1 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Vision for Sustainable Electronics July 2015 NOTE: This is a discussion draft (NOT YET FOR PUBLIC RELEASE), for which we are seeking comments, edits, and feedback from experts from industry, academia, government and NGO’s. Please send us any feedback by October 1, 2015, to: [email protected] Thank-you. Barbara Kyle and Ted Smith, ETBC Electronics TakeBack Coalition 4200 Park Blvd. #228, Oakland, CA 94602 www.electronicstakeback.org Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Contents Executive Summary Page 2 Why do we need a vision for sustainable electronics? Page 4 It’s time for new strategies for sustainability in electronics Page 7 What are the current impacts from the lifecycle of electronics Page 9 - 24 products? • Hazards and harm • Destruction of communities and resources • Wasted natural resources: energy and water. • Wasteful inputs. High resource churn of virgin materials, many of which are scarce. • Wasteful outputs. • Sweatshop working conditions. • A business model that makes problems worse (that thwarts sustainability efforts) The New Vision for Sustainable Electronics Must Offer Solutions Page 24 to Current Impacts and Problems Principles for Sustainable Electronics Page 27 The Sustainability Matrix Page 29 Detailed Vision Goals Across Product Lifecycle Conclusions Page 38 Next steps Page 41 Glossary of terms Page 47 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Executive summary Definitely not green. In spite of all of the hype about “Clean Tech” branding, it’s easy to see that the electronics industry has a long way to go to become a “green” industry, if that’s even possible. The industry consumes enormous amounts of materials, energy and water, with a large toxic footprint that externalizes the costs of using these toxic chemicals onto the least protected communities and workers around the globe. While leading companies have made significant progress on energy efficiency, product recycling, and packaging, most have done little to effectively address the enormous churn of resources used to make their products. Perhaps even more challenging are the abysmal labor conditions in the factories where the components are made and final products are assembled. Purchasers care and are engaged. Fortunately, institutional purchasers, including the federal government, states, cities, some private companies, universities, and hospitals have shown us that they want to use their buying power to drive change. They want to buy greener and more sustainable products; they have largely turned to eco labels like EPEAT for guidance on which products are environmentally preferable. But eco labels are limited. The problem is that while these labels are a useful tool, they are still very limited in terms of driving comprehensive change. The criteria in them reflect what we consider to be some leading sustainability attributes of the products currently on the market. Some criteria address corporate level activities, but most are specific to the product. But they represent a somewhat random collection of criteria, conceived by the group of stakeholders who have time and expertise to spend two to three years (or longer) in the standards development process. We’re ignoring the most important question. What we never do is to challenge ourselves to answer this question: What is a sustainable electronic product? • What are the characteristics of a sustainable electronic product? • Under what conditions, across its lifecycle, would it be developed, used, and recycled? • Who controls the various decision points along the way that could result in more or less sustainable results? • Where are the leverage points that people can mobilize around to affect change? First we need to answer these questions; then determine how we can apply this directional knowledge to use our eco-labels, corporate CSR reports, GRI indicators, and other sustainability efforts to identify progress towards those goals. We need a vision. This report is our effort to start to answer those very complex, connected, (and somewhat daunting) questions. Our hope is that this will inform company and/or industry Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ roadmaps for how the electronics sector will move from its current state towards a more sustainable industry, and help all of us – the Brands, suppliers, government regulators, academics, purchasers, advocates - identify metrics and develop tools that measure true progress along the long road toward sustainability. Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Why do we need a vision for sustainable electronics? Yet our voracious appetite for new electronics Lifecycle of electronics is keeps expanding, putting more pressure on the impacted communities and the planet’s anything but green dwindling resources (including critical minerals1) without making comparable gains using safer materials, in recycling or reuse of materials or components. Recent media reports have shocked people around the world about electronics workers in China suffering from harsh working conditions, explosions, and chemical exposures, as they rush to meet a production deadline so we can have The high-tech revolution has brought us inter- the newest gadgets. These are only the latest connectedness, communication and information examples of similar problems that have been capacity unimaginable just a few years ago. well documented over the past few decades. Many of us can barely remember how we functioned before smart phones and tablets, and By the numbers we can’t wait to get the dazzling new versions of these and other beloved gadgets. 81% of a desktop computer’s energy use is in MAKING the computer, not using In spite of decades of efforts by advocates, most it.2 people are still unaware of the high costs of . To manufacture one computer and developing all these high tech gadgets on our monitor, it takes 530 pounds of fossil environment, health and resources. fuels, 48 pounds of chemicals, and 1.5 3 The electronics industry is materials, energy and tons of water. water intensive, with a large toxic footprint that . A single semiconductor manufacturing externalizes the costs of using these toxic plant uses between 2 to 4 million gallons chemicals onto the least protected communities of water per day – the same as a city of and workers around the globe, from extraction 40,000 or 50,000 people.4 and production through the “end-of-life” phase of these products. Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Consumers ask “what can I buy that’s really green?” The honest answer is “Nothing, yet.” From Story of Electronics, by Ruben DeLuna, Free Range Studios Consumers and businesses alike want to identify efficient to use, they have a long way to go in the greenest electronics available for purchase. addressing other environmental and social We regularly receive inquiries from reporters, concerns, including energy use in manufacturing. students, or consumers asking how to identify Eco labels can identify “greener” but not “the greenest phone” or a “green laptop.” “green” The good news is that many consumers and There are some eco labels for electronics that businesses are eager to identify and purchase evaluate some electronic products against a the greenest electronics available. But the range of environmental attributes. The primary problem is that manufacturers aren’t providing labels used in the U.S. are EPEAT (computers, us with truly green options yet, despite their TVs, imaging devices, and in late 2015 or 2016, marketing claims. While they have made the servers) and UL Environment (mobile phones). most progress in making products more energy- Similar labels are used primarily outside the US, Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ like Blue Angel (Germany) and TCO Certified easier to disassemble. Slightly more recycled (Sweden), EU Ecolabel (Europe). content. But these criteria amount to a random collection of metrics rather than a clear path Eco labels aren’t driving significant change towards sustainability. These eco labels can help purchasers identify Slightly better may not be the best next step products meeting some modest eco metrics, and they have encouraged some companies to If significant transformation is needed, “slightly make modest changes. But these labels have better” may not always be the right next step. not been driving the kind of significant, For example, it’s generally assumed that more wholesale change needed to eventually result in recycled plastic content in