Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsReducing chipmaking’s environmental impact means measuring more than electricity or carbon alone. A change that cuts process-gas emissions can increase energy use; a faster cleaning step may also reduce water consumption. Imec’s approach is to model impacts across a semiconductor process flow, then test specific changes in its R&D fab while checking effects on production performance and other environmental categories.
Why chip manufacturing needs a process-level sustainability measure
Advanced chip production has linked environmental burdens: electricity used by process tools and fab infrastructure, direct emissions from process gases, water and chemical consumption, and upstream impacts from materials and equipment. Looking at only one measure can hide a trade-off—for example, reducing a gas may require a longer process step that consumes more power.
Imec’s Sustainable Semiconductor Technologies and Systems (SSTS) program organizes its work around assessment, improvement and disruptive process research. Its imec.netzero framework combines data about equipment, recipes, infrastructure and process flows, drawing on imec’s 300 mm fab and ecosystem suppliers. Imec says the model is benchmarked against comparable data from foundries and integrated device manufacturers. The program uses modeling to help direct R&D-fab investigations and collaborates with manufacturers, fabless and system companies, IDMs, and equipment and materials suppliers. Imec’s SSTS program page describes the program and its partners.
In an article dated 19 August 2025, imec described imec.netzero as a virtual fab representing a generic high-volume manufacturing entity. It estimates both process-level and facility or sub-fab contributions, including utilities such as chillers, emission abatement and equipment power. The modeled outcome depends on inputs such as yield, production volume, tool utilization, die size and assumed electricity supply; it is not a universal industry measurement or a prediction for any particular factory. Imec’s article reports the examples below.
Recommended Free Tools
What the modeled footprint reveals—and what it cannot
For a modeled N2 logic example, imec reported an estimated 1,600 kg CO₂eq per wafer. In that scenario, dry etch and lithography together accounted for nearly 40% of emissions. Imec also said Scope 2 electricity could represent up to 60% of the modeled footprint, depending on assumptions such as electricity generation. These figures illustrate how a particular modeled flow can help identify priorities; they should not be read as averages across chipmakers.
The model also shows why yield belongs in an environmental comparison. Imec’s scenario for a large die at N2 estimated that a 2% yield loss corresponds to approximately 42 tons CO₂eq. This is a scenario-specific illustration, not an observed industry-wide average: when fewer usable chips come from a wafer, the impacts of the resources and processing invested in that wafer are spread across fewer working dies.
Rank #2
Imec’s comparative chart aggregates five categories: Scope 1 direct emissions, Scope 2 purchased electricity, Scope 3 upstream impacts, abiotic depletion potential (a measure related to material scarcity), and water use. A favorable result in one category does not establish that a process is better overall, and the chart does not yet include PFAS; imec says that may be added in future.
Three process changes, with their trade-offs
Lithography: lower exposure dose, assess the whole patterning step
Lithography tools are energy-intensive, and patterning becomes more complex at advanced nodes. In an N7 analysis, imec found that replacing a 193i-based process with EUV lowered modeled energy use per wafer. It also described an 18% lower EUV dose for a 28 nm pitch pattern, indicative of imec’s N5 logic node. In imec’s five-category comparison, that dose reduction corresponded to an 11% lower total environmental impact.
Imec’s example treats dose as one lever, not the sole measure of success. Dose reduction can improve throughput while preserving imaging performance, but the environmental comparison also needs to account for electricity, materials, process gases and water where relevant.
Dry etch: reduce high-impact gases without shifting the burden
In its N2 model, imec identifies dry etch as a major Scope 1 source, particularly because of high-global-warming-potential gases such as CF₄ and NF₃. Abatement can reduce emissions, but imec notes that CF₄ is difficult to abate efficiently.
Rank #4
For a hard-mask-open process, imec tested Transient Assisted Processing (TAP), which uses brief controlled gas pulses rather than continuous flow. Compared with the original process, the example eliminated two of three high-GWP gases and reduced CF₄ consumption by 98%. The first TAP variant, however, ran longer and used more energy and material. A hybrid combining TAP with reactive-ion etching restored throughput while retaining lower gas consumption. This process-specific result demonstrates why a gas-emissions reduction should be checked against energy, materials and production performance.
Wet cleaning: use less water in a tested process comparison
Imec compared the established SCROD backside clean—which repeatedly alternates ozonated-water oxidation and diluted-HF etching—with a single-step, self-limiting HydroFluoric Ozonated Mixture (FOM) clean. In imec’s process tests, FOM achieved similar silicon loss, particle removal and surface roughness while using two times less water and running more than two times faster than SCROD. Imec reported a 37% lower environmental impact for the FOM comparison.
Best Value
Imec also estimates that wet processing accounts for about half of per-wafer chemical use in its modeled N2 flow and describes wet processes as major users of ultrapure water (UPW). The FOM result is an imec-tested process comparison, not evidence that the cleaning method is a ready-made option for every fab or process flow.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to evaluate a chipmaking sustainability change
A sound comparison needs a defined process boundary and performance requirements, not just a headline reduction. Useful questions include:
- Which impacts are counted? Check Scope 1 process emissions, Scope 2 electricity, Scope 3 upstream impacts, water use and material scarcity rather than relying on a single carbon or resource metric.
- Does the process still work? Compare yield, contamination and particle control, surface quality, throughput and compatibility with the surrounding process flow.
- What assumptions set the boundary? Record the node, fab and sub-fab utilities, electricity mix, abatement rate, tool utilization, die size, production volume and yield used in the comparison.
- What resources or costs shift? Account for chemicals, water, energy, waste, scarce materials and operational or capital implications.
- How mature is the evidence? Distinguish a modeled scenario from an R&D-fab experiment and from a result validated at production scale.
Why shared data and upstream impacts matter
Precise environmental data for advanced IC manufacturing remain limited, according to imec, which makes standardized data and collaboration across the value chain important. The partner list displayed on the SSTS page includes companies from manufacturing, fabless and system businesses, IDMs, equipment, materials and gases; the list can change over time.
Upstream materials are another challenge. An abstract for the 2026 Imec Technology Forum describes life-cycle assessment work to identify material hotspots and warns that public life-cycle inventories may not reflect the energy and emissions involved in semiconductor-grade purification. Because purification data are incomplete, hotspot rankings should not be treated as settled. The abstract also discusses closed-loop recovery and recycling of critical raw materials.
A related European initiative, GENESIS, was announced by imec on 6 June 2025. Coordinated by CEA-Leti, the three-year project includes 58 partners and a budget close to €55 million. Its work areas include emissions monitoring, PFAS-free and lower-impact materials, waste minimization and recycling, and critical raw-material mitigation. Imec says it leads work on PFAS-free photoresists, emissions monitoring and life-cycle assessment. CEA-Leti’s Sustainable Electronics Program director Laurent Pain said: “GENESIS is designed to address the complex challenges of building a truly sustainable semiconductor ecosystem. Its structure reflects both the urgency and the opportunity of Europe’s green transition, powered by the complementary expertise and close collaboration of its partners.” Imec’s GENESIS announcement outlines the project.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
