1

Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 2 ______

Vision for Sustainable Electronics July 2015

NOTE: This is a discussion draft (NOT YET FOR PUBLIC RELEASE), for which we are seeking comments, edits, and

feedback from experts from industry, academia, government and NGO’s. Please send us any feedback by October 1, 2015, to: [email protected] Thank-you. Barbara Kyle and Ted Smith, ETBC

Electronics TakeBack Coalition 4200 Park Blvd. #228, Oakland, CA 94602 www.electronicstakeback.org

Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 3 ______Contents

Executive Summary Page 2 Why do we need a vision for sustainable electronics? Page 4 It’s time for new strategies for sustainability in electronics Page 7 What are the current impacts from the lifecycle of electronics Page 9 - 24 products? • Hazards and harm • Destruction of communities and resources • Wasted natural resources: energy and water. • Wasteful inputs. High resource churn of virgin materials, many of which are scarce. • Wasteful outputs. • Sweatshop working conditions. • A business model that makes problems worse (that thwarts sustainability efforts) The New Vision for Sustainable Electronics Must Offer Solutions Page 24 to Current Impacts and Problems Principles for Sustainable Electronics Page 27 The Sustainability Matrix Page 29 Detailed Vision Goals Across Product Lifecycle Conclusions Page 38 Next steps Page 41 Glossary of terms Page 47

Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 2 ______Executive summary Definitely not green. In spite of all of the hype about “Clean Tech” branding, it’s easy to see that the electronics industry has a long way to go to become a “green” industry, if that’s even possible. The industry consumes enormous amounts of materials, energy and water, with a large toxic footprint that externalizes the costs of using these toxic chemicals onto the least protected communities and workers around the globe. While leading companies have made significant progress on energy efficiency, product recycling, and packaging, most have done little to effectively address the enormous churn of resources used to make their products. Perhaps even more challenging are the abysmal labor conditions in the factories where the components are made and final products are assembled. Purchasers care and are engaged. Fortunately, institutional purchasers, including the federal government, states, cities, some private companies, universities, and hospitals have shown us that they want to use their buying power to drive change. They want to buy greener and more sustainable products; they have largely turned to eco labels like EPEAT for guidance on which products are environmentally preferable. But eco labels are limited. The problem is that while these labels are a useful tool, they are still very limited in terms of driving comprehensive change. The criteria in them reflect what we consider to be some leading sustainability attributes of the products currently on the market. Some criteria address corporate level activities, but most are specific to the product. But they represent a somewhat random collection of criteria, conceived by the group of stakeholders who have time and expertise to spend two to three years (or longer) in the standards development process. We’re ignoring the most important question. What we never do is to challenge ourselves to answer this question: What is a sustainable electronic product? • What are the characteristics of a sustainable electronic product? • Under what conditions, across its lifecycle, would it be developed, used, and recycled? • Who controls the various decision points along the way that could result in more or less sustainable results? • Where are the leverage points that people can mobilize around to affect change?

First we need to answer these questions; then determine how we can apply this directional knowledge to use our eco-labels, corporate CSR reports, GRI indicators, and other sustainability efforts to identify progress towards those goals. We need a vision. This report is our effort to start to answer those very complex, connected, (and somewhat daunting) questions. Our hope is that this will inform company and/or industry

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 3 ______roadmaps for how the electronics sector will move from its current state towards a more sustainable industry, and help all of us – the Brands, suppliers, government regulators, academics, purchasers, advocates - identify metrics and develop tools that measure true progress along the long road toward sustainability.

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 4 ______Why do we need a vision for sustainable electronics?

Yet our voracious appetite for new electronics Lifecycle of electronics is keeps expanding, putting more pressure on the impacted communities and the planet’s anything but green dwindling resources (including critical minerals1) without making comparable gains using safer materials, in recycling or reuse of materials or components. Recent media reports have shocked people around the world about electronics workers in China suffering from harsh working conditions, explosions, and chemical exposures, as they rush to meet a production deadline so we can have The high-tech revolution has brought us inter- the newest gadgets. These are only the latest connectedness, communication and information examples of similar problems that have been capacity unimaginable just a few years ago. well documented over the past few decades. Many of us can barely remember how we functioned before smart phones and tablets, and By the numbers we can’t wait to get the dazzling new versions of these and other beloved gadgets. . 81% of a desktop computer’s energy use is in MAKING the computer, not using In spite of decades of efforts by advocates, most it.2 people are still unaware of the high costs of . To manufacture one computer and developing all these high tech gadgets on our monitor, it takes 530 pounds of fossil environment, health and resources. fuels, 48 pounds of chemicals, and 1.5 3 The electronics industry is materials, energy and tons of water. water intensive, with a large toxic footprint that . A single semiconductor manufacturing externalizes the costs of using these toxic plant uses between 2 to 4 million gallons chemicals onto the least protected communities of water per day – the same as a city of and workers around the globe, from extraction 40,000 or 50,000 people.4 and production through the “end-of-life” phase of these products.

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 5 ______

Consumers ask “what can I buy that’s really green?”

The honest answer is “Nothing, yet.”

From Story of Electronics, by Ruben DeLuna, Free Range Studios

Consumers and businesses alike want to identify efficient to use, they have a long way to go in the greenest electronics available for purchase. addressing other environmental and social We regularly receive inquiries from reporters, concerns, including energy use in manufacturing. students, or consumers asking how to identify Eco labels can identify “greener” but not “the greenest phone” or a “green laptop.” “green” The good news is that many consumers and There are some eco labels for electronics that businesses are eager to identify and purchase evaluate some electronic products against a the greenest electronics available. But the range of environmental attributes. The primary problem is that manufacturers aren’t providing labels used in the U.S. are EPEAT (computers, us with truly green options yet, despite their TVs, imaging devices, and in late 2015 or 2016, marketing claims. While they have made the servers) and UL Environment (mobile phones). most progress in making products more energy- Similar labels are used primarily outside the US,

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 6 ______

like Blue Angel (Germany) and TCO Certified easier to disassemble. Slightly more recycled (Sweden), EU Ecolabel (Europe). content. But these criteria amount to a random collection of metrics rather than a clear path Eco labels aren’t driving significant change towards sustainability. These eco labels can help purchasers identify Slightly better may not be the best next step products meeting some modest eco metrics, and they have encouraged some companies to If significant transformation is needed, “slightly make modest changes. But these labels have better” may not always be the right next step. not been driving the kind of significant, For example, it’s generally assumed that more wholesale change needed to eventually result in recycled plastic content in a product is actually “sustainable” products. They typically desirable, and EPEAT criteria reward increased ignore (or barely address) significant phases of post-consumer recycled content. the product lifecycle (like mining/extraction, But if, for example, the real goal is to use production, and poor labor conditions infinitely recyclable material – to which no throughout the global supply chain). virgin material need be added – then maybe Because these are standards for purchasers to using higher amounts of recycled content of the use to guide their purchasing, they must current plastics (which can only be recycled a contain criteria that at least some products few times) is not a step that gets us closer to already meet. They do not serve to “push the that goal. envelope” of sustainability when they can’t look It is clear that we need to be asking those bigger much farther than what the leaders in the questions. We need to looks beyond the next industry are currently doing or are willing to do few steps forward, towards a long term vision very soon. of sustainability in each phase of the product And without a clear overriding vision for lifecycle. sustainability, stakeholders are left to draft We need a new strategy. criteria that often represent what’s deemed slightly better (or slightly less worse) than before. Slightly more energy efficient. Slightly

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 7 ______

It’s time for new strategies for sustainability

Improvements in sustainability should keep pace with improvements in technology It’s time to recognize that we need a robust new strategy or strategies for the kind of changes we seek – to define sustainability in truly green terms that will seriously push the

envelope in the electronics sector. What we need is a broad and bold plan to You need to know your change the current dynamics, and to challenge destination before you can the electronics industry to apply its considerable talents for innovation to designing draw your roadmap. for real sustainability (and not just for product A serious effort to define green electronics performance and style). Progress on must start with a clear long-term vision. What sustainability should keep pace with the is a sustainable electronic product? What are its advances in technology. characteristics? What are the practices used We need a strategy that harnesses the throughout the lifecycle to create it? This purchasing power of consumers and businesses, definition does not currently exist. schools and governments to push this industry Once we answer those questions, we can work to give us truly green options to choose from. to determine the steps that can take us from where we are today to where we need to go – to achieve sustainable electronics. We need to identify the destination first, then create the We need to identify the roadmap to get us there. destination first, then create

the roadmap to get us there.

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 8 ______

What is the lifecycle of electronics products? This report addresses sustainability across the full lifecycle of the electronic products. The primary stages of the lifecycle are as follows:

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 9 ______

What are the current impacts from the whole lifecycle of electronics products? Before we can map where we need to go, we need to understand the current impacts of the industry. Our analysis begins by looking at the current unsustainable practices across the entire product lifecycle. The impacts can be grouped into six major categories: 1. Hazards and harm from toxic chemicals and other practices 2. Destruction of communities and resources 3. Wasted natural resources: energy and water. 4. Wasteful churn of virgin materials, many of which are scarce, with minimal recovery. 5. Sweatshop working conditions. 6. A business model that makes problems worse (that thwarts sustainability efforts). This section provides an overview of these impacts. ImpactImpact # #1:1: HazardsHazards and and harm harm from from toxic toxic chemicals chemicals and and other other practices practices Toxic chemicals used in products and production, as well as in extraction, cause great harm to workers Toxic chemicals used in products and production, as well as in extraction, cause great harm to workers (extraction, production and recycling workers), communities, the environment, and sometimes even (extraction, production and recycling workers), communities, the environment, and sometimes even consumers. The cost of using toxic materials is externalized onto these groups. consumers. The cost of using toxic materials is externalized onto these groups. Here are some examples of the hazards and harm caused in each phase of the product lifecycle. Here are some examples of the hazards and harm caused in each phase of the product lifecycle.

Hazard and harm in extraction TOXIC CHEMICALS USED TO EXTRACT MINERALS Mining sites around the world provide far too many examples of hazards and harm from toxic After digging up rocks and soil to expose ores, chemicals used to extract minerals, to separate mining companies will often use very toxic ore from rock, or emitted in smelting the extracted material. According to the Blacksmith Institute, there are more than 350 sites around the world which are polluted from mining and ore processing, potentially putting more than 6.7 million people at risk.5 In 2013 the metal mining industry accounting for almost half of the toxic emissions or disposal in the U.S., as reported via the annual Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting.6 Open Pit gold mine in New Zealand. Photo by Peter Seager, iStockphoto

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 10 ______

chemicals to separate the minerals from the hundreds or thousands of years after the ore. mining activity has ceased. • Sulfuric acid is used to separate copper from ore. It is also a byproduct of many kinds of mining, mixing with water and heavy metals to form acid mine drainage (see below). • Cyanide is used to separate gold from ore. Mines will spray cyanide onto huge piles of crushed ore to leach the gold out. To produce enough gold for a ring, about 18 Rio Tinto region, Spain, July 2002. tonnes (20 short tons) of waste ore are Photo: Carol Stoker, NASA Ames Research 7 created. Center • Mercury is sometimes used in mining There are many examples just in the U.S. where silver and gold. mines have generated acid mine drainage, the mining company filed for bankruptcy, leaving Hydraulic fracking, to extract natural gas, uses a behind state or federal Superfund cleanup range of toxic petroleum based chemicals, sites, costing millions of dollars.9 Many consider including benzene (a carcinogen), toluene, the slow, chronic harm from acid mine drainage xylene, and ethylbenzene (a suspected to be the biggest pollution problem created by carcinogen).8 Some of these chemicals remain mining because it causes so much damage, is in the ground, and can pollute drinking water ridiculously expensive (if not impossible) to sources. correct, and it continues for decades or centuries after the mine has ceased operation. ACID MINE DRAINAGE – MINING CREATES SULFURIC ACID WHICH POLLUTES WATER SMELTER EMISSIONS: Many metals, including cadmium, cobalt, Toxic sulfur dioxide emissions. “Worldwide, copper, lead, molybdenum, nickel, silver, zinc, smelting adds about 142 million tons of sulfur gold and platinum group metals, are commonly dioxide to the atmosphere every year. That’s 13 found bound up in rocks with sulfur (as sulfide 10 percent of total global emissions. Breathing minerals). When the mining process exposes sulfur dioxide can cause respiratory illness, such these sulfides to water and air, together they as asthma. form sulfuric acid. The sulfuric acid can then Toxic lead emissions. In La Oroya, Peru, dissolve other harmful metals from the emissions from a metals smelter has caused surrounding rock (often from piles of mining serious harm to nearby residents. A health tailings) into the water, which makes its way 11 study conducted by the Peruvian Ministry of into streams, lakes, and groundwater. This is Health found: called Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) and it can • 99 percent of the children have severe cause devastating harm to rivers and streams, lead poisoning and any fish or other aquatic life, for even

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 11 ______

• 20 percent of these children needed RADIOACTIVE WASTE FROM MINING RARE urgent hospitalization EARTH METALS Some rare earth minerals occur alongside radioactive elements, making mining, processing, and waste handling highly dangerous. In 2014 the Malaysian government granted a license to Australian company Lynas to operate a new rare earth processing plant there, despite years of protests by thousands of residents, concerned about radiation dangers to people and the environment.

Photo: Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund

Greenhouse Gas emissions. Smelters burn huge amounts of fuel, generating substantial quantities of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Aluminum smelters, for example, release 2 tons of carbon dioxide and 1.4 kilos of PFCs for every ton of aluminum produced.12

TOXIC WASTE FROM MINING Open pit mining generates enormous amounts of waste in rubble dug up to get to the ores, and in “tailings” – waste from on-site ore processing. In 2001, metals mines in the U.S. produced 1,300 tons of toxic waste—46 percent of the total for all US industry combined— including 96 percent of all reported arsenic emissions, and 76 percent of all lead emissions.”13 A toxic tailings pond in Baotou in Inner Mongolia, which receives toxic waste from nearby plants refining neodymium and cerium, was called the “worst place on earth” by the BBC in April 2015.

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 12 ______

Hazard and harm in lung cancer deaths in the country, which many residents believe is linked manufacturing to the chemical industry. The manufacturing phase of the lifecycle WORKER EXPOSURES FROM SEMICONDUCTOR includes several things: • Refining chemicals • Processing chemicals into manufacturing materials • Semiconductor and printed circuit board manufacturing • Component manufacturing (like flat panels, hard drives, cables, etc.) • Final product assembly

All of these manufacturing activities can cause harm to people (workers and residents near manufacturing sites) as well as to the The “moon suits” worn by workers in electronics environment, from discharges, emissions and “clean rooms” are used to protect the products spills. Much of the manufacturing is now done from dust, but they do little to protect workers in developing nations, especially in Asia, where from exposure to chemicals. laws to protect public health and the Photo © Springdt313 |Di environment are weak, and are rarely enforced. MANUFACTURING Here are just a few examples of the harm occurring in manufacturing: Semiconductor manufacturing uses many highly toxic chemicals, including toxic metals and CHEMICAL REFINING and PROCESSING solvents. While some manufacturers have • Toxic releases. According to the 2013 modified processes to limit exposure to these U.S. Toxics Release Index reports, chemicals, releases and exposures continue to chemical manufacturing in the U.S. occur regularly during regular maintenance.16 generated 523 million pounds of toxic Information on chemicals used and worker chemicals released or disposed.14 health effects in the semiconductor industry is • Global toxic polluter. The Blacksmith closely guarded by the manufacturers. But over Institute (now called Pure Earth) lists the years, disturbing health patterns among chemical manufacturing as the ninth semiconductor workers have emerged in the worst global toxic polluters, with petro- U.S., Scotland, Korea, and Taiwan, which led to chemical manufacturing in the top 15.15 epidemiological studies. Findings from these • Cancer Alley, Louisiana. The 100 mile studies include: stretch between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, Louisiana known as “cancer • Elevated risk for some types of cancer : alley” is home to more than 100 breast (Taiwan), lung (UK), brain and chemical and oil refineries, along the hematologic – leukemia, lymphoma - Mississippi River. Louisiana consistently (US), hematologic cancer (Korea)17 has the highest rates of lung cancer and

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 13 ______

• Adverse reproductive outcomes were in the engineers and operators than in consistently observed across studies. administrators, who work away from the • Birth defects and cancer among semiconductor processing. offspring also identified. COMPONENT MANUFACTURING Cancer cluster in Korea. Over 163 workers at Samsung Semiconductor plants in South Korea have become sick, and 56 of them, mostly young women, have died, largely from blood and brain cancers. While Samsung has denied any connection between the cancers and the workplace, two government decisions (one by the court, one by the state run worker compensation agency) have suggested that cancer related deaths of two workers may be 18 related to their work at Samsung. iStockphoto In 2014, Samsung Electronics Co.. Ltd. made a Heavy metal exposure in public apology to the victims of the cluster at its circuit board manufacturing. chip plants and promised compensation for them. However, under the compensation A 2013 study of worker exposure at a circuit proposal made by Samsung, only 14 out of 163 board manufacturing plant in Egypt found, victims will receive compensation.19 “considerable exposure to heavy metals and solvents during the process of manufacturing printed circuit boards, especially during electrolysis, etching, drilling and electroplating.” It found significantly higher levels of lead, cadmium, and copper in blood of manufacturing workers, as well as higher levels of occupational asthma, compared to administrative workers. 21

Families of victims who worked for Samsung Indium lung disease. Indium-tin-oxide is used in Semiconductor and died from cancer, protest inaction touch screens on tablets and phones, in flat by Samsung. panel TVs and displays. Epidemiological studies have identified an emerging occupational illness called indium lung disease, found in some Arsenic Exposure. A 2007 study of workers at workers of indium production and recycling two semiconductor plants in Taiwan found plants, 22 which suggest concern for workers elevated levels of arsenic (a known carcinogen) handling indium, including in flat panel in the workplace and in workers’ urine, in manufacturing. 20 excess of the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL). It also found higher levels of gallium and indium

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 14 ______

February 2013 for discharging waste into the Railway River, turning it a milky white, killing all the fish, and making it too polluted to use for crops. The factory is owned by Casetek of Taiwan.24

China: Heavy metals dumped into waterways by printed circuit board manufacturing. A 2011 study conducted by NGOs in China25 found what they called “shocking levels of environmental pollution” at several circuit Photo © Mark Winfrey | Dreamstime.com board manufacturing plants, and describes ENVIRONMENTAL HARM FROM TOXIC blatant disregard for environmental laws in CHEMICALS RELEASED TO AIR, WATER, discharging gases into the air and liquids into GROUND streams and river, including: • Meiko Electronics in Guangzhou, which Manufacturing of electronics results in used a hidden pipe to secretly significant amounts of environmental pollution discharge polluted water and in addition to worker harm. Some of it is traced misreported other activities to the to science parks or industrial estates, where environmental agency. governments create special industrial zones to • Meiko Electronics in Wuhan discharged attract manufacturing, providing subsidies and nickel and copper to a nearby lake and infrastructure like roads and power. However, river above allowable limits hazardous waste treatment and management is • Ibiden Electronics (Beijing) Co., Ltd., one often inadequate, so surface waters are of the largest printed circuit board commonly polluted, destroying fishing or companies in the world, produces farming economies downstream. several dozen tons of hazardous waste Taiwan’s Science Parks. Releases from containing copper, nickel and cyanide Taiwan’s Science Parks,” created to per day, but they fail to comply with concentrate high-tech manufacturing industries legally mandated reporting of where (known as Taiwan’s Silicon Valley), included: they transport this waste for • Solvents dumped into streams– processing. contaminating oysters, creating illness clusters in nearby villages. Printed Wire Boards in Thailand: Sample taken • Trichloroethylene – TCE (a solvent that from wastewater from a printed wire board causes cancer) found in groundwater manufacturing facility in Thailand found PBDEs, • Arsenic air pollution increased 12 times chlorinated VOCs, as well as copper, nickel and 23 near science parks. zinc.26

Casing factory in China. A factory in a science Computer assembly in Mexico. Sampling of park near Shanghai, that makes casings for wastewater discharged from the IBM PC Apple iPads is facing government sanctions in

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 15 ______

assembly site in Guadalajara, Mexico found processing, using techniques like bashing CRTs nonylphenol ethoxylate (NPE) as well as other with hammers (exposing the worker to airborne nonylphenols (NPs). 27 toxic phosphors), melting the lead solder on circuit boards over flames or woks (exposing Hazard and harm in “end of life” the worker to toxic lead fumes), using full strength acid to separate precious metals from processing circuit boards (exposing the worker to acid Toxic materials in electronic products can cause fumes and splashing, sometimes discharging serious harm during the recycling or disposal the used acid into the river (in Guiyu), and phase – called “end of life” phase – of the burning plastics which emits deadly dioxin. product lifecycle. Many recyclers in developed countries shred electronics products as part of Many studies have documented the harm being the recycling process. Therefore, toxic materials caused when workers and residents are may become airborne in the dust created by the exposed to toxic chemicals released by e-waste shredders, exposing recycling workers not processing in these countries. wearing appropriate respirators. Some • In an e-waste recycling area in China, more recyclers shred flat panels from TVs or than 80% of the children have lead monitors, containing mercury lamps, which poisoning, the water is unsafe to drink, could expose workers to mercury vapors, as the and the workers have extraordinarily high compact fluorescent bulbs break in the levels of toxic fire retardants and their shredder. toxic by-products in their bodies.28 • Studies have found high levels of lead, iron But a large volume of our used electronics gets and antimony in e-waste workers in exported to developing countries, including Ghana.29 China, Viet Nam, India, Ghana, and Nigeria, • A study of air samples taken in e-waste where they undergo crude and dangerous recycling areas in China has linked e-waste to adverse effects on human health, including precursors to cardiovascular disease, DNA damage and possibly cancer.30

Harm from e-waste recycling isn’t limited to developing nations, but can occur even in developed countries, where protections for recycling workers are not robust. • A study of recycling workers in California showed that they had 6 to 33 times the level of the flame retardant PBDE (polybrominated biphenyl ether) in their bodies, as compared to the general population in the U.S.31 Photo: Basel Action Network (BAN)

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 16 ______

• In Austin, TX, two workers at Electronic http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/ Recycling and Trading Inc. were injured austin/2-burned-in-industrial-explosion when dust from their shredding machine exploded and started a fire.

Impact #2: Destruction of communities and resources This category of impacts includes sites where the pollution from the mining or industrial activity is so extreme, and the harm caused is so severe, that it destroys entire communities and sustainable economies, such as fishing and farming. The physical footprint is not always at the activity site, but downstream, or downwind (mining, fracking).

The all-too-common scenario starts with a contain high levels of metals and are unsafe to sustainable economy in a rural area, where eat. In many cases, people begin to develop clean water sources have supported fishing and cancer and die. The previous way of life (and farming for many decades, even hundreds of economy) has been replaced by this new years. Then a mine is opened, or an industrial industry. And the poverty of most residents park is created, after the local government worsens, as they must find wage jobs. (with local police or military help) has forced Traditional lands are altered forever and the residents off the land, sometimes tribal land, pollution is so extreme that it can’t easily be often without any real compensation and cleaned up. In China, many of these are on the without their consent. Few local residents can list of 459 “cancer villages” throughout the get jobs in the mines or the factories, which hire country.32 outsiders with higher skills. Mining waste or Example: Tarkwa mines in Ghana acid mine drainage frequently deposits heavy metals and other toxic chemicals into the river A report by the University of Texas on mining in 33 that is used as the drinking and farming water the Tarkwa region of Ghana illustrates how source. From the industrial parks, hazardous gold mining there destroyed communities. production wastes, often containing heavy International mining companies would make metals, are discharged into the rivers. deals with local tribal chiefs and governments to take the land, without any discussion with Soon the river starts to turn brown, the fish residents. They used military or police to force start dying off, and people start getting very farmers and residents off their land, sometimes sick. Fisherman can no longer earn a livelihood with very violent means, violating their human from fishing. Crops won’t grow properly, or they rights.

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 17 ______

water for drinking or farming. A report by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice found 82 rivers or streams in the region were polluted by mining, and rarely did the companies make efforts to clean up the rivers. Denver based Newmont Mining US was fined $4.9 million in 2010 for a 2009 cyanide spill related to its Ahafo gold mine in Ghana, which displaced 9500 people when it was opened. 34 Protests against unfair mining practices have often been met by violence from military or police protecting the mining companies. Protesters have been shot or teargased, or had their crops burned. CONFLICT MINERALS The University of Texas School of Law has documented how gold mining in Ghana has Another example where mining operations have threatened lives and ruined livelihoods of the caused devastation to local residents is in the residents. Democratic Republic of the Congo, where some of the mining of “conflict minerals” is controlled Almost no local residents received jobs at the by several well-armed militias. They use profits mines. Corruption was widespread, with from mining to buy weapons and to finance an kickbacks going from the mining companies to ongoing brutal campaign of violence against the chiefs, tribal councils, and local civilians in the region, which assures them governments. The Goldfields Ghana mining continued control of the mines. Conflict company evicted 25,000 farmers from their minerals are tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold. land in 1996. Some were resettled to another The electronics industry is the largest consumer 35 location, but given inferior housing plus new of conflict minerals from the eastern Congo. financial obligations for water and sanitation The Enough Project, an NGO which has done services. Many could not find jobs. In 2001, excellent work publicizing the problem of Goldfields dam burst, spilling thousands of conflict minerals, and promoting solutions, cubic meters of toxic waste and chemicals like maintains a report card on what the electronics cyanide into the river, killing fish and birds, and companies are doing to make sure they are not leaving the community without access to clean sourcing their materials from conflict mines.

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 18 ______

ImpactImpact #3:#3: WastedWasted naturalnatural resourcesresources -- HighHigh consumptionconsumption ofof energyenergy andand waterwater Extraction,Extraction, productionproduction (including(including chemicalchemical refining),refining), productproduct use,use, andand somesome recyclingrecycling processesprocesses cancan consumeconsume hugehuge quantitiesquantities ofof energyenergy (non(non--renewablerenewable resourceresource)) andand water,water, whichwhich isis notnot alwaysalways reclaimedreclaimed))..

WATER USE: Production:

The issue of global water scarcity is starting to • One semiconductor manufacturing gain more attention in sustainability plant uses anywhere between 2 to 4 discussions, as companies are starting to realize million gallons of very, very pure water the risks that water shortages and interruptions (“ultrapure water”) per day, roughly can pose to their businesses. Water use has equivalent to the water usage of a city been growing at more than twice the rate of of 50,000 people. 37 population increase in the last century, • To create one integrated circuit on a according to the United Nations.36 300mm wafer requires approximately Semiconductor manufacturing in particular uses 2,200 gallons of water in total, of which massive amounts of water to wash the wafers 1,500 gallons is ultrapure water. 38 during fabrication, but also for cooling and • Printed circuit board manufacturing can scrubbing. often exceed 3 cubic meters of water

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 19 ______

consumed for every square meter of • Semiconductor. Now that technology circuit board processed. 39 advances have pushed semiconductor • In 2007, Intel and Texas Instruments miniaturization down to the nanoscale used over 11 billion gallons of water to level, fabrication processing requires more manufacture chips.40 materials, more complex materials, more energy, and in some steps, more water. 48 Extraction: On average it takes 716 cubic • meters of water to produce a metric ton of Lifecycle energy. A study looking at the gold.41 energy used across the lifecycle to produce a desktop computer and a 17 inch CRT Product use: A 15-megawatt data center can monitor found that 81% of the energy was use up to 360,000 gallons of water a day42 ENERGY USE

• While many electronic products are becoming more energy efficient, people are buying more of them, or in the case of TVs, people are buying much bigger ones. • Data centers. Our increasing reliance on the internet, wireless communication, social media, and cloud computer storage has fueled a large growth in the number of datacenters around the world, which numbered 509,147 in 2011,43 but are expected to reach 8.6 million centers by 2017,44 growing in capacity from 1.58 billion square feet in 2013 to 1.94 billion square feet in 2018. 45 used in the manufacturing phase (including chemical processing). 49 Data center energy use CARBON EMISSIONS o Worldwide between 203 and 272 billion kilowatt-hours in 201046 According to the Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC), in 2007, the carbon emissions o In the U.S. in 2013: 91 billion kilowatt-hours47 from manufacturing, distribution, use and disposal of information and communication o This doesn’t include the energy and pollutants from the diesel technology (ICT) products, is expected to generators that are also running as increase by 72% from 0.83 GtCO2e (gigatons of backup power sources for many equivalent carbon dioxide emissions) in 2007 to 50 data centers 1.43 GtCO2e in 2020. A gigaton equals one billion metric tons.

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 20 ______

ImpactImpact #4: #4 : Wasteful churn of virgin materials, many of which are scarce, with Wasteful churn of virgin materials, many of which are scarce, with minimal recovery minimal recovery

iStock photo WASTEFUL INPUTS is used annually for electronics and Manufacturing of electronics uses enormous appliance production. quantities of materials (mostly virgin, not o Copper is used in many parts, including recycled materials), particularly metals and circuit boards, wiring, transformers, plastics, in production and in the product. There connectors, heatsinks is still very little “closed loop” recycling in this o Tin is used in solders and circuit boards industry, whereby materials recovered from o Antimony is used in transistors, in electronics recycling are recycled back into semiconductors, in glass electronics products in a “closed loop.” • Indium is used in LCD panels (TVs, monitors, etc.) and touchscreens (phones) • High consumption of metals and minerals, • Ruthenium – used on hard drives, in chip including : 51 resistors, as an alloy • More than 40 percent of the global mine • Mobile phones and computers account for production of copper, tin, antimony, 4 percent of global mine production of gold indium, ruthenium and rare earth elements and silver and 20 percent of palladium and cobalt.

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 21 ______

• More than 80 percent of the rare earth industry or the earth. Some of these discharges elements, platinum group metals (PGMs), are toxic or greenhouse gas producing. gallium and indium that have ever been • We still send about 75% of discarded mined have been extracted during the last electronic products into the landfill in the 30 years. U.S. Only about 25% gets to recyclers, • Globally, we use 320 tons of gold and more according to the U.S. EPA. than 7,500 tons of silver each year to make • On average, the production of a ton of computers, cell phones, TVs, and other new copper results in 110 tons of waste ore and electronic and electrical products 200 tons of “overburden,” the material that worldwide.52 is removed in open pit mining to reach the • Electronic and electrical products consumed ore. 57 5.3% (197 tons) of the world’s supply of • We use many critical minerals in gold in 2001 and 7.7% in 2011 (320 tons — electronics, but we lack the technology to equal to 2.5% of the US gold reserves in the recover many of them efficiently during vaults of both Fort Knox, Kentucky, and the recycling (or product design prevents it Federal Reserve Bank of New York).53 from being economical). • A mobile phone contains over 60 different • 54 Globally, we recover less than 15% of metals. 58 precious metals from electronics recycling • Increasingly, mining companies use the • In shredding electronics, many recyclers practice of open pit mining (rather than lose significant amounts of the precious digging mines) which creates 8-10 times the metals as unrecovered dust. For example, if amount of waste rubble as underground you put PC mother boards in a shredder, mines. 55 This waste rubble problem is you lose 75% of the gold on them. You lose getting worse, as mining companies have 59 100% in an auto shredder. exhausted the sources of high-grade ore, • Semiconductor manufacturing and flat and now mine for ores where even more panel display manufacturing both use and rubble is created for every ounce of metal emit a number of perfluorinated extracted. compounds, some of the strongest and • To make a single 32-MB DRAM computer most persistent greenhouse gases, chip weighing only 2 grams, it takes 32,000 g of water, 1600 g (3.5 lbs) of fossil fuels, 700 grams of elemental gases, and 72 grams of chemicals. That makes the ratio of fossil fuel and chemicals used to make the chip 630 to 1, compared to making a car, which uses a 2 to 1 ratio. 56 WASTEFUL OUTPUTS Inefficient processes (manufacturing, recycling, and product stewardship) result in large amounts of waste: discharges (to air, water, About 70% of e-waste generated in the U.S. goes into land) as opposed to returning feedstocks to the landfill. Photo by Lya Cattel, iStockphoto

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 22 ______

60 contributing to global warming o Generated 99.9 million pounds of • Currently, there is little recycling of the toxic waste in 2013, and recycled “glass” from LCD panels (TVs, monitors, or only about a third of it: 39.9 million other displays). Researchers are exploring pounds of it methods for recovering some materials, • The case for the benefits of recycling are including the indium, from these panels, but compelling currently LCD glass mostly goes into the o Recycling just half the plastics in e- landfill or incinerator. waste from the European Union • According to the Toxic Release Index (TRI) alone would save 5 million kilowatt reporting61 for computer manufacturing in hours of energy, over 3 million the U.S. in 2013, even in this understated barrels of oil in feedstock and nearly 63 62 2 million tons of CO2 emissions format , shows that this industry: One plastics recycler, MBA Polymers, Emitted 1.29 million pounds of toxic o o calculates that it can save over 80% chemicals into the air as point of the energy and 1-3 tons of CO₂ for source air emissions or fugitive air each ton of virgin plastics we emissions, replace.64 o Released 1.59 million pounds of toxic chemicals to surface water, and

Impact #5: Sweatshop working conditions Impact #5: Sweatshop working conditions Far too much of the work (extraction, manufacturing, recycling) is done under sweatshop conditions in Fardeveloping too much countries, of the work where (extraction, weak laws ma nufacturing,and lax enforcement recycling) don't is done protect under people. sweatshop The true conditions costs of in developingproduction countries, are externalized where weak to these laws workers and lax andenforcement communities. don't protect people. The true costs of production are externalized to these workers and communities.

Examples: Numerous press reports (including an in depth management who verbally abuse and series by the New York Times,65) of sweatshop humiliate workers conditions for workers making Apple products • Conditions have led to 17 worker inside FOXCONN in China provide a window into suicides, mostly jumping to their deaths working conditions. While these conditions are from high rise dorms not limited to Foxconn nor to Apple, they are • Two explosions and fires in Foxconn the most well-documented: factories in 2011 killed 4 people, injuring 77 • Young workers, mostly women, face • In September 2012, nearly 2000 harsh conditions - extremely long hours workers at a Foxconn plant in Taiyuan of mind numbingly repetitive work, rioted. The workers were reportedly often standing for hours on end, living under intense pressure to meet in crowded dorms, with militaristic deadlines for the iPhone 5 rollout.

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 23 ______

• Workers can’t earn livable wages Samsung, Apple, Lenovo, Quanta and others, without working many overtime shifts, documenting numerous labor problems in violation of labor laws. including use of child labor in electronics manufacturing. These kinds of problems have been well documented by many different organizations. Here are a few examples: Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior (SACOM), Hong Kong CEREAL - Mexico Hong Kong-based Students & Scholars Against In March 2015, an NGO called Centro de Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM) has been Reflexión y Acción Laboral (CEREAL) issued its documenting problems in Chinese factories and sixth reporting documenting various sweatshop campaigning for changes for many years. Their conditions and labor abuses at numerous most recent (Sept 2014) report on Pegatron electronics manufacturing service (EMS) factories in China documented:68 companies in Mexico. The report, “Paying the price for flexibility: Workers’ experiences in the • No single day off for 2.5 months: Workers electronic industry in Mexico,” documents work up to 10 weeks without any rest day problems including: excessive working hours, during peak season and they often work for low wages, refusal to provide workers basic 12-15 hours a day and sometimes up to 17- information, freedom of association, sexual 18 hours; harassment. 66 • No protective equipment: Workers in hazardous positions are not provided with

FLA - Shanghai, China adequate and effective protective measures. In June 2015, the Fair Labor Association (FLA) • Illegal charges for pre-employment health published the latest of several reports on evaluations problems with electronics suppliers in China. • Difficult resignation: Workers who want to This report focused on problems at the resign are forced to wait for days or weeks Pegatron factory in Shanghai, 67 finding to get company approval which means continued problems (and sometimes legal many leave without official documentation violations) on issues such as hours of work, and losing at least 15 days of wages dispatch workers, freedom of association, and • High Proportion of contract compensation. workers: Pegatron avoids paying regular China Labor Watch, China employment benefits by hiring large China Labor Watch has published numerous amount of dispatch workers, well over legal reports on labor issues at suppliers for limits

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 24 ______

Impact # 6: Business model makes problems worse – thwarts sustainability efforts.

The primary metric for evaluating the business is still quarterly earnings.

• The dominant business model promotes and relies on selling increasing volumes of new products, not on product longevity or upgradeability.

• Products are designed for short lifecycles, to be replaced with new products. • Constantly new release cycles to create demand for newest features • Design focus only on style and product performance, not on lifecycle impacts All other metrics, including sustainability metrics, are secondary. That makes it very difficult to promote long-term changes, which may not show quarterly results.

Vision for Sustainable Electronics Must Address Current Impacts and Problems Our Vision for Sustainable Electronics seeks to address the many current unsustainable practices. In response to the six categories of problems we identified, our vision embraces six categories of goals, or principles for sustainable electronics, shown below. It may sound a little simplistic, for example, to say that instead of harming people with toxic chemicals, materials and processes should cause no harm. But currently, that’s not a goal that you will see on most electronics companies’ sustainability agenda. (Although we are glad to see that iNEMI added to their industry roadmap in response to an earlier version of this report.) For most companies, the discussion is mostly about replacing only a small number of “environmentally sensitive” chemicals or simply complying with existing laws on chemical restrictions. But if the ultimate goal is to stop causing harm, then the roadmap must look very different than if the goal is legal compliance.

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 25 ______

How it works Principles for the

Now Future Hazards and harm. Materials and processes cause no harm. . Toxic chemicals in products and production . At all lifecycle stages, materials and cause harm to workers (extraction, production processes cause no harm to workers, and recycling workers), communities, communities, environments, eco-systems, environment, and consumers. or to users of the products. . Cost of using toxic material is externalized . Full disclosure of all materials used onto these groups. throughout the lifecycle, including by- products. . Zero hazardous or GHG emissions . Product price reflects true lifecycle costs. Extreme pollution destroys communities and Activities enrich communities resources . Large-scale activities such as mining and . Activities destroy communities and manufacturing have a long-term positive sustainable economies (especially fishing, impact on communities. farming), by extreme pollution of water . Must create long-term jobs, not just sources, of local land and air. temporary mining jobs . This is most common in mining, but also in . Local populations (not just leaders) make production and end of life. decisions (free prior, informed consent) . Physical footprint not always at activity site, about whether mine can be developed but downstream, downwind (mining, fracking) . Adequate financial resources to protect . Traditional lands altered forever - homes, the future livelihoods displaced (open pit mining) Wasted resources: High consumption of Protection of natural resources energy and water. . Processes have low energy impacts and . Extraction, production consume huge maximize use of renewable energy quantities of energy (non-renewable sources) . Processes have low water impacts, and and water (not reclaimed) recycle all water . Select and source materials where processes required to extract, process, and recycle them use low amounts of energy . Select and source materials where processes required to extract, process, and recycle them use low amounts of water and which recycle the water Wasteful churn of virgin materials, many of Sustainable inputs and outputs which are scarce. . Processes use renewable materials that . Manufacturing uses mostly virgin materials (in are infinitely recyclable without adding production and in product), not recycled much new virgin content, and without

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 26 ______

How it works Principles for the

Now Future materials. down-cycling. . Almost no closed loop recycling of materials, . Circular economy: or remanufacturing of products o closed loop recycling of materials . Inefficient processes create large amounts of o remanufacturing of products waste – materials that are not easily . Processes create zero waste. Waste = recyclable, discharges food, either food for nature (compost) or . Materials get lost in existing recovery “food” for manufacturing as industrial processes, some still landfilled and incinerated inputs . Systems in place to fully recover and safely recycle all process and product outputs. Sweatshop working conditions. Safe and fair working conditions. . Too much of the work (extraction, . Workers make a living wage, and labor manufacturing, recycling) is done under under healthy, safe and fair conditions. sweatshop conditions in developing countries, . True production costs are internalized into where weak laws and lax enforcement don't the price of the product. protect people. . True costs are externalized to workers, communities in these countries. Business model makes problems worse. New business models prioritize . Primary metric is quarterly earnings. sustainability, embrace lifecycle goals. . Products designed to be obsolete, replaced . Companies are as accountable to with new. sustainability goals, as to quarterly profit . Design focus on product performance, not on goals. lifecycle impacts . Businesses report on long-term sustainability strategies. . All costs are internalized, so customers pay true lifecycle costs.

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 27 ______

Applying the vision principles to the whole product lifecycle The next step is to evaluate how these vision principles apply to the full lifecycle of the electronics product, with specific topics under each principle: Phases of lifecycle Transport End of Principles and Topics Extraction Production Use Sales, Packg Life 1. Materials and processes cause no harm Select materials and chemicals that cause no harm Source materials from sites with lowest impacts Safe and healthy workplace Other health and safety issues 2. Activities enrich communities and local economies Activities protect, benefit existing communities, economies, resources Communities and/or indigenous people’s rights respected & protected Security and human rights protection. (Conflict minerals here.) Adequate financial resources to protect the future Economic development 3. Protection of natural resources: energy, water Select & source materials with low ENERGY impacts including GWP Select and source materials with low WATER impacts Processes minimize use of energy (unless sources are renewable) Processes minimize use of water, and recycle all water used 4. Sustainable inputs and outputs: Processes produce zero waste. Waste is food for industry (manufacturing input) or nature (compost) Rare earth minerals, critical minerals recoverable or not used Materials are infinitely recyclable back into electronics without adding virgin materials. Products designed to last longer, be upgraded and remanufactured 5. Safe and fair working conditions - countries, companies, facilities Decent, livable wages and working hours. No child and slave labor No Discrimination Freedom of association Enforcement of laws 6. Business model prioritizes sustainability, embraces lifecycle goals. Brands report on long term strategies for sustainability Meeting sustainability goals is a priority, business structure and compensation reflect it TRUE COSTS from full life cycle internalized into product price.

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 28 ______

Detailed Vision Goals for Sustainable Electronics - Across the Product Lifecycle

Vision goals Next, we looked at each topic listed in the chart on the previous page, and determined the specific vision goal for each topic as it applies to each phase of the lifecycle. This resulted in the extensive matrix of vision goals, starting on the following page. A truly sustainable electronic product would meet all of the goals articulated in this matrix. Some of these goals currently may seem unattainable and perhaps too idealistic. But we think it’s important for this industry to challenge itself to aim for what’s truly desirable, truly needed, truly sustainable.

Categories of goals Many of these goals can be grouped into one of three categories, which we have color coded on the matrix: PRODUCT DESIGN - Goals that can be achieved by product design Requires changing materials used, or physical design of the product. These are the changes that are currently most under the Brands’ control.

SOURCING - Goals that can be achieved by sourcing of materials Requires using different suppliers or locations from which materials originate.

PROCESS DESIGN - Goals that can be achieved by the process design Requires changing the way a component or product is manufactured, or how a mineral is extracted, for example.

SOCIAL EQUITY - Goals that can be achieved through social equity strategies. Requires a combination of standards, laws and enforcement, that can be reinforced by sourcing decisions

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 29 ______

Sustainability Matrix for Electronics

Phases of the product lifecycle Sustainability principles and Transportation, Extraction Production Product Use End of Life goals Packaging & Sales 1. Materials and processes cause no harm Select safe materials Develop or select Brands and supply chain Use safe materials in Safe product Use safe materials in the Use fully tested and safe safe/benign chemicals for use safe chemicals for product packaging materials have no product and which do chemicals and materials across use in mining manufacturing and manufacture of hazardous off- not require hazardous the supply chain packaging gassing processes for recycling, reuse, or disposal. Material Sourcing Source minerals from Develop or select safe Brands source Source and use only Know source of all materials, mines that use safer chemicals to use in packaging made with sustainable substances and purchase materials from chemicals and processes, manufacturing of safe chemicals. in materials recovery, lowest impact sites have low impacts on electronics recycling, or disposal human health & operations, e.g. environment. additives, chemicals. Safe and healthy workplace, Process of extraction, Production employees Transport occurs in a Product design Brands' takeback community including handling of have safe workplace. safe way, causing no makes products programs ensure safe Workplace/facilities/countries residuals, causes no harm Processes cause no harm to workers, safe to use. Free recycling and must protect workers' health to workers, communities, harm to workers, communities, from harmful refurbishment of used and safety, cause no harm to environment communities, environment noise, radiation, products, throughout communities, environment. Mining/drilling employees environment electrical shock, final disposition of all have safe workplace fire danger. Good materials, including ergonomic. residuals. Zero hazardous emissions (to Source raw materials Supply chain companies Low GHG and Zero hazardous or Select materials which air, land, water) or GHG coming from mines or have low hazardous and hazardous emissions GHG emissions can be recycled with low emissions recyclers with low GHG emissions. in the production of when using this GHG and hazardous hazardous and GHG packaging. Optimize product. This emissions. emissions Waste streams that can supply chain to reduce includes off- not be readily recycled GHG & hazardous gassing. or reused are properly emissions in treated via on-site or transportation. off-site facilities.

Product design Process design Sourcing Social/Equity Electronics TakeBack Coalition Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 30 ______

Phases of the product lifecycle Sustainability principles and Transportation, Extraction Production Product Use End of Life goals Packaging & Sales 2. Activities enrich rather than destroy communities and local economies Mines use safer extraction Safer manufacturing Trucking from Formal and "informal" Activities protect and benefit processes that don't process does not pollute extraction or collection, recycling, and existing cultures, communities, pollute natural resources. natural resources. manufacturing routed disposal industries use tribal lands, sustainable No hazardous discharges Does not displace, or so as not to impact safe processing, storage, economies, habitat, eco- destroy local communities. and disposal methods systems, and natural resources communities and that don't pollute, and (water, soil, air, biodiversity) economies. that protect and benefit communities, including for their downstream facilities. Extraction industry builds Manufacturing industry Recycling industry builds local infrastructure, builds local local infrastructure, communities are better off infrastructure. provides safe jobs. than before project Communities better off Communities better off than before the project than before the project started. started. Respect for indigenous Local Communities and Communities and/or peoples' lands, "free, communities/tribes affected people have a indigenous people’s rights prior, and informed must grant free right to full & accurate respected and protected consent" (FPIC) before informed consent to information regarding developing mines development of recycling, refurb., production facilities storage, & disposal of No involuntary resettlements for mining. materials, including Resettled individuals maintain living standards. residuals. Community and social ties preserved, fair Free prior informed compensation, realistic economic opportunity in new consent before location. recycling, storage disposal facilities are developed. International trade laws waste are followed.

Product design Process design Sourcing Social/Equity Electronics TakeBack Coalition Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 31 ______

Phases of the product lifecycle Sustainability principles and Transportation, Extraction Production Product Use End of Life goals Packaging & Sales Security and human rights Extraction companies Hazardous waste protection (Includes conflict don't locate mines in recycling and disposal minerals issue.) locations that will create facilities are secured or exacerbate violent from unauthorized conflict. access, and unsafe exposure to problematic materials, including residuals Brands don’t use “conflict minerals” but source from conflict-free sources. Entities dealing with hazardous Mining companies provide Manufacturing Trucking and transit Recycling, storage and chemicals must have and funded, implementable companies provide companies related to disposal facilities must commit adequate financial closure plans and bonds financial protections in hazardous activity provide closure and resources to protect the future before exploration begins, case of closure. have adequate mitigation plans of the community, even if during and after extraction financial and other appropriate to the size company disappears or operations. resources to and complexity of changes hands compensate for spills operations, with or accidents, to adequate financial provide adequate instruments, to cover emergency responses, accidents, sale, closure, and manage abandonment, spilled/damaged bankruptcy, or company materials. dissolution. Minerals development Manufacturing Recycling, storage, Economic development results in sustained development results in and/or disposal facilities benefits whole community, economic growth for the sustained economic development result in perhaps country, not just country and communities growth for the sustained economic owners of the mine/facility and where the mines are communities where the growth for the a few local leaders. located factories are located communities where they are located

Product design Process design Sourcing Social/Equity Electronics TakeBack Coalition Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 32 ______

Phases of the product lifecycle Sustainability principles and Transportation, Extraction Production Product Use End of Life goals Packaging & Sales 3. Protection of natural resources: energy, water Low Energy Impacts Product design: Materials and Packaging design: Products use Product design: Design Materials and processes have Select materials whose technologies used in Select materials for minimal energy in products to use low energy impacts: extraction and refining production (including packaging which have all modes of materials that can be 1. low amounts of energy have low energy impacts. chemical processing) low energy impacts. operation; closed loop recycled consumption have low energy impacts Products have with minimal energy 2. use clean energy sources including global Select packaging highly efficient footprint. (not coal or nuclear) and warming potential production processes power supplies, 3. maximize use of renewable (GWP) that have low energy power scalable energy impacts. processors, and 4. impacts apply for are shipped with infrastructure energy, most efficient including server farms, power wireless delivery system, management that support use of the settings. Default, products. does not require user to “opt in.” Suppliers: Source Manufacturing Transportation system Product and Manufacturer takeback materials from mines processes are designed is optimized for low supporting cloud programs use recyclers where processes used to for low energy impacts energy use and use renewable and disposal facilities extract & refine them have impacts energy source, that consume low lowest energy impacts. such as solar, amounts of energy and wind. maximize use or creation of renewable energy. Low water impacts Product design: Materials and All water used to Design products to use Materials and processes have Select materials that don't technologies used in make packaging is materials that can be the lowest possible water require high water production have low recycled. closed loop recycled impacts: consumption or any water impacts with minimal water - low water consumption contamination during (consumption and impacts, including water - industrial water use extraction. contamination) during consumption and doesn’t reduce manufacturing. contamination

Product design Process design Sourcing Social/Equity Electronics TakeBack Coalition Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 33 ______

Phases of the product lifecycle Sustainability principles and Transportation, Extraction Production Product Use End of Life goals Packaging & Sales availability/quality of Suppliers: When use of Select packaging End of life processing water to surrounding virgin materials is made with processes requires low water communities (including unavoidable, choose with minimal water impacts. downstream) for drinking, materials sourced from footprints. sanitation, farming, fishing processes with minimal - recycle water back into water footprint from processes, or treat water extracting the raw to restore to water supply, materials. at drinking level quality - maximize use of water capture Note: Issues of water pollution are in section 1. above. 4. Sustainable inputs and outputs: zero waste, closed loop recycling

Processes result in zero waste. Extraction produces Production produces Packaging production Products use Product design makes it Outputs are either food to minimal waste. Select zero wastes. (Waste = creates zero waste. universal power easy to recover and industry (industrial inputs) or materials that have high food) Outputs from Packaging is fully cords, chargers, recycle materials (food food to nature, (such as ratio of extracted ore production are nutritive recyclable (via readily etc. to minimize for industry). composting) compared to extracted for future production available options for waste Brands promote and material and problematic process (closed loop consumers) or fully implement closed loop residuals recycling), or nature (ie compostable recycling with maximum compost) amount of materials reclaimed (minimal residuals) and robust takeback programs. Any hazardous residuals from recycling are disposed in hazardous waste facility.

Product design Process design Sourcing Social/Equity Electronics TakeBack Coalition Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 34 ______

Phases of the product lifecycle Sustainability principles and Transportation, Extraction Production Product Use End of Life goals Packaging & Sales Rare earth elements and Extraction of critical Minimize use of critical Products designed to critical minerals minerals reduced because minerals in production maximize recovery of Designers minimize use of designs require lower processes, and design any critical minerals critical minerals, including rare amounts of critical processes so any used used, even if in small earth elements, or design minerals, and recycling is can be closed loop quantities. Recyclers use products/processes so that any maximized. recycled into future process for minerals critical minerals used are easily production process. recovery, and do not recovered, even if in small cause harm or create quantities. harmful emissions Infinite recyclability of Extraction is minimized Products use 100% Packaging is 100% Consumable Recycling becomes a materials. Materials can be when recycled infinitely recyclable or recyclable, using local materials (toner, closed loop system of recycled (not down-cycled) an commodities are used easily renewable and easily available ink, paper) are infinitely recyclable indefinite number of times materials. Physical recycling options. 100% recyclable. materials. without adding additional design and material All components that virgin materials. Must be selection makes it easy don’t get reused, economically viable. (and economically refurbished, or feasible) to disassemble remanufactured get to for full material recyclers and recovery, even in responsible downstream developed countries processors that recover 100% of materials for reuse. Product longevity Extraction is minimized Products are designed Reverse logistic Products have Reuse and Products have long lifetimes, when products last longer, to be long lasting, systems enable minimal fail rate. refurbishment is are easy to upgrade and easy are remanufactured or upgradeable, easy to remanufacturing, Customers find prioritized over to repair. Products are recycled repair by all users. repairs refurbished or recycling. Easy access to designed for remanufacturing Products are designed remanufactured replacement parts, (for refurbishment and reuse of to maximize products to be as tools, and repair existing parts in new products) remanufacturing reliable as new, manuals in order to . opportunities. Business and have easy encourage repairs and may shift to more access to repair prolong the life of all service model than just manuals for all products. selling products. products.

Product design Process design Sourcing Social/Equity Electronics TakeBack Coalition Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 35 ______

Phases of the product lifecycle Sustainability principles and Transportation, Extraction Production Product Use End of Life goals Packaging & Sales 5. Safe and fair working conditions - countries, companies, facilities Decent wages and working Materials sourced from Production workers Retail workers paid Brand’s takeback hours companies where have decent wages and living wage program recycling & Workers earn a living wage by extraction workers have working hours. reuse workers have working a regular, fulltime shift decent wages and working living wages and globally (without overtime). Overtime is hours. acceptable working the exception, not the rule & hours. No recycling or there is no forced overtime. disposal activities are outsourced to low-wage countries/communities in violation of existing international laws and treaties. No child and slave labor Manufacturers use no No use of child labor, No use of child labor, Countries and facilities do not materials sourced from slave labor, prison labor, slave labor, prison labor, use any child labor, slave labor, areas/facilities using child or any type of coerced or any type of coerced prison labor, or other coerced or coerced labor. labor in any phase of labor for any recycling workers. (Note: "conflict their products' or reuse. minerals" covered above under production. security and human rights.) No Discrimination Materials sourced from All manufacturing occurs All OEM recycling/reuse No discrimination based on materials extractors who in facilities that do not service providers do not race, caste, origin, religion, do not discriminate discriminate discriminate disability, gender, sexual orientation, union, socio- economic status, political affiliation, or age; no sexual harassment. Freedom of association Materials sources from All manufacturing occurs Reuse, refurbishment, Countries, companies, and entities whose workers in countries and and recycling of items facilities which respect the have freedom of facilities with freedom collected in OEM right to form and join effective association. of association. takeback program

Product design Process design Sourcing Social/Equity Electronics TakeBack Coalition Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 36 ______

Phases of the product lifecycle Sustainability principles and Transportation, Extraction Production Product Use End of Life goals Packaging & Sales trade unions (or other occurs in countries and authentic worker facilities with freedom organizations) and bargain of association, collectively; throughout the recycling chain, until final disposition Enforcement of Safe and Fair While the most effective enforcement tools are strong Companies provide Conditions governmental oversight and committed internal effective worker training Workplaces have an effective leadership, in the absence of these conditions in the and worker enforcement mechanism for regions of impact throughout the lifecycle, companies empowerment with safe and fair rules, and active provide effective worker training and worker support from NGOs and participation of the effected empowerment with support from NGOs and civil civil society to enforce workers in the monitoring and society to enforce the rules, regulations and effective the rules, regulations oversight. Also effective policies. and effective policies mechanisms for dispute resolution. 6. Business model prioritizes sustainability, embraces lifecycle goals and pricing Businesses report on their long term strategies . Companies report to investors and to the public their long term strategies for sustainability, including how they are working with supply chain to reach vision goals across the lifecycle on: o Safer chemicals and processes, o Protecting communities, o Protecting natural resources, o Sustainable inputs/outputs, and o Safe and fair working conditions

. Financials quantify the value of sustainability steps taken by the company, particularly as they reduce financial risks, e.g. protecting assets such as clean water, reliable energy source, stable labor force, critical materials, brand reputation, etc.

Sustainability goals are a Public reporting of goals Public reporting of goals Public reporting of Public reporting of goals priority and transparent set for sustainability in set for sustainability in goals set for set for sustainability in - Industry makes meeting long- extraction and progress production and progress sustainability in recycling/reuse, and

Product design Process design Sourcing Social/Equity Electronics TakeBack Coalition Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 37 ______

Phases of the product lifecycle Sustainability principles and Transportation, Extraction Production Product Use End of Life goals Packaging & Sales term sustainability goals as towards goals. towards goals. transportation and progress towards goals. important as quarterly earnings packaging, and goals. Staff remuneration progress towards system rewards meeting goals. sustainability goals. - Corporate structure gives priority to sustainability. Example: Sustainability staff are integrated throughout the business (esp. in finance and sourcing/supply chain), not simply in an adjunct department. Cost Internalization True price of extraction of True price of True price of impacts True price of end of life TRUE COSTS of each phase of raw materials is measured, production is measured, from packaging, management is lifecycle are reflected in price transparent and transparent and transportation, and measured, transparent of each product, ,so that costs internalized in the price of internalized in the price selling products are and internalized in price for negative impacts of product materials (and therefore of product measured, of product. (Cost should lifecycle are not externalized to the product) transparent and be negative if product is others. internalize in price of designed for recycling.) product

Product design Process design Sourcing Social/Equity Electronics TakeBack Coalition Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 38 ______

Conclusions

In looking at the sustainability goal matrix, two things become immediately obvious:

1. Brands need far more control over their supply chains, to be able to bring about change 2. Many of the most important metrics are not product-specific, but apply at the corporate level

1. Brands need more control over their supply chains

Many of the impacts, as well as most of the sustainability goals in this industry are not under the Brands’ immediate control, but are controlled instead by others in their supply chain. The Brands have the most control over product design-related goals, but many Brands even contract out product design, or a significant amount of the design happens by component makers. (One alarming result is that many of the Brands don’t even know what chemicals end up in their products. And even fewer know what chemicals are used to manufacture their products.)

Therefore, for the Brands to achieve most of the goals in the sustainability matrix, they will need to engage their supply chains and require significant modifications of those suppliers’ current practices. This is challenging for an industry where most brands don’t manufacture their own products, and instead use a very complex supply chain of contract manufacturers around the globe.

This hasn’t always been the case. Thirty years ago, this industry was much more vertically integrated. Many brands actually manufactured their own products. But the current global trend of outsourcing the work has cut the Brands’ control as well as the information flow and accountability. We believe that this development cannot be used as an excuse to avoid responsibility for the consequences of the full life cycle of their products. It raises the important question of whether this current globalized outsourcing model is compatible with sustainability. How can manufacturers regain control over their supply chain, in order to reverse the current negative impacts, and eventually to produce truly sustainable products, from cradle to grave, or cradle to cradle? And if they are unable to do so, what needs to be done to transform the current business model into one that can support sustainable life cycle practices?

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 39 ______

How does the industry address the “Hazards and Harm” and “Sweatshop Working Conditions” problems?

While this report does not attempt to review the current activities of this industry to address all six areas of impacts, we do think it’s useful to look at how the electronics industry is trying to address impacts in two of these areas: 1) Hazards and harm and 2) Sweatshop working conditions.

How do the companies currently attempt to implement change in their suppliers’ behavior on labor, human rights, and health and safety issues, especially in countries where laws and/or enforcement offer little protection? There are, of course, contracts between Brands and their first tier suppliers. Some companies require suppliers to agree to their own specific codes of conduct, but most use the EICC – Electronics Industry Code of Conduct,69 for their first tier manufacturing suppliers (but not for extraction or downstream vendors. ) EICC is a voluntary guideline covering five areas: labor, health and safety, environment, ethics and management system. It has some good goals, but is not strong enough in some areas. Then the Brand companies or third-party auditors assess a particular supplier’s conformance to the code of conduct. Some companies use a different standard, Social Accountability International’s SA8000 standard, and they get audited to certify conformance to it.

Can’t just audit your way out of the problem But this occasional audit model is generally recognized as a failure for addressing many of the widespread problems in electronics manufacturing (as well as in other sectors). Cheating the audit is a well-honed science in China. In her book, The China Price,70 Alexandra Harney documents some of the common audit-cheating strategies used in various industries in China, such as keeping two sets of books, coaching employees on audit-friendly answers, sending under-aged workers out the back door during on-site audits. Another is to establish code compliant “demonstration factories” or “five star factories” – the ones that the Brands know about and audit – but who subcontract to “shadow” factories where the work is actually done, under far worse, unaudited conditions. Corruption among auditors is common, and advising factory owners on how to falsely pass audits is a vibrant consulting business in China, according to The China Price, and a Business Week report.71 A 2009 China Labor Watch report documented numerous examples of corruption by factory auditors working for one of the largest auditing firms in the world, Bureau Veritas.72 Even if a supplier isn’t deliberately trying to cheat its audit, the Brands’ insistence on low prices and fast production schedules set the stage for suppliers to cut corners as a routine business decision. In its 2013 report, “Responsibility Outsourced: Social Audits, Workplace Certification and Twenty Years of Failure to Protect Worker Rights,” the AFL-CIO states, “… there is a growing consensus and research showing that audits almost entirely fail to address decent living wages or the enabling right of freedom of association that would allow workers to attend to all the workplace issues that audits can catch and also those related to “root causes” that audits have proven powerless to impact.”73 Instead, the AFL-CIO report argues, Brands should focus less on using audits to prove that workers aren’t working ridiculous (and often illegal) amounts of overtime, and more on whether the contractors are

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 40 ______

paying a living wage to employees so they can actually support their families without extensive overtime work.

If the periodic audit model doesn’t work, what does?

Some argue that until the Brands have ongoing control of the day-to-day operations, or require accountability of their suppliers throughout the supply chain, these kinds of problems will never be resolved (assuming no change in laws/enforcement). Perhaps the more vertically integrated companies are in a better position to make changes.

In its 2007 report, “Beyond Monitoring – A New Vision for Sustainable Supply Chains,”74 Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) suggested a different model. This report posits that workers need to play a stronger role in asserting and protecting their rights. For this kind of worker engagement to succeed, other stakeholders must be involved, including NGOs, community groups, and unions or other labor rights groups. And there must be a much greater level of transparency. For this strategy to be effective, it requires substantially more resources for capacity building, education training, and skills building to develop successful models for worker empowerment.

There are several emerging initiatives in Asia that attempt to address some of the labor and health and safety issues by going beyond the social audit model.

• IDH. One such effort was launched by an organization called IDH, based in the Netherlands. Their multi-stakeholder Sustainable Trade Initiative75 is a partnership between electronics brands (Dell, HP, Philips, Apple) and suppliers, as well as NGOs and unions to improve working conditions:

• Labor Voices. Labor Voices, seeks to provide the Brands (of several sweatshop industries) with a system for getting direct feedback from workers in their supply chain via their cell phones. Labor Voices can provide aggregated data to Brands, to help them with oversight of suppliers.

• Fair Labor Association (FLA). The FLA has its own code of conduct, but it brings together the Brands, universities and “civil society organizations” (but not labor unions) to monitor and report on workers’ rights conditions in factories.

Some of these initiatives have been seriously criticized by NGOs involved in monitoring the electronics supply chain, and environmental and occupational health concerns are not central to most of these efforts. Yet new forms of effective worker/stakeholder engagement and oversight continue to evolve and are necessary to bring about the massive changes in consciousness and implementation necessary to achieve the sustainability transformations outlined above.

2. Many of the metrics are not product-specific, but apply at the corporate level

While much of the conversation and standards development around “green” electronics focuses on the characteristics of an individual product (‘is this product greener than that one?’), when we look at the

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 41 ______

bigger picture and goals for sustainability, it’s clearly just as important for us to track progress towards many of these sustainability goals at a company level, rather than a product level.

Typically during standards development processes, the electronics industry criticizes and challenges proposed criteria for “company level” criteria, (as opposed to “product” criteria), as being off-topic. But given that so many goals require changing what suppliers are doing, it may ultimately be critical to track much of this performance at the manufacturer/supply chain level, not simply at the product level. At least, not until much more progress has been made towards these goals, and true change is reflected in the products.

The industry’s rebuffing of company-level metrics underscores an unfortunate lack of pro-active thinking in this industry about environmental and social equity problems. In fact, it encourages double standards within a corporation rather than holding the entire corporate structure accountable for sustainable behavior across all product lines, all activities, all impacts. An eco-label approach that focuses on minor improvements, rather than comprehensive corporate transformation won’t be enough to pressure this industry to meet the long term sustainability goals outlined above.

Next steps

Sustainability metrics

The Vision Goals are, of course, long term goals. Identifying them is the easy part. The hard part is to chart the roadmap that gets us from where we are today to eventually reaching those goals. What we need to do now is to start robust discussions about what these roadmaps should look like - in formal standards development processes, in company internal goal-setting and industry planning, in academic coursework and research project, and as sustainability consultants, academics, regulators, unions and NGOs who dialogue with this industry.

At this point, some of the goals may seem difficult, if not impossible to achieve. But that shouldn’t prevent us from aiming for them, nor should it prevent the “what would it actually take” discussion from occurring.

On each topic, we need to chart the step-by-step path of continuous improvement that would allow us to reach the vision goals across the lifecycle - how we can achieve every box in the matrix. It’s logical that for many of the goals, the first steps would be:

1. Measuring the current impacts 2. Reporting the impacts 3. Determining how to reduce the impacts. 4. Measuring the externalized costs of the impacts. 5. And for the places where toxic chemicals are causing harm, we should work on metrics for how to protect workers and communities until such time as the toxics are designed out of the system.

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 42 ______

But with most of these goals, we need to go far beyond just lessening impacts, but towards making improvements, and promoting sustainable improvements, not just “less worse” activity. Roadmaps would chart how to get beyond lessening impacts, and getting as close as possible to the overall sustainability goals.

Once we develop the roadmaps on these topics, then we can convert them into standards, metrics, and Key Performance Indicators - KPI’s. A lot of work is already being done to establish metrics for measuring some of these steps, including how to measure and report certain impacts, like carbon and water usage. Some steps will require new tools or methodologies to be developed to measure progress. Even more difficult will be getting cooperation from the supply chain to actually provide the kind of information needed.

Once the steps of continuous improvement are mapped, then the purchaser questionnaires, eco -labels, and company sustainability work plans, should all be focused on promoting progress along these roadmaps.

There is also a critical need to build a more informed broad-based critical mass to help push to bring about these changes. Developing an organizing strategy, identifying necessary key allies, and determining a long term effort to help move toward a sustainable industry is essential for this to work.

Role for purchasers

Emphasize corporate level metrics. While we understand that purchasers will continue to seek to understand the difference between specific environmental attributes of products covered by their RFPs, we encourage purchasers to put just as much emphasis on looking at what Brands are doing on a corporate level to address these various impacts, and develop and implement strategies that move them closer to reaching the sustainability goals. The more that large institutional purchasers “reward” brands that are pushing the envelope on sustainability, the more that companies will respond to the new focus on corporate behavior.

One example relates to the use of hazardous chemicals. Leading companies are developing and implementing systematic approaches to first understanding the chemicals used to make their products, and then use safer substitutes wherever possible. So the first step on that roadmap is for the Brands to “know their chemicals.” They must ask suppliers for full material declarations (FMD) – complete lists of chemicals that are in their products, as well as chemicals used to make their products. Once Brands know the chemicals being used, they can start to request suppliers to use safer alternatives if they are available. If none are available, the Brands can encourage the chemical manufacturers to develop new alternatives that are safer than existing chemicals.

Companies like Apple and Seagate are already moving along this road. They are getting FMD on their product chemicals. These companies, as well as HP, have been actively seeking safer alternatives for known chemicals of concern.

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 43 ______

We need to be sure that our purchasing standards (like EPEAT) reward companies who are showing this kind of leadership. Rather than simply asking if specific products lack certain known chemicals of concern, purchasers should be asking the Brands what they are doing on a corporate level to know their chemicals, and then to seek safer alternatives for hazardous ones. (Current drafts of the EPEAT server standard, and UL cell phone standards, currently under development, incorporate these concepts.)

Role for academics

There are many universities who are already doing important work on topics related to sustainability in electronics. But many of the topics on our Sustainability Matrix need much more research, including developing methodologies for measuring and evaluating impacts and externalized costs. We encourage academia to use the Sustainability Matrix to find and develop research topics. Academics can play a much larger role in moving the needle toward sustainability in electronics.

Role of Governments

The shift in the global economy has occurred as companies locate their operations in countries with lower wages and weak and/or weakly enforced regulations (as well as other conditions). While these countries have wanted the investment and jobs that come with industrial growth, they are paying a significant price in terms of harm to their people and environment and depletion of resources. The production countries need to be part of the solution to the unsustainable nature of this industry. They must get beyond the global competition to recruit new tech companies and take meaningful action to protect their workers, communities, environment and resources. There is plenty of guidance available for concrete steps the countries could take, developed by the United Nations, by the ILO, and the Basel Convention. Here are just a few examples.

• United Nation’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights • The International Labour Organization’s occupational safety and health standards. The ILO has adopted more than 40 standards specifically dealing with occupational safety and health, as well as over 40 Codes of Practice. Nearly half of ILO instruments deal directly or indirectly with occupational safety and health issues • ILO guidance on “decent work.” • UN’s Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) Report of the International workshop on hazardous substances within the life-cycle of electrical and electronic products, March 2011.

Role of the Brands

The Brand manufacturers of electronic products, of course, hold the key to improving sustainability of all phases of their products’ lifecycle, directly or indirectly. Brands must become far more pro-active, company-wide, in doing business in a manner that does not cause harm throughout their products’ lifecycle. Brands need to increase their engagement with their suppliers, such as within EICC, but need

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 44 ______

to develop strategies to move this process along in bolder and faster ways. And while it’s counter to their normal behavior, Brands should also encourage the governments of the manufacturing countries to adopt and enforce regulations that lessen impacts. Without such actions, it’s difficult to see how we develop a “level playing field” from which the Brands can build a sustainable future.

And, finally, society must require corporations to prove their conformity to this global expectation.

Two examples of concrete “next step” efforts underway While the challenges of making the electronics industry “sustainable” can seem overwhelming, it’s worth noting two examples concrete examples of efforts to define the next steps, one for mining, and one for manufacturing. 1. Next steps on extraction and mining Until recently, extraction/mining was ignored entirely in sustainability reporting in the electronics sector. Currently, the primary focus on mining/extraction is related to mining of “conflict minerals” – gold, tantalum, tin, and tungsten mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and adjacent countries. The Dodd-Frank Act in the U.S. in 2010 has required companies that are registered to the Securities and Exchange Commission to examine their minerals supply chain to determine if they are using any of the four minerals from that conflict region, and then to do some reporting if they are. Companies have a long way to go until they can truly verify the sources of these minerals. But it’s an instructive process for how to think about sourcing issues. While mining and extraction impacts and issues (aside from Conflict Minerals) receive little attention from the Brands, this is where the impacts are the greatest of the whole product lifecycle. And the challenges are daunting. Indeed, the concept of “sustainable mining” is a bit of an oxymoron, since mining involves extracting finite, nonrenewable resources. But clearly, the methods and practices used in mining and extraction could be vastly better. To that end, we are encouraged at the development of the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, IRMA. IRMA is a multi-stakeholder and independently verifiable responsible system that is intended to improve social and environmental performance of mining. IRMA was founded in 2006 by a coalition of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) including Earthworks, the highly respected advocate for mining-impacted communities; downstream businesses who purchase minerals and metals for the products they make and sell (to date, the jewelry companies); trade unions; affected communities; and mining companies. They are currently developing the IRMA standard for responsible mining. We encourage the electronics industry to get involved in this effort, and to add its voice as a huge “consumer” of metals and minerals, to efforts to make this sector safer and more responsible, and to reduce its impacts.

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 45 ______

2. Next steps on “hazards and harm” Activists, advocates, and public health experts have developed some specific recommendations for next steps for the brand manufacturers to address the problems of hazards and harm. In January 2015, the International Campaign for Responsible Technology and GoodElectronics convened a meeting of over 60 people from 15 countries to develop strategies to advance the responsible use of chemicals in the global electronics industry. During the 4 day meeting the group developed a document called, “A Challenge to the Global Electronics Industry to Adopt Safer and More Sustainable Products and Practices, and Eliminate Hazardous Chemicals, Exposures and Discharges“. At the end of the meeting, the group presented the “Challenge” to industry representatives convened by the Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC). The group also developed a plan to seek wide endorsement of the Challenge and a strategy to seek broad adoption. Since then the “Challenge” has been endorsed by over 200 groups from more than 40 countries and has been presented at three EICC meetings (in Europe, Mexico and the United States) as well as at the IndustriALL Global Union World Conference on ICT Electrical and Electronics which took place in Malaysia in June 2015. The overarching goal of the “Challenge” is to promote sustainable production that is safe, healthy, environmentally sound, and just. To achieve that goal, it focuses on the following human rights and worker rights:

• Right to safe and healthy workplace. Workplace protections so that workers do not get sick or injured. • Right to healthy communities and a safe environment, free from harm caused by materials used or disposed throughout the product lifecycle. • Right to know what hazards are present in the workplace, all chemicals that are there, and what is discharged into the environment. • Right to an effective remedy when harm has occurred. This includes compensation for workers made sick or injured, and liability for harming the community or the environment. • Right of workers to organize without interference and bargain collectively.

In addition, the “Challenge” identifies 6 areas for action by the electronics brands: • greater transparency • use of safer chemicals • improved protection of workers • guaranteeing worker and community participation in developing improved practices • improved protection of communities and the surrounding environment; and • compensation and remediation for harm to people and the environment

Following the development of the “Challenge”, the participants next developed an

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 46 ______

implementation guide entitled “Meeting the Challenge” which includes “Detailed Recommendations for Implementation of the Challenge to the Electronics Industry: Adopt Safer and More Sustainable Products and Practices, and Eliminate Hazardous Chemicals, Exposures and Discharges”.

Collaborations Essential

Clearly the steps needed to make this industry more sustainable are giant ones, which reach far beyond any single company’s resources. We hope to see more cross-industry collaborations with governments, academics, and NGOs to help chart this course toward sustainability. There are certainly good precedents for industry collaborations, such as early efforts to transform SEMATECH into an effective environmental research and development initiative.76 More recent efforts have included EICC, and the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GESI), and the International Electronics Manufacturing Initiative (iNEMI). We’d welcome their leadership in convening broader multi-stakeholder efforts to move this industry towards true sustainability.

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 47 ______

Glossary of Terms

Critical Critical minerals are those that are essential to the economy and minerals whose supply may be disrupted.They include the 17 Rare Earth Elements. EICC Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition, previously Electronics Industry Code of Conduct. www.eicc.org EPEAT Electronic Products Environmental Assessment Tool. Voluntary standards to help guide purchasers identify “greener” electronics products. www.epeat.net ETBC Electronics TakeBack Coalition METRIC TON A metric ton (sometimes written as tonne) equals 1000 kilograms, or 2204 pounds, slightly more than a “short ton” (simply called a ton in the U.S.) at 2000 lbs. PBDE Polybrominated diphenyl ethers are organobromine compounds that are used as flame retardant PCB Printed circuit board, also known as a printed wiring board. PGMs Platinum group metals: • Iridium (Ir) • Osmium (Os) • Palladium (Pd) • Platinum (Pt) • Rhodium (Rh) • Ruthenium (Ru) PWB Printed wiring board, also known as a printed circuit board. Rare Earth Rare earth elements are a set of seventeen chemical elements in the Elements periodic table, specifically the fifteen lanthanides plus scandium and yttrium. They are sometimes called the technology metals. Most are not actually rare, but are often not found in deposits that significant enough to mine. TCE Trichloroethylene, an industrial solvent, listed by the EPA as a carcinogen. ULE Underwriters Laboratory Environment program. VOCs Volatile organic compounds. Organic chemical compounds which evaporate easily and therefore can easily become part of the air we breathe. Some are hazardous. They contribute to ground- level ozone (smog).

Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 48 ______

FOOTNOTES

1 Includes specific “Rare Earth Elements” as well as other minerals in very short supply. 2 Energy intensity of computer manufacturing: hybrid assessment combining process and economic input-output methods, Eric Williams United Nations University, Environmental Science & Technology 38(22), 6166 - 6174 (2004). 3 “E-waste, the hidden side of IT equipment's manufacturing and use,” Environment Alert Bulletin, United Nations Environment Programme, January 2005. Available at: http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/download/ew_ewaste.en.pdf 4 Dr. Farhang Shadman, University of Arizona, to Laurie Howell, quoted in IEEE Spectrum Podcast, , http://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/semiconductors/design/semicondutor-manufacturing-plants-can-use-as-much- water-as-a-small-city 5 Blacksmith Institute report, “ “http://www.worstpolluted.org/files/FileUpload/files/WWPP_2012.pdf 6 US EPA, Toxics Release Inventory, 2013 National Analysis Overview, “Total Disposal or Other Releases, 2013”: http://www2.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/2013-tri-national-analysis-comparing-industry-sectors 7 Earthworks report, “No Dirty Gold,” http://www.nodirtygold.org/pubs/DirtyMetals_HR.pdf Page 2 8 Environmental Integrity Project report, “Fracking’s Toxic Loophole,” Oct. 22, 2014. http://environmentalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/FRACKINGS-TOXIC-LOOPHOLE.pdf 9 Earthworks Fact Sheet, “Hard Rock Mining: Acid Mine Drainage,” http://www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/FS_AMD.pdf 10 Earthworks, Oxfam America, “Dirty Metals: Mining, Communities and the Environment,” June 16, 2004. http://nodirtygold.earthworksaction.org/library/detail/dirty_metals#.VaMaE_m6fDc 11 Earthworks “No Dirty Gold” website information, http://www.nodirtygold.org/polluted_air.cfm 12 Earthworks, Oxfam America, “Dirty Metals: Mining, Communities and the Environment,” June 16, 2004. http://nodirtygold.earthworksaction.org/library/detail/dirty_metals#.VaMaE_m6fDc page 8 13 Earthworks, Oxfam America, “Dirty Metals: Mining, Communities and the Environment,” June 16, 2004. http://nodirtygold.earthworksaction.org/library/detail/dirty_metals#.VaMaE_m6fDc page 4 14 US. EPA Toxics Release Inventory, “2013 Industry Sector Profile: Chemical Manufacturing.”: http://www2.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/2013-tri-national-analysis-chemical-manufacturing 15 “The World’s Worst Pollution Problems,” Blacksmith Institute and Green Cross Switzerland, 2012. http://www.worstpolluted.org/files/FileUpload/files/WWPP_2012.pdf 16 Jianfeng Li1 and Ya-Fei Zhou, “Occupational hazards control of hazardous substances in clean room of semiconductor manufacturing plant using CFD analysis,” Toxicology and Industrial Health, 4 January 2013: http://tih.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/01/03/0748233712469996 17 Inah Kim1, Hyun J. Kim et al, “Leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in semiconductor industry workers in Korea,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, Vol 8, No 12, 2012. 18 Statistics maintained by members of Supporters for the Health and Rights of People in the Semiconductor Industry (SHARPS),a Korean coalition of labor groups, health and safety groups, and workers organizations. https://stopsamsung.wordpress.com/ 19 Analysis by SHARPS (see above), https://stopsamsung.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/barely-3-out-of-10-victims- qualify-for-samsungs-compensation-plan-standards/#more-1361 20 “Exposure and Health Risk of Gallium, Indium, and Arsenic from Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Workers,”Chen HW, Department of Environmental Engineering and Health, Yuanpei University of Science and Technology, Hsinchu, Taiwan, Republic of China, Bull Environ Contam Toxicol (April 6, 2007) 78:123–127. http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00128-007-9079-9 21 A. El Safty, S. Helal, N. Abdel Maksoud, and A. Samir, “Occupational Health Hazards among Double Sided Printed Circuit Board Manufacturers,” Cairo University, Egypt, British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 4(11): 1634- 1643, 201, http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract/3716

Electronics TakeBack Coalition

Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 49 ______

22 Sungyeul Choi, Yong-Lim Won, et al, Subclinical interstitial lung damage in workers exposed to indium compounds, Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2013, 25:24 doi:10.1186/2052-4374-25-24 http://www.aoemj.com/content/25/1/24 23 http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news/2007/02/08/102026/Taichung-arsenic.htm 24 Sarah Mishkin, Patti Waldmeir, and Kathrin Hille, “Apple Supplier Faces Sanctions in China,” The Financial Times, Feb 22, 2013. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cafeb812-7ce2-11e2-adb6-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Q6blmVFV 25 Friends of Nature, Institute of Public & Environmental Affairs, Green Beagle, Envirofriends and Green Stone Environmental Action Network report “The other Side of Apple II: Pollution spreads through Apple’s supply chain,” August 31, 2011: http://www.ipe.org.cn/upload/report-it-v-apple-ii.pdf 26 Greenpeace Research Labs, “Cutting Edge,Contamination: A study of environmental pollution during the manufacture of electronic products.” February 2007. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2007/2/cutting-edge- contamination-a.pdf 27 IBID 28 X.Z. Yua, Y. Gaoa, S.C. Wu, H.B. Zhang, K.C. Cheung and M.H. Wong. “Distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soils at Guiyu area of China, affected by recycling of electronic waste using primitive technologies.” Chemosphere. Volume 65, Issue 9, November 2006, Pages 1500-1509 29 Assante, Agusa,et al, “Multi-trace element levels and arsenic speciation in urine of e-waste recycling workers from Agbogbloshie, Accra in Ghana,” Science of The Total Environment, Volume 424, 1 May 2012, Pages 63–73; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.02.072 30 F. Yang, F. Jin et al, “Comparisons of IL-8, ROS and p53 responses in human lung epithelial cells exposed to two extracts of PM2.5 collected from an e-waste recycling area, China,” Environmental Research Letters, May 31, 2011: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/2/024013/pdf/1748-9326_6_2_024013.pdf 31 A. Schecte, JA Colacino et al, A newly recognized occupational hazard for US electronic recycling facility workers: polybrominated diphenyl ethers,” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, April 2009. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19322109 32Lee Liu, “Made in China: Cancer Villages,” Environment Magazine, March/April 2010: http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/March-April%202010/made-in-china-full.html 33 “The Cost Of Gold: Communities Affected by Mining in the Tarkwa Region of Ghana,” University of Texas Law School, June 2010 http://www.utexas.edu/law/clinics/humanrights/docs/Ghana_report.pdf 34 Earthworks fact sheet: Newmont’s Ahafo Cyanide Spill, Jan 21, 2010: http://www.nodirtygold.org/NewmontAhafoSpill.cfm 35 John Prendergast and Sasha Lezhnev, “From Mine to Mobile Phone:The Conflict Minerals Supply Chain,” The Enough Project, undated: http://www.enoughproject.org/files/minetomobile.pdf 36 http://www.unwater.org/statistics_use.html 37 “Semicondutor Manufacturing Plants can use as much water as a small city,” IEEE Spectrum, http://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/semiconductors/design/semicondutor-manufacturing-plants-can-use-as-much- water-as-a-small-city 38“Pure Water, Semiconductors and the Recession,” Global Water Intelligence, October 2009: http://www.globalwaterintel.com/archive/10/10/market-insight/pure-water-semiconductors-and-the- recession.html 39 http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/BG279R.pdf 40 J.P Morgan Chase. http://pdf.wri.org/jpmorgan_watching_water.pdf 41 http://pdf.wri.org/working_papers/mine_the_gap.pdf page 2 42 Article “Google Boosts Its Water Recycling Efforts” by Rich Miller, in Data Center Knowledge, April 20,2010, http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/04/20/google-boosts-its-water-recycling-efforts/ 43 Statistic from Emerson Network Power, via Data Center Knowledge. http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/12/14/how-many-data-centers-emerson-says-500000/ 44 IDC press release, “IDC Finds Growth, Consolidation, and Changing Ownership Patterns in Worldwide Datacenter Forecast,” Nov. 10, 2014. https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS25237514

Electronics TakeBack Coalition

Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 50 ______

45 IBID 46 Jonathan G. Koomey, “Growth in Data Center Electricity Use 2005-2010,” August 1, 2011: http://www.analyticspress.com/datacenters.html 47 Natural Resources Defense Council: http://www.nrdc.org/energy/data-center-efficiency-assessment.asp 48 Farhang Shadman, “Environmental challenges in nanoelectronics manufacturing,” Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2012, 1:258–268, March 2012: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2012.03.004 49 Energy intensity of computer manufacturing: hybrid assessment combining process and economic input‐output methods, Eric Williams United Nations University, Environmental Science & Technology 38(22), 6166 ‐ 6174 (2004). 50 EICC, “A Practical Approach to Greening the Electronics Supply Chain,” 2011. Page 8 http://www.eicc.info/documents/EICC_2011CarbonReportingSystem_SummaryReport_FINAL.pdf 51 Christian Hagelüken, Umicore, Presentation to Sustainability Forum Wingspread, October 2012 52 United Nations University (UNU) press release July 6, 2012: http://unu.edu/news/releases/step-news-release-6- july-2012-e-waste-precious-metals-recovery.html 53 http://unu.edu/news/releases/step-news-release-6-july-2012-e-waste-precious-metals-recovery.html 54 http://www.weee-forum.org/sites/default/files/documents/2011_metals_recycling_rates_summary-unep.pdf page 14 55 Earthworks report: “No Dirty Gold,” page 4 56 Eric Williams, Robert Ayres, Miriam Heller, “The 1.7 Kilogram Microchip: Energy and Material Use in the Production of Semiconductor Devices,” Environmental Science and Technology, Vol 36 No 24, 2002. 57 Earthworks, “Ruined Lands, Poisoned Waters,” http://www.nodirtygold.org/pubs/DirtyMetals_RuinedLands.pdf 58 Christian Hagelüken, Umicore, Presentation to SustainabilityForum Wingspread, October 2012 59 Hageluken presentation 60 Scott Bartos, C. Burton, “Direct Global Warming Emissions from Flat Panel Display Manufacturing and Reduction Opportunities,” US EPA, 2003: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080442761502002 61 US EPA’s 2013 Toxic Release Inventory reporting (released March 2015): available at http://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/tri_release.chemical for the NAICS code 334XXX for “computer and electronic product manufacturing” which includes semiconductor fabrication and circuit board manufacturing as well as computer and electronic component manufacturing. 62 TRI reporting is understated because reporting is only for a list of 682 chemicals and chemical groups, only if a facility processes or handles more than a threshold volume of those chemicals, and because reporting is voluntary. 63 http://unu.edu/news/releases/step-news-release-6-july-2012-e-waste-precious-metals-recovery.html 64 MBA Polymers Website, http://www.mbapolymers.com/home/ 65 Multiple authors, multi-part series called “The iEconomy,” New York Times, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/ieconomy.html 66 CEREAL is part of the Good Electronics global network. Report: “Paying the price for flexibility - workers' experiences in the electronics industry in Mexico,” March 2015. http://goodelectronics.org/publications-en/report-paying-the-price-for-flexibility-workers-experiences-in-the- electronics-industry-in-mexico 67 Fair Labor Association, “Independent External Assessment of Apple Supplier Factory Operated by Pegatron Corp., June 2015 http://www.fairlabor.org/report/assessment-apple-supplier-factory-operated-pegatron-shanghai 68 SACOM, iSlave 6 : Harsher than Harsher! Still Made in Sweatshops,” Sept 19, 2014 http://sacom.hk/islave-6-harsher-than-harsher/ 69 Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition’s (EICC) code of conduct: http://www.eicc.info/eicc_code.shtml 70 Alexandra Harney, The China Price: The true cost of Chinese competitive advantage, Penguin Books, 2008. 71 “Secrets, Lies, and Sweatshops,” Bloomberg Business Week, November 26, 2006. http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2006-11-26/secrets-lies-and-sweatshops 72 “Corrupt Audits Damage Worker Rights: A Case Analysis of Corruption in Bureau Veritas Factory Audits,” China Labor Watch, December 2009 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1294&context=globaldocs

Electronics TakeBack Coalition

Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 51 ______

73 The AFL-CIO, “Responsibility Outsourced: Social Audits, Workplace Certification and Twenty Years of Failure to Protect Worker Rights,” April 23, 2013, page 28: http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/77061/1902391/CSReport.pdf 74 Beyond Monitoring,” Business for Social Responsibility, http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Beyond-Monitoring- Report.pdf 75 Statement on IDH’s electronics website: http://elevatelimited.com/idh/en/program/program-objectives 76 See John Markoff’s article, “Environment Is a Mission At Sematech,”New York Times, October 5, 1992. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/05/business/environment-is-a-mission-at-sematech.html

Electronics TakeBack Coalition