solar
Score Card’ (www.solarscorecard.com) that ranked manufacturers on
the strength of their supply chains, chemical use, take back practices,
public disclosure and the like. Ten manufacturers were awarded a score
in year 2010, while 32 were awarded scores on a scale of 100 in year
2015; an additional 8 companies had received scores below 15.
Participation in the survey and scores have varied each year subject
to economic conditions, take-back and recycling policies and
performance, health and safety policies, chemical use, disclosure and
reporting. Solar score-card data for module production between years
2010 and 2015 is presented in Appendix A.
8. Analysis phase 1: Environmental credentials and investor
goodwill
As observed within Appendix A, a total of 47 manufacturers were
awarded 133 scores for production spread across 6 calendar-years. In
several instances, module production was undertaken either within
privately held companies or as a part of diversified business operations,
thereby limiting the data available within the public domain. The
correlation between environmental credentials and investor goodwill
was therefore quantified for nine publicly traded standalone PV cell/
module companies.
The stochastic nature of investor returns plays a major role in
yielding divergent valuation of knowledge and technology-intensive
businesses. The market's consensus estimation of a firm's value is
derived from the projected cash-flows emanating from investments
made into fixed and intangible assets including into research, product
development and marketing.
Mueller and Supina [35] define goodwill capital as the relatively
unexplained residual intangible asset – the premium embedded in a
firm's market valuation – after accounting for past investments in
advertising, R & D and capital equipment and other tangible assets. By
definition, therefore, such goodwill capital cannot be traced back to
specific investment outlays; it is however possible to correlate the
residual valuation to firm-specific characteristics viz., first mover
advantage, product and process quality, environmental outcomes,
social responsibility etc.
If the total assets of the firm at time t were to include the firm's
physical capital stock and other tangible assets (KKt), intangible R & D
capital (RKt) and intangible advertising capital (AKt), then Goodwill
Capital of the firm (GKt) at time t is given by Eq. (1), where the market
value of the firm is represented by MVt.
GK t = MVt − KK t − RK t − AK t (1)
The methodology [35] is employed to compute the goodwill capital
accumulated by the nine publicly traded solar PV module manufac-
turers who had also been awarded a string of environmental perfor-
mance scores by SVTC: attempts are made to attribute the estimated
goodwill capital to the awarded scores.
As evident from Table 2, the Solar Scorecard awarded by the Silicon
Valley Toxics Coalition impacts different companies differently. Clearly,
the results have to be conditioned by the small sample sizes available
for time-series analysis and the gaps in historical data available in the
public domain.
Ironically, the four companies returning the lowest coefficients of
determination (r-sq), namely Trina Solar, Yingli Green Energy,
SolarWorld and First Solar had each received consistently high or
respectable scores from the Coalition. Such scores did not appear
correlated with investor goodwill, though. Yet, scrupulous analyses of
the available data revealed that the scores may be correlated with
investor goodwill of four of the publicly traded companies, significant
at 95%. Paradoxically, even as Sun Power Corp had consistently been
awarded high scores by the Coalition (Appendix A), the estimated
coefficient carried a negative sign. Only two scores were available for
Canadian Solar and the correlation of such scores on goodwill
S. Srinivasan, V.K.R. Kottam Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 874–882

Table 2
Goodwill Capital estimates for publicly traded solar PV module manufacturers.

Company r-sq Observations Intercept Coefficient: solar score Gross profit margin (Dec2015)

1 Trina Solar 1.21% 14 249,355,390 − 3,153,159.137 18.655%

(0.3412) (−0.3828)
2 Yingli Green Energy 1.737% 14 8,316,591,253 −68,055,702.52 11.924%
(0.6922) −0.4605
3 SolarWorld 5.38% 12 −283,146,958.9 2,896,751.576 9.174%
(−0.9523) (0.7543)
4 First Solar 5.54% 12 −2,100,846,480 47,675,209.76 25.161%
(−0.5669) 0.7661
5 RENESOLA 28.16% 10 −512,241,831.3 14,544,506.25 14.676%
(−1.6135) 1.7707
6 JA Solar 29.31% 13 −4,691,258,023* −12,846,299.04* 16.969%
(−24.3968) (−2.1354)
7 SunPower Corp 37.20% 12 7,168,317,547* −59,686,474.86* 15.267%
(3.4498) (−2.4336)
8 Canadian Solar 44.42% 10 1,546,193,926* −80,575,785.9* 16.638%
(4.1425) (−2.5286)
9 China Sunergy 60.15% 6 111,426,787.6* 2,095,499.591* 3.114%
(6.9792) (2.4572)

*
significant at 95%.

generated within subsequent quarters was analysed. China Sunergy
had been awarded relatively low scores but they seemed to be positively
correlated with the goodwill estimated. Solar scores were available for
JA Solar for production in years 2010, 2013 – 2015, with the last score
alone being respectable: the inconsistent scores seemed to be inversely
correlated with investor goodwill, significant at 95%.
Environmental performance of production operations is one aspect
of corporate governance: in the spirit of being responsible corporate
citizens in the long run, but more proximally, with a view to anticipat-
ing and preempting risks that might threaten the generation of share-
holder wealth. Sound environmental performance of production opera-
tions is both an essential ingredient into, and a consequence of, long-
term strategic planning, the goodwill estimates summarized are then
viewed in the light of estimates of company managers’ planning
horizons, with such horizons categorized as short and long-terms.
9. Analysis phase 2: management planning horizon and
environmental performance scores
With a view to assessing the planning horizons of management
teams at these companies four of the five ratios defined by Barton,
Manyika and Williamson [4] are computed. The quarterly targeting
ratio was defined by the authors as missing or exceeding earnings per
share (EPS) targets ‘by under 2 cents’: this ratio was not computed as it
was not considered relevant to the present context. The four computed
ratios as defined by the authors are outlined below and the results
obtained for each of the nine companies are listed within Appendix B.
9.2. Earnings quality
Accruals as a share of revenue. The authors presume that managers
who plan for the longer-term rely more on realized cash flow and less on
accounting decisions. This ratio is computed by employing the ‘total
accounts receivable’ and the ‘sales / revenues’ reported within the annual
books of account. Canadian Solar, First Solar, SolarWorld and ReneSola
are found to perform better than their peers on this parameter.
The fact that these companies receive large proportions of their
revenues within the reporting period itself does not seem to have been
correlated with the solar scores or with the goodwill they help generate.
9.3. Margin growth
Difference between earnings growth and revenue growth. Long-
term planning would demonstrate that the managers grow their
margins sustainably and consistently, not with a view to meeting
near-term targets. This parameter is computed as the ratio of growth in
‘pre-tax income’ and growth in ‘sale / revenues’ as reported by the
companies. Canadian Solar and First Solar are found to perform
consistently well on this parameter.
The two companies are believed to have grown their margins more
sustainably relative to their peers within the solar PV module manu-
facturing sector. Yet this aspect of their long-term planning horizon
does not appear to have been correlated with the solar scores awarded
by the SVTC or with the goodwill capital estimated for the intervening
reporting periods.
9.4. Earnings growth

Difference between earnings-per-share (EPS) growth and true earnings

9.1. Investment ratio
The ratio of capital expenditure to depreciation: long-term compa-
nies are presumed to invest more and more-consistently than other
companies. The incremental values of ‘net property plant and equip-
ment’ and the ‘accumulated depreciation’ as reported on year-end
balance sheets for the period 2011 – 2015 are employed. Trina Solar,
Canadian Solar, First Solar, JA Solar, SunPower and Yingli Green
Energy are found to perform consistently well on this parameter.
Despite the long-term planning perspective demonstrated by man-
agers through the investment ratio, the high and consistent solar scores
do not appear to be correlated with the estimates of “goodwill capital”
for these companies.
growth. Managers with a long-term perspective are likely to focus on the
absolute rise or fall of reported earnings. The difference between EPS
growth and revenue growth appears to have narrowed in FY ’14 and ’15 for
Canadian Solar while the trend has been inconsistent for both Sun Power
Corp and Trina Solar. Here again, the long-term planning displayed by
managers does not appear to be correlated with either the SVTC solar
scores or with the goodwill generated among investors by such scores.
10. Discussion, conclusions and recommendations
The environmental footprint of solar PV systems are routinely
ignored on the grounds that the adverse environmental impacts from
their production, use and disposal might be miniscule relative to the

878
S. Srinivasan, V.K.R. Kottam Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 874–882

emissions and effluents from the sources of power generation that they
seek to displace. Given the increasing volumes of production and
deployment, the environmental footprint warrants scrutiny however
low such emissions per unit might be. Inverters, battery and other
system components are governed by electrical / electronics and related
environmental guidelines and waste disposal regulations. In an era
when process improvements are known to dominate product improve-
ments, and where the solar PV module has been turned into a
‘commodity’, this study highlights the environmental impacts of solar
PV module life-cycles and contributes to distinguishing manufacturers
with long and short term planning horizons.
The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition has awarded ‘solar scores’ to rate
the environmental performance of manufacturers and to rank them in
the order of their performance. This study estimates the goodwill
capital embedded within market valuations of the publicly listed PV
module manufacturing firms, and correlates the generation of such
goodwill with the awarded solar scores. Results indicate that correla-
tion between such scores and the generated goodwill capital appears
weak and inconclusive. The study then computes ratios that are known
to categorize management styles on the basis of perspectives and time
horizons. The urge to respond to quarterly earnings targets and the like
is categorized as short-termism while progressively growing profit
margins from sustained investments into plant and machinery is
viewed as an indicator of long-term planning. Here again, apart from
isolated instances, the correlation among the solar scores, the esti-
mated goodwill capital and the long-term planning horizons demon-
strated is weak.
This paper would therefore recommend that such rating / ranking
as undertaken by the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition be expanded to all
cover all PV cell and module manufacturers producing in excess of, say,
50 MWp each year, or thereabouts. The findings from such rating /
ranking exercises should be widely disseminated, especially to attract
investor attention to the potentially adverse consequences from
(relatively) weak environmental performance. Investors would begin
to discern among variants of solar PV technology and appreciate the
range of possible environmental outcomes. They could then be
motivated to bring pressure on managers to move in the direction of
securing the long-term interests of the shareholders, and thereby of the
natural environment as well, as a corollary.

Appendix A. Solar scores awarded by the silicon valley toxics coalition

The names of the 9 companies analysed in this paper are presented in bold face

Name of the company 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Abound Solar 63 87
Aleo 43 31 31
Astronergy 29 19 19
AUO 68
Avancis 36 44 43
Axitec 64 47 55 55
Calyxo 90 82 22 27 27
Canadian Solar 7 14
China Sunergy 5 26 26
Eurener 60 17 19 19
First Solar 67 87 74 55 56 59
Fluitecnik Group 61 8
Gintech 5
Hanwha SolarOne 9 10 11
Hareon Solar 9
Hyundai 9
JA Solar 16 8 10 77
Jinko 9 53
Kyocera 20 18 55
LDK 40 35 35
LG 62
Miasole 7
Mitsubishi 45 42 53
Motech Industries 70 22 14 14
Nanosolar 5
NB Solar 5 5
Panasonic 30 32 50
REC 87 87 57 71 82
Renesola 41 37 37
Samsung 24 19 19
Sharp 21 31 31
Solaire Direct 43
Solar Cells Hellas 32
Solar Frontier 15 19 19
SolarWorld 88 91 91 64 73 94
Solon 50 84 33 26

879
S. Srinivasan, V.K.R. Kottam Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 874–882

SoloPower 71 20 15 15
Sovello 73 83
Sungen 5
Suniva 5
SunPower 85 93 69 88 97
Suntech 86 47 58 47
Name of the Company 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Trina Solar 89 94 77 92 93
Up solar 66 50 58
Westinghouse 5
WINAICO 42
Yingli 69 72 88 75 81 80

Appendix B. Ratios to estimate short-termism in management strategy

Canadian solar 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Investment to depreciation ratio 1685.71% 91.04% − 75.61% − 50.00%

Margin growth − 47.65% 394.19% − 155.86% − 137.11%
Earnings growth − 1.667% − 102.941% − 1.399% − 0.406%
Earnings quality 16.840% 14.151% 19.045% 30.347% 24.381%

China sunergy 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Investment to depreciation ratio − 580.81% 7.25% 90.96% 251.48%

Margin Growth − 71.10% − 17.48% 48.76% 39.76%
Earnings growth 12.904% − 4.159% 1.569% 0.648%
Earnings quality 15.265% 45.826% 56.028% 55.708% 34.516%

First solar 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Investment to depreciation ratio − 416.50% 440.93% − 102.19% − 358.06%

Margin growth 14.92% 11.22% 1047.58% 3.18%
Earnings growth − 0.191% − 6.789% − 34.375% 4.849%
Earnings quality 15.684% 6.633% 19.994% 28.774% 30.669%

JA solar 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Investment to depreciation ratio 0.00% − 18.75% − 26.21% − 98.97%

Margin growth 27.76% 160.17% 60.37% − 165.27%
Earnings growth − 0.739% − 11.994% 0.954% 38.232%
Earnings quality 29.66% 28.35% 25.04% 38.37% 22.76%

Solar world 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Investment to depreciation ratio 83.33% 63.33% 2300.00% − 120.29%

Margin growth − 138.66% 298.19% 86.12% − 80.84%
Earnings growth 0.965% − 191.768% − 0.036% − 1.356%
Earnings quality 15.47% 23.73% 26.97% 32.51% 18.37%

Sun power 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Investment to depreciation ratio 293.62% 108.08% 132.47% − 640.91%

Margin growth − 182.74% 319.78% 108.62% 39.68%
Earnings growth − 13.661% − 34.821% − 4.017% 9.573%
Earnings quality 20.55% 25.74% 20.97% 24.91% 32.27%

Trina solar 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Investment to depreciation ratio 448.55% 356.57% −2.50% − 25.00%

Margin growth 16.75% 161.27% 33.88% − 805.27%
Earnings growth − 28.814% 18.056% 1.966% − 97.368%
Earnings quality 26.70% 27.05% 24.48% 30.07% 22.80%

880
S. Srinivasan, V.K.R. Kottam Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 874–882

Yingli green energy 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Investment to depreciation ratio − 120.89% − 187.07% 47.30% 75.49%

Margin growth − 261.57% 39.57% 17.92% 18.13%
Earnings growth 18.650% 6.492% 0.222% − 0.393%
Earnings quality 42.97% 40.05% 41.10% 43.42% 25.38%

Renesola 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Investment to depreciation ratio − 176.23% −139.25% 2399.07% 108.85%

Margin Growth 104.95% 84.26% − 75.22% − 4318.38%
Earnings growth 3.326% 1.017% 5.121%
Earnings quality 9.20% 8.07% 15.60% 22.39% 13.20%

Averages 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Investment to depreciation ratio 135.20% 80.24% 529.25% − 95.27%

Margin growth − 59.71% 161.24% 130.24% − 600.68%
Earnings growth − 1.025% − 36.323% − 3.333% − 5.778%*
Earnings quality 21.37% 24.40% 27.69% 34.05% 24.93%
*Renesola not included.

References number 1868; 2008. p. 22.

[1] Alsema E, Nieuwlaar E. Energy viability of photovoltaic systems. Energy Policy
2000;28:999–1010.
[2] Alsema E, de Wild MJ. Environmental impact of crystalline silicon photovoltaic
module production. In: MRS proceedings; 2005 (895, 0895-G03-0). 〈http://dx.doi.
org/10.1557/PROC-0895-G03-05〉.
[3] Barber W. Distributed generation complicates resource planning for utilities.
Renewable energy World online; 24 February, 2014. 〈http://www.
renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/print/article/2014/02/distributed-
generation-complicates-resource-planning-for-utilities〉 [Accessed 4 August 2014].
[4] Barton D, Manyika J, Williamson SK. Finally proof that managing for the long term
pays off. Harvard Bus Rev 2017, [Accessed 9 February 2017] 〈https://hbr.org/
2017/02/finally-proof-that-managing-for-the-long-term-pays-off〉.
[5] Bergesen JD, Heath GA, Gibon T, Suh S. Thin-film photovoltaic power generation
offers decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing environmental co-
benefits in the long term. Environ Sci Technol 2014;48(16):9834–43.
[6] Brohé A. Wither the CDM? Investment outcomes and future prospects. Environ Dev
Sustain 2014;16(2):305–22.
[7] Draisey I. The Importance of solar PV module recycling. SolarIndustryMag.com; 14
April 2016. 〈http://solarindustrymag.com/the-importance-of-solar-pv-module-
recycling〉, [Accessed 1 July 2017].
[8] Electroiq. Are Solar PV farms polluting? March 2012; 2012. 〈http://www.efytimes.
com/e1/80168/Are-Solar-PV-Farms-Polluting〉, [Accessed 14 July 2014].
[9] EPIA. Sustainability of photovoltaic systems: the energy payback time; 2011.
〈http://www.epia.org/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&file=/uploads/tx_
epiafactsheets/110513_Fact_Sheet_on_the_Energy_Pay_Back_Time.
pdf&t=1407396472&hash=dca74b1579a0e5b2a631f91afd36959b46499f45〉
[Accessed 6 August 2014].
[10] Fraunhofer. Recent facts about photovoltaics in Germany, Fraunhofer ISE; 28 July
2014. 〈http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/veroeffentlichungen-pdf-
dateien-en/studien-und-konzeptpapiere/recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-
germany.pdf〉 [Accessed 7 August 2014].
[11] Friedrich Katherine. Minnesota may reward solar producers for climate change
reduction. Clean Energy Finance Forum. Yale Center for Business and the
Environment; 19 March 2014. 〈http://cleanenergyfinanceforum.com/2014/03/
19/minnesota-may-reward-solar-producers-for-climate-change-reduction/〉
[Accessed 14 July 2014].
[12] Fthenakis V, O Clark D, Moalem M, Chandler P, Ridgeway RG, Hulbert FE, Cooper
DB, Maroulis PJ. Life-cycle nitrogen trifluoride emissions from photovoltaics.
Environ Sci Technol 2010;44(22):8750–7.
[13] Fethenakis VM. Prevention and control of accidental releases of hazardous
materials in PV facilities. Progress Photovolt: Res Appl 1998;6:91–8.
[14] Fthenakis VM, Kim HC, Alsema E. Emissions from photovoltaic life cycles. Environ
Sci Technol 2008;42(6):2168–74.
[15] Fukurozaki SH, Zilles R, Sauer IL. Energy payback time and CO2 emissions of
1.2 kWp photovoltaic roof-top system in Brazil. I J Smart Grid Clean Energy
2013;2(2):164–9.
[16] Gehle Jeannine. Yingli Green energy corporate sustainability report published. Sun
& Wind Energy; May 2013. 〈http://www.sunwindenergy.com/news/yingli-green-
energy-corporate-sustainability-report-published〉 [Accessed 15 August 2014].
[17] Gies E. Solar Waste recycling: can the industry stay green? Greentechmedia.com;
18 August 2010. 〈http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-waste-
recycling-can-the-industry-stay-green〉 [Accessed 9 February 2017].
[18] Hwaseong. 1 MW PV power plant. Project design document. CDM project reference
[19] IEA. Snapshot of Global photovoltaic markets: 2015 report IEA PVPS T1-29:2016.
International Energy Agency; 2016. 〈http://www.iea-pvps.org/fileadmin/dam/
public/report/PICS/IEA-PVPS-A_Snapshot_of_Global_PV-1992-2015-Final_2_
02.pdf〉 [Accessed 27 April 2016].
[20] JA Solar. PV Diesel hybrid plant in North Africa. Sun & Wind Energy; 21 June
2016. 〈http://www.sunwindenergy.com/photovoltaics/pv-diesel-hybrid-plant-
north-africa〉 [Accessed 23 June 2016].
[21] Jing L. Carbon footprint from Chinese solar panels twice the size of those made in
Europe. South China morning post; 2 June 2014. 〈http://www.scmp.com/print/
news/china/article/1523493/carbon-footprint-chinese-solar-panels-twice-size-
those-made-europe〉. [Accessed 28 April 2016].
[22] Kraemer Susan. Solar panel recycling to see massive growth. PV Insider; 7 July
2014. 〈http://news.pv-insider.com/photovoltaics/solar-panel-recycling-see-
massive-growth〉 [Accessed 7 August 2014].
[23] Kronsbein P. PV cracks 300-GW-mark. Sun Wind Energy 2017, [25 January,
Accessed 28 January 2017] 〈http://www.sunwindenergy.com/photovoltaics/pv-
cracks-300-gw-mark〉.
[24] Krueger Lisa. First Solar’s module collection and recycling program; 2010. p. 24 of
30. 〈http://www.solarscorecard.com/panel/pdf/Lisa_Krueger.pdf〉 [Accessed 4
August 2014].
[25] LaFraniere Sharon. Chinese protesters accuse solar panel plant of pollution. The
New York Times; 18 September 2011. 〈http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/
world/asia/chinese-protesters-accuse-solar-panel-plant-of-pollution.html?_r=0〉
[Accessed 4 August 2014].
[26] Yingling Liu. The dirty side of a ‘Green’ industry. World Watch Institute; 14 March
2008.
[27] Lorenz P, Pinner D, Seitz T. The economics of solar power, The McKinsey
Quarterly. Mckinsey & Company; 2008. p. 1–11.
[28] Louwen A, van Sark WGJHM, Schropp REI, Turkenburg WC, Faaij APC. Life-cycle
greenhouse gas emissions and energy payback time of current and prospective
silicon heterojunction solar cell designs. Progress Photovolt: Res Appl
2015;23(10):1406–28.
[29] Mehta Shyam. Crucial solar manufacturing stats for 2014. Greentech Media; 17
March 2014. 〈http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Five-Crucial-Solar-
Manufacturing-Stats-for-2014-GTM-Research〉 [Accessed 13 July 2014].
[30] Meydbray J, Dross F. PV module reliability scorecard 2016. 〈https://www.dnvgl.
com/energy/publications/download/pv-reliability-scorecard-2016.html〉 [Accessed
13 February 2017].
[31] Mints P. Top ten PV cell manufacturers. RenewableEnergyWorld.com; 8 April
2016. 〈http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2016/04/2015-top-ten-
pv-cell-manufacturers.html〉 [Accessed 28 April 2016].
[32] Mints P. How the Don Quixote principle drives Solar. RenewableEnergyWorld.com;
6 August 2014. 〈http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/print/article/
2014/08/how-the-don-quixote-principle-drives-solar〉 [Accessed 28 April 2016].
[33] Mitchell S. Are Walmart’s green claims simply greenwashing?. Renew Energy
World 2014, [31 March, Accessed 13 July 2014] 〈http://www.
renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/03/are-walmarts-green-
claims-simply-greenwashing〉.
[34] Movellan J. Getting out of the weeds: how to control vegetative growth under solar
arrays. Renew Energy World 2014, [11 July, Accessed 6 August 2014] 〈http://
www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/07/weed-control-at-
solar-installations-what-works-best〉.
[35] Mueller Dennis C, Supina Dylan. Goodwill capital. Small Bus Econ
2002;19:233–53.
[36] Olsen B. Why are solar panel failures rising so fast? RECharge News; 3 November

881
S. Srinivasan, V.K.R. Kottam
2015. 〈http://www.rechargenews.com/solar/1414991/why-are-solar-panel-
failures-rising-so-fast〉 [Accessed 12 January 2016].
[37] PennEnergy. Kyocera solar modules power net-zero energy apartments in
California; 30 May 2013. 〈http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/
2013/05/kyocera-solar-renewable-energy-modules-power-net-zero-energy-apa.
html?Cmpid=EnlDailyPowerJune32013〉 [Accessed 6 August 2014].
[38] PennEnergy. Price For solar matches conventional energy in Germany, Italy and
Spain; 27 March 2014. 〈http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2014/
03/price-for-solar-power-matches-conventional-energy-in-germany-italy-and-
spain.html〉 [Accessed 6 August 2014].
[39] Peschel Tanja. Recycling PV modules could create huge economic potential. Sun
Wind Energy. 〈www.sunwindenergy.com/recycling-pv-modules-create-huge-
economic-potential〉 [21 June, Accessed 23 June 2016].
[40] Peschel Tanja. IEA reports strong worldwide growth in photovoltaics. Sun & Wind
Energy; 9 April 2014. 〈http://www.sunwindenergy.com/photovoltaics/iea-reports-
strong-worldwide-growth-photovoltaics〉 [Accessed 13 July 2014].
[41] Power-Eng. Inventor pushes solar panels for roads, highways. Power Engineering;
11 July 2014. 〈http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2014/07/inventor-pushes-
solar-panels-for-roads-highways.html?Cmpid=Enl-POE-weekly-July-15-2014〉
[Accessed 6 August 2014].
[42] PV Cycle. Waste prognosis; 2013. 〈http://www.pvcycle.org.uk/pv-recycling/waste-
prognosis/〉 [Accessed 4 August 2014].
[43] PV Cycle. Operational status report: Europe; 03 / 2016. 〈http://www.pvcycle.org/
wp-content/uploads/2016/01/PV-CYCLE-Status-Report-mar-2016.pdf〉 [Accessed
27 April 2016.2016].
[44] Schwartfeger L, Miller A, Schwartfeger L, Miller A. Environmental aspects of
photovoltaic solar power: the New Zealand context. In: Proceedings of the EEA
conference & exhibition 2015. Wellington; 24–26 June 2015. 〈http://www.
epecentre.ac.nz/research/need_slides/Environmental%20Aspect%20of
%20Photovoltaic%20Solar%20Power%20-%20The%20New%20Zealand
%20Context%20-%20Luke%20Schwartfeger,%20Allan%20Miler.pdf〉 [Accessed 2
July 2017.2017].
[45] Serrano-Luján Lucía , García-Valverde Rafael , Nieves Espinosa, García-Cascales
Socorro M, Sánchez-Lozano Juan M, Antonio Urbina. Environmental benefits of
parking – integrated photovoltaics: a 222 kWp Experience. Progress Photovolt: Res
Appl 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pip.2415, (Wiley Online Library).
[46] Sherwani AF, Usmani JA, Varun . Life cycle assessment of solar PV based electricity
882
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 874–882
generation systems: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:540–4.
[47] Simonen K. Life cycle assessment. London New York: Routledge; 2014. p. 9.
[48] Sinan JuengdoPV. CDM project 1883: monitoring report for the period; 1 May
2010 to 31October 2011. Daegu & Sinanjeungdo PV (Photovoltaic) Power Plant
Project; 17 January 2012. p. 1–10.
[49] Stone A. Renewables Are getting cheaper. But that doesn’t mean we should
eliminate subsidies, says IEA. greentechmedia.com; 7 June 2016. 〈http://www.
greentechmedia.com/articles/read/fueling-renewable-energy-growth-in-an-era-of-
declining-subsidies〉 [Accessed 23 June 2016].
[50] Weber E. cited in Radowitz B. In only five years, we have to double Global PV
production capacity. RECharge news; 23 June 2016. 〈http://www.rechargenews.
com/solar/1436424/in-only-five-years-we-have-to-double-global-pv-production-
capacity〉 [Accessed 23 June 2016].
[51] Wesoff E. The Top solar manufacturers are not necessarily making the highest-
quality Modules”modules greentechmedia.com; 15 June 2017. 〈https://www.
greentechmedia.com/articles/read/top-solar-manufacturers-are-not-making-the-
highest-quality-modules?Utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_
campaign=GTMDaily〉 [Accessed 18 June 2017].
[52] Wild – Scholten M. Life cycle assessment of photovoltaics: from cradle to cradle. In:
Proceedings of the 1st international conference on pv module recycling. Berlin,
Germany; 26 January 2010.
[53] Willis K, Ozdemiroglu E, Campbell D. Environmental economics and policy. J
Environ Econ Policy 2012;1(1):1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
21606544.2012.657819.
[54] WMW. 1000 t of solar modules collected for recycling in 3 months. Waste
Management World; 19 March; 2012. 〈http://www.waste-management-world.
com/index/display/article-display/5874594973/articles/waste-management-
world/recycling/2012/03/1000_Tonnes_of_Solar_Panels_Collected_for_
Recycling_in_3_Months.html?cmpid=EnlWMWMarch202012〉 [Accessed 14 July
2014.
[55] Yue D, You F, Darling SB. Domestic and overseas manufacturing scenarios of
silicon-based photovoltaics: lifelife cycle energy and environmental comparative
analysis. Sol Energy 2014;105:669–78.
[56] Zhai P, Williams ED. Dynamic hybrid life cycle assessment of energy and carbon of
multicrystalline silicon photovoltaic systems”systems. Environ Sci Technol
2010;44(20):7950–5.