Clarifying influence and responsibility

• The group aligned on the need to clearly distinguish what content providers can directly influence (such as application design choices) versus areas where engagement with manufacturers, policymakers or industry bodies is required.

From theory to action

• Strong support emerged for developing a clear, high‑level framework outlining actionable decisions content providers can make that may affect device energy use, such as codec choices and default application settings.

Device lifecycle matters

• Participants highlighted the importance of considering full device lifecycles, including software support longevity, compatibility constraints and the emissions trade‑offs involved in extending versus replacing devices.

Nuance over simplification

• The discussion reinforced that widely cited interventions (e.g. eco modes, resolution limits) can have highly variable impacts depending on device type, user behaviour and context, requiring careful interpretation.

Evidence and data quality

• Concerns were raised about inconsistent or poorly sourced industry claims on device efficiency, with agreement on the value of establishing a trusted, centralised evidence base.

Regulation and future trends

• Emerging EU and national regulations were flagged as increasing scrutiny on device efficiency, alongside the need to contextualise policy‑driven efficiency forecasts with transparent assumptions.

Collaboration beyond DIMPACT

• Opportunities were identified to engage with external research bodies and industry groups to deepen understanding and avoid duplicating existing work.

Foundation for future work

• Initial ideas were agreed to develop shared resources, draft guidance for publication, and document open questions and tensions to guide later analysis.

The session set a strong foundation for structured, evidence‑led collaboration on end‑user devices.