STATE OF SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH

Health and Wellness

Wearable Electronic

Devices

Final Report

May 2021

Contents

Figures ...... 4

Tables ...... 5

Acronyms ...... 6

1. Introduction ...... 9

1.1. Overview ...... 9

1.2. GEC’s Theory of Change...... 10

1.3. EPEAT Sustainability Impact Priorities ...... 10

2. Wearable Products ...... 12

2.1. Defining Wearables ...... 12

2.2. HWWED Category Scope ...... 13

3. Market Analysis ...... 16

3.1. Global Wearable Market Overview ...... 16

3.2. Overview of Wearable Producers ...... 18

3.3. Overview of Wearable Markets by Region ...... 19

3.4. Wearables Market Drivers ...... 21

4. Product Components, Functionality, and Composition ...... 23

4.1. Product Components and Functionality...... 23

4.2. Products Material Breakdown ...... 25

2 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org 5. Environmental Impact Analysis ...... 27

5.1. Summary of Life Cycle Analyses ...... 27

5.2. Climate Change Mitigation ...... 29

5.2.1. Analysis of Life Cycle Impacts ...... 29

5.2.2. Mitigation Strategies ...... 31

5.3. Sustainable Use of Resources ...... 33

5.3.1 Analysis of Life Cycle Impacts ...... 33

5.3.2 Mitigation Strategies ...... 36

5.4 Chemicals of Concern ...... 39

5.4.1. Analysis of Hazardous Chemicals in Products and Manufacturing ...... 39

5.4.2 Mitigation Strategies ...... 40

5.5. Regulation/Standardization ...... 42

6. Social Impacts ...... 45

6.1. Description of Impacts, Considerations, and Risks ...... 45

6.1.1. Corporate ESG Performance...... 45

6.1.2. Supply Chain Risk ...... 46

6.2. Mitigation Strategies...... 49

6.2.1. Social Responsibility ...... 49

6.2.2. Responsible Sourcing of Minerals ...... 49

6.3. Regulation/Standardization ...... 49

7. Summary of Recommended Criteria ...... 51

References ...... 53

Appendix A ...... 65

3 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org Figures Figure 1. Wearable technology framework ...... 13 Figure 2. Global wearable market shipments, by product category ...... 16 Figure 3. Wearables sales revenue worldwide by category in 2015, 2018, and 2021 ...... 17 Figure 4. Market share of wearables unit shipments worldwide by vendor 1Q 2014-1Q2020 ...... 19 Figure 5. Number of connected wearable devices worldwide by region ...... 20 Figure 6. North America wearable technology market by application, 2012 – 2022 (US$ Billion) .... 20 Figure 7. Convergence of technologies leading to the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” ...... 21 Figure 8. “Wearables 4.0” technology and applications ecosystem ...... 22 Figure 9. Apple Watch Series 4 tear down by iFixit ...... 25 Figure 10. Material composition of Apple Watch series ...... 26 Figure 11. Material composition of wearable devices by brand ...... 26 Figure 12. Relative impact contribution towards environmental impacts for Xiaomi Mi Band 2 ...... 28 Figure 13. Single score assessment of the impacts of Xiaomi Mi Band 2 components ...... 29 Figure 14. Carbon footprint of Apple Smartwatch Series 1 - 6 ...... 30 Figure 15. Reasons for abandoning wearable devices ...... 35 Figure 16. NIOSH Hierarchy of Controls ...... 42

4 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org Tables Table 1. Classification of wearable technology, adapted ...... 12 Table 2. In-scope / out-of-scope analysis of wearable devices ...... 14 Table 3. Top 5 wearable device companies Q1 2020 ...... 18 Table 4. Main components required for the functionality of HWWED technology ...... 23 Table 5. List of environmental assessments for wearable technology ...... 27 Table 6. Standards for federally-regulated battery chargers manufactured on/after 6/3/2018 ...... 32 Table 7. Overview of relevant chemical and e-waste regulation for wearable technology ...... 43 Table 8. Overview of relevant standards for wearable technology ...... 44 Table 9. Corporate ESG performance evaluation for top producers in the wearable market ...... 46 Table 10. Overview of relevant regulation for wearable technology from a social perspective...... 50 Table 11. Overview of relevant regulation from a safety perspective for wearable technology ...... 50

5 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org Acronyms AI - Artificial Intelligence AMOLED - Active-matrix organic light-emitting diode ARM - Advanced RISC Machines AIMDD - Active Implantable Medical Devices CAGR – Compound Annual Growth Rate CDP - Carbon Disclosure Project CRM - Critical raw materials CSR - Corporate social responsibility CMR - Carcinogenic, mutagenic, reprotoxic DCM - Dichloromethane DOE - Department of Energy DTSC - Department of Toxic Substances Control DRC - Democratic Republic of Congo ECHA - European Chemicals Agency EU - European Union EMS - Environmental Management System ESG - Environment, Social, and Governance FD&C - Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act FPF - Future of Privacy Forum FR - Flame retardant GWP - Global warming potential GHG - Greenhouse gases GPS - Global positioning system GRI - Global Reporting Initiative GSM - Global System for Mobile Communications HWWED - Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Device IEC - International Electrotechnical Committee IoT - Internet of Things IC - Integrated circuit ICT - Information and communication technologies IC2 - Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse ILO - International Labor Organization ITU - International Telecommunication Union ISO - International Standard Organization

6 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org kWh - Kilowatt hour LCA - Life cycle assessment LCD - Liquid crystal display LED - Light emitting diode ML - Machine learning NAS - National Academy of Sciences NFC – Near-field communication NGO - Non-governmental Organization NIOSH - National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health OLED - Organic light emitting diode OEHHA - The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment PVC - Polyvinyl chloride PBTs - Persistent, bioaccumulates and toxics POP - Persistent organic pollutants PCB - Printed circuit board PCBA - Printed circuit board assembly PMD - Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Act RBA - Responsible Business Alliance RISC – Reduced Instruction Set Computer RMI - Responsible Mineral Initiative RoHS - Restriction of Hazardous Substances REACH - Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals RCI - Responsible Cobalt Initiative SOSR - State of Sustainability Research SA - Social Accountability SMM - Sustainable material management SDG - United Nations Sustainable Development Goal USB - Universal serial bus UN GC - United Nations General Compact V - Volt Wh - Watt hour WHO - World Health Organization WEEE - Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment 3TG - Tin, tellurium, tantalum and gold

7 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org

State of Sustainability Research: Health and Wellness Wearable

Electronic Devices

Purpose

The development and release of a State of Sustainability Research (SOSR) report is the first step in the GEC criteria development process. The draft of this SOSR was made available for public consultation in accordance with EPEAT policies. This final report includes edits and revisions based on the feedback of stakeholders. GEC thanks the stakeholders whose substantive feedback helps ensure that this document represents the best currently available data on sustainability impacts and reduction strategies.

About GEC

The Global Electronics Council (GEC) is a non-profit that leverages large-scale purchasing power, both public and private sector, as a demand driver for more sustainable technology. By deciding to buy sustainable technology, institutional purchasers can “move the needle” toward a more just and sustainable world. GEC also helps manufacturers understand the sustainability impacts of their technology, commit to address those impacts, and act to change operational, supply chain, and procurement behaviors. GEC is the manager of the ecolabel EPEAT®, used by more purchasers of electronics than any other ecolabel worldwide.

EPEAT is a comprehensive voluntary sustainability ecolabel that helps purchasers identify more sustainable electronic products that have superior environmental and social performance. EPEAT establishes criteria that address priority sustainability impacts throughout the life cycle of the product, based on an evaluation of scientific evidence and international best practices.

8 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org

1. Introduction

1.1. Overview Driven by recent advances in technology and accelerated by the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic, wearable electronics are poised to attain new significance and dramatically expanded use by governments, healthcare systems, educational institutions, and businesses. While these devices offer powerful new tools to improve workforce wellbeing, healthcare quality, and operational safety, they also pose potential negative social and environmental sustainability impacts.

Given these impacts and the exploding importance of wearables to organizations around the world, the Global Electronics Council (GEC) plans to launch an EPEAT category for Health and Wellness Wearable Devices (HWWEDs) that allows purchasers to identify devices that meet sustainability performance objectives.

The development and release of this State of Sustainability Research (SOSR) for public consultation is a key step in that process. In this report, we examine the social and environmental impacts of HWWEDs stemming from product design, composition, and customer use, as well as the supply chain for raw materials and components.

With this foundation, the SOSR identifies how sustainability impacts can be reduced through such measures as changes in product design, providing services to customers, or engaging the supply chain to improve manufacturing and labor practices. The data and analyses in this SOSR will serve as the scientific basis for the development of sustainability performance criteria for the EPEAT HWWEDs product category.

9 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org 1.2. GEC’s Theory of Change GEC is a global non-profit that leverages large-scale purchasing power, both public and private sector, as a demand driver for more sustainable technology. By deciding to buy sustainable technology, institutional purchasers can “move the needle” toward a more sustainable world. GEC also helps manufacturers understand the sustainability impacts of their technology, commit to address those impacts, and act to change operational, supply chain, and procurement behaviors. GEC is the manager of the ecolabel EPEAT, used by more purchasers of electronics than any other ecolabel worldwide. 1.3. EPEAT Sustainability Impact Priorities GEC organizes its analysis of sustainability impacts, and the criteria aimed at reducing these impacts, into four priority impact areas of importance to large-scale purchasers of electronic products. Focusing on sustainability impacts allows for a systematic analysis of data based on a unifying theme or metric to identify “hot spots” in the life cycle of the product or service, followed by a targeted examination of strategies that offer opportunities to reduce the identified life cycle impacts. This approach also enhances the ability of purchasers to link their organization’s sustainability goals to EPEAT criteria and to communicate internally how EPEAT criteria address organizational priorities. While this sustainability impact focus provides a practical approach for analysis, criteria development, and communication, it is also generally recognized that these sustainability impacts are not mutually exclusive; for example, sustainable use of resources will also contribute to climate change mitigation.

• Climate Change Mitigation: Climate change is creating irreversible damage to the planet and threatening conditions for all life on earth – extreme temperatures and weather conditions, rising sea levels, melting ice caps, and loss of biodiversity have already been documented as a result of climate change. Humankind’s release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere, by using fossil fuels for electricity generation and other energy needs, is the primary contributor to hastening climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions result not only from the manufacturing and use of electronic products, but also include the cumulative energy used to mine, manufacture, and assemble electronic components (embodied energy), as well as the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the transport and use of electronic products.

• Sustainable Use of Resources: The linear model of extracting, using, and disposing of the planet’s finite resources is unsustainable. Electronics in particular represent the fastest growing waste stream in the world, currently generating more than 48 million tons of electronic (e-waste) annually [1]. Over the past few years, a circularity model has gained traction that encourages product repair and longevity, the use of recovered materials and components, and managing

10 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org the product end-of-life for value recovery and diversion of resources from disposal back into productive use in the economy.

• Reduction of Chemicals of Concern: Hazardous chemicals used throughout the life cycle of electronic products can pose exposure risks to workers, product users, and recyclers, as well as environmental contamination of our air, land, and water if they are not properly handled and disposed of. It is important that the supply chain is aware of the substances used in or to manufacture the raw materials and components in the product in order to appropriately manage, and, ideally, reduce, or evaluate the use of alternative, less hazardous substances across a product’s life cycle.

• Corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Performance: Electronic product manufacturers leverage complex, global supply chains for materials and components, as well as the assembly and end-of-life management of products, which often have negative labor, human rights, and environmental consequences. Large-scale purchasers are increasingly interested in procuring products which are not only environmentally preferable but have also been produced in a socially responsible manner. The footprint of a product is the aggregation of life cycle environmental and social impacts. So, to earn a sustainable product rating, it is imperative that brands, not only promote, but also ensure that their supply chain adheres to internationally recognized best practices for labor, worker health and safety, and responsible sourcing of raw materials.

11 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org

2. Wearable Products

2.1. Defining Wearables No definition of a wearable device is internationally accepted. Wearable devices can be classified based on function, appearance, proximity to the human body, and other parameters [2]. For instance, the International Electrotechnical Committee (IEC) classifies wearables into four categories: near-body electronics, on-body electronics, in-body electronics, and electronic textiles categories [3]. Whereas, the University of California – Berkeley’s Sutardja Center for Entrepreneurship & Technology uses seven categories: smart watches, smart glasses, smart clothing, fitness trackers, body sensors, wearable cameras, and other [4]. Table 1 summarizes wearable technology types based on functional properties and capabilities to further understand their application in different industry verticals [2].

Table 1. Classification of wearable technology, adapted from Mardonova and Choi [2]

Type Properties Capabilities Applications Smartwatch - low operating power - information display - business, administration - user friendly interface with both - payment - marketing, insurance touch and voice commands - fitness/activity tracking - professional sport, training - communication - education - navigation Smart eyewear - controlled by touching the screen, - visualization - surgery head movement, voice command, - language interpretation - aerospace and defense and handshake - communication - logistics - low operating power - task coordination - education - sends sound directly to the ear Fitness tracker - high accuracy - physiological wellness - fitness - waterproof - navigation - healthcare - lightweight - fitness/activity tracking - professional sport - wireless communication - heart rate monitor - outdoor/indoor sport

12 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org Smart clothing - visual interaction with a user via - tracking heart rate, daily activities, - professional sports/fitness display or screen temperature, and body position - medicine - data from body sensors and - personal heating or cooling - military actuators - automatic payment - logistics Wearable - first person image capture, - captures real-time first-person - defense camera attachable to clothing or body photos and videos - fitness - smaller dimensions - live streaming - industry - night vision - fitness/activity tracking - education Wearable - pain management - cardiovascular diseases - fitness medical device - physiological tracking - physiological disorders - medicine (psychiatry, surgery, - glucose monitoring - chronic diseases (e.g., diabetes) oncology, endocrinology, - sleep monitoring - surgery dermatology) - brain activity monitoring - neuroscience - respiratory biology - dermatology - rehabilitation

2.2. HWWED Category Scope Broadly speaking, health and wellbeing wearables are devices that automatically measure and report information about the physical activities or status of an individual and/or their immediate environment. Body movement is the metric most commonly tracked by consumer wearables [5]; however, the kinds and complexity of sensors are expanding rapidly to include temperature, proximity, vibration, light absorbance, galvanic skin response, and more.

Data collected by the wearable is either transmitted directly through embedded wireless connectivity or via another device (e.g., smartphone) for automated or human analysis [6] (see Figure 1). The results can then be used by individuals or organizations for a variety of purposes.

Figure 1. Wearable technology framework, adapted from Aroganam [6]

Defining a scope for products considered for the EPEAT product category is a critical first step. The category definition should reflect the scope of devices purchased by large-scale purchasers to measure and maintain the health and wellbeing of relevant populations such as workers, employees, or patients. It also should be broad enough the reflect the advancement of technology, including product form factors.

13 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org At the same time, an overly broad definition will complicate analysis and undermine consensus for sustainability criteria. Since there is no universally accepted wearable product definition, Table 2 presents a representative selection of potential definitions.

Table 2. In-scope / out-of-scope analysis of wearable devices

Type of HWWED Product Is HWWED? Example Products Device primarily designed to collect, transmit, and Yes Wristband fitness tracker, analyze health and wellness (H&W) data health monitoring ring Device capable but not specifically designed to Yes Smart watch, smart hearing collect, transmit, and analyze H&W data aid Device requires another device or technology to Yes Patch sensor transmit collected H&W data Device collects H&W data but is not in constant No Smart thermometer, smart contact with a user mattress, cell phone

Leveraging these descriptions and building on conversations with leaders in industry, purchaser-users, and sustainability experts, GEC proposes the following product definition for HWWEDs:

A Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Device is…

… an electronic device (with or without physical or software accessories) designed to be worn by an individual in order to actively or passively collect data relevant to that individual’s health status and/or wellness behavior.

Data collected by the device is often transmitted to a software platform for analysis (by an individual or organization) in order to monitor health and incentivize healthy behavior.

The potential benefits to individuals and institutions from use of HWWED are extensive and include incentivizing healthy behavior [7], early disease diagnosis [8], enabling telemedicine [9], and improving public health [10]. Increasing desire by citizens, consumers, and institutions for expanded telemedicine capabilities will continue to drive innovation in wearable electronics. These technology advances will, in turn, generate new types of data at even greater fidelity.

Depending on the capabilities of the device, the kinds of data collected by HWWEDs may extend well beyond number of steps taken to include highly sensitive information about weight, location, medication,

14 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org temperature, medical conditions, and proximity to other people. Importantly, some personal data may not seem particularly sensitive, but when analyzed over time may become sensitive. For example, basal skin temperature may reveal reproductive health or fertility status [11]. Other types of data may not be sensitive individually, but when joined with other types of information may become very sensitive. For instance, an individual’s location may not necessarily be sensitive except when correlated to a mental health treatment facility or free speech event [12], [13].

As the clear potential benefits of using HWWEDs are inextricable from the potentially sensitive data they collect, GEC has partnered with the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) to identify and assess HWWED data privacy and security risks, as well as the relevant policy and legal frameworks that govern them and make recommendations on best practices for data protection. See Appendix A for the FPF report, Risk and Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellbeing Wearable Electronic Devices.

15 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org

3. Market Analysis

3.1. Global Wearable Market Overview The wearables industry showed strong growth in the last few years. In 2018, manufacturers shipped 122.6 million units worldwide, and are projected to expand to 190.4 million units by 2022 (see Figure 2 and Figure 3) [14]. Smartwatches and wrist-worn fitness trackers were the primary drivers of this growth, accounting for 95% of the market in 2018, and are expected to shape the market in 2022 as well [15]. The popularity of these devices derives from the wide range of monitoring capabilities including notifications, alarms, music control, auto sleep and other functions that smartwatches and fitness trackers can offer. Global Wearables Market Estimated worldwide device shipments (in million units) 140 121.1 120 2018 2022

100

80 72.4

60 44.2 45.5 40

20 10.5 12.3 2.9 2.1 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.2 0 Smartwatch Wristband Clothing Earwear Modular Other Figure 2. Global wearable market shipments, by product category [14]

16 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org 16 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org

Figure 3. Wearables sales revenue worldwide by category in 2015, 2018, and 2021 (in billion US $). *Sports, fitness, and wellness trackers includes activity trackers, heart rate monitors, pedometers, and home monitoring **Others include wearable cameras, smart glasses, healthcare devices wearable 3D motion trackers, smart clothing, and hearables [15].

Between 2015 and 2018, the global revenues in the entire wearable market grew from US $15.4 billion to US $30.7 billion (+99.5%) and are forecasted to grow further to reach US $42.8 billion in 2021 [16]. In 2015, revenues mainly stemmed from smartwatches (35%). Sports, fitness, and wellness trackers accounted for 26%. The remaining 39% of the market was made up of other devices: wearable cameras, smart glasses, healthcare devices wearable 3D motion trackers, smart clothing, and hearables. The revenues from smartwatches have been increasing (+9.7% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) 2018-2019), while sports, fitness, and wellness trackers have seen a decline (-15.5% CAGR 2018- 2019).

A key part of the market for institutional purchasers is the global wearable medical device segment. Market research firm Grandview Research estimated the size of this market globally to be US $16.6 billion in 2020 and anticipates a CAGR of 26.8% from 2021 to 2028 [16]. Notably, a Juniper Research study concludes that the data from medical wearable devices itself will become a significant

17 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org market in the coming years. They estimate that monetization of data collected by medical wearables will become a US $855 million dollar global market by 2023 [17]. 3.2. Overview of Wearable Producers Historically, wearable device production has been dominated by five brands: Apple, Xiaomi, Samsung, Huawei, and Fitbit. Recently, however, the global response to COVID-19 has driven an explosion in the development of new products as well as the entry of new brands into the market. These recent trends are not solely dependent on the immediate response to the pandemic, but also reflect longer term trends toward expanded telemedicine and remote health monitoring, aided by wearable devices [14]. Overall, wearables brands that focused on less capable “fitness band” devices have lost market share, while those that offer hearables or smartwatches have demonstrated substantial growth (Table 3) [19].

Table 3. Top 5 wearable device companies by shipment volume, market share, and year-over-year growth, Q1 2020 (shipments in millions) [19]

1Q20 1Q20 Market 1Q19 1Q19 Market Year-Over- Company Shipments Share Shipments Share Year Growth Apple 21.2 29.3% 13.3 23.7% 59.9% Xiaomi 10.1 14.0% 6.5 11.6% 56.4% Samsung 8.6 11.9% 5.0 9.0% 71.7% Huawei 8.1 11.1% 5.0 8.9% 62.2% Fitbit 2.2 3.0% 2.9 5.2% -26.1% Others 22.3 30.8% 23.3 41.6% -4.0% TOTAL 72.6 100.0% 56.0 100.0% 29.7%

At the end of 2019, according to market intelligence firm International Data Corporation (IDC), Apple was the top player in the wearables market, contributing 29.3% of the market, and selling 21.2 million units in 2020 Q1, out of which 4.5 million units were smartwatches [19].

Xiaomi, a Chinese electronics company, gained a presence in the market in 2015, and now is the second largest wearable producer in the world, accounting for 14% of the market share in the 2020 Q1. Xiaomi sold10.1 million units in the first quarter of 2020, out of which 7.3 million devices shipped were wristbands and watches [19].

Huawei ranked fourth and accounted for 11.1% of the wearables market, selling 8.1 million units, out of which 1 million units were smartwatches. In addition to China, Huawei grew a strong presence in the

18 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org Europe, Latin America, and other Asian markets, driving further growth [19]. Samsung ranked third globally, accounting for 11.1% of the market share in 1Q2020, selling 8.6 million units, out of which 1.8 million were smartwatches [19].

In 2014, Fitbit held a strong presence in the health and fitness wearables market, holding about 45% of the market share. However, over the years, Fitbit’s market share has declined (see Table 3 and Figure 4) [19][20]. In the first quarter of 2020, Fitbit accounted for 3% of the market share, and sold 2.2 million devices [19].

Figure 4. Market share of wearables unit shipments worldwide by vendor 1Q 2014-1Q2020[20]

3.3. Overview of Wearable Markets by Region In 2017, analysis by Statista found that North America had more than 220 million users of wearable devices [21]. The number of users is expected to increase to 430 million in 2022. Statista also found that 5G wearable connectivity is a major driver of the wearables market in North America, forecasting that 25% of the adult population in the US will be using a wearable device by 2022 [22]. The Asia-Pacific market is ranked second, and, together with North America, projected to account for 70% of the wearables market in 2022 (Figure 5) [22].

19 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org Number of Connected Wearable Devices

1250

1000

750

500

Wearable Devices in Millions in Devices Wearable 250

0 2017 2022

Asia Pacific Latin America North America Central & Eastern Middle East & Western Europe Europe Africa Figure 5. Number of connected wearable devices worldwide by region [22]

Grandview Research estimates that by 2022 the fitness and wellness sector will account for 29% of the revenue from the wearables market in North America (see Figure 6) [23]. This growth is attributed to the increasing popular awareness about fitness and wellness. Combined with healthcare, the fitness and wellness sectors will account for half of the total wearables market in 2022. Further advancement of virtual reality technology is a primary driver for the infotainment sector. Government initiatives to enhance defense capability and deploy advanced technology to servicemembers will drive growth in the defense sector.

Figure 6. North America wearable technology market by application, 2012 – 2022 (US$ Billion) [23]

20 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org 3.4. Wearables Market Drivers The easy and comprehensive integration of advanced digital technologies such as IoT, hyperconnectivity, AI, machine learning (ML), automation, cloud computing, miniaturization, and others with physical assets is widely referred to as the fourth industrial revolution (Figure 7) [24]. Driven by the commodification of big, ubiquitous data, organizations are transforming services and operations to meet demands from customers and citizens for a more personalized, proactive, and agile experience [25]. These advancements in technology, communication, and integration are accelerating a revolution in the wearables market as well.

Figure 7. Convergence of technologies leading to the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”

Manufacturers have responded by providing new offerings tailored to enterprise customers. The global response to COVID-19 further accelerated and will continue to drive the adoption of enterprise use of wearables for applications such as contact tracing, social distancing, security/access, and quarantine measures.

In addition to the forces driving and driven by the fourth industrial revolution, the wearables landscape is also experiencing a significant expansion in platforms and types of sensors along with significant diversification of applications (see Figure 8) [26]. Wearables today enable smarter, more efficient, and safer factories [27]; better, less expensive healthcare [28]; and better educational outcomes [29]. Advances in battery life mean that wearables can generate data for longer periods of time and with less inconvenience to users.

The deployment of mobile and 5G technologies facilitates the transmission of collected information to cloud-based analytic and storage capabilities, making possible population-level insight generation. These factors are transforming the wearables market from a consumer-only segment and opening up enterprise-oriented offerings [30].

21 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org

Figure 8. “Wearables 4.0” technology and applications ecosystem

The COVID-19 pandemic has further accelerated adoption and innovation in wearable technology, while turbocharging demand [31]. Public and private sector organizations looking to return to some approximation of normal operations face challenges that wearable technology can directly support. Organizations are using wearables to operationalize social distancing, early symptom detection, contact tracing, traffic control, and remote work [32].

The need to deliver healthcare and wellbeing support remotely has also accelerated the adoption of wearable technology for telehealth across the globe [33]. Some examples of how large purchasers from government, healthcare, life sciences, educational institutions, and other companies are using wearable technology can be found in the table on page 17 of Appendix A.

22 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org

4. Product Components, Functionality, and Composition

4.1. Product Components and Functionality As discussed in section 2.2., there are different types and applications of wearable technology, and designs vary accordingly. While it is beyond the scope of this report to summarize components of each type of wearable device, Table 4 summarizes the key components that are essential for the functioning of a smartwatch [34].

Table 4. Main components required for the functionality of HWWED technology, adapted from [34]

Component Functionality Printed PCBs are the fundamental building block of a device, on which all electronic circuit board components such as sensors, wireless chip sets, processors are mounted and routed (PCB) together to achieve functionality. There are various types of PCBs: rigid, flexible, rigid flex circuits, and printed electronics. The manufacturing process of printed circuit board is energy intensive, and, hence, a significant contributor to climate change [35] Sensor Sensors are the core element of wearable technology. Their main function is to monitor the movements of the user to give them better understanding of their activity. Examples of sensors found in wearables include accelerometers, gyroscopes, altimeters, temperature sensors, bioimpedance sensors, and heart rate monitors. This diversity of sensor technology results in various material composition, and some may contain hazardous substances that can potentially harm environmental and human health.

23 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org Screen/ The display is the major input and output element of wearable technology and is mainly Display used for communication purposes. The display can be divided into two parts: inductive touch panel and smart display. Examples of screen types used in wearable technology are AMOLED, OLED, E-ink, traditional LCD, and sharp memory LCD. E-ink and LED are the most widely used technology, as they consume less power. Battery Batteries are the main source of power in wearables. Two types of batteries are mainly available: Lithium polymer and Li-ion. The ideal choice for a wearable device is generally a lithium battery because of its higher power capacity. Wireless The main function of wireless chip set is data transmission through wireless radio chip set including cellular/GSM, GPS, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and NFC. The small size of wearables requires manufacturers to opt for chipsets that incorporate these functions and at the same time can fit into a narrow frame. Additionally, electricity consumption of this component is a key factor to consider as wearables need a chipset that can be activated all the time to continuously monitor sensors and collect data. Processor The processor on a wearable device is responsible for running its operating system, applications, receiving input from sensors or the user, and producing output. Advanced RISC Machines (ARM) processors are the most popular options for wearables. Like chipsets, electricity consumption is a one of the key sustainability factors associated with a processor. Attachment An attachment system is the technology that connects the device to a wearer (e.g., a system band, clip, adhesive, or necklace). The materials used vary with the type of attachment, but generally include, plastics, silicone rubber, fabric, leather, and/or metal.

For example, the components of a smartwatch can be seen in Figure 9 below which shows a teardown of an Apple Watch Series 4 performed by iFixit [36].

24 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org

Figure 9. Apple Watch Series 4 tear down by iFixit [36]

4.2. Products Material Breakdown Figure 10 and Figure 11 summarize the material composition of four Apple smartwatches and fitness trackers from Fitbit, Samsung, and Sony [37]–[41] . On average, plastics are the largest material component type by weight (more than 50%), used primarily in the wristband. Metals such as aluminum, steel, and copper are the second largest material component by weight (at least 16%). For example, aluminum and steel are commonly used in the casing, while copper is used in the wiring of the device. Electronic components such as printed circuit boards and batteries range from 5% to 10% of total weight depending on the brand and model of the device.

25 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org

Figure 10. Material composition of Apple Watch series [38]–[41]

Figure 11. Material composition of wearable devices by brand [37]

26 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org

5. Environmental Impact Analysis

5.1. Summary of Life Cycle Analyses Table 5 summarizes the environmental life cycle assessments for HWWEDs examined in this SOSR. Two comprehensive LCAs for HWWED technology were identified: a quantification of the multiple environmental impacts from the Xiaomi Mi Band 2 [42] and a life cycle analysis of the Fitbit Charge 2 and Charge HR [43]. Other available LCAs only focus on a single impact category, for example, global warming potential or carbon footprint.

Table 5. List of environmental assessments for wearable technology

Year Title Authors 2016 Apple Watch Series 1 Environmental Report [38] Not available 2016 Apple Watch Series 2 Environmental Report [39] Not available 2017 Environmental impact analysis of smartwatch using SimaPro8 tools Man Man Mani Ma, and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) technique [42] Ze Zhu, Yan Cheong Chan 2017 Apple Watch Series 3 (GPS + Cellular) Environmental Report [40] Not available 2018 Apple Watch Series 4 (GPS + Cellular) Environmental Report [41] Not available 2018* Life Cycle Assessment Summary Samsung Galaxy Watch [44] Huynh Vo, Joel Kattleus, Sunil Karki, Shahid Shopneel 2018 Fitbit Charge 2 & Charge HR Life Cycle Assessment [43] Not available 2019 Product Environmental Report Apple Watch Series 5 [45] Not available * approximate date

27 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org The analysis of the Xiaomi Mi Band 2 focused on the environmental impacts of four principal sub- assemblies of the device [42]. Figure 12 shows the relative contribution attributed to the production of the four sub-assemblies – main body with PCB, USB cable, strap, and shell – for 17 environmental impact metrics.

Figure 12. Relative impact contribution towards environmental impacts in producing USB, cable, strap, shell, and main body with PCB for Xiaomi Mi Band 2

The “main body with PCB” component is by far the greatest contributor across all environmental impacts, primarily due to the material and energy intensive production process for circuit boards. Additionally, PCB manufacturing processes use chemicals that are harmful to human health and the environment.

The relative magnitude of the 17 environmental impacts is illustrated in Figure 13, quantified for each sub-assembly. Fossil fuel depletion and metals depletion account for the largest share of environmental impacts in the production of the “main body with PCB” component as well as the USB cable. These findings are consistent with the findings of LCA for the Fitbit Charge 2 and Charge HR.

28 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org

Figure 13. Single score assessment of the impacts of Xiaomi Mi Band 2 components [42]

The next three sections take a closer look at three sustainability impacts – climate change, sustainable use of resources, and chemicals of concern – and the materials, components, and activities within the product life cycle that contribute to the impacts. Strategies to reduce the identified impacts are also discussed.

5.2. Climate Change Mitigation 5.2.1. Analysis of Life Cycle Impacts The available LCA studies show that embodied carbon is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions for HWWEDs. Embodied carbon is the sum of greenhouse gas emissions released from mining, producing, and assembling the materials and components that make up a product throughout the life cycle [44]. The primary contributor to embodied carbon for HWWEDs is the energy consumed during the raw materials and production phases.

According to life cycle-oriented greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions assessments by Apple [38]–[41], [45], embodied carbon accounts for 79% - 87% of total GHG emissions depending on the model

29 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org evaluated (see Figure 14), while customer use (power consumption over an assumed three-year product life) accounts for 13% - 21% of GHG emissions. The largest contributor to total GHG emissions is production, which accounts for 66% - 77% of total GHG emissions. Production for Apple covers extraction, production, and transportation of raw materials; manufacture, transport, and assembly of all parts into the finished product; and product packaging. A smaller portion of embodied carbon is contributed by transportation (9% - 10%) and recycling activities (1% - 3%).

Notably, the production phase contribution to total GHG emissions increased between Apple Watch Series 1 to Series 6 [38]–[41], [45], [46]. While these LCAs do not address the cause of this increase, it is likely that new or improved features or functionality required the use of more or more complex components. Nevertheless, despite improved functionality, the Series 6 Apple Watch decreased total GHG emissions by 12% compared to the Series 5 watch. Apple reported that the reduction was the result of renewable energy use by suppliers, increased use of recycled aluminum, and the company’s decision to not ship a power adapter in the box with its Series 6 watch [46].

Figure 14. Carbon footprint of Apple Smartwatch Series 1 - 6 [38]–[41], [45], [46]

30 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org The Fitbit Charge 2 LCA divided the product into four component parts: device, primary packaging, secondary packaging, and charger. It defined the product’s life cycle as comprising five phases: material pre-processing (including raw material extraction and component manufacture), production, transportation/distribution, use, and end-of-life. The LCA’s results showed that two phases contributed the most to global warming: materials pre-processing and transportation of the finished, packaged product to distribution centers. Almost half of the total life cycle global warming impact was attributed to the primary packaging.

Focusing in on the life cycle of the device, approximately 50% of global warming impact came from materials pre-processing, while the production phase accounted for approximately 24%. Of the components in the device, its electronic components contributed the most significantly to global warming: primarily the printed circuit board assemblies (PCBAs) and LED display, followed by the stainless-steel housing. Looking at PCBAs, the largest global warming impact was attributed to the integrated circuits (ICs), diodes, and printed circuit board (PCB) [43].

Similarly, one major contributors to GHG emissions for the Xiaomi Mi Band 2 is the PCBA (Figure 12 and Figure 13 above) [42]. This is mainly because of the energy intensive manufacturing processes of circuit board components such as ICs (especially silicon wafer production), PCBs, and diodes. Another significant contribution comes from the substrate used during the PCB assembly process, again due to an energy intensive manufacturing process [47].

5.2.2. Mitigation Strategies Based on the above analysis of the source of GHG emissions in the HWWED life cycle, the following are strategies aimed at reducing the identified impacts.

• Energy efficiency in manufacturing

Improving energy efficiency in the manufacture of components and product assembly should provide a significant reduction in the embodied carbon of HWWEDs. For example, Sony observed 52% decrease in CO2 emissions by implementing energy efficient technology at its semiconductor manufacturing facility [48]. Facilities that manufacture the following components should be prioritized for HWWEDs as they are the largest contributors to embodied carbon: PCB, ICs, diodes, and display technology (e.g., LED, AMOLED).

31 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org • Use of renewable energy in manufacturing

Electricity grid energy mix plays an important role in increasing or decreasing GHG emissions from manufacturing “Using electricity facilities. Electricity generated from renewable energy generated from sources, such as solar and hydropower, emit fewer renewable energy greenhouse gases, which lowers the total embodied carbon sources to produce in the product. For example, Apple determined that its components reduces Supplier Clean Energy program which promotes renewable energy use, led to a 12% decrease in GHG emissions from embodied carbon.” watch production [41].

• Battery charging efficiency

Improving the efficiency of battery chargers can help reduce the impacts from customer use. There are various factors that influence the power consumption of a wearable technology such as mode of the device (sleep or active), energy efficiency of chip sets and processors, and power supply efficiencies. There are at least two battery charger efficiency standards applicable to wearables: the State of California Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20) [49] and the US Department of Energy (DOE) standards (10 CFR 430.32) [50] (see Table 6). The US DOE adopted the battery charger regulations in June 2016, applying similar stringencies to the regulations promulgated by the State of California. By 2047, the US DOE estimates that these standards will save 0.170 quadrillion Btu and avoid 10.45 million metric tons of CO2 gases [51].

Table 6. Standards for federally-regulated battery chargers manufactured on/after June 13, 2018[50]

Product Product Class Rated Battery Special Characteristic or Maximum UEC (kWh/yr) (as a

Class Description Energy (Ebatt **) Battery Voltage function of Ebatt) 1 Low-Energy ≤ 5 Wh Inductive Connection* 3.04

2 Low-Energy < 100 Wh < 4 V 0.1440 * Ebatt + 2.95 Low-Voltage 3 Low-Energy < 10 Wh ≥ 4 V and ≤ 10 V 1.42 kWh/year

Medium-Voltage ≥ 10 Wh 0.0255 * Ebatt + 1.16

4 Low-Energy > 10 V 0.11 * Ebatt + 3.18 High-Voltage

5 Medium-Energy ≥ 100 Wh and < 20 V 0.0257 * Ebatt + 0.815 Low-Voltage ≤ 3,000 Wh

6 Medium-Energy ≥ 20 V 0.0778 * Ebatt + 2.4 High-Voltage

7 High-Energy > 3,000 Wh 0.0502 * Ebatt + 4.53 * Inductive connection and designed for use in a wet environment (e.g., electric toothbrushes)

** Ebatt = Rated battery energy as determined in A part 429.39(a)

32 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org • Product transport carbon footprint

The main factors influencing product transport emissions are logistics, packaging weight, mode of transportation, and type of fuel source used. Conducting a product life cycle assessment can help identify the hotspots of transportation carbon emissions and help drive mitigation strategies towards these problem areas. For example, the Fitbit LCA showed that the main driver for transportation carbon emissions was their current mode of transport (i.e., by air) to distribution centers. By changing the mode of transportation from air to sea, Fitbit predicted that there would be a decrease in transport carbon emissions of nearly 98% [43]. In addition to mode of transportation, the Fitbit LCA identified that packaging weight was another contributor towards transportation emissions. Distribution and transportation of the primary packaging resulted in 40% higher global warming impact than the device itself. This will be discussed further in the sustainable use of resources section below.

5.3. Sustainable Use of Resources 5.3.1 Analysis of Life Cycle Impacts • Supply chain

The most significant impact in the life cycle of a Xiaomi smartwatch is metal depletion (see Figure 13) [42]. Metals are used in charging cables, USB cables, and the main body, including the PCB. Charging cables contain metals such as aluminum, copper, or silver. PCBs contain a broad variety of metals such as aluminum, copper, and precious metals (e.g., gold, silver). Further, wearable technology generally contains critical raw materials (CRM) such as indium (e.g., in solder and in indium tin oxide in the display), cobalt (e.g., in batteries), tantalum (e.g., in capacitors on PCBs), gallium, tungsten (e.g., in vibration motors), and germanium (e.g., in ICs).

Another significant impact caused by the production of the smartwatch is fossil fuel depletion (see Figure 13). One of the contributing factors is the plastics used in the device, which account for more than 50% of the total mass of the device, as seen in Figure 10 and Figure 11. Plastics have various applications in wearable devices. They typically constitute the base material for wristbands, but are also used as a packaging material, as noted in Apple’s environmental report [40] and Fitbit LCA [43].

Additionally, increased material usage can also lead to increases in overall carbon and water footprints, due to use of high amounts of water and energy during the raw materials extraction and processing stages [53]. For instance, fossil fuel depletion impact is an indication of increased use of fossil fuels for energy production, which would lead to increase in carbon emissions and, subsequently, to climate change. Further, material production and component manufacturing processes may release toxic chemicals and pollutants into the environment that are harmful to human health and environment. For

33 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org example, raw material production for the Fitbit Charge 2 device contributed 93% of overall ecotoxicity impact [43]. This was attributed to the release of sulfidic mine tailings during the extraction and processing of precious metals used in the fitness tracker.

• Packaging

The LCAs analyzed for this report included packaging in the scope of the life cycle analyses; however, only Fitbit reported the contribution of packaging relative to the entire life cycle impacts. The most significant impact of packaging was global warming impact, with packaging weight a contributing factor. The Fitbit LCA found that the primary packaging (comprised of magnets, boxboard, and polystyrene) weighed five times more than the Charge 2 device itself. Fitbit has already undertaken efforts to eliminate some of these materials and redesign packaging to lower the overall contribution of the packaging to environmental impacts. However, in some cases less environmentally impactful materials have led to increases in weight that offset some GHG gains [43]. Consequently, it is critical for manufacturers to consider the comprehensive life cycle impacts of changes to packaging materials and design rather than only focusing on individual components.

• End of life

On average, wearable devices are engineered to last between 1.5 - 2 years [54]. Even this short lifespan is undercut, because consumers often discard or abandon wearables before they are obsolete, reach expected end-of-life, or are no longer functional. A survey by Ericsson’s ConsumerLab found that one third of owners abandoned devices within a couple of weeks of purchase [55]. Of those surveyed, 21% indicated that they have abandoned wearables due to limited functionality and use (see Figure 15). Expanded opportunities to return unwanted devices could allow for use by other users who are willing to accept a pre-owned or less modern device.

34 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org

Figure 15. Reasons for abandoning wearable devices [55]

Opportunities to redeploy or recycle wearable devices is highly dependent on the design aspects of the HWWED. Teardown guides produced by iFixit of smartwatches and fitness trackers show that adhesives are extensively used to assemble wearable devices, leading to disassembly challenges, which in turn limits recyclability and repairability. For example, batteries incorporated into these products are glued into the product’s frame, which can inhibit battery replacement and hence product longevity. Newer versions of smartwatches and fitness trackers have shown an improvement in repairability by addressing some of the product design aspects, such as easy battery replacement. However, the sensor modules in the wearables are still not repairable or upgradeable [56].

Currently, little information is publicly available about the end-of-life policies specific to handling wearable technologies offered by device manufacturers to enterprise customers or consumers. Based on unit sales data, GEC estimates that 72.4 million units or roughly 3700 metric tons of smartwatches 1 will reach end of life in 2020. End of life management policies, such as product take back, could prevent millions of these devices from entering the e-waste stream, and potentially put repaired and refurbished products, as well as materials, back into the economy.

1 Average mass of smartwatches is estimated at 52.7g using the reported weights of various models by the top brands. Average life span of a smartwatch is assumed to be 2 years. Total number of smartwatches sold in 2018 are estimated from figure – 2, and is multiplied with the average mass of a smartwatch to estimate the amount of smartwatches entering e-waste stream.

35 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org HWWEDs, however, could present challenges to product recovery, recycling, and material recovery due to their small size. Owners may be less likely to choose sustainable end-of-life pathways for devices that can easily be thrown into a drawer, and different handling processes may be necessary to ensure maximum recovery of materials. 5.3.2 Mitigation Strategies • Sustainable Material Management

Implementing Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) strategies such as using recycled material, or material substitution can help reduce supply chain and end of life impacts [53], [57]. For example, Apple has taken a number of steps recently to conserve natural resources. In the Apple Watch Series 5 and Series 6, Apple used 100% certified recycled aluminum in the casing component[45], [46]. In the “Use of recycled Series 6 watch, Apple used 100% recycled rare earth materials can conserve elements in some magnets, accounting for resources and reduce approximately 70% of all rare earth elements used in the device. Apple’s Series 6 also used 99% recycled environmental impacts.” tungsten in its Taptic Engine components.

Another SMM strategy could be to not include redundant or unnecessary accessories, such as power wall adapters. In wearables this approach can lead to more compact packaging by eliminating unnecessary materials and avoiding emissions associated with production and transportation.

SMM strategies combined with climate change strategies could bring significant reduction in product life cycle impact. For instance, Apple reduced total product emissions by 7% by using recycled aluminum sourced from smelting facilities powered by hydroelectricity rather than fossil fuels [45]. Apple also reported a cumulative 12% reduction in Apple Watch GHG emissions by using renewable energy in supplier facilities, recycled aluminum, and removing adapters [46].

36 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org • Packaging improvements

Eliminating unnecessary materials to reduce packaging weight and improve packaging efficiency or using “Increasing product to recycled materials or renewable resources, such as, fiber-based materials can help reduce packaging packaging ratio can impacts. However, there are trade-offs in implementing reduce environmental these strategies, particularly if manufacturers do not take impacts from materials a comprehensive all-of-life cycle approach. For and transportation.” example, fiber-based materials may be denser than plastics, resulting in mass increase that results in increased GHG profile during the transportation phase. Careful assessment of these tradeoffs in package design will help manufacturers meet sustainability goals.

• Product longevity

One key strategy for mitigating the life cycle sustainability impacts of electronic products is extending the lifetime of the product.

Easy disassembly of wearable devices is important “Ease of disassembly to facilitate repair and extend service life, either with enables repair, reuse, and the initial customer or another user. Products that are recycling of wearables, repairable will be able to be disassembled using common tools and have easily separable and extending product life and replaceable batteries. Additionally, the availability facilitating value material of spare parts and user manuals are generally recovery.” considered to be critical to extending product lifespan through repair and reuse. Providing software updates for reasonable amount of time after end of production could also ensure the long-term use of wearable devices. For instance, Rebble Alliance organization continued to run its servers to support the Pebble wearable device that was discontinued by Fitbit avoiding thousands of devices from prematurely entering the e-waste stream [58]. Further, the privacy of the user can be protected by enabling secure deletion of data by users before the product is returned for reuse or recycling.

Meeting product longevity objectives often requires that brands and purchasers make decisions involving complex tradeoffs among a product’s durability, reliability, repairability, and continued desirability to a user. For example, a product with high risk of exposure to and damage from water may be designed

37 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org with certified water resistance as a key feature. While the materials and design features for water resistance will decrease the likelihood of a water-induced failure and thereby extend the longevity of the product, they may also increase the complexity of repair or require materials with different sustainability characteristics. Design decisions should balance these tradeoffs to optimize and reduce life cycle impacts.

• End of life management options

Best practices for enterprise device recovery programs aim at keeping products in service, where feasible, as well as material recovery to divert products from the waste stream. In the enterprise market, purchasers could potentially find opportunities to leverage scale and fleet management to encourage wearable solutions providers to adopt business models that implement return, reuse, and recycling.

Manufacturers and purchasers could develop recovery programs or partner with reuse organizations. For example, Recycle Health collects unwanted trackers and provides them to underserved populations [59]. This non-profit organization was able to divert more than 5000 fitness trackers from entering the e- waste stream. Reconext [60] is a company that provides innovative and cost-effective supply chain solutions including returns management, repair services, and customized trade-in and buy-back programs to mobile device carriers, brands, retailers, insurance providers and enterprise businesses across the globe.

“Enterprise Manufacturers should take responsibility for recovered products and ensure they are handled by facilities that adhere to purchasers can sustainability standards for processing used electronics. leverage scale and Transparent reporting of the disposition of devices including the fleet management share of equipment reused or recycled is an important metrics for for return, reuse, understanding and improving the efficacy of a manufacturer’s reuse and recycling service for HWWEDs that have reached end and recycling.” of life.

When developing end-of-life, reuse, and recycling options for wearables, it is important for manufacturers to consider how to manage user data on a device. Secure deletion of data and/or reset functionality are critical to ensuring a device can be reused or recycled without compromise of potentially sensitive user data.

Finally, following design principles that are compatible with current collection systems, pre-processing technologies, as well as sorting technologies used by the recycling sector are strategies that manufacturers can apply to facilitate recycling at the end of life.

38 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org 5.4 Chemicals of Concern 5.4.1. Analysis of Hazardous Chemicals in Products and Manufacturing • Product chemical composition

Wearable technology components such as batteries and printed circuit boards can contain hazardous chemical substances; for example, the printed circuit board of a smartwatch contained heavy metals such as nickel, copper, gold, bromine, and tin [42]. In addition, charging cables for electronic products generally are made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and may contain flame retardants (FRs) and phthalates [47]. These materials or byproducts, as applicable, and if released into the environment at the end of the life, have potential to cause damage to the environment and human health.

Unlike many Information and Communication Technology (ICT) devices, wearables are intended to be worn over extended periods of time and in near-constant contact with the user’s skin. They thereby create risks of allergic or other skin reactions if certain metals (e.g., nickel) or other materials used during manufacture are present in the final product [61]. In addition, sensitivity to elastomer materials or bacterial buildup can result due to prolonged usage [62]. Therefore, the use of skin sensitive materials should be restricted in wearable devices.

• Manufacturing chemicals

In December 2019, the Clean Electronics Production Network (CEPN) identified the following nine priority chemicals used in manufacturing processes:

• 1-Bromopropane (CAS#106 – 94 – 5) • Benzene (CAS #71-43-2) • Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) (CAS #75-09-2) • Methanol (CAS #67-56-1) • n-Hexane (CAS #110-54-3) • N- Methyl-Pyrrolidone (NMP) (CAS #872-50-4) – Exempted Conditional Use for photoresist stripping • Tetrachloroethylene (CAS #127 -18-4) • Toluene (CAS #108-88-3) • Trichloroethylene (CAS #79-01-6)

These chemicals were selected based on CEPN high hazard criteria, indication of use in the electronics industry and potential viability of available safer alternatives [63]. This initial prioritization focused on chemicals used for cleaning such as solvents, aqueous detergent solutions, stencil/ink removers,

39 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org adhesive removers, solvent vapor degreaser solutions, ultrasonic parts cleaner solutions, photo-resist strippers, solder defluxing solutions, etc. Fluxes themselves were not in scope [64].

Chemicals of concern were similarly identified by Greenpeace (benzene and n-hexane) [65] in 2017, and by Swedetox (methylene chloride, toluene, and lead) [66] in June 2020. These chemicals are associated with increased incidence of cancer, neurological damage, target organ toxicity, and/or reproductive toxicity.

5.4.2 Mitigation Strategies A robust chemical management system that reduces impacts on human health and the environment is one that extends from raw material extraction to production and includes the customer use phase as well as product end-of-life.

• Product substance restrictions “Due to the contact Hazardous chemicals can be eliminated from nature of wearables, fabricated assembled products to avoid unintended releases, particularly when exposure controls may not special attention should be properly implemented, such as at end-of-life. PVC be given to restricting blends and halogenated flame retardants can release the use of skin sensitive dioxins and furans if improperly combusted, an end- materials in wearable of-life risk, hence their use is not recommended since disposition practices vary globally. devices.”

Substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, reprotoxic (CMRs) or persistent, bioaccumulates and toxic (PBTs) should not be used to the maximum extent feasible. This applies to use of recycled content materials, hence the need to eliminate chemicals of concern to enable circularity. By meeting the most stringent hazardous substance regulations manufacturers will maximize the potential circularity of HWWEDs. A best practice for manufacturers is to maintain a restricted substances list that at a minimum comprises substances covered by applicable regulations, such as the

• EU Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS, Annex II) [67] • Regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH, Annex XIV for substances for authorization and Annex XVII for restricted substances) [68] • POP Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 850/2004) based on the Stockholm convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP Convention, Annexes A & B) [69]

40 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org Because wearables are designed to remain in contact with people, restrictions on skin sensitive materials in wearable devices will apply. The current proposed list of skin sensitizing substances (REACH Annex XV Restriction Report) for wristwatch straps and bands can be found on the website of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) [61]. Some of the examples include allergenic disperse dyes, chromium VI compounds, diisocyanates, (meth)acrylates, formaldehyde, nickel, cobalt, and dicyclohexyl phthalate.

• Alternatives Assessment

The following resources provide comprehensive frameworks for assessing safer alternatives to chemicals of concern, covering potential adverse impacts on human health and the environment, societal impacts, performance, and cost considerations.

• National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical “Processes to identify safer Alternatives [70], alternatives encourage • Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse (IC2) innovation.” Alternatives Assessment Guide [71], • California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Alternatives Analysis Guide [72], • The Clean Electronics Production Network Alternatives Assessment Guide [73] and Process Chemicals Data Collection Tool [74].

Additional hazard-based alternatives assessment tools, particularly useful for evaluation of chemicals of concern in products include:

• GreenSreen® [75] • Scivera Chemical Hazard Assessment [76] • Cradle to Cradle Certified™ [77]

• Management systems to reduce manufacturing impacts

Leading production facilities have comprehensive systems for identifying, evaluating, and controlling chemicals of “Management concern, including systems to manage change and systems are key to ensure rigor over time. Management systems such as identifying and ISO 14001 Environmental Management System and controlling chemicals ISO 45001 Occupational Health and Safety Management System include the elements noted of concern.” above and allow for third-party verification.

41 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org • Hierarchy of controls

Also integral to any management system are control methods to reduce adverse impacts. The US Centers for Disease Control’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends the hierarchy shown in Figure 16 for controlling harmful chemicals in manufacturing processes [78].

Figure 16. NIOSH Hierarchy of Controls [78]

5.5. Regulation/Standardization Table 7 provides an overview of regulations relevant to hazardous substances in health and wellness wearables.

42 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org Table 7. Overview of relevant chemical and e-waste regulation for wearable technology

European Union The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive (2012/19/EU) [79] The Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation (No 1907/2006), in particular Annex XIV (substances for authorization) as well as Annex XVII (restricted substances) [80] Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 on persistent organic pollutants (POP), aligning with international agreements on POPs (Stockholm convention) [69] The Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive (2011/65/EU and its amendment Directive (EU) 2017/2102), in particular Annex II (restricted substances) [81]. Packaging and packaging waste Directive 94/62/EC with relevant amendments [82] Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC [83] US State of California California Proposition 65, administered by The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).

Relevant standardizations in the fields of life cycle assessment, energy efficiency, and safety are summarized in Table 8.

43 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org Table 8. Overview of relevant standards for wearable technology

Category Relevant Standards LCA standards ISO 14040, Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework ISO 14044, Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines ISO/TS 14067, Carbon footprint of products – Requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication ISO 14021, Environmental labels, and declarations–Self-declared environmental claims (Type II environmental labelling) Battery and Safety 2001/95/EC General Product Safety Directive [84] standards JIS C8714 (Safety Tests for Portable Lithium-Ion Secondary Cells and Batteries for use in Portable Electronic Applications) ANSI/NEMA C18 - Safety Standards for Primary, Secondary and Lithium Batteries UL 1642 - Standard for Safety for Lithium Batteries Energy efficiency California Energy Commission’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Small standards for chargers Battery Charger Systems [85] US Department of Energy (DOE) standards Title 10 Energy and water conservation standards (10 CFR 430.32) [50]

44 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org

6. Social Impacts

6.1. Description of Impacts, Considerations, and Risks 6.1.1. Corporate ESG Performance Table 9 summarizes the analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports and commitments for socially and environmentally sustainable strategies of top market players in the wearable market.

The extent of information provided on the environmental and social key performance indicators varies significantly from one company to another. Samsung and Sony have published detailed reporting of CSR indicators, while others publish limited or no information publicly about their CSR policies or indicators.

The same holds true for the disclosure of main environmental and social indicators such as carbon footprint, water footprint or criteria related to the supply chain. Sony is the only major wearables manufacturer listed in the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) for both water and carbon footprint. Huawei, Samsung, Sony, and Xiaomi have published a clear statement describing how they contribute to the United Nations Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs). Apple has shown corporate commitment to the SDGs, but does not publicly measure their sustainability performance against them.

Some manufacturers do not publish any public information about the third-party verification of their environmental impacts. Most major HWWED manufacturers participate in mineral or materials sourcing responsibility initiatives.

45 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org Table 9. Corporate ESG performance evaluation for top producers in the wearable market

Metrics Apple Fitbit Samsung Garmin Sony Huawei Xiaomi [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] Revenue (all activity) US $ US $ 1.43 US $ 196 US $ 3.67 US $ 77.99 US $ 123 US $ 31.8 260.2 bn bn (2019) billion (2019) bn (2019) bn (2019) bn (2019) bn (2019) (2019) [92] [93] [88] [94] [95] [96] Carbon footprint reporting Scope NA Scope NA Scope Scope Scope 1,2, & 3 1,2, & 3 1,2, & 3 1,2, & 3 1 & 2 Water footprint reporting Yes NA Yes NA Yes Yes Yes

Third party verified environmental Yes NA Yes NA Yes Yes NA impacts CDP Score Climate Change A X A X A X X

CDP Score Water Security X X X X A X X

GRI (last report)[97] 2014 X 2018 2017 2016 2019 X

Evidence of sustainability factors in Yes [98] Yes [99] Yes [100] NA Yes [101] Yes [102] Yes [91] business management decisions Financial support of R&D for Yes [98] NA Yes [103] NA Yes [104] Yes [102] Yes [91] improving sustainability Diversity and inclusion program Yes [105] Yes [106] Yes [107] Yes [108] Yes [109] Yes [110] Yes [91]

SDG X* [98] NA Yes [111] NA Yes [104] Yes [112] Yes [91]

Supply Chain RBA, RMI RBA, RMI RBA, RMI RMI RBA, RMI RBA, RMI, UN GC UNGC, RCI Note: X = the company does not participate in or report on topic. NA = either information is not clear or not available easily on company website. X* = company has shown an indirect alignment to the metrics evaluated. RBA = Responsible Business Alliance, RMI = Responsible Mineral Initiative, UN GC = United Nations General Compact, RCI = Responsible Cobalt Initiative

6.1.2. Supply Chain Risk The major supply chain risks faced by the electronics industry are forced labor, low wages, excessive worker hours, and poor working conditions [113]. The risks summarized below apply to the electronics industry generally because the supply chain of wearable devices has not been specifically studied. The key social impacts of the electronics industry occur during the mining and production of raw materials, manufacturing of components, as well as, during the end-of-life management of e-waste.

• Working conditions and human rights

Most electronics supplier facilities are located in parts of Asia, such as, China and Malaysia, and comprised of migrant workers who are at high risk for exploitation [114]. A study by civil society non- governmental organization (NGO) Verité showed that nearly one third of migrant workers in Malaysia’s

46 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org electronics sector had been coerced into work [115]. Student and intern workers are more vulnerable, as they may be forced into working, under the threat of not graduating.

A study by the EU-funded GoodElectronics network found that Chinese students had been forced into irrelevant underpaid internships in electronics factories and had been forced to work 10-12 hours a day, six days a week [116]. In Brazil, GoodElectronics also found widespread violations of the UN Guiding Principles and OECD Guidelines in the electronics industry. Workers there faced elevated risk of musculoskeletal disease, stress, or injury; had been subjected to dismissal when attempting to unionize; and experienced other poor working conditions [117].

Workers in the electronics supply chain are also often exposed to heavy metals and toxic chemicals used during raw material extraction and manufacturing of components. For example, exposure to dust, mercury, or other chemicals has been reported, especially in informal artisanal and small-scale mining operations [47]. Lead and cadmium are used in manufacturing of circuit boards. Brominated flame retardants can be used in plastic casings. This SOSR summarizes the use of other hazardous chemicals above (5.4.1). Prolonged exposure to these hazardous substances can lead to serious health issues, such as cancer, respiratory illnesses, disruption of hormone systems, and infertility [118].

Women also represent a significant share of workers in the electronics industry [119]. For example, women accounted for 60% to 90% of workers in electronics factories in Southeast Asia [66]. Due to the way electronics manufacturing processes are designed, inadequate engineering controls, and lack of proper personal protection equipment, women workers in the electronic factories are exposed to wide range of hazardous chemicals.

Many reports have discussed that prolonged exposure to hazardous substances can lead to risk of cancer, reproductive damage, and other serious illnesses [66]. A recent report by Swedwatch revealed that majority of the women workers in the Philippines ICT industry lack awareness on the health risks associated with the exposure to hazardous chemicals, which is a violation of fundamental human rights by the manufacturing facilities [66].

• Child Labor

The International Labor Organization (ILO) estimated that nearly 152 million children worked in 2016, out of which 73 million work in hazardous conditions where they were likely exposed to different toxic substances [120]. Thousands of children were seen working in mines, especially in artisanal and small- scale mines, where they are exposed to mercury, and other hazardous substances.

In developing and under-developed countries, children are also seen working in informal recovery of electrical and electronics for valuable materials (e.g., gold), again putting themselves in hazardous

47 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org situations. There were also incidents that were brought into light recently that showed children were forced to work in component assembly facilities (e.g., in China) [47].

• Conflict minerals

HWWEDs contain a variety of metals classified as conflict and/or critical raw materials., such as gold in PCBs, indium as indium tin oxide in displays, cobalt in batteries, tantalum in capacitors on PCBs, and gallium and germanium in ICs. Approaches to managing these risks differ by region. In the United States, conflict minerals are defined as minerals extracted from specified conflict areas which are known for human rights abuses: The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and adjoining countries.

By contrast, the EU lays out a set of general governance and conflict criteria that, when met by a country or region, activates conflict mineral regulations. These EU criteria apply to areas whose natural resources are in high local, regional, or international demand and are experiencing armed conflict, suffer from weak governance, or evidence systematic violation of international law. Minerals covered under this EU regulation include cassiterite (tin), wolframite (tungsten), coltan (tantalum), and gold ore (together referred to as “3TGs”).

• Critical minerals and critical raw materials

Both the US and the EU have identified certain minerals and raw materials as “critical.” Although the definition and material specified in this category differ between the US and EU, the purpose behind each designation is to identify and reduce foreign dependence on important minerals. Both regulations direct governments to identify supply chain dependencies and enhance independence through a variety of policy, funding, or other mechanisms.

According to the US, a critical mineral is “any non-fuel mineral or mineral material that is essential to the economic or national security of the United States, the supply chain of which is vulnerable to disruption … and that serves an essential function in the manufacturing of a product … the absence of which would have significant consequences for … national security” [121].

The EU first identified critical materials supply chain risk as an economic and national security concern in 2011, and in 2020 expanded the category to cover minerals used in clean energy technologies, electric mobility, and digital technologies such as ICT, robotics, and 3D printing [122].

Both the EU and US lists include several substances that are relevant to the electronics industry and potentially HWWEDs including cobalt, indium, gallium, germanium, lithium, rare earth elements, tantalum, and tungsten [122], [123].

48 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org 6.2. Mitigation Strategies 6.2.1. Social Responsibility Surveillance of supply chains for environmental and social impacts helps manufacturers manage associated risks. International standards developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and ILO are designed to mitigate these supply chain risks, including forced labor, working hours, wages, discrimination, worker health and safety, freedom of association, collective bargaining, humane treatment of workers/disciplinary practices, equality of opportunity, and child labor. For example, the following conventions of the ILO’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work are referred to as core labor standards:

• Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87) • Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention,1949 (No. 98) • Forced Labor Convention, 1930 (No. 29) • Abolition of Forced Labor Convention, 1957 (No. 105) • Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138) • Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention, 1999 (No. 182) • Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) • Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 110) 6.2.2. Responsible Sourcing of Minerals An accurate and detailed understanding of the origin of minerals and associated social and environmental impacts is critical to ensuring compliance with human rights laws. In the US, the Dodd– Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Section 1502 requires publicly traded companies that file reports with the Securities Exchange Commission to conduct due diligence investigations and report on minerals originating from conflict regions, including DRC and adjoining countries, that are used in their products. An EU law regulating conflict minerals (Regulation (EU) 2017/821) came into effect on Jan 1st, 2021, regulating the importation of minerals into the EU that are sourced from conflict and high-risk regions, such as DRC. 6.3. Regulation/Standardization Table 10 and Table 11 summarize the relevant legal frameworks and standards related to social impacts and safety, respectively.

49 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org Table 10. Overview of relevant regulation for wearable technology from a social perspective

US Dodd-Frank Act (Section 1502). This section, as implemented, requires companies that are publicly listed on the US stock exchanges and required to file an investor report, to conduct a “reasonable country of origin inquiry” to identify all conflict minerals in their supply chain and report on whether the minerals used in their products are not “DNC conflict-free.”[124]. EU Regulation (EU) 2017/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 specifies supply chain due diligence obligations for importers of tin, tantalum, and tungsten; their ores; and gold originating from conflict-affected and high-risk areas that exceed a threshold amount. It is intended to regulate at least 95% of the EU’s 3TG imports [125]. ILO International Labor Standards (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at work such as those defined in the following Conventions: 1. Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87) 2. Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention,1949 (No. 98) 3. Forced Labor Convention, 1930 (No. 29) 4. Abolition of Forced Labor Convention, 1957 (No. 105) 5. Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138) 6. Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention, 1999 (No. 182) 7. Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) 8. Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 110)

Table 11. Overview of relevant regulation from a safety perspective for wearable technology

US Food, Drug, Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) of 1983, as amended in 1976 [126] China China National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) Medical Device Regulations (2014) [127] Japan Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Act (PMD act) as revised in 2014: “Act on Securing Quality, Efficacy and Safety of Pharmaceuticals, Medical Devices, Regenerative and Cellular Therapy Products, Gene Therapy Products, and Cosmetics”[128]

EU Council Directive 90/385/EEC on Active Implantable Medical Devices (AIMDD) (1990) [129] Council Directive 93/42/EEC on Medical Devices (MDD) (1993) [130] Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC [131]

50 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org

7. Summary of Recommended Criteria

The main objective of this State of Sustainability Research was to identify sustainability impacts throughout the lifecycle of HWWWEDs and opportunities to reduce these impacts. It also provides a foundation for the diverse stakeholders in the ecolabel criteria development process to aid in their understanding of this product category.

Based on the analysis of sustainability impacts and mitigation strategies, this section summarizes recommendations for criteria that should be considered for EPEAT’s HWWED product category to reduce identified environmental and social impacts of these devices. For more detail on data privacy criteria recommendations, see Appendix A.

Sustainability Impact Area Mitigation Strategy Criterion Focus Climate Increase energy efficiency in product and component Manufacturer, Change manufacture to reduce embodied carbon Supply Chain Sourcing electricity generated from renewable energy sources Manufacturer, for manufacture of product and components to reduce Supply Chain embodied carbon Increase battery charger energy efficiency to reduce use Product phase emissions Sustainable Implement sustainable material management strategies such as Product Use of use of recycled content Resources Improve packaging efficiency Product Design for reuse, repair, and recycling to enable product Product, repairability and longevity Manufacturer

51 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org

51 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org Sustainability Impact Area Mitigation Strategy Criterion Focus Adopt business models that implement product recovery to Manufacturer, facilitate return, reuse, and recycling Supply Chain Ensure that processing facilities for used electronics adhere to Manufacturer sustainability standards Reporting on disposition of recovered products Manufacturer Reduction in Robust management and restriction of hazardous chemicals Product Chemicals of used in product Concern Reducing use of skin sensitizing substances Product Implement management systems to reduce impacts from Manufacturer, chemicals used during manufacturing Supply Chain Conduct alternative assessment for the chemicals of concern Manufacturer Establish hierarchy of controls in manufacturing processes Manufacturer, Supply Chain Corporate Increase surveillance and improvement in environment, labor, Supply Chain ESG and worker safety at manufacturing and supplier facilities Performance Responsible sourcing of minerals Product, Manufacturer Implement information security policies and technologies Product Implement robust data governance and privacy practices Product

52 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org

References

[1] “A New Circular Vision for Electronics,” World Economic Forum, Jan. 2019. [Online]. Available: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_A_New_Circular_Vision_for_Electronics.pdf.

[2] M. Mardonova and Y. Choi, “Review of Wearable Device Technology and Its Applications to the Mining Industry,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 3, Art. no. 3, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.3390/en11030547.

[3] D. Mikhalchuk, “Wearables Classification by TESLASUIT Team,” TESLASUIT, Jun. 07, 2017. https://teslasuit.io/blog/detailed-wearables-classification-by-teslasuit-team/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[4] A. Hanuska, B. Chandramohan, L. Bellamy, P. Burke, R. Ramanathan, and V. Balakrishnan, “Smart Clothing Market Analysis.” University of California Berkeley, [Online]. Available: https://scet.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/Smart-Clothing-Market-Analysis-Report.pdf.

[5] A. Holst, “Wearable technology - Statistics & Facts,” Statista, Mar. 09, 2020. https://www.statista.com/topics/1556/wearable-technology/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[6] G. Aroganam, N. Manivannan, and D. Harrison, “Review on Wearable Technology Sensors Used in Consumer Sport Applications,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 9, Art. no. 9, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.3390/s19091983.

[7] D. S. Aldana, “Wearables and Well-being Programs: The Compete Guide,” Employee Wellness Programs, Jan. 01, 2020. https://www.wellsteps.com/blog/2020/01/01/wearables- well-being-programs/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[8] K. Guk et al., “Evolution of Wearable Devices with Real-Time Disease Monitoring for Personalized Healthcare,” Nanomaterials, vol. 9, no. 6, Art. no. 6, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.3390/nano9060813.

53 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org [9] X. Zhu and A. Cahan, “Wearable Technologies and Telehealth in Care Management for Chronic Illness,” in Healthcare Information Management Systems: Cases, Strategies, and Solutions, C. A. Weaver, M. J. Ball, G. R. Kim, and J. M. Kiel, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 375–398.

[10] G. Quer et al., “Wearable sensor data and self-reported symptoms for COVID-19 detection,” Nat. Med., pp. 1–5, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-1123-x.

[11] “Basal body temperature for natural family planning - Mayo Clinic,” Nov. 13, 2018. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/basal-body-temperature/about/pac-20393026 (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[12] A. Zieger, “Is Location Data The Big Next Health Privacy Threat? | Healthcare IT Today,” Jan. 03, 2020. https://www.healthcareittoday.com/2020/01/03/is-location-data-the-big-next-health- privacy-threat/ (accessed Feb. 08, 2021).

[13] C. Warzel and S. A. Thompson, “Opinion | How Your Phone Betrays Democracy,” The New York Times, Dec. 21, 2019.

[14] F. Richter, “Infographic: The Global Wearables Market Is All About the Wrist,” Statista Infographics, Sep. 20, 2018. https://www.statista.com/chart/3370/wearable-device-forecast/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[15] “Sales of Wearables by category worldwide worldwide 2015-2021,” Statista, Nov. 15, 2016. https://www.statista.com/statistics/641865/wearables-sales-by-category-worldwide/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[16] “Wearable Medical Devices Market Size Report, 2021-2028.” https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/wearable-medical-devices-market (accessed Feb. 10, 2021).

[17] S. Draper, “Healthcare Wearables Market to Reach $60 Billion by 2023, Says Juniper Research,” Jan. 15, 2019. https://www.wearable-technologies.com/2019/01/healthcare- wearables-market-to-reach-60-billion-by-2023-says-juniper-research/ (accessed Feb. 10, 2021).

[18] C. Ross, “Covid-19 apps and wearables are everywhere. Can they benefit patients?,” STAT, Aug. 04, 2020. https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/04/covid19-wearables-apps-patient-care/ (accessed Dec. 11, 2020).

[19] “Earwear and Wristbands Drive First Quarter Growth in the Worldwide Wearables Market, Says IDC,” IDC: The premier global market intelligence company, May 28, 2020. https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS46432620 (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

54 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org [20] H.Tankovska, “Wearables shipments worldwide market share by vendor 2014-2020,” Statista, Sep. 08, 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/435944/quarterly-wearables-shipments- worldwide-market-share-by-vendor/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[21] H.Tankovska, “Number of connected wearable devices worldwide by region 2015-2022,” Statista, Sep. 23, 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/490231/wearable-devices-worldwide- by-region/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[22] H.Tankovska, “Number of connected wearable devices worldwide by region 2015-2022,” Statista, Sep. 23, 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/490231/wearable-devices-worldwide- by-region/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[23] “Grand View Research: Global wearable technology market is anticipated to reach USD 196.5 billion by 2022,” Grand View Research, Dec. 10, 2015. https://grandviewresearchinc.blogspot.com/2015/12/global-wearable-technology-market-is.html (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[24] “The Fourth Industrial Revolution. At the intersection of readiness and responsibility,” Deloitte Insights, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/de/Documents/human- capital/Deloitte_Review_26_Fourth_Industrial_Revolution.pdf.

[25] “The Post-Digital Era is Upon Us. Are You Ready For What’s Next?,” Accenture Technology Vision, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/pdf-94/accenture- techvision-2019-tech-trends-report.pdf.

[26] J. Bocas, “Healthcare, Wearables, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” Healthcare Analytic News, Jun. 08, 2018. https://www.idigitalhealth.com/news/healthcare-wearables-and-the-fourth- industrial-revolution (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[27] A. Wattanajantra, “The future is here with wearable devices and the smart factory,” Sage Advice United Kingdom, May 31, 2018. https://www.sage.com/en-gb/blog/wearable-devices-smart- factory/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[28] “10 Brilliant Examples of Wearables in Healthcare,” SD Global, Feb. 06, 2020. https://www.sdglobaltech.com/blog/10-brilliant-examples-of-wearables-in-healthcare (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[29] “Google Glass Educational Uses Infographic,” e-Learning Infographics, May 27, 2014. https://elearninginfographics.com/google-glass-educational-uses-infographic/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

55 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org [30] T. Beste, “Wearables May Be a Bigger Deal for Businesses,” Wired, Oct. 08, 2019.

[31] J. O’Halloran, “Coronavirus: More than two-fifths of employees likely to continue remote working after pandemic,” ComputerWeekly.com, Apr. 15, 2020. https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252481579/Coronavirus-More-than-two-fifths-of- employees-likely-to-continue-remote-working-after-pandemic (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[32] K. Sneader and S. Singhal, “3 changes businesses will need to adapt to post-coronavirus,” Fortune, May 01, 2020. https://fortune.com/2020/05/01/business-reopen-economy-coronavirus- new-normal/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[33] B. Umland, Dr. L. Friedman, and K. Brown, “Is Coronavirus a Tipping Point for Digital Health on Demand?,” BRINK – News and Insights on Global Risk, Mar. 25, 2020. https://www.brinknews.com/is-coronavirus-a-tipping-point-for-digital-health-on-demand-in- organizations/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[34] B. Cameron, “Understanding the Essential Parts of a Smartwatch,” Fantha Tracks, Nov. 24, 2019. https://www.fanthatracks.com/blogs/understanding-the-essential-parts-of-a-smartwatch/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[35] “What is a Printed Circuit Board (PCB)?,” Printed Circuits LLC. https://www.printedcircuits.com/what-is-a-pcb/ (accessed Feb. 03, 2021).

[36] “Apple Watch Series 4 Teardown,” iFixit, Sep. 24, 2018. https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Apple+Watch+Series+4+Teardown/113044 (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[37] C. W. Babbitt, H. Madaka, S. Althaf, B. Kasulaitis, and E. G. Ryen, “Disassembly-based bill of materials data for consumer electronic products,” Sci. Data, vol. 7, no. 1, Art. no. 1, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1038/s41597-020-0573-9.

[38] “Apple Watch Series 1 Environmental Report,” Apple, Sep. 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/watch/Apple_Watch_Series1_PER_sept2016.p df.

[39] “Apple Watch Series 2 Environmental Report,” Apple, Sep. 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/watch/Apple_Watch_Series2_PER_sept2016.p df.

[40] “Apple Watch Series 3 (GPS + Cellular) Environmental Report,” Apple, Sep. 2017. [Online]. Available:

56 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/watch/Apple_Watch_Series3_GPSCellular_PE R_sept2017.pdf.

[41] “Apple Watch Series 4 GPS + Cellular Environmental Report,” p. 4, 2018.

[42] M. M. M. Ma, Z. Zhu, and Y. C. Chan, “Environmental impact analysis of smartwatch using SimaPro8 tools and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) technique,” in 2017 IEEE 19th Electronics Packaging Technology Conference (EPTC), Dec. 2017, pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/EPTC.2017.8277438.

[43] “‘Fitbit Charge 2 & Charge HR Life Cycle Assessment,’” Intertek, Oct. 2018.

[44] M. Adams, V. Burrows, and S. Richardson, “Bringing embodied carbon upfront,” World Green Building Council, Sep. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.worldgbc.org/sites/default/files/WorldGBC_Bringing_Embodied_Carbon_Upfront.pdf.

[45] “Product Environmental Report Apple Watch Series 5,” Apple, Sep. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.apple.com/jp/environment/pdf/products/watch/Apple_Watch_Series5_PER_sept201 9.pdf.

[46] “Product Environmental Report Apple Watch Series 6.” Apple, Sep. 15, 2020, Accessed: Feb. 12, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/watch/Apple_Watch_Series6_PER_sept2020.p df.

[47] Dr. L. Stobbe and A. Berwald, “STATE OF SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH FOR NETWORK EQUIPMENT Large Network Equipment - Enterprise Switches and Routers Final Report. Prepared for the Green Electronics Council and TÜV Rheinland in support of criteria development for the EPEAT and Green Product Mark ecolabels,” Green Electronics Council and Fraunhofer IZM, Apr. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://greenelectronicscouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/04/20190401_GEC_TU%CC%88V_LNE_Final_Clean.pdf.

[48] “Reducing Our Manufacturing Footprint | Sony US.” https://www.sony.com/electronics/reducing-our-manufacturing-footprint (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[49] Section 1605.1. Federal and State Standards for Federally-Regulated Appliances. .

[50] “Department of Energy 10 CFR 430.32,” U.S. Department of Energy. [Online]. Available: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2018-title10-vol3/pdf/CFR-2018-title10-vol3-sec430- 32.pdf.

57 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org [51] “Federal Register :: Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers,” Federal Register | The Dail Journal of the United States Government, Sep. 2015. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/09/01/2015-20218/energy-conservation- program-energy-conservation-standards-for-battery-chargers#p-166 (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[52] “Product Environmental Report Apple Watch Series 5,” Apple, Sep. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.apple.com/jp/environment/pdf/products/watch/Apple_Watch_Series5_PER_sept201 9.pdf.

[53] S. Althaf, C. W. Babbitt, and H. Madaka, “Sustainable Materials Management Metrics to Assess Consumer Technology,” Jan. 2019.

[54] “Average lifespan of consumer electronics and tech devices in 2015,” Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/688455/consumer-electronics-tech-device-average-lifespan/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[55] “Wearable Technology And The Internet Of Things. Consumer views on wearables beyond health and wellness,” Ericsson Consumer Lab, Jun. 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.ericsson.com/4a2d0e/assets/local/reports- papers/consumerlab/reports/2016/wearable-technology-and-the-internet-of-things-ericsson- consumerlab-2016.pdf.

[56] “smartwatches — Search - iFixit.” https://www.ifixit.com/Search?query=smartwatches (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[57] “Material Impact Profiles. Which materials to prioritize for a 100 percent recycled and renewable supply chain,” Apple, 2019.

[58] K. Purdy, “Rebble with a Cause: How Pebble Watches Were Granted an Amazing Afterlife - iFixit,” Oct. 2019. https://www.ifixit.com/News/33398/rebble-with-a-cause-how-pebble-watches- got-their-amazing-afterlife#donotlink (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[59] “Recycle Health Our Mission,” RecycleHealth. https://www.recyclehealth.com/what-we-do (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[60] “Reconext About Us,” Reconext. https://www.reconext.com/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[61] “ANNEX XV RESTRICTION REPORT PROPOSAL FOR A RESTRICTION SUBSTANCE NAME(S): skin sensitising substances,” European Chemicals Agency, Jan. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/22a89de7-0d13-8edc-f0f9-05f37dcdaec2.

58 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org [62] “PROLONGED CONTACT WITH THE SKIN - DEFINITION BUILDING FOR NICKEL,” European Chemicals Agency, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13641/nickel_restriction_prolonged_contact_skin_en.p df.

[63] “CEPN Priority Chemicals,” Green America Center for Sustainability SolutionsTitle. http://www.centerforsustainabilitysolutions.org/priority-chemicals (accessed Dec. 04, 2020).

[64] “Clean Electronics Production Network Summary of Priority Chemical Selection First Round,” Green America Clean Electronics Production Network, Dec. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/558b1fe4e4b00725460da07a/t/5fb3e3a8a4cffa5ed8df1 21d/1605624745338/CEPN+Commitment+Program+Selection+of+Priority+Chemicals+Report+FIN AL+Dec+2019+%281%29.pdf.

[65] G. Cook and E. Jardim, “Guide to Greener Electronics,” Green Peace Inc, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Guide-to-Greener- Electronics-2017.pdf.

[66] T. Sullivan, “ICT workers should not be exposed to hazardous chemicals,” Swedwatch, Jun. 26, 2020. https://swedwatch.org/publication/report/ict-companies-must-act-to-protect-workers-from- chemical-exposure/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[67] “DIRECTIVES | COMMISSION DELEGATED DIRECTIVE (EU) 2015/863 of 31 March 2015 amending Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of restricted substances,” The European Commission, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015L0863&from=EN.

[68] “REACH regulation :: ReachOnline.” https://reachonline.eu/reach/en/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[69] “EUR-Lex - 32004R0850 - EN - EUR-Lex.” https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32004R0850 (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[70] A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives. 2014.

[71] “IC2 - Alternatives Assessment Guide.” http://theic2.org/alternatives_assessment_guide#gsc.tab=0 (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[72] “Alternatives Analysis Resources,” Department of Toxic Substances Control. https://dtsc.ca.gov/scp/alternatives-analysis-resources/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

59 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org [73] “CEPN Alternatives Assessment Guide,” Green America Clean Electronics Produvtion Network, Jun. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/558b1fe4e4b00725460da07a/t/5d4c8d196544cd0001 a9b0e6/1565297948283/CEPN+Alternatives+Assessment+Guide+August+2019.pdf.

[74] “PROCESS CHEMICALS DATA COLLECTION TOOL,” Green America Center for Sustainability Solutions. http://www.centerforsustainabilitysolutions.org/pcdctool (accessed Dec. 04, 2020).

[75] “Finding safer chemicals and environmentally preferable products.,” GreenScreen® For Safer Chemicals. https://www.greenscreenchemicals.org (accessed Dec. 04, 2020).

[76] “Shift from a compliance-only chemicals management process to one that includes forward- thinking, proactive control.,” Scivera. https://www.scivera.com/ (accessed Dec. 04, 2020).

[77] “What is Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM?,” Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute. https://www.c2ccertified.org/get-certified/product-certification (accessed Dec. 04, 2020).

[78] “Hierarchy of Controls | NIOSH | CDC,” Jun. 17, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hierarchy/default.html (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[79] “Waste electronic equipment - Environment - European Commission.” https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/index_en.htm (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[80] “Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) - Safety and health at work - EU-OSHA.” https://osha.europa.eu/en/legislation/directives/regulation-ec-no-1907-2006-of-the-european- parliament-and-of-the-council (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[81] “DIRECTIVES DIRECTIVE (EU) 2017/2102 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 15 November 2017 amending Directive 2011/65/EU on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment,” The European Union, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017L2102&from=EN.

[82] “EUR-Lex - 01994L0062-20150526 - EN - EUR-Lex.” https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01994L0062-20150526 (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[83] “EUR-Lex - 32006L0066 - EN - EUR-Lex.” https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32006L0066 (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[84] “General Product Safety Directive,” European Commission - European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/general-product-safety-directive_en (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

60 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org [85] “Barclays Official California Code of Regulations Title 20.” https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I3EBB4840D3FB11E39E52C678B8378D62?viewTy pe=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Def ault)&bhcp=1&ignorebhwarn=IgnoreWarns (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[86] “Environmental Responsibility Report,” Apple, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Responsibility_Report_2019.pdf.

[87] “A Fifty Year Journey Towards A Sustainable Future. Sustainability Report 2019,” Samsung Electronics, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://images.samsung.com/is/content/samsung/p5/global/ir/docs/sustainability_report_2019_e n.pdf.

[88] “Corporate Responsibility | Garmin.” https://www.garmin.com/en- US/investors/responsibility/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[89] “Sustainability Report 2020,” Sony. [Online]. Available: https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/csr/library/reports/SustainabilityReport2020_E.pdf.

[90] “Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. 2019 Sustainability Report,” Huawei, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www-file.huawei.com/-/media/corp2020/pdf/sustainability/2019-sustainability- report-en-v2.pdf?la=en-us.

[91] “Xiaomi Corporation 2019 Annual Report,” Xiaomi Corporation, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://cnbj1.fds.api.xiaomi.com/company/announcement/en-us/2019_AR_E.pdf.

[92] “Fitbit Reports 2019 Fourth Quarter and Full Year Results.” https://investor.fitbit.com/press/press-releases/press-release-details/2020/Fitbit-Reports-2019- Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-Results/default.aspx (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[93] “Samsung Electronics Announces Fourth Quarter and FY 2019 Results.” https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-electronics-announces-fourth-quarter-and-fy-2019-results (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[94] “Sony Revenue 2006-2020 | SNE.” https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SNE/sony/revenue (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[95] A. Kharpal, “Huawei says US blacklisting led to $12 billion revenue shortfall in 2019 as profit growth slowed,” CNBC, Mar. 31, 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/31/huawei-2019- results-us-blacklist-led-to-12-billion-revenue-shortfall.html (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

61 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org [96] “Xiaomi’s Revenue Exceeds RMB200 Billion in 2019 – Mi Blog.” https://blog.mi.com/en/2020/03/31/xiaomis-revenue-exceeds-rmb200-billion-in-2019/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[97] “SDD - GRI Database.” https://database.globalreporting.org/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[98] “Environment,” Apple. https://www.apple.com/environment/ (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[99] “Sustainability at Fitbit.” https://www.fitbit.com/global/us/sustainability (accessed Apr. 09, 2021).

[100] “Eco-management | Our Commitment | Environment | Sustainability,” Samsung Electronics America. https://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/sustainability/environment/our- commitment/eco-management/ (accessed Apr. 09, 2021).

[101] “Sony Group Portal - Executives.” https://www.sony.com/en/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/executive/ (accessed Apr. 09, 2021).

[102] “Huawei Sustainability Report,” huawei. https://www.huawei.com/us/sustainability/sustainability-report (accessed Apr. 09, 2021).

[103] “Report&Policy | Sustainability | Samsung US,” Samsung Electronics America. https://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/sustainability/report-and-policy/ (accessed Apr. 09, 2021).

[104] “Sony Group Portal - Sustainability Reporting.” https://www.sony.com/en/SonyInfo/csr_report/ (accessed Apr. 09, 2021).

[105] “Inclusion & Diversity,” Apple. https://www.apple.com/diversity/ (accessed Apr. 09, 2021).

[106] “Careers Overview.” https://www.fitbit.com/global/us/careers (accessed Apr. 09, 2021).

[107] “Diversity&Inclusion | Sustainability | Samsung Us,” Samsung Electronics America. https://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/sustainability/diversity-and-inclusion/ (accessed Apr. 09, 2021).

[108] “Diversity and Inclusion | Careers at Garmin.” https://careers-us.garmin.com/us/en/diversity (accessed Apr. 09, 2021).

[109] “Sony Group Portal - Diversity & Inclusion.” https://www.sony.com/en/SonyInfo/diversity/ (accessed Apr. 09, 2021).

[110] “Caring for Employees,” huawei. https://www.huawei.com/us/sustainability/win-win- development/develop_love (accessed Apr. 09, 2021).

62 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org [111] “Strategy | Sustainability | Samsung US,” Samsung Electronics America. https://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/sustainability/strategy/ (accessed Apr. 09, 2021).

[112] “Sustainable Development Goals: ICT’s influence - Huawei Sustainability,” huawei. https://www.huawei.com/en/sustainability/sdg (accessed Apr. 09, 2021).

[113] “Responsible Business Alliance.” https://responsiblebusiness.sharefile.com/share/view/sa8214874ca3b4d3c8900eb323806ba69 (accessed Feb. 04, 2021).

[114] “Eradicating Forced Labor in Electronics: What do company statements under the UK Modern Slavery Act tell us?,” KnowTheChain, Mar. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://knowthechain.org/wp- content/uploads/KTC-ICT-MSA-Report_Final_Web.pdf.

[115] “Forced labor in the production of electronic goods in Malaysia. A comprehensive study of scope and charcateristics,” Verite, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://verite.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/11/VeriteForcedLaborMalaysianElectronics2014.pdf.

[116] N. J. Martinez, “Servants of servers. Rights violations and forced labour in the supply chain of ICT equipment in European universities,” Good Electronics, Oct. 2015. [Online]. Available: https://goodelectronics.org/servants-of-servers/.

[117] A. Campos, M. Gomes, and I. Schipper, “Labour condistions at foreign electronics manufacturing companies in Brazil.Casee studies of Samsung, LGE and Foxconn,” Good Electronics, Dec. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://goodelectronics.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/3/2018/01/Labour-conditions-at-foreign-electronics-manufacturing- companies-in-Brazil.pdf.

[118] M.-H. Kim, H. Kim, and D. Paek, “The health impacts of semiconductor production: an epidemiologic review,” Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 95–114, Apr. 2014, doi: 10.1179/2049396713Y.0000000050.

[119] L. Villadiego, “The gender gap in electronics factories: women exposed to chemicals and lower pay,” Equal Times, Dec. 2017. https://www.equaltimes.org/the-gender-gap-in-the-electronics (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[120] “U.S. Department of labor’s 2018 List of Goods Produced By Child Labor or Forced Labor,” Department of labor, United States of America, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ILAB/ListofGoods.pdf.

[121] “A Federal Strategy To Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals,” Federal Register, Dec. 26, 2017. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/12/26/2017-

63 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org 27899/a-federal-strategy-to-ensure-secure-and-reliable-supplies-of-critical-minerals (accessed Feb. 08, 2021).

[122] Anonymous, “Critical raw materials,” Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs - European Commission, Jul. 05, 2016. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/raw-materials/specific- interest/critical_en (accessed Feb. 08, 2021).

[123] “Interior Releases 2018’s Final List of 35 Minerals Deemed Critical to U.S. National Security and the Economy.” https://www.usgs.gov/news/interior-releases-2018-s-final-list-35-minerals- deemed-critical-us-national-security-and (accessed Feb. 08, 2021).

[124] “Securities and Exchange Commission.17 CFR PARTS 240 and 249b [Release No. 34-67716; File No. S7-40-10] RIN 3235-AK84 Conflict Minerals,” Securities and Exchange Commission, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2012/34-67716.pdf.

[125] “The Legislation,” European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/conflict- minerals-regulation/legal-texts-and-documents/index_en.htm (accessed Dec. 15, 2020).

[126] O. of the Commissioner, “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act),” FDA, Nov. 03, 2018. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/laws-enforced-fda/federal-food-drug-and- cosmetic-act-fdc-act (accessed Feb. 11, 2021).

[127] “Main Responsibilities of the National Medical Products Administration.” http://english.nmpa.gov.cn/2019-07/18/c_377587.htm (accessed Feb. 11, 2021).

[128] “PMDA Japan and Medical Device Regulation,” www.tuvsud.com. https://www.tuvsud.com/en-us/industries/healthcare-and-medical-devices/medical-devices-and- ivd/medical-device-market-approval-and-certification/medical-devices-and-compliance-with-japan- pal-regulations (accessed Nov. 17, 2020).

[129] Anonymous, “Active implantable medical devices,” Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs - European Commission, Jul. 05, 2016. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single- market/european-standards/harmonised-standards/implantable-medical-devices_en (accessed Feb. 11, 2021).

[130] Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, vol. OJ L. 1993.

[131] Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC (Text with EEA relevance. ), vol. 117. 2017.

64 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org

Appendix A

RISKS & OPPORTUNITIES: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices

Prepared for the Global Electronics Council in support of EPEAT criteria development by the Future of Privacy Forum

65 GlobalElectronicsCouncil.org RISKS & OPPORTUNITIES: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices

Marcus Dessalgne, Dr. Rachele Hendricks-Sturrup & John Verdi

Prepared for the Green Electronics Council in support of EPEAT criteria development process

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

4

○ ○

○

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

○

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

○

43

○

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

○

○

○

○

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

●

63

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

○

○

○

○ ○ ○

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

Risks & Opportunities: Data Protection Impacts of Health and Wellness Wearable Electronic Devices |

About GEC

The Global Electronics Council (GEC) is a non-profit that leverages large-scale purchasing power, both public and private sector, as a demand driver for more sustainable technology. By deciding to buy sustainable technology, institutional purchasers can “move the needle” toward a more sustainable world. GEC also helps manufacturers understand the sustainability impacts of their technology, commit to address those impacts, and act to change operational, supply chain, and procurement behaviors. GEC is the manager of the ecolabel EPEAT®, used by more purchasers of electronics than any other ecolabel worldwide.

EPEAT is a comprehensive voluntary sustainability ecolabel that helps purchasers identify more sustainable electronic products that have superior environmental and social performance. EPEAT establishes criteria that address priority sustainability impacts throughout the life cycle of the product, based on an evaluation of scientific evidence and international best practices.

Need assistance connecting your organization’s sustainability priorities to EPEAT criteria? We can help!

Contact [email protected]

globalelectronicscouncil.org