green elec

8/3/2019 Green Elec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/green-elec 1/4

Volume 1 ■ Issue 3 ITAK26

PROCESS MANAGEMENT

There is a growing desire by governmental and privateinstitutional purchasers to reduce the environmentalimpact of the electronic products they buy. To date,however, institutional purchasers have not been able

to easily distinguish environmentally preferable productsamong all those in the marketplace. There was no consensuson what environmental aspects of a product should be evalu-ated, how they should be weighted, and how those aspectscould be incorporated into the purchasing process. Currentecolabels are either not well known, or the range of certifiedproducts is too limited for large purchasers. Governmentalpurchasers also lack the expertise to evaluate complex environ-mental issues.

The Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool(EPEAT) is a new approach for institutional purchasers to iden-tify and evaluate environmentally preferable electronic products.

It establishes a clear set of performance criteria for desktop com-puters, laptops and monitors and recognizes higher levels of environmental performance. The tool was developed by a multi-stakeholder group composed of equipment manufacturers, gov-ernmental and private purchasers, non-governmental organiza-tions and environmental professionals. It is designed to be easy to use, with an interactive Web site to speed product registration.The registration process will not slow time to market for new products. The tool encompasses a range of environmental attrib-utes, including toxic materials, material selection, lifecycle exten-sion, energy use, design for end of life and end-of-life manage-ment and packaging.

There is significant pent-up market demand for EPEAT.Currently 14 federal agencies and four states have pledged touse the tool in future electronics purchasing, representing morethan $10 billion in purchasing potential. As a result, several

Green Electronics A Look at the Development of EPEAT

by John Katz, Wayne Rifer and Allen R. Wilson

IT0705_PROCESS_Katz 6/30/05 9:44 AM Page 26

8/3/2019 Green Elec


ITAK Volume 1 ■ Issue 3

PROCESS MANAGEMENT

major manufacturers have indicated an interest in registeringthat their products meet the EPEAT standards. This article willreview the development of EPEAT, including the structure of the tool, the criteria considered and the next steps in its devel-opment. First, however, we will review the current market forgreen electronic products.

NATURE OF THE GREEN ELECTRONICS MARKET

The government purchasing market is large and growing. Thefederal government spent $10.6 billion in 2004 on informationtechnology (IT) infrastructure, office automation and telecom-munications, and is projected to spend $10.95 billion in 2006.State and local purchasing is estimated to be double thatamount. As the need for IT equipment grows, so does thedemand for greener products. There are three executive ordersmandating federal agencies to buy environmentally preferableproducts. Currently, more than 18 states, 30 counties and 20cities have policies establishing preferences for a wide range of environmentally preferable products.

Increasingly, these procurement policies are targeting electron-ic products. Electronics are one of the fastest growing segmentsof the solid waste stream. A recent report entitled ExportingHarm published by the Basel Action Network showed how

waste electronics are poisoning communities in developingcountries. This has galvanized activists to demand that manu-facturers and purchasers improve the environmental footprintof electronic products. To date, Massachusetts, Minnesota andthe 15-state Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) haveincluded environmental criteria in recent contract specificationsfor IT equipment. In addition, California will be developingpurchasing guidelines for environmentally preferable electron-ics in July 2005. Finally, more than 14 federal agencies havesigned up for the Federal Electronics Challenge, thereby com-

mitting to incorporate environmental considerations when buy-ing, maintaining and disposing of electronic equipment.However, all these efforts are still struggling with defining

what makes a greener electronic product. A review of ecolabelsby the Electronics Industry Alliance (EIA) found more than adozen programs that involve third-party certification to specif-ic standards, and many more self-declaration programs. Someof the best known are Germany’s Blue Angel, the EuropeanUnion’s Eco-Flower, the Swedish TCO label and the JapaneseEco-Mark. The criteria addressed by these labels can vary wide-ly. While they share many identical criteria, EIA found thatlabeling programs attempt to differentiate their label by addingunique criteria. This means manufacturers are forced to respondto requirements that vary widely in terms of the environmentalaspects covered, the level of documentation required and therelative weighting given to environmental attributes. In addi-tion, some of the labels require significant investment of timeand cost, which can be difficult to justify given the short prod-uct cycle for many electronic products. As a result, manufactur-ers do not widely support these labels.

Purchasers also find that current ecolabels do not include abroad enough range of products to meet their need for compet-itive bids. For instance, a February 2005 review of certified prod-ucts on the TCO Web site found only four portable computers

27

EPEAT Development TeamMember AffiliationsPURCHASERS (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE)

■ US Department of the Interior■ State of Massachusetts■ State of Oregon■ City of Seattle■ GATX Inc.■ Pitney Bowes

ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURERS■ Apple Computer■ Dell Computer■ Electronic Industries Alliance■ Hewlett Packard■ IBM■ Intel■ Panasonic Matsushita Electronics■ Sharp Electronics

RECYCLING INDUSTRY ■ Noranda Recycling■ United Recycling Industries■ International Association of Electronics Recyclers■

Waste Management Inc.

ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS■ New Jersey Institute of Technology■ Tufts University■ University of Tennessee

NGOs■ Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition■ Center for a New American Dream■ Northeast Recycling Coalition

■ Healthcare for a Healthy Environment■ INFORM Inc.■ Zero Waste Alliance

ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES■ Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance■ US Environmental Protection Agency■ CA Integrated Waste Management Board

IT0705_PROCESS_Katz 6/30/05 9:45 AM 7

8/3/2019 Green Elec


Volume 1 ■ Issue 3 ITAK

PROCESS MANAGEMENT

28

and 20 system units (all of submitted by one company). TheGerman ecolabel Blue Angel also has limited offerings. Thereare only seven computer monitors listed as certified, and 34system units for desktop personal computers. More than two-thirds of the system units are slight model variations providedby only two companies. Lacking a consistent standard they canapply, government and private purchasers have tried to devel-op their own. They have found, however, that they do not havethe resources or expertise to collect and evaluate the complexenvironmental information needed to identify and select envi-ronmentally preferable electronics.

RESPONDING TO THE NEED

The development of EPEAT was prompted by the growingdemand by institutional purchasers for an easy-to-use evalua-tion tool that allows the comparison and selection of electron-ic products based on environmental performance. The Zero

Waste Alliance, through a grant from the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), convened a set of stakeholders toestablish the scope and process for developing a tool that wouldmeet this demand. The electronics industry welcomed andactively participated in the development of EPEAT and envi-sioned EPEAT as a way to communicate relevant and meaning-ful information to institutional purchasers about the environ-mental impacts posed by electronic products. Following an ini-tial scoping meeting and stakeholder assessment, the EPEATdevelopment team was convened to design the system.

The development team was composed of representativesfrom electronics manufacturers, public and private purchasers,environmental organizations, recyclers and federal and stateenvironmental agency representatives. See Table 1 for a list of organizations represented on the EPEAT development team.

The mission of the development team was to “develop anenvironmental procurement tool designed to help institution-al purchasers in the public and private sectors evaluate, com-pare and select desktop computers, laptops and monitorsbased on their environmental attributes.” The developmentteam identified that the tool should:

■ Promote continuous improvement in the environmentalperformance without stifling, and while encouraging,innovation;

■ Address the lifecycle of electronic products, including butnot limited to design, procurement, use and end-of-life;

■ Inform purchasing decisions by institutional purchasersregarding the environmental attributes of electronic products;

■ Offer market advantage for companies that provide prod-ucts and services that achieve improved environmental per-formance;

■ Be low cost, user friendly and cause minimal delay in timeto market;

■ Produce credible, verifiable outcomes that are accepted by relevant stakeholders and;

■ Provide sufficient value in the marketplace to sustain itself.The development team completed its work in November

2004. It established both a proposed structure and process forevaluating and registering products to EPEAT criteria, and putforward a draft set of criteria. The tool is now in a transitionphase, as those recommendations are being honed and a hostorganization is being chosen to implement the tool.

PROPOSED STRUCTURE AND CRITERIA FOR EPEAT

The EPEAT tool will recognize three tiers of environmentalperformance for electronic performance—Bronze, Silver andGold. The complete set of EPEAT criteria includes 22 manda-tory criteria (all criteria must be met to achieve “baseline”EPEAT ranking) and 33 optional criteria (producers can pick and choose among these criteria to boost their EPEAT baseline“score” to achieve a higher ranking level). The three tiers aredefined as:

■ Bronze: Product meets all 22 mandatory criteria.■ Silver: Product meets all 22 mandatory criteria plus at least

16 optional criteria.■ Gold: Product meets all 22 mandatory criteria plus at least

25 optional criteria.Manufacturers will sign a formal Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) that commits them to provide accurateproduct and company information and provides for remediesshould inaccuracies be discovered. Manufacturers will self-declare, via a Web-based interface, that their specific productsmeet EPEAT criteria. The host organization will manage theMOU process, maintain the Web site, and check to ensure

product submissions are entered correctly and completely.Once that process is complete, the manufacturer can marketthose products to purchasers as “EPEAT registered.” To verify that the tool works, the EPEAT organization will randomly select a subset of qualified products each year to verify theirqualification.

The criteria were developed to ensure that EPEAT is abalanced and comprehensive tool that covers multiple envi-ronmental attributes throughout the product’s lifecycle.EPEAT was meant to establish a leadership standard, so thecriteria are stringent enough to promote better environmen-tal design, manufacture and end-of-life management, whilereflecting existing technologies and technical limitations sothat a supply of EPEAT products will be available topurchasers. All the criteria needed to be measurable or quan-tifiable, so there was no question about subjective judgmentsin the registration process.

The draft criteria address eight key areas: reduction/elimina-tion of environmentally sensitive materials; materials selection;design for end of life; product longevity; lifecycle extension;end-of-life management; corporate performance; and packaging.Most criteria refer to environmental performance characteris-tics of the specific product (which is defined as chassis andmarketing model). To register a product, manufacturers select

Taken as a whole, the EPEATsystem will provide purchasers

with a simple and verifiable programfor the selection of environmentally sustainable products.


8/3/2019 Green Elec


PROCESS MANAGEMENT

those criteria that apply to that particular product. In additionto the product-specific criteria, there are several that addressgeneral corporate programs, such as having a corporate envi-ronmental policy.

NEXT STEPS FOR EPEAT

The development team completed its work in November2004. It established a smaller implementation team to man-age the transition of EPEAT from the development phaseinto full implementation. The main task remaining is toselect a host organization (or organizations) that will take onthe task of implementing the EPEAT system. That organiza-tion will be expected to conduct a public review process forthe current criteria, launch the system and register productsby early 2006. The development team also gave clear direc-tion that the host organization should regularly revise theexisting criteria to reflect changing technology, and add new products to EPEAT.

Some factors being considered in the selection of the hostorganization include whether or not the it should be an officialstandard setting body; whether the standard development func-tion and certification and validation functions should be sepa-rated, and the ability of the host organization to support arobust tool. The implementation team expects to select a host

organization or organizations by mid-2005. In the meantime,the Web-based registration tool is currently under development.

Taken as a whole, the EPEAT system—the criteria, data anddocumentation requirements, manufacturer agreements,processes for after-market verification, and commitments tofuture updates and extensions—will provide purchasers with asimple and verifiable program for the selection of environ-mentally sustainable products. In addition, the criteria willprovide a single, practical system for manufacturers to demon-strate the environmental performance of their products.

The overall EPEAT result carefully balances stakeholder con-cerns and promotes overall environmental improvement. TheEPEAT stakeholders request the EPEAT package be followedin its entirety. The EPEAT criteria are designed to be used asa comprehensive whole. The development team strongly rec-ommends that users of the EPEAT tool do not selectively pick and choose among the EPEAT criteria or amend or modify their potential product scope or application. Doing so would

weaken the impact and results of the overall EPEAT process.

John Katz is pollution prevention coordinator with the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Wayne Rifer is the EPEAT project manager with Rifer Environmental. Allen R.Wilson is with Intel Corp.


green elec

Documents