EPA/600/R-13/285 | November 2013
www.epa.gov
Sustainable
Electronics Roadmap
Econorm
Materials
Products
_ ^ Energy
i - - Waste
lvalue
Bother
nents
Wble energy
Closed loop for
materials
Resource Use
Transparency of info
Manage toxic
exposure
Less reliance on
exotic materials
Infinite
recyling
Materials cause \
harm to workers,
communities and
environment
Public Health
••"•••I
Occupational
Hi»» ••or'*
Public health
Safe
Communities
Environment
Pollution
Green Criteria
Systematic incentives
Global, harmonized
standards
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Sustainable Technology Division
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
EPA/600/R-13/285
November 2013
Sustainable Electronics Roadmap
Sustainable Electronics Forum
October 15-18, 2012
The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread
Racine, Wl
by
Jennifer McCulley, PhD.
Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
Endalkachew Sahle-Demessie, Ph.D.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Sustainable Technology Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through the Office of Research and
Development, in collaboration with the Green Electronics Council and The Johnson Foundation
at Wingspread organized the Sustainable Electronics Forum that was facilitated by the Scientific
Consulting Group, Inc. EPA Contract number EP-W-07-078. This document has been subjected
to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication. Any
opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and forum participants, and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Agency; therefore, no official endorsement should be
inferred. Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
in
-------
Acknowledgement
The Organizing Committee wishes to acknowledge everyone who participated in this Forum,
especially our sponsoring organizations and facilitators. The committee also wishes to express its
appreciation to Jennifer McCulley and Susie Warner of Scientific Consultant Group, Inc., who
were Work Assignment and Project Officers for organizing the Forum through the EPA Contract
number EP-W-07-078. They worked very hard in organizing the Forum and seeing that
everything ran smoothly. The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread's Susie Seidelman provided
useful assistance throughout the development of the program and as the wonderful host for the
Forum.
We would like to recognize and acknowledge Helen Clarkson and James Taplin of Forum for the
Future, who facilitated the conference and documented the comments for the Roadmap. Finally
the committee acknowledges Dr. George Moore in EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD), who was the contracting officer representative, and Dr. Sheryl Mebane for her generous
assistance in editing the document. We appreciate the contribution of Barbara Kyle, Christian
Hageliiken and Dr. Bob Pfahl, who have shown long-term dedication for sustainable electronics.
Organizing Committee
Dr. Meadow Anderson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research & Development
Dr. Anne Riederer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research & Development
Dr. Endalkachew Sahle-Demessie
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research & Development
Dr. Alan Hecht
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research & Development
Dr. John Leazer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research & Development
Mr. Wayne Rifer
Green Electronics Council
IV
-------
Sponsoring Organizations
United States Environmental Protection Agency
SEPA
Green Electronics Council
Green
•Electronics
Council
Johnson Foundation at Wingspread
Johnson
Foundation
AT WINGSPREAD
-------
Table of Contents
Disclaimer iii
Acknowledgement iv
Organizing Committee iv
Sponsoring Organizations v
PARTI 6
1. Executive Summary 6
1.1 Overview 6
1.2 Sustainable Electronics Forum 7
1.3 Forum Objectives 7
1.4 Sustainable Electronics Vision 7
1.5 Next Steps 8
2. Introduction 9
2.1. Issues and trends that will contribute to a sustainable electronics industry 10
2.2 Opportunities and barriers to achieving a sustainable electronics industry 11
2.3 What capacity, knowledge and skills does the electronics industry need to develop to be
sustainable? 15
2.4 What objectives should voluntary electronic standards be designed to achieve to
encourage a sustainable electronics industry? 16
2.5 What could federal and state governments and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
do to promote the design and development of more sustainable electronics, advance
science and create awareness? 17
2.6 What changes outside of the industry will enable or hinder the transition to a sustainable
electronics industry? 18
3. Sustainable Electronics Roadmap 19
3.1 Materials and Processes Cause No Harm 21
3.2 Resource Optimization 21
3.3 Energy, Water and Biodiversity 22
3.4 Community Enrichment 23
3.5 Safe and Fair Working Conditions 23
3.6 Sustainable Business Models 24
-------
Part 2 25
4 Roadmap Milestone and Research Issues 25
Materials and Processes Cause No Harm: Roadmap 27
Resource Optimization: Roadmap 32
Resource Optimization: Notes 35
Energy, Water and Biodiversity: Roadmap 37
Resource Optimization: Notes 38
Enriching Communities: Roadmap 39
Energy, Water and Biodiversity: Notes 40
Safe and Fair Working Conditions: Roadmap 41
Safe and Fair Working Conditions: Notes 42
Business Model: Roadmap 43
Business Models: Notes 44
PART 3 47
5. Meeting Summary 48
5.0 Day 1 - October 16, 2012 48
5.1 Welcome and Conference Objectives 50
5.2 Participant Introductions 53
5.3 Overview of the Forum 54
5.4 Sustainable Electronics Vision 54
5.5 Future Scenarios 55
5.6 Vision Statements 56
5.7 The Sustainable Economy Framework and Implications for the Future of Electronics... 58
5.8Wrap-Up 60
6.0 Day 2 - October 17, 2012 61
6.1 Welcome and Reflections 61
6.2 The State and Future of Sustainable Electronics 61
6.3. Consensus on Roadmap Themes 65
6.4 Sustainable Electronics Roadmap Development 66
7.0 Day 3 - October 18, 2012 67
7.1 Roadmap Reports 67
7.2 Materials and Processes Cause No Harm 67
-------
7.3 Resource Optimization 69
7.4 Energy, Water and Biodiversity 71
7.5 Enriching Communities 72
7.6 Safe and Fair Working Conditions 73
7.7 New Business Models 74
7.8 Reflections and Adjournment 76
Appendices 77
Appendix I: List of Participants 78
Appendix II: Key Themes Developed—Sustainable Electronics Forum, Day 1 83
Appendix III: Agenda 87
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BFRs
CAD
CARE
DfE
DOE
DRC
EGG
EICC
EOL
EPA
EPEAT
EU
GEC
H&S
HR
ICT
IEC
IEEE
ILO
iNEMI
ISMI
LCA
LCA
NAS
NGO
NIES
NIOSH
NIST
Bromine-free flame retardants
Computer- Aided Design
Comprehensive Approach for the Resource-and Energy-Efficiency
Design for the Environment
Department of Energy
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Electronics Goes Green
Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition
End of Life
Environmental Protection Agency
Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool
European Union
Green Electronics Council
Health and Safety
Human Rights
Information and Communication Technology
International Electrotechnical Commission
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
International Labor Organization
International Electronics Manufacturing Initiative
International Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology Initiative
Life Cycle Analysis
Life-Cycle Assessment
National Academy of Sciences
Nongovernmental Organizations
National Institute for Environmental Studies
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
National Institute of Science and Technology
-------
NRMRL
NSES
OCSPP
OECD
OEMS
ORD
OSHA
PELs
PGMs
PRTR
RELs
RIT
RoHS
SAICM
SCO
SEC
SIN
SMART2020
STAR
sus
TJF
TRI
UK
UNEP
WHO
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
National Strategy for Electronic Stewardship
Officer of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
Original Equipment Manufacturers
Office of Research and Development
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Permissible Exposure Limits
Platinum Group Metals
Pollutant Release and Transfer
Recommended Exposure Limits
Rochester Institute of Technology
Restriction of Hazardous Substances
Strategic Approach to International Management
Scientific Consulting Group
Securities and Exchange Commission
Substitute It Now
SMART2020 refers to a solution that uses digital components or
communications, such as computer networked devices or components that
allows users to make decisions based on new information, automation or
system optimization.
Science to Achieve Results
Single-Use System
The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread
Toxics Release Inventory
United Kingdom
United Nation Environmental Program
World Health Organization
-------
PARTI
1. Executive Summary
1.1 Overview
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research and Development (ORD),
National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), in cooperation with The Johnson
Foundation at Wingspread (TJF) and the Green Electronics Council (GEC), convened a
Sustainable Electronics Forum to address major research challenges, policy issues and
opportunities facing the management of electronic products. The Forum brought together a small
group of recognized leaders in electronics design, materials, manufacturing and recycling, to
develop a shared vision and technology roadmap for sustainable electronics. In addition, the
group was asked to produce specific recommendations for research agendas, standards and
design challenges; and accelerate green electronic voluntary initiatives. Participants included
recognized experts in the fields of eco-design and green supply chain management; optimum
life-cycle utilization; and recycling and sustainable waste management. Attendees represented a
broad range of perspectives from government, academia, nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) and industry.
The number and variety of electronic technologies have been growing rapidly the past four
decades. Americans own more than three billion electronic products that have become critical to
their way of life and the growing economy. However, as the average use-life of electronic
products gets shorter, obsolete products are stored or discarded at alarming rates. This creates
new challenges in the management of electronic products. Approximately two-thirds of the
electronic devices removed from service remain functional. Although E-waste represents only
two percent of America's trash in landfills, it contributes 70 percent of all toxic waste. Most
electronic products contain hazardous heavy metals, plastics, brominated flame retardants,
barium, beryllium and valuable elements such as precious metals and rare earth elements. The
human health risks associated with placing such products into landfills or incinerators where
these hazardous elements can enter the air and water streams are high. Hence, there is an
increasing challenge of reducing the use of virgin materials, recovering useful elements from the
waste, and protecting human health and the environment from the harmful effects associated
with the unsafe handling and disposal of these products (National Strategy for Electronic
Stewardship, NSES).
Electronics design and manufacturing that is innovative, flexible and pragmatic could transform
the industry's energy savings, reduce emissions and conserve resources. Scientific research and
technological developments are needed for the design of greener electronics that minimize
environmental impacts across the entire lifecycle of the products and promotes consumer
awareness. Innovative solutions that integrate electronics manufacturing and recycling would
allow Americans to sustainably manage the electronics used today while simultaneously
promoting novel and innovative technologies of the future to meet market challenges (NSES).
-------
1.2 Sustainable Electronics Forum
EPA, in cooperation with The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread (TJF) and the Green
Electronics Council (GEC), convened a Sustainable Electronics Forum (referred to as "the
Forum" in this report) held October 15-18, 2012, to address major research challenges, policy
issues and opportunities facing the management of electronic products. The Forum brought
together a small group of recognized leaders in electronics design, materials, manufacturing and
recycling, to develop a shared vision and technology roadmap for sustainable electronics;
produce specific recommendations for research agendas, standards and design challenges; and
accelerate green electronic voluntary initiatives.
The Forum employed a "futures" approach to develop a shared vision of the challenges and
opportunities ahead for sustainable electronics. Discussions progressed toward the development
of a Sustainable Electronics Roadmap as an outcome that articulates the collaborative vision of
the group and details methods by which sustainability objectives can be achieved.
1.3 Forum Objectives
Specific objectives of the Forum were to:
• Develop a shared vision of the appearance of truly sustainable electronics and provide
clear end-goals for design standards development.
• Promote the integration of end-of-life considerations into front-end product designs.
• Discuss methods to extend the useful life of electronic products and assess the optimal
amount of time to keep products in operation.
• Support the creation of environmental criteria for refurbished equipment.
• Address other high-priority questions and challenges identified by the stakeholder
community.
1.4 Sustainable Electronics Vision
In order to create a shared overall goal for the roadmap, participants worked together to develop
a high-level vision that considers the future of sustainable electronics. During the visioning
process, meeting facilitators from Forum for the Future presented four alternate scenarios for the
future of technology. Participants were asked to discuss what a sustainable information and
communications technology (ICT) industry would look like in each scenario. Bringing together
the common themes from each of these different scenarios allowed the group to shape the
attributes of a sustainable ICT industry and draft the following high-level vision statement:
-------
Vision Statement
Sustainable ICT will enable us to protect and enhance human
health and well-being and the environment over generations
while minimizing the adverse life-cycle impacts of devices,
infrastructure and services.
The group used the Sustainable Economy Framework developed by Forum for the Future that
defines the characteristics of a sustainable economy- one that operates within safe environmental
limits and enriches people's lives. The sustainable economic framework expands this vision for
particular social and environmental constraints, including greenhouse gas emissions and human
rights; and considers the actions that would be needed to deliver on the vision statement. This
was the first step in developing the roadmap themes based on the vision statement.
1.5 Next Steps
The Forum organizers expressed appreciation for all of the participants' time and effort in
developing the initial framework for the Sustainable Electronics Roadmap. The important
sustainability themes and concepts identified at the Forum will need to be further refined and
prioritized. This roadmap is a dynamic document that will be reevaluated periodically to
incorporate new market and technical information. Participants suggested using an online forum
to continue discussions and to ensure that research priorities keep pace with the needs of both the
electronic industry and the stakeholders. Ultimately, the roadmap will guide the electronics
industry toward a sustainable future.
-------
2. Introduction
This background briefing presents key themes and viewpoints raised during research and
interviews with stakeholders. Any opinions expressed herein should not be attributed to either
Forum for the Future, The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc., or the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
2.1. Issues and trends that will contribute to a sustainable electronics
industry
There are macro-level changes that drive increased demand and competition for resources.
The global middle class will grow to four billion people in the next 30 to 40 years. As
emerging economies get wealthier, we will see increased demand for consumer products,
electronics and consequently, an increase in the demand for raw materials. Increasing
numbers of affluent consumers will drive intangibles such as ease-of-use, safety and design.
As resource demands grow, we will see increased competition for resources. The way that
scarce natural resources, including rare earth minerals, will be apportioned among countries
could have far-reaching impacts on the electronics industry. These trends will combine to
create business advantages from sustainability, including minimization of raw material use,
effective take-back and raw material recovery programs.
Energy prices will affect both the manufacturing and use of electronics, so we need to focus
on the total energy footprint at all scales- from cloud computing servers to handheld devices.
As energy prices increase, the pressure to deliver products with improved energy efficiency
will also increase, despite any added features and functionality. As cloud computing has
grown exponentially, there are a number of claims about potential energy savings from this
shift to the cloud. The environmental impact of cloud computing, including potential energy
savings has yet to be fully ascertained and may become an increasingly important part of the
agenda
• Innovation in materials and product design
Driven by the rapid pace of technological improvements, consumer demand and lack of
modularity leads to a large number of devices becoming rapidly obsolete. This issue will
only increase as consumer demand in emerging economies surges. Modularity, along with a
potential shift from a product model to a service model with upgradeable components, could
offer solutions in the future. These solutions will be fully realized where there is intelligent
integration of systems across the supply chain. This involves linking designers, component
manufacturers, recyclers and smelters together to fully optimize the product and its resources.
The desire for light, small and energy-efficient electronics needs to be balanced with devices
less recyclable and having shorter lifespans. Miniaturization increases computational
efficiency, but not necessarily per unit energy use. Any benefit also has risks.
-------
Increased interest and sophisticated application of biomimicry will impact the electronics
industry in the coming years and may lead to a range of new devices (many of which may be
micro-devices), and new applications of technology. Some of these applications may have
far-reaching and unpredictable impacts on people and the environment.
The rapid pace of technological advancement offers a host of opportunities for better and
more efficient devices, yet can also lead to manufacturing changes and the potential for
increased waste in manufacturing. New technologies (e.g., green chemistry) minimize
hazardous materials and can help manufacturers move away from unsafe materials in
production and whole lifecycles. Currently, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development has a sustainable materials management program. Similar initiatives could help
preserve natural capital, reduce use of toxic materials and increase the use of recyclable
materials.
2.2 Opportunities and barriers to achieving a sustainable electronics
industry
Longer term trends combine with current activities to create risks as well as opportunities to
achieving a sustainable electronics industry. There are a several areas where additional
research and knowledge are needed for the industry to make sustainable choices on materials,
lifespan, energy optimization and other issues (Table 1). One key theme is moving from
"back-end" (focusing on emissions) to "front-end" (resource consumption), by determining
what will produce the maximum sustainability results given the limits of physics and money.
Another theme is the huge barrier that current business models represent by making take-
back schemes hard to fund and basing profits on high product turnover.
Table 1. Activities affecting the future of sustainable electronics.
Activities
Definitions of
"green"
Definitions
and
harmonization
Opportunities
Better definitions about
what makes specific
electronics green will help
purchasers distinguish
products with less impact
on the environment.
The global pocketbook can
be used to drive change.
Barriers/risks
We currently lack
international
standards.
Questions that
should be addressed
by research
Set a clear definition
for "green" and
"sustainable."
The research style
needs to change from
back-end (emissions)
to front-end (resource
consumption).
Need to determine
what is most efficient
at the component
10
-------
Activities
Opportunities
Barriers/risks
Questions that
should be addressed
by research
of standards
EPEAT® is a good first
step that could be used to
create a global standard.
Standards do not keep
pace with rapidly
changing industry.
level.
How can we
harmonize and
simplify standards,
including making
them accessible to
consumers?
Need integrated
process and dynamic
tools for real-time
decisions about
materials and
products.
Life-Cycle
Analysis
Life-Cycle
Analysis
(LCA)
(continued)
LCA offers many
promising opportunities to
achieve sustainable goals.
Expanding knowledge in
chemical analysis will
enable better materials
choices and minimization
of toxic materials.
There are a number of
gaps in LCA capacity
(e.g., water
footprinting has not
been sufficiently
addressed).
There is a need to
move beyond "one-
factor" criteria.
Industry tends to
outsource chemical
analysis to suppliers to
meet performance
goals.
Original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs)
have insufficient
internal knowledge.
Need to agree on the
criteria for LCA and
build consensus and
alignment of criteria
so that we have
consistent threshold
values.
Need to address trade-
offs in selecting
materials.
Need to address
tension between
lighter materials,
toxicity, energy use,
recycl ability and
lifespan of materials.
Measurement of
exposure throughout
the lifecycle,
including cell phone
radiation.
Smart grids
Smart grids may offer
opportunities for smaller
electronics.
Brings a proliferation
of small electronics,
could increase overall
11
-------
Activities
Opportunities
Barriers/risks
Questions that
should be addressed
by research
electricity use (e.g., if
10W connectivity
24/7) unless done
right.
Consumer
demand
Global pocketbook can be
used to drive change.
Insufficient demand
from public at present;
very small percentage
of customers are
willing to offset
performance or price
for "green"
performance.
How can we enable
consumers to make
better decisions and
change behaviors?
Device energy
use
With scaling, we can lower
energy use when the
device is not actively used
and match power use to
task.
Device energy
use
(continued)
We lack sufficient data
on devices' energy
use, currently focusing
mainly on worst
offenders.
Always connected
devices negate low
standby power modes.
We need a framework
for power scaling.
Better data on types
of devices, numbers,
and energy use,
especially pattern of
use.
Move to
handhelds
Miniaturization of devices
can lead to reduced power
demands and minimizes
usage of raw materials.
Miniature devices can
be more difficult to
recycle.
What is the net impact
on energy demand
and usage from
miniaturization?
Systems
approach and
collaboration
Systems
approach and
collaboration
(continued)
The issues and systems
involved are complex and
can best be addressed
through collaborative
approaches.
Need to understand how
chemistry research and
innovations fit into the
bigger picture of resource
availability and systems
thinking.
Need to look at how all
players in the supply chain
can be mutually supportive
Industry secrecy
makes collaboration
difficult.
Current standards do
not sufficiently admit
complexity.
Currently very little
intelligent integration
of systems.
The fast-paced nature
of the sector makes
standard setting
difficult. Standards
Create opportunities
for collaboration and
address potentially
competitive issues.
12
-------
Activities
Opportunities
Barriers/risks
Questions that
should be addressed
by research
to drive greater
sustainability.
may not be able to
keep pace with the rate
of change.
End-of-life
(EoL)
management,
take back and
recycling
Companies need product
stewardship programs,
advance leasing of
products concept, enable
"trading up" and resale of
lower level models.
Policies and tools to
support this are needed.
Need to educate
consumers on EoL issues.
Developing national
growth: challenge is to
create recycling
programs so they skip
the West's throwaway
consumerism. Lack of
agreement is a barrier.
What is the best
method to treat EoL
processing and what
is the role of OEM?
How can we create
recycling programs
that enable us to
overcome our
"throwaway"
consumerism model?
Data center
energy usage
Data center energy usage
has grown less than
projections, in part due to
greater realization of
efficiencies than projected.
Move to cloud could entail
a number of energy saving
benefits.
Data center usage is
projected to continue
to grow sharply and
not enough is known
about the real energy
impacts.
How do we address
risks associated with
"Big Data"?
Need more scientific
research on the
energy tradeoffs,
impacts of move to
cloud and increased
data center usage.
A research-based
national plan for
energy generation is
important.
Modularity
and service
models
Shifting from a product
model to a service model
could enable significant
savings on materials and
maximize device utility.
Current trends are for
thinner, lighter
devices, not
modularity.
Service models:
research into possible
viable models for
providing
upgradeable services
and components
rather than new
devices.
Need to understand
where the
evolutionary plateau
13
-------
Activities
Opportunities
Barriers/risks
Questions that
should be addressed
by research
is for different
product categories.
Raw
materials,
including rare
earth minerals
Miniaturization offers
opportunities to minimize
raw materials usage.
Many currently used
materials are recyclable,
which can help minimize
demand for mining of
metals, etc.
With device
proliferation, shorter
life-spans and lighter,
thinner devices that
are less recyclable,
resource demand is
projected to continue
to grow.
Many deposits of rare
earth minerals are in
conflict-ridden areas.
What is the best way
to minimize resource
consumption,
including copper,
indium, tin, lithium,
myobium and rare
earth elements?
What are viable
alternative materials?
To have a better
understanding from
both the supply and
recovery side as to
which materials are
really most critical.
Supply chain
Supply chain
(continued)
There are significant
savings opportunities from
addressing energy
consumption in the supply
chain.
Many devices are
manufactured in
countries with poor
safeguards and
implementation of
health and safety
policies as well as
environmental
management. Despite
some good attempts to
track supply chain
issues, much more
needs to be done.
Concerns over mining
of conflict minerals.
The entire value chain
from suppliers to
customers must be
considered.
Corporate Increased expectation of
reporting transparency is putting
pressure on corporations to
disclose more in their
reporting.
Need to develop
methodologies to be
able to allow
verifiable
comparisons between
companies and
products.
14
-------
2.3 What capacity, knowledge and skills does the electronics industry need
to develop to be sustainable?
Factors influencing sustainable electronic industry include:
• Building broad know ledge
Several interviewees expressed the need to build broad-based sustainability knowledge in
the company. A subset of people will need detailed technical knowledge about LCAs and
other processes; while a wider group simply needs to develop a general knowledge of
sustainability concepts and trends.
• Educating the supply chain
The supply chain needs a broader capacity in sustainability issues. When assessing the
need for building knowledge, interviewees emphasized the importance of the entire value
chain from suppliers to purchasers and customers. Companies need to know what is in
products and whether materials are safe. It's important to distinguish between the
requirements of the large (generally more sophisticated) manufacturers, and the smaller
ones that may need more help and guidance. We need to improve the management and
handling of electronics during the manufacture and EoL phases of the lifecycle, not only
for toxics control, but to reduce the overall energy burden of the sector.
• Skills for effective policy engagement
Societal norms and political will, play a critical role in establishing meaningful standards
that support a sustainable electronics industry. The industry may have the right technical
capacity, yet lacks the knowledge and skills for how to effectively engage policy makers.
• Scientific assessment capabilities and life-cycle evaluations
The electronics industry needs to build capabilities for chemical assessments (materials
that go into the products), LCAs and water footprinting. Little information is available on
the life-cycle impacts of mining, toxic material exposures from production, monitoring
for multiple chemicals and potential carcinogens. An information gap regarding chemical
assessments currently exists, creating a significant need for industry to build and
strengthen skills to assess these areas, and communicate impacts from a life-cycle
perspective.
• Technology capacity and engineering skills
Interviewees pointed out that many of the advocates and others active in this area lack
technical backgrounds. This can be a hindrance to developing an evidence-based process
15
-------
and set of standards. Others believe that the technology and skills are there and that the
real need is to implement it on the ground, to involve those who will be key to its success.
• Systems perspective
A more systemic perspective for electronic applications will yield better results than a
single-step approach. A systems approach should encourage the development of reliable,
long-living products that generate revenue by refurbishing old objects rather than
producing new ones. The big challenge is to extend product use life, while supporting an
innovative industry.
2.4 What objectives should be designed for voluntary electronic standards;
to encourage and achieve a sustainable electronics industry?
Stakeholders mentioned a number of important objectives for voluntary standards for the
electronics industry, including providing consistency and clarity in an increasingly complex
standards patchwork; rewarding innovation, leadership and good performance; and providing
incentives for innovation.
Specific objectives mentioned include:
• Promote leadership: Standards need to provide a path to progress for industry, and
encompass more than just threshold standards.
• Reward innovation: Standards should encourage a "race to the top", and reward
innovative designs. Standards organizations should set broad parameters and then let
companies innovate to meet those standards without being too prescriptive. They must
encourage not stifle innovation.
• Comprehensiveness of categories: Standards should address all general electronic
categories, with specific performance categories for certain products. Possible issues
include energy efficiency, maximizing the useful life of devices, material recovery at
EoL, and reducing hazardous substances (for plant workers, users and disassemblers). A
variety of standards could be appropriate.
• Comprehensiveness of footprint: Standards need to cover much more of the footprint and
factor in positive gains from the use of products.
• Consistency and clarity: Consistency and clarity are important, as businesses now face a
patchwork of standards. There are more than 500 sets of green purchasing standards
available in this field, and determining how best to police them all and ensure they are
meaningful should be an objective. Reuse and recycling goals should be combined.
• Address the supply chain: Energy efficiency has been addressed to great length and much
has been achieved. The next three to four years in standards development should be
focused on the supply chain to ensure that products are fulfilling standards. This should
include ethical issues, such as working conditions and conflict minerals. The electronics
industry needs to be the standard setter for the entire global supply chain.
16
-------
• Facilitate deployment by incentives: Standards should be designed together with
incentive programs to drive market transformation. Coalitions with other major
purchasers (e.g., hospitals), or industries can also incentivize adherence to standards.
• Address real impacts through stakeholder engagement: Standards should raise the bar on
principles for environmental and social responsibility. They should also be designed
around "real impacts" through a stakeholder-driven process, where the standards are
vetted by all perspectives. At the same time, however, the standard must be sufficiently
rigorous, ambitious and scientific in its approach.
2.5 What could federal and state governments and nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) do to promote the design and development of more
sustainable electronics, advance science and create awareness?
• Green procurement will be an important market incentive
Using the leverage of federal agencies' purchasing power can drive behavior toward
more sustainable design, energy efficiency and safe handling of used electronics. The
U.S. Government purchases eight percent of the world's goods and services. For
example, if state or federal governments were to require recycling programs for
procurement of electronics, this could spur innovation and promote research and
development into both recyclability and optimal recycling programs. The U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) and EPA are seen as the natural agencies to spearhead this
effort. The government also can play an important role in setting the bar for training and
certification of recyclers. Establishing green purchasing criteria sends an important
message and helps create a market. The Electronic Product Environmental Assessment
Tool (EPEAT®) was a very important first step in this regard.
• Government support to advance science and partnerships
Several interviewees noted the role of government in providing direct support and grants
to advance science in the sector. Grants such as those funded by EPA's Science to
Achieve Results (STAR) program were mentioned as an important vehicle to support
industry, NGO and university research. Continued support for research at DOE
laboratories is seen as an important enabler. Toxicology, total LCA (not just handling of
used electronics), energy optimization, data center optimization and other issues are all
areas that require more research, according to interviewees.
• Standard-setting: voluntary standards and regulation
Several interviewees pointed to the federal government's role in developing clear and
consistent standards and encouraging their wide adoption. Some recommend making
EPEAT® an international standard by encouraging other green standards to
collaboratively develop criteria for EPEAT®. Performance needs to be measured
accurately and consistently. A standard labeling scheme would provide incentives for
industry. At the same time, the government has a clear role in creating a baseline and
discouraging "free loaders." Voluntary standards may work best to pull up the top of the
market and should be coupled with mandatory standards to create a "floor" that raises the
17
-------
bottom of the market. In developing standards, there is a need to strike the right balance
between broad direction and specific; prescriptive standards; and the allowance of
flexibility to account for new technologies. There should be a distinction between the
baseline law and implementation rules. Both federal and state governments should
continue to encourage and accelerate the pace of standards for currently unregulated
products.
• Encourage and reward leadership
Federal and state governments should encourage innovation and reward leading
performers. This could be accomplished through the creation of broadly accepted
performance evaluations that recognize leaders or awards for best in class performers.
Subsidies are another option, however, some interviewees cautioned against the use of
subsidies to artificially bolster initiatives that would not stand on their own.
• Social awareness—is it the right focus for government?
The government could also play a role in creating social awareness of sustainability
impacts of the electronics sector, and communicating the full costs of electronic
ownership to consumers. Education in this area should include promoting an
understanding of the paradox of electronics (i.e., electronics can have simultaneous pros
and cons for sustainability). Some interviewees were uncertain whether this is the right
focus for government or the right motivator. This may be more the role of NGOs and
civil society activists.
• Role of NGOs in awareness building and creating demand
NGOs could advance demand for greener electronics. Government and NGOs could
ensure that consumers see the face of health and environmental issues (e.g., workers and
children suffering from the production through the disposal phases), and educate
consumers about the complex sustainability issues surrounding electronics. This also
should extend to helping the public understand the importance and purpose of eco ratings,
which currently have little traction with consumers. NGOs should focus less on bans that
will not succeed and can put people out of work.
2.6 What changes outside of the industry will enable or hinder the transition to
a sustainable electronics industry?
Findings from the interviews indicate that a number of macro factors will play a role in creating
a sustainable electronics industry. Several of these factors can impact the industry in either
direction.
• Will consumers value sustainability if it requires a trade-off?
One driving factor will be whether consumers will still value sustainability if it requires a
performance or price trade-off. For example, the drive to miniaturization and lightness of
devices may have negative impacts on recyclability or longevity. Will consumers accept
a heavier device if it has sustainability benefits? Several interviewees pointed out that
there is a need to better educate consumers about the sustainability of electronics and
18
-------
potential trade-offs. Some interviewees noted that many consumer electronics now are
seen as a fashion accessory, which creates a culture of disposability beyond the
technology itself. This will be a problem, particularly if the industry does not have well-
defined waste streams for recovery of complex materials. As consumers start to see the
impacts of climate change more clearly, there also may be a significant push for more
sustainable electronics. We may see an increased demand for conflict-free electronics.
Taxation as a way to push the sustainability agenda
Taxation could become an important tool in driving better sustainability performance.
Taxing consumption instead of income could underpin a "green" taxation system. We
also could start to see taxation of greenhouse gases, with implications for manufacturing,
energy efficiency and end-of-life.
Oil and energy prices
If oil prices increase, this will have a number of implications for the industry. One
potential outcome is that as transportation costs rise, local manufacturing (close to the
customer base) may become more attractive. Rising energy costs also would help push
energy efficiency. If energy prices do not rise, however, standards may be necessary to
drive efficiency forward.
Increasing resource scarcity—apportioning of resources
One of the biggest issues for the industry over the next 10 years may be how to
apportion increasingly scarce natural resources such as silicon, energy and various
metals, in the face of rapid economic growth in developing economies.
Federal policies on energy efficiency
Federal energy efficiency policies will have a major impact on enabling a sustainable
electronics industry. DOE standards, ENERGY STAR and other standards could be
useful. If these programs are not sufficiently funded, it would lead to adverse effects for
the industry. State-level policies on decoupling and rate recovery could reward utility
companies for saving energy (e.g., energy as a service, not selling kilowatt hours).
Evolving sustainability policies in developing economies
Much e-waste currently is handled in developing economies. As these countries
develop legislation that regulates the e-waste business, the shape of the electronics
value chain may shift—altering what can and cannot be recycled where, and changing
the flow of raw materials back into the system.
Short-termism
Wall Street demands are huge impediments to long-term solutions. To overcome this,
there is a need to take a collaborative approach, including collaboration and
partnerships on research on economic models, green chemistry, modularity,
repairability, durable materials and other issues.
19
-------
3. Sustainable Electronics Roadmap
The group selected roadmap themes based on those developed by the Electronics TakeBack
Coalition by Barbara Kyle including:
1. Materials and Processes Cause No Harm
2. Resource Optimization
3. Energy, Water and Biodiversity
4. Community Enrichment
5. Safe and Fair Working Conditions
6. Business Models
Sustainable
Products
Enriching
Communities
Resource
Optimizati
Sustainable
Electronics
Zero-waste
Energy, water,
Biodiversity
Sustainable
Business
Model
Sustainable
Processes
across Life-
Cycle
Safe and
Fair working
condition
For each issue, participants considered various questions including:
What are the key research questions and recommendations?
What standards are needed?
Who needs to be involved?
What is the role for regulation?
What other approaches should be used to tackle the issue?
What resources are available?
20
-------
They also identified potential barriers and approaches that could be used to solve each issue.
Participants developed draft roadmaps that indicated short-term (three- to five-year), long-term
(2030) goals, as well as milestones for five-year intervals. The roadmaps were completed to
varying levels of detail by each group. Specific issues that were explored more in-depth are
described following the roadmaps for each theme, as well as notes from the group discussion.
3.1 Materials and Processes Cause No Harm
The goal for 2030 is to limit the harm posed by all ICT materials and processes.
Issues
• Identify the chemicals in products.
• Identify the chemicals used in production.
• Identify the chemicals used in the extraction of virgin materials.
• Identify the chemicals used in EoL processing.
• Determine how to eliminate hazardous materials across the lifecycle.
• Quantify hazardous emissions to air, water and land.
Key Research Questions
• How can better test methods be created to verify the materials and chemicals in
products?
• How can benign chemical alternatives be developed and compared to existing
chemicals and alternative materials?
• Which processes result in emissions?
• What chemicals and processes are used in materials recycling and recovery?
• How can the chemical industry culture and mindset be changed to incorporate
sustainable principles?
• What standard life-cycle analysis (LCA) tools can be developed to promote
consistent use of the most benign and efficient materials?
• How can original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) be encouraged to use
alternative, less toxic chemicals?
Standards Needed
• Consensus on a harmonized standard for alternative assessments and lists of
benign and harmful chemicals.
• Integration of a criterion for making information publicly available and verifiable.
• A system that identifies all processes used to develop ICT products and the
chemicals used in those processes.
3.2 Resource Optimization
Resource optimization is comprised of sustainable inputs (e.g., minimal use of critical
minerals and virgin materials) and outputs (e.g., zero waste and maximum recycling).
21
-------
The key goal for sustainable resource optimization is to obtain radically better closed-
loop resource management by 2030, where it makes sense.
Issues
• Define "where it makes sense," in the context of input and output of resources, to
have closed material loops.
• Improve collection of electronic products for EoL management.
• Design products for easy disassembly, efficient tracking of devices, optimal
materials recovery and minimal materials use.
• Increase the transparency of material flows throughout the lifecycle.
• Improve system design optimization and control (e.g., processing).
Key Research Questions
• Does bio-based content negatively impact plastics recycling?
• What are the tradeoffs between durability/longevity and lightness/energy-efficient
attributes?
• What is the best way to draft a criterion that will incentivize recycling of critical
materials?
• What is the average lifespan of an electronic product before it is discarded?
Standards Needed
• Performance standards for smelting and the steps leading to smelting.
• Critical materials criteria might be needed.
3.3 Energy, Water and Biodiversity
The goal for 2030 is for ICT manufacturing and EoL processes to realize zero net energy
and water use while taking steps to maximize biodiversity.
Issues
• Maximize the benefits of ICT applications.
• Decrease manufacturing and supply chain energy use, with the goal of zero net
energy and carbon dioxide from manufacturing.
• Decrease net water use and improve the appropriateness of manufacturing
facilities' locations.
• Increase biodiversity through the consideration of ICT-related materials and
processes that can affect natural resources and habitats.
Key Research Questions
• What demonstration case studies can be developed to model efficient water and
energy use?
• What models can be developed to understand the benefits of biodiversity?
Standards Needed
22
-------
Standardized energy performance indicators
3.4 Community Enrichment
The goals for the industry by 2030 are to responsibly extract all manufacturing inputs, use no
materials sourced from conflict areas and ensure environmental justice for all communities.
Issues
• Develop a procedure to guarantee prior and informed consent before a new mine
is opened.
• Create models to bring together the formal and informal recycling sectors.
Key Research Questions
• What is the best way to measure positive and negative impacts of ICT
manufacturing at various levels of the supply chain?
• How can benefits be defined and what indicators can be developed to measure
benefits?
Standards Needed
• Integrate the Framework for Responsible Mining into existing standards.
• Expand U.S. conflict mineral disclosure to include conflict regions beyond the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
• Incentives for OEMs that offer redemption value for ICT products.
3.5 Safe and Fair Working Conditions
The goals for 2030 are to have all ICT hardware manufactured in facilities with best-in-
class health and environmental safety, and no forced overtime or child labor.
Issues
• Put a "human face" on occupational and environmental health.
• Make an effort to identify best-in-class environmental standards.
• Adopt comprehensive health monitoring and industrial hygiene monitoring.
• Adopt International Labor Organization (ILO) conventions on living wages and
child labor.
• Develop meaningful indicators for social impacts, such as forced labor.
Key Research Questions
• What are the global best practices for health and safety safeguards?
• What new standards are needed?
• What indicators can be developed for social impacts such as forced labor?
Standards Needed
23
-------
Global standards based on the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals
Management (SAICM) recommendations.
Incorporation of absolute health, safety and environmental standards into the
Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC).
Adoption of ILO labor standards into the EICC.
3.6 Sustainable Business Models
The principal 2030 outcome relating to business models is that all decisions throughout
the supply chain are aligned with sustainability objectives.
Issues
• ICT functions as an enabler of sustainability.
• Internalize all costs throughout the lifecycle.
• Increase product utilization by novel methods, such as lease models.
• Investigate the role of consumers and research consumer behavior.
• Improve corporate culture and governance.
• Align decisions with the informal sector.
Key Research Questions
• How can costs be internalized throughout the lifecycle?
• What methods can be established to encourage or require transparency?
Standards Needed
• Common methodology for calculating sustainability impacts and benefits.
• Platforms to share tangible actions for improvement opportunities for industry,
government and consumers.
• Standards to enable interoperability between technologies and software.
• Phase-in of standards such as carbon, water and toxics to internalize the cost of
externalities.
24
-------
Part 2
4. Roadmap Milestone and Research Issues
25
-------
Sustainable
Electronics Roadmap
Sustainable Electronics Forum
Out*
saw
-------
Materials and Processes Cause No Harm: Roadmap
2030 Outcome: Limit the harm posed by all information and communication technology (ITC) materials and processes.
Issues
What Chemicals Are in
Electronic Products?
| 2012 2015
Computer OEMs
propose criteria
(optional) to
EPEAT® 1680.1 for
getting full chemi-
Leadership
computerOEMs
request full
product chemi-
cal inventory
cal inventory for from suppliers
products
OEMs agree on a
formatter howthey
will ask their suppli-
ers for full product
chemical inventory
(i.e., EIC 62474)
iNEMI Road-
map includes
full chemical
inventory of Full i
products; cherr
sustainability ing i
consortium proc
2020
2025
Tool exists for designers to evalu-
ate material options that include
all chemicas, hazards and manu-
facturers for a reasonable price
nventory of
icalsresid-
~\ electronic
uctsbyOEMs
Gather hazard inform
2030 2030 OUTCOMES
Full inventory of chemicals A complete inventory of all
residing in products is publicly chemicals in production of electronic
available by OEMs products, including hazards, is
verified and publicly available. The
ationforall
inventory identifies the
manufacturers of the chemical,
material or product.
chemicals in products and con-
Developing improved test tinueto uPdate periodically
methods for chemicals in
products
Inventory of chemicalsin prod-
ucts istransparentthroughoutthe
supply chain
CADTool is fully populated with ma-
terial, chemical, product hazards and
manufacturing information.
OEMs receive full product
inventory for each new
product before it is re-
leased on the market
What Chemicals Are Used in
the Production of Electronic
Products?
What are the hazards and
social impacts related to the
extraction of materials used
in electronic products?
1
2
2012
Electronic Industry
Citizenship Coalition
(EICC) process chemi-
cal groups—looking at
processes
2012
Identify virgin materi-
als used in electronic
production
2012
Develop a system that
identifies all processes
used to develop IT
products
What chemicals are
used in these process-
es, generally?
What chemicals are used in
materials extraction?
What are their impacts?
Are there alternatives?
Can they be sourced from
different mines?
Continue to reduce the
use of virgin materials
Increase the use of high-
quality recycled/recovered
materials
3 2015
4
2020
From generic
processes,
identify target
"hots pots" of
chemicals in produc-
tion
Identify best practices
of communication
through the supply
chain, such asthose
used in the pharma-
ceutical industry
2020
2025
2030
2025
2030
5 2020
6
7 2025
9 2030
A complete inventory of all
chemicals in production of
electronics products, including
hazards, is verified and publicly
available. Manufacturers of chemi-
cals are identified.
Virgin materials are sourced from
certi- fied "safe" mines and/or
facilities.
Recycled materials are sourced from
certified facilities, and adequate sup-
plies of feedstock are available.
Use only biologically benign sub-
stances in materials extraction and
production of electronic products.
27
-------
Materials and Processes Cause No Harm: Road map
Issues
How Do We Eliminate
Hazardous Materials Across
the Lifecycle of Electronic
Products?
2012
Harmonized
agreement on
methodology to
conduct alterna-
tive assessment,
including hazard
assessment
2015 2020 2025 2030 2030 OUTCOMES
Lobby Congress forfunding
for increased groupalterna-
tive assessment. Include
chemical phase out sched-
ules along the way
Gather hazard information
for known "bad" chemicals
and continue to update the
information
cross
)nic
Agree on list of "bad"
chemicalsand list of "good"
chemicals (include focus
on workers)
Identify "bad" chemcals and
their manufacturers, identi
"good" chemicals and their
manufacturers and
make information publicly
accessible (i.e.,
Clean Gredients®)
y
Increased group
alternative assess-
Assessments conducted rou- Attain international harmoniza- Develop new No chemical is selected unless it is
tinely and information updated tion of approaches to sustainable biologically benign on the "good" list or an alternative
ments being done periodically electronics substances assessment (to a "goodness thresh-
by OEMs with EPA Increment old") is conducted.
involvement
innovation
Find alternative
chemicals, materials,
or product designs
to known "bad"
chemicals
pany chemicals, materials
and product design
Industry requests chemical industry to
develop alternatives to chemicals on
the"bad"list
Continuous updating of "good" and "bad" lists
Chemicals Used in EoL
Processing
201:
2015
Develop clean emis-
sions standard for
production facilities
2012
2015
2020
Develop a system for ongoing
monitoring and compliance to
the standard
2020
2025
2025
2030
All production facilities are
certified for clean emissions
2030
Elimination of hazardous emissions
to air, water and land from Ihe
production of electronic products.
Research questions:
What end-of-life recovery processes use hazardous chemicals?
Are there safer processes that some processors could use now?
If yes, howdoweincentivizetheir use?
If no, how do we develop alternative chemicals or processes?
2012
2015
2020
2025
2030
28
-------
Materials and Processes Cause No Harm: Notes
Issue: What are the hazardous emissions
to air, water and land from electronics
production?
What are the key research questions?
• Which processes result in which emissions?
What standards are needed?
• Knowledge of alternative processes.
• Standards for conducting workplace air monitoring
for toxics exposure for specific types of production
and for each chemical of concern
• Standards for worker health monitoring are needed
for the various types of processes. The kinds of
monitoring and the kinds of chemicals to be
monitored should be determined.
Who needs to be involved?
• Supply chain, nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs), and United Nations staff for Pollutant
Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) activities.
What other approaches should be used to
tackle the issue?
• All of the supply chain should perform Toxics Re-
lease Inventory (TRI) or PRTR reporting, but at a
level equivalent to U.S. TRI reporting. The
approach should be in the standards.
Issue: How do we eliminate hazardous materials
across the lifecycle of electronic products?
What resources are available?
• TRI reporting in the United States.
• PRTR reporting in some other countries.
What are the key research questions and
recommendations?
• Develop methods to compare alternative chemicals,
materials or product designs.
• Develop biologically benign alternatives, including
new chemicals and materials.
What standards are needed?
• Consensus on a harmonized standard for alternative
assessments.
• Consensus on a list of benign chemicals.
• Consensus on a list of harmful chemicals.
• Tools for conducting alternatives assessments,
including hazard assessment.
• Computer-aided design (CAD) tools that provide
information on the chemicals used, associated
hazards and the manufacturer.
Who needs to be involved?
• Tool developers, original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs), chemical industry, NGOs, EPA, recyclers,
and CAD tool developers.
• Purchasers/those writing government specifications.
• EPEAT®.
What other approaches should be used to
tackle the issue?
• Collaborative research (government or industry as
convener) and alignment of goals.
• Water safety experts.
What resources are available?
• Some chemical hazard assessment tools, such as
Toxcast, GreenScreen, Design for the Environment
(DfE), life-cycle assessment (LCA) and toxicity
assessment tools and models.
• Some alternatives assessment protocols.
• Some supply chain software tools.
29
Issue: What chemicals are used in the
extraction of the virgin materials used in
electronic products?
What are the barriers?
• Lack of agreement on the preferred materials.
• Lack of a method to bring information on hazards
and alternatives to designers.
• Lack of funding for group alternative assessments.
What are the key research questions and
recommendations?
• What chemicals are used as part of extraction and
what are their impacts?
• Are there alternatives?
• Can chemicals be sourced from mines using safe
chemicals/lower impact processes?
What standards are needed?
• Outer edge.
Who needs to be involved?
• Mining industry, developers of the Framework
for Responsible Mining, Earthworks (NGO active
in mining issues, formerly called Mineral Policy
Center).
Issue: What chemicals are in electronic
products?
What other approaches should be used to
tackle the issue?
• Government research and convening.
-------
Materials and Processes Cause No Harm: Notes
What are the key research questions and
recommendations?
• How to create better test methods for verifying
which chemicals are in products?
• How to get better information on fate and
transformation of chemicals?
What standards are needed?
• Integrate a criterion for a full chemical inventory
into all standards used by EPEAT®.
• Integrate a criterion for making information
publicly available and verifiable.
Who needs to be involved?
• OEMs, chemical industry, product design tool
developers, technical experts, NGOs, EPA.
• EPEAT® to support purchasing.
What other approaches should be used to
tackle the issue?
• Include chemical disclosure in the Sustainability
Consortium.
• Integrate chemical and manufacturer inventory and
hazard information into CAD tools.
• Create an expert exchange program between the
pharmaceutical and IT industries.
What resources are available?
• International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
62474 standard and National Science Foundation
(NSF) 355 standard.
• BomCheck software tool and other materials
declaration software tools.
• MIQ tool developed by the Green Blue Institute.
• Glaxo Smith Kline/Pharmaceutical Roundtable tool.
What are the barriers?
• Limited list of chemicals covered by the IEC 62474
standard.
Issue: What chemicals are used in
the production of electronic
products?
• Lack of collaboration to collect chemical information.
• Lack of publicly available tools to perform full
chemical inventories.
• Chemical industry resistance.
• Challenge in handling proprietary information.
• Fear of liability.
• Lack of transparency in the supply chain.
What are the key research questions and
recommendations?
• What are the processes used to develop ICT
products?
• What chemicals are used in conventional processes?
• Are there alternative processes that are inherently
biologically benign?
What standards are needed?
• A system that identifies all processes used to
develop ICT products and the chemicals used in
those processes.
Who needs to be involved?
• OEM, suppliers/supply chain, chemical industry.
• Industry research associations.
What other approaches should be used to
tackle the issue?
• Government should advocate, collaborate and
support research.
What resources are available?
• NSF 355 standard.
• Sustain™ tool.
• iNEMI and International Semiconductor Manufac-
turing Technology Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI).
Research Needs
1. Create better test methods for verifying which
chemicals are in products.
2. Generate better information on fate and trans-
formation of chemicals through life-cycle
steps and through processing (EoL).
3. Develop methods and refine tools for comparing
alternative chemicals, materials or product designs.
4. Develop biologically benign alternatives such
as new chemicals and materials.
Extraction
5. Determine what chemicals are used to
extract the various minerals used in
electronics manufacturing.
• What are their impacts?
• Are there safer alternatives?
• Can minerals/chemicals be sourced from
mines using safer chemicals/lower impact
processes?
Process Chemistry
6. Map the processes used to develop IT products.
• What are the chemicals typically used in
these processes? (not exclusively used in
the electronics industry) EICC phase
outs.
30
-------
Materials and Processes Cause No Harm: Notes
Process Chemistry Notes Continued
• What are the hazard "hot spots" in
production?
• Are there alternative chemicals or process-
es that are inherently biologically benign?
Emissions
7. Which processes result in which emissions (air,
land, water)?
8. What is the best way to integrate alternative
assessment information into CAD tools?
9. What chemicals are used in materials
recycling/recovery and processes?
(Karsten Schischke)
10. What steps can be taken to change the
chemical industry culture/mindset?
• Chemicals are being used to make a process
serve a function.
• Need a "toxic process" category, not just
material. May not be a chemical
substitution—need other technology solution.
• Need to include drivers such as standards and
regulations.
• Tighten/extend "bad" list over time.
• Cross reference and identify potential
community impacts, including monitoring.
• Make sure impacts of chemicals extraction in
the recycling process are addressed.
Steps for Next 3-5 Years
• Receive EPA Green Chemistry award for
brominated flame retardant alternatives.
• Integrate these ideas into the iNEMI (Bob
Pfahl and Carol Handwerker) roadmap and
Sustainability Consortium (Randy Kirchain
and Scott O'Connell).
• Integrate drivers into the IEEE 1680.1 standard
and the server standard (both efforts launching
in early 2013).
• Include presentations on this topic at
Electronics Goes Green and the
Comprehensive Approach Resource and
Energy-Efficiency Electronics Conferences.
• EPA could hold meetings with leading computer
OEMs and NGOs to prepare proposals for the
1680.1 standard.
• Create roadmap for next products to build
standards for Green Electronics Council.
• EPA Market.2 and .3 and other standards used
by EPEAT9 provided to federal purchasers.
• Create consortia to gather chemical
information for IT so the information can be
shared and create shared repository
(EPA/ORD and EPA/Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention and
industry).
• EPA should make CompTox publicly
accessible and usable.
• Create a registry of preferred chemicals (e.g.,
CleanGredients* type approach) and make
accessible. Start with one chemical class such
as flame retardants, colorants, plasticizers
(Helen Holder, DfE).
• Create an EPA Green Star program to direct
purchasers to products meeting EPA and
stakeholder-approved standard that includes
the ideas from the Roadmap.
Existing Tools
NSF 355 Standard
EIC62474 Standard
Green Screen Tool
State of California Chemical Effort
State of Washington Work on Alternative
Assessment
31
-------
Resource Optimization: Roadmap
2030 Outcome: Radically better closed-loop management of resources (where it makes sense).
Issue
1 . Define what
"makes sense" for
optimized
resource recovery
2012
Determine boundary
conditions for defini-
tion of criticality, envi-
ronmental dimensions
only, or also economic
and strategic, resources
of concern, e.g., metals
(PM, SPM, PGM), REs,
bulk materials (plastic)
2015 2020 2030 2030 OUTCOMES
3. X% of prioritized devices collected into a
responsibly managed channel
4. Proactive eco design that takes into account:
- design for disassembly
2. Quantify"Radi-
cally Better"
for resource re-
covery sysems
Document state of the science
& policy for optimized resource
recovery
Apply criteria & prioritize
resources
Define quantified goals per
priority re- source
Determine optimal end
2012
Assess product types and major
components that contain signifi- cant
quantities of priority resources, e.g.,
absolute amount and average percent
composition of priority resources per
unit waste stream
Define criteria for prioritization of
product types and components
Apply criteria & prioritize product
types and components
Document state of the sci-
ence regarding e-scrap resource
Document state of the
science & policy regard-
ing e-scrap collection,
Identify significant col-
lection system factors
that affect recovery of
priority resources
2015
2020
2030
Determine optimal end use
of priority products and
components
Define quantified goals for
priority products and com-
ponents (this will be the
measure of'optimal")
Wite up results of task A &
Band distribute for input
2015
2020
2030
Define collection system
goals:
percent of priority devices
collected into responsibly
managed channel;
percent of products
properly handled, sorted
and delivered to optimal
channel;
percent of collection
programs effectively
account for material flows
- life extension (reuse, refurbishment)
- recycling
- design for recovery
- avoid incompatible material mixes as long
as it does not interfere with essential
functionality
- design for tracking and detection
- design for less material use considering tradeoffs
(e.g., economic
viability, recycling, durability)
5. Transparent material flows (destination volume)
for 100% of prioritized products
- Commonly accepted standards for scope,
quality and format of data
- Monitoring standardization and process
certification
- Define responsibility and accountability
- Tracing and tracking technology
- Prioritize products (absolute amount of
material content) and potential toxicity
- Transparent to whom?
6. Optimize system for priority devices
- Economic drivers
- Technical (interface and process technology)
- Rules/incentives
2012
2015
2020
2030
-------
Resource Optimization: Notes
What are the key research questions?
• Building on existing studies, which scarce, strategic
and critical materials need to be prioritized for
electronic sector conservation?
What standards are needed?
• Critical materials criteria may be needed (e.g.,
recycling, conservation, substitution).
• Performance standards for smelting and for the
steps leading up to smelting. These need to be flexi-
ble enough to deal with smelters focused on primary
ones that also process printed wiring boards.
What other approaches should be used to
tackle the issue?
• Primary mining smelters have similar issues for
optimizing recovery.
• The Chinese government needs a smelter dedicated
to e-waste; current smelting processes are
optimized for primary ore and have low yields for
other materials.
• Specific smelters are needed for recovery. Many
recoverable materials are just by-products.
What are the barriers?
• There are no venture capitalists investing in these
ventures.
• Governments could consider funding applied
research as well as basic research.
EcoDesign
• Design for disassembly, life extension (refurbish),
recycling, reuse.
• Design for recovery (thermo-metallurgy chemistry).
Avoid material mixes as long as it does not interfere
with essential functionality.
• Design for tracking and detection.
• Design for less material use considering
tradeoffs (e.g., economic viability, recycling,
potential durability).
Transparency of Material Flows (Destination Volume)
2030 Outcome:
100% of Prioritized Products
• Responsibility and accountability
• Hard data; mass balance
• commonly accepted standard for scope,
quality and format of data
• monitoring standardization and process
certification
• Tracing and tracking technology
• Prioritize products
- material content/total absolute amount of
material
- material potential toxicity
• Transparent to whom?
System Design/Optimization/Control 2030 Outcome:
• Optimized system for priority devices
• Economic driver
• Technical (interface, process technology)
• Rules/incentives
Additional Notes
• NGOs, government and academics look at the
system. Industry looks at their own piece of the
problem. This must be multidiscipline, multi-
stakeholder. These are all very complex
systems, and we cannot achieve perfection.
There is no 100% truth. There is an optimum,
which means there is compromise. Everything
needs to be piloted with all the available
information brought to bear. This is a problem
for funding. Funding is needed but government
agencies prefer basic research, not applied.
• Do not forget recovery of nonmetallics. How
can recovery of polymers, bio-based, etc., be
optimized?
• How do we balance maximizing recovery
yield goals against the environmental costs of
extraction?
• Integrate incentives to conserve, reuse and
recycle critical minerals into standards used
by EPEAT'.
Research Questions:
1. Does bio-based content negatively impact
plastics recycling?
2. What are the tradeoffs between durability/
longevity and other (lighter, energy efficient)
attributes and how do we decide what is "best"
to incentivize?
3. What is the best way to draft a criterion that
will incentivize the recycling of critical
materials (to put into IEEE standards)?
33
-------
Resource Optimization: Roadmap (continued)
2030 Outcome: Radically better closed-loop management of resources (where it makes sense).
Issue
4. Address
Optimization
of the Processing
System
2012
Review literature
& document state
of the science &
policy regarding
e-scrap
processing
2015 2020 2025
Identify significant process-
ing system factors for criti-
cal resource recovery
Define measures of process-
ing system effectiveness
Define processing system
goals: percent of priority de-
vices optimally processed;
X% of products sent to
optimal end-treatment
system
Define best practices for
optimal processing systems
2030 2030 OUTCOMES
3. X% of prioritized devices collected into a
responsibly managed channel
4. Proactive eco design that takes into account:
- design for disassembly
- life extension (reuse,
refurbishment)
- recycling
2012
5. Address
Optimization of the
Final Treatment
System
6. Reporting: Interim
and final
2012
2012
7. Implementation
2020
Review literature & doc-
ument state of the sci-
ence & policy regarding
e-scrap final treatment
systems
Identify significanttreat-
ment system factors
2025
2030
Define optimal
channels for EoL
management-
collection thru
treatment
Define measures of
treatment system
effectiveness
Define treatment
system goals:,X%
of priority devices
optimallytreated
X% recovery of criti-
cal resources Define
best practices for
optimal end
2020 2025
Draft interim report
for broad distribution Develop eco-design guid- Integrate implemen-
and input - Report will ance> EoL infrastructure deve- tation e|ernents into
address optimal prior- ment recommendations Interim Reportand
Define performance stan-
dards for ewaste-handling
smelters and performance
standardsfor ewaste collec-
tion and processing
2015
ity resource recovery
for electronics
EoL management
Solicit and review
input and finalize
report
2025 2030
Adopt eco-design
guidelines into EPEAT,
Promote development
of EoL infrastructure
Implement perfor-
mance standards
Implement performance
standards for ewaste col-
lection and processing
I m plement transparency
measures for prioritized
materials and product
flows; Evaluate system
-design for recovery
- avoid incompatible material mixes as
long as it does not interfere with
essential functionality
- design for tracking and detection
- design for less material use considering
tradeoffs (e.g., economic viability, recycling,
durability)
5. Transparent material flows (destination volume)
for 100% of prioritized products
-Commonly accepted standards for scope, quality
and format of data
- Monitoring standardization and process
certification
- Define responsibility and accountability
- Tracing and tracking technology
- Prioritize products (absolute amount of
material)
34
-------
Resource Optimization: Notes
Additional notes (continued)
4. What is the average lifespan of an electronic
product before it is discarded? How many are
refurbished versus shredded?
5. How much of the brominated flame
retardants are present in recycled content
plastics, and do they leach out in dust more
than from virgin plastics?
6. How much does the plastics recycling stream
fluctuate and what is the recovery rate of
different resins?
7. Is metal better than plastic?
From Christian Hageluken's presentation:
• Mechanical processing of complex products
without dissipation of technology metals.
• Pre-shredder technology to remove magnets,
circuit boards, batteries, etc.
• Thermodynamics of complex (incompatible)
metal mixes (pre-competitive).
Optimize metal yields and energy efficiency of
metallurgical processes.
Recycling of rare earth metals such as, gallium,
germanium and tantalum.
Pilot plants, scale up ("crossing the valley
of death").
Interface optimization mechanical
processing <-» metallurgy.
Recycling of slags, flue dust, ashes, landfills,
tailings, and so forth.
Metal recycling from functional surfaces (e.g.,
LCDs).
Interface logistics and mechanical processing
Number of collection categories
(separate vs. joint); appropriate pre-
sorting intensity.
• Optimal infrastructure for relevant
small devices (e.g., mobile phones,
USB memory sticks, batteries).
35
-------
Energy, Water and Biodiversity: Roadmap
2030 Outcome: ICT manufacturing and EoL process to realize zero net energy and water use while taking steps to maximize biodiversity.
Issue
Scoping inventory of
2012
'
2015 2020 2025 2030 2030 OUTCOMES
Sensory benefit
assessment
Research agenda roadmap
Tool Box
Promotion of ICT sensors for
existing and new applications
I Energy benefit of ICT
Maximize benefits of ICT
deployment
201 & 2020 2025 2030
Metrics Measure Progress
Energy
Water
Biodiversity
3LACK BOX Energy performance
- ndustry level indicators collected
-"Average" processes on plant level
- For United States only
LCA on a case-by-case LCA/Product Carbon
basis/significant data Footprint -generic,
gaps are uncertain standardized data
models
2012
3uantifying ICT-relatedsavings
atlargest/meta level Research and
E n v i ro nm e nta I Protec-
tion ndex data ready
for publication
OEMs set supply chain
standards
Policy can set incentives for low
energy consumption
Maximize renewables Contexts refined by place/culture
Minimize energy
demand
Maximize materials
efficiency
2015 2020 2025 2030
OEMs set supply chain
Zero netenergy/CO; manufacturing
development for next forWPI
generation ener
gy
saving technologes
Quantifying ICT-related sav ngs
(e.g., case studies)
2012
2015 2020 2
water performance WPI data ready for Set incentives for low water use
indicators (WPI) on publication water consumption or enhan
2012 2015 2020 2
Monitor and understand
biodiversity at regional level
M etri cs an d th resh ol d s estab I i sh ed
to support reqional biodiversity
Understand variables thaten-
able enhancing biodiversity
on regional level , • , , • ,• •,. ,.
Link biodiversity to resource use
and design decision making
025 2030
reduction yields protection Zero net water (appropriate to
qement of regional location)
025 2030
Zero biodiversity negative impact or
improves biodiversity
Research Opportunity
2012
2015
2020
2025
2030
Needs:
1. Infrastructure impacts and analysis
2. Simulation tool
3. Harmonization with meta level and design decision making
4. Link to design
2012
2015
2020
2025
2030
36
-------
Enriching Communities: Roadmap
2030 Outcomes: Communities benefit proportionally from extraction, production and EoL activities and are able to exercise self-determination in the development.
^^H 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
"
Convene experts to
identify best practices in
extraction and create a
framework for
responsible mining
Expand existing disclo-
sure requirements to in-
clude other conflict areas
beyond DRC
No ICT materials
sourced from
conflict areas
2030 OUTCOMES
All ICT materials sourced out of
responsible extraction areas
Identify conflict
areas beyond DRC
Establish a process to
guarantee free, prior and
informed consent before
anew mine is opened
Require closure plans and bonding before opening
new mine
2012
2015
2020
2025
2030
Research policy options for
minimizing factories/
companies "shopping" for
local communities offering
destructiveperkssuchastax
breaks, regulatory relief, etc.
(National GovernorsAssocia-
tion has done this)
2012
U.S. export ban on e-waste
2015
2020
All ICT hardware has a small redemption value/
refund fee for returning EoL hardware to respon-
sible recycling programs
2025
2030
Pilot projectto develop
work able model to bring
together informal collec-
tion andformal recycling
2015
2020
2025
2030
37
-------
Energy, Water and Biodiversity: Notes
Issues
Maximize the benefits of ICT applications.
Decrease manufacturing and supply chain energy
use, with the goal of zero net energy and carbon
dioxide from manufacturing.
Decrease net water use and improve the appropri-
ateness of manufacturing facilities' locations. We
need baseline reporting on water use per facility
with goals to reduce it.
Increase biodiversity.
Key Research Questions
• What demonstration case studies can be developed
to model efficient water and energy use?
• What models can be developed to understand the
benefits of biodiversity?
Additional Notes
Comments From the Working Group:
• Started with issues but found lots of
intersections, so restructured.
• Maximize benefits of ICT: there are case stud-
ies and good data on sectors such as buildings
and lighting, but lots of things that we do not
know about benefits of ICT. For example, what
are the benefits of email or of downloads?
There is no broad understanding of precise
benefits and how these change over time and
space. The first thing in the process is
understanding the array of applications.
We need some way of understanding where
we stand and where to go to maximize
deployments.
Better promotion of energy efficiency: simple,
cost-effective measures. Barriers should be
considered through a life-cycle view. We need
to deploy what is there. What are the benefits if
we tap into new markets and applications?
Need research roadmaps and agenda involving
building quantitative tools and models to
identify credible tools. Need policy roadmap to
maximize deployment and to overcome market
barriers.
Information asymmetry: there are solutions
that building owners or manufacturers might
not want to try because the outcomes are
uncertain. So we need demonstration case
studies. Need tested, proven data to act on.
Overcome early adoption barrier. No dem-
onstration studies for transportation. Need a
neutral place where technology is tested.
Need to identify new opportunities to
overcome secrecy barrier. Better models will
help us understand benefits.
Research roadmap: invest in traditional ap-
proach with measurement verification,
tracking and documenting benefits with
deployment of ICT.
Zero net energy CO2 manufacturing: there is a
lot of secrecy in the supply chain. Current
carbon footprint appears to be really high. Need
better, more detailed data to develop energy
performance indicators.
Energy used for unit of production: we know
this for steel, but not for complex electronics
and water use per unit of production. Energy
STAR has energy performance indicators for
some labels. Takes 2-3 years to develop—a
long time. Such indicators provide a metric for
where we stand today with respect to energy
use. Need some effort to understand energy
use. Need to measure performance over time.
Then OEM can set supply chain standards.
Best/worst practices. OEM compared to other
OEMs in non-confidential way with
anonymous benchmarking tools.
Policy makers need to know best practices and
where to push.
R&D: policies for R&D demonstrations.
This is done for other industries, and can be
applied to electronics. Minimize energy
demand and maximize materials efficiency.
Companies need to minimize use of water and
toxics, which seems feasible; eventually they
could get to zero net CO in manufacturing.
38
-------
Enriching Communities: Notes
What are the key research questions?
• Better mining practices, mapping additional con-
flict regions beyond the Democratic Republic of the
Congo (DRC), policy options to minimize compa-
nies "shopping" for perks in communities, and a
pilot program to bring together informal e-waste
collection with formal recycling.
What standards are needed?
• Integrate the Framework for Responsible Mining
into existing standards.
• Expand U.S. conflict mineral disclosure to include
conflict regions beyond the DRC.
• EPEAT® optional points for offering redemption
value for ICT.
Who needs to be involved?
• Mining stakeholders.
What other approaches should be used to
tackle the issue?
• State and local government for EoL issues, and poli-
cies to reduce "shopping" for perks.
What is the role for regulation?
• Enforce an export ban for e-waste in the
United States and also develop redemption
value for e-waste.
• Expand U.S. conflict mineral disclosure to include
conflict regions beyond the DRC, perhaps through
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC).
What resources are available?
• The U.S. and European Union (EU) governments
are available for conflict material issues.
• Basel, NGOs, EU and other governments are avail-
able for EoL issues.
What are the barriers?
• Avarice.
• OEMs are high in the supply chain.
• A small portion of the market for some metals
means less leverage.
• Costs are externalized.
• Ignorance and apathy from consumers.
39
-------
Safe and Fair Working Conditions: Roadmap
2030 Outcomes: All ICT hardware is manufactured in facilities with best-in-class health, safety and environmental standards globally with living wages, no
forced overtime, no forced labor, no child labor, and no discrimination and where workers have freedom of assembly.
Issues
Health and
Safety
Standards
2012
Put human face
on ha
make
mto
t visible
2015 2020 2025 2030 2030 OUTCOMES
Fair and just compensation for
occupational illness _ „ , . _,__
Collaboration on EICC
Collaboration to improve EICC implementation Implement
HSS1— Identify best-in-class protec- withkeyorganizationslikeNGOs
tive health, safety and environmental and international institutions
standard (globally); and national governments
Equal protection for workers and
res
idents
o include the same health-
based exposure limits and
sts
HS
ndard
S3— Id
HSS1-implent
^ntify best vehicle(s) to
implement andenforcebest-in-class
pro
ective
ron mental
health, safety and envi-
standards throughout
the global ICT supply chain.
Co
glo
Identify full
supply chain
isider
EICC, WHO, national and
>al governments
Char?
cterizeTRI/PRTR
emissions for supply chain
comprehensive health
monitoring and indus-
trial hygiene best prac-
tices throughout ICT
supply chain globally
HSS4— Examine
PELsandRELsto
lower where needed
for common
chemicals used in
ICT manufacturing
2012
Scan/benchmark other industries
and efforts (e.g., Fair Factories
clearinghouse for apparel and
footwear)
2015
Ad opt ILO conventions on: living wages,
forced overtime, child labor, discrimi-
nation and freedom of association
In EICC
2020
2025
2030
Develop meaningful indi-
cators on social impacts,
including living wages, no
forced or child labor, no
discrimination, freedom of
association
Worker education's empowermenttraining
implemented throughout supply chain
with cooperation of NGOs, worker
2012
2015
2020
2025
2030
40
-------
Safe and Fair Working Conditions: Notes
What are the key research questions and
recommendations?
• What are the global best-in-class health, safety and
environmental standards that should be adopted at
all ICT manufacturing facilities?
• Should any key Recommended Exposure Limits
(RELs) or Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for
common chemicals be lowered or adjusted for the
ICT industry?
• Benchmark other industries and efforts to address
social issues.
• Need to identify chemical inventories in production
facilities; identify existing OSHA and
environmental standards for each one (where they
exist); harmonize these standards to the most health
protective; establish new health based limits for
those materials (including mixtures) where there are
currently no existing health standards
• Develop meaningful indicators for social impacts.
• Characterize the TRI and PRTR emissions in the
supply chain.
What standards are needed?
• Global standards based on the Strategic Approach
to International Chemicals Management (SAICM)
recommendations.
• Incorporate absolute health, safety and
environmental standards into the EICC.
• Adopt International Labor Organization (ILO) labor
standards into the EICC.
Who needs to be involved?
• Global subject matter experts and multiple
stakeholder groups.
What is the role for regulation?
• Need regulations to implement global standards.
What other approaches should be used to
tackle the issue?
• EICC needs to become multi-stakeholder and lead
implementation efforts.
• Social media needs to put a face on human and
environmental harm.
What resources are available?
• Lots of dispersed expertise.
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH), ILO and World Health Orga-
nization (WHO).
What are the barriers?
• Lack of resources and visibility.
41
-------
Business Model: Roadmap
2030 Outcome: All decisions throughout the supply chain are aligned with sustainability objectives.
Issues
Idas an Enabler of
Sustainability
Internalization of All Costs
Throughout Lifecycle
1 2012 2015 2020 2025
SMARTer grid — avoided cost
recovery for utilities
ICT providers earn carbon credits
2030 2030 OUTCOME
ICT enables smarter use of n
resources.
•
atural
Increase Product Utilization
Role of Consumer (Research)
Research why consumers do not
useEoL services,energyfeatures
•Trust in EoL
• Separation anxiety
• Relationship, continuity
2012
2012
Propose model
2015
Analyze
Voluntary standards
Report
One device supports several
generations of operating
systems
Organize process to explore
end-of-ownership application
2012
2015
Allow commercial terms—i.e., ANSI
standards to promote longevity
Implement EDO:
Voluntary
Mandatory
2015
Design and try interventions^ evaluate them
2020
Market incentives to
encourage what works
2025
Decision on regulation
Report
2025
2025
2030
Regulation?
2030
2030
All external costs are embedded in
product/service.
100% utilization of all ICTthrough
lifecycle.
Consumer behavior aligns with
sustainability goals.
Corporate Culture and
Governance
2012
Research board make-upand
transparency goals
2015
Develop "standard" for
boards and certification
2020
2025
2030
Business, investor and supply chain
decisions are consistent with long-
term sustainability.
Informal Sector
2012
2015
Research effectiveness of EoL schemes, consider device"bounty"
In the developing world and appropriately support informal sector
2012
2015
2020
2020
2025
2025
2030
2030
Informal sector is focused on
collection and disassembly and
refurbishment.
42
-------
Issue: Quarterly Earning matrix
How could investments in the electronics in-
dustry support requiring:
• Companies to report on their long-term strategy and
how it makes the business more sustainable.
• Business to demonstrate that they have a plan to ad-
dress the impacts of future systemic risks including
climate change, water stress, biodiversity, population
growth, urbanization and changing demographics.
• Companies to report in their accounting the value of
natural, human and social capital, so that investors can
understand the importance of factors which are often
overlooked. This will enable the strategic reporting out-
lined above.
• Are there examples of these strategies working in any
sector?
• Is there voluntary reporting that companies could begin
to do?
Who should be involved?
Fund managers, SRIs (socially responsible investment
Issue: Product Longevity
How do we shift from a business model where OEMs'
primary earnings come from customers replac-
ing existing products by buying new ones? How
do we incentivize companies to design and build
products to be long lasting and upgradeable, easy
to repair, and easy to refurbish for a significant
reuse phase?
Key research questions
Understanding what's happening now
What is the current rate of product turnover for
each major product category?
• How much is due to product failure vs owner
preference for new features or performance of
new devices?
How much is due to software issues? New operating
system software? New software won't run correctly
on old product?
• How prevalent is the notion that "since it's already
2 years old, it will probably die soon anyway, so I
might as well get a new one"?
Product longevity and ease of repair and upgrade.
• Does it cost more to make a computer that is more
durable and longer lasting? Is this an issue of de-
sign? Of manufacturing quality? Of materials? Of
manufacturing control? What companies have tried
to significantly lengthen their "mean time to fail-
ure" of certain products, and what changes yielded
results?
• Would consumers (or any subset of consumers) pay
more for a category of product (like a laptop) that
was guaranteed to be more durable, and to have
more value to resell? Would we pay more for the
"Volvo" of laptops?
• How do changes in operating system software drive
replacing rather than upgrading existing hardware.
Is there a difference in the rate of upgrading vs re-
placing between consumers and business owners? Is
there a difference in the rate of upgrading vs replac-
ing between various software platforms? If so, what
are the lessons we can learn from these differences?
• Truly modular design. How could a truly modu-
lar design enable ongoing upgrading, rather than
replacing hardware? What would a truly modular
device look like?
Who should be involved?
Reuse groups, repair groups (like iFIXIT), companies
selling extended warranty work, OEM repair ven-
dors, non-OEM repair vendors, consumer behavior
Issue: Service Model Vs Purchase Model;
Some suggest that we would see more advances in sustain-
ability if electronics companies moved to more of a lease
and service model, where customers didn't buy products,
but leased them from the OEMs, bringing them back to
OEMs for upgrades or replacements when necessary.
Key research questions
• Develop this concept and determine how it could make
economic sense for a Brand.
• The computer companies mostly have leasing divisions
for large businesses.
• Are there lessons to be learned there?
• How could that model succeed with consumers? What kind
of service infrastructure would the Brand need to put into
place for it to succeed?
• Does current leasing program result in longer product
lifetimes? Does it result in fewer products consumed?
Who should be involved?
Experts in leasing electronics, thought leaders on sustainable
economies,
Issue #4: Cost Intemalization.
How do we shift from a business model where many costs
(across the entire lifecycle of the product) are external-
ized, to where the true costs from each phase of lifecycle,
are reflected in product prices, and are paid by the con-
sumer? The "Vision 2050" plan by the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development calls this "True
Value, True Costs, True Price."
Key research questions
How would a company asses the true costs for each phase
of the lifecycle? What are the costs that are currently in-
ternalized into the product price, and what are the costs
that are currently externalized? If a company wanted to
start to analyze and track these externalized costs, how
would they do it? What are the categories of external-
ized costs in each phase of the lifecycle? And what is
the appropriate methodology for itemizing costs in each
category?
Who should be involved?
• People with expertise in the externalized impacts in each
phase of the supply chain (NGOs, government agencies,
UNEP)
OEM, industry experts with information on costs, bill of
materials for different phases of supply chain
43
-------
Business Models: Notes
Issue: ICTasan EnablerofSustainability
What are the key research questions and
recommendations?
• How can ICT enable smarter and more efficient use
of natural resources (e.g., energy, water)?
• In which industries can ICT be most effective in driv-
ing sustainability improvements and what is needed
to enable such changes (e.g., capital, policies)?
• How can different service models drive sustainabil-
ity improvements?
What standards are needed?
• Common methodology for calculating sustainability
impacts and benefits.
• Platform to share tangible actions for improvement
opportunities (e.g., industry, government, consumers).
• Standards to enable more interoperability between
technologies, software and so forth.
Who needs to be involved?
• OEMs, service providers, governments, consumers
and utilities.
What is the role for regulation?
• Regulation could develop policies to incentivize
opportunities (e.g., economic).
What resources are available?
• ICT company resources, utility resources, govern-
ment funding/policies and university resources.
What are the barriers?
• A better connection is needed between utilities
and ICT providers to more rapidly develop sound
solutions.
• Policies/markets do not internalize costs of natural
resources, thus minimizing opportunities for change.
Issue: Internalization of Costs of
Externalities
What are the key research questions and
recommendations?
• Survey of available tools.
• Success analysis of tools.
• Valuation methods.
• Need tool to identify all current costs that are ex-
ternalized throughout the lifecycle of electronics
products
What standards are needed?
• Proposed phase-in of standards (i.e., carbon, water,
then toxics, then valuable metals and so forth).
Who needs to be involved?
• Environmental groups, legislators, Congress, the
Administration, agencies, U.S. trade
negotiators, international trade partners, University
researchers
What resources are available?
• Knowledge gained from carbon trading and carbon
tax initiatives.
• Grant funding.
• Political pressure.
• Support from environmental voters and activists.
What are the barriers?
• Politics.
• Weak economy.
• Discord in the carbon tax universe.
Additional Notes
1. Build and vet the model (limited scope, such
as carbon, water)
2. Voluntary transparency/limited scope
3. Evaluate
4. Voluntary standards
5. Determine path (voluntary, market, mandate)
Iterate:
• Create path
• Reduce political and economic shock
• Phase
• Respond to data and science
• Guide to path—voluntary, market, mandate
44
-------
Business Models: Notes
Issue: Increase Product Utilization
• Difficulty in assigning values.
• Resistance from impacted industries.
• Political contributions from impacted industries.
What are the key research questions and
recommendations?
• Use products longer, increase durability and collect
unused products out of storage.
• How many ICT products are un/under-utilized by
consumers?
• What is the amount and length of time of stored
electronics?
• What are the trends in product longevity?
• How long can hardware provide value in the
marketplace?
• Need to distinguish market demand for products and
which section of the population includes early
adopters versus those willing to use older technology.
What standards are needed?
• Software standards development to allow applica-
tions and content to be accessible via multiple hard-
ware platforms.
• Service-based ICT solutions model. Can we create a
system for this process?
Who needs to be involved?
• Software and hardware firms need to develop plat-
form standards to allow for multi-platform solutions.
What is the role for regulation?
• Allow ICT service providers to sell resource use as
a utility to avoid the problems of financing a distrib-
uted power grid network.
What other approaches should be used to
tackle the issue?
• A service-based ICT solutions delivery model
should be developed and demonstrated to succeed
in satisfying the needs of customers while better
managing products for optimal resource use.
What resources are available?
• Current research on storage rates of unused ICT
products in Japan and the United States performed
by Dr. Eric Williams.
What are the barriers?
• Limited knowledge of who owns the ICT. If a user
only leases a product (rather than purchases and
owns it), or is just sold access to content, are they
able to emotionally divorce themselves from the
product?
Issue: New Business Model: Role of
Consumer Research
What are the key research questions and
recommendations?
• Why do consumers not use services to return
unwanted/EoL products?
• Why do consumers inconsistently use
energy-saving product features?
• Will consumers trust that private data will be wiped
in the EoL/refurbishment/recycling process?
• How can consumers be motivated to develop a
continuous relationship with their data instead of a
physical hardware product?
What standards are needed?
• Standards may be needed to motivate and
incentivize customers to drive the ICT industry
(e.g., manufacturers, retailers, refurbishers) to en-
able an extended product life.
Who needs to be involved?
• Behavioral psychologists, marketers and consumers.
What is the role for regulation?
• Unclear role for regulation until the key drivers or
incentives to shift behavior are determined.
• Regulations could be used to drive interventions.
What other approaches should be used to
tackle the issue?
• Education and awareness to drive shifts in consum-
er behavior.
What resources are available?
• Existing consumer research.
• Transformational shifts that have occurred already
in other regions to become more sensitive to envi-
ronmental topics.
What are the barriers?
Issue: Corporate Culture and Governance
• Humans form emotional bonds with their hardware
products and tend to hoard them.
• Distrust in data security.
• Financial incentives are not enough.
What are the key research questions?
• What composition or other characteristics of corpo-
rate boards enable and support sustainable thinking?
• Where in a corporation lies the power to support/
implement sustainability thinking?
45
-------
Business Model: Notes
Additional Notes
• Short-term view: What needs to change to enable
long-term investment and change? Is everything
limited by market organizations or quarterly profit
reports?
What standards are needed?
• Develop a research-based standard—maybe a
certificate program—for "long-termism."
Who needs to be involved?
• Investors and board members.
What is the role for regulation?
• No role for regulation.
What other approaches should be used to
tackle the issue?
• Self-reflection and analysis of OEM companies.
• Short term: education and public discourse on bal-
ancing ethics versus financial gains.
• Long term: internalize costs.
What resources are available?
• Green investing community.
• Global Reporting Initiative.
• Dow-Jones Sustainability Index.
What are the barriers?
Issue: Informal Sector
Lack of models for balancing morals/ethics/
behavior with financial returns.
What are the key research questions and
recommendations?
What incentives are needed to redirect dangerous
materials processing from the informal to formal
sectors?
• What financing and institutional arrangements are
needed?
What standards are needed?
• A set of practices and a price-setting system to col-
lect devices or parts.
Who needs to be involved?
• OEMs, government and the informal sector.
What is the role for regulation?
• Regulation ensures appropriate financial incentives.
What resources are available?
• The work of groups at the Swiss Federal Laborato-
ries for Materials Science and Technology (EMPA;
Switzerland); the National Institute for Environ-
mental Studies (MIES; Japan); and the Rochester
Institute of Technology (RIT; United States).
What are the barriers?
• Perception that informal recycling can only be
mitigated by banning the whole informal sector
governance and financial constraints in developing
countries.
• Domestic imperative in China to develop manufac-
turing rather than promote reuse.
7.
Next steps: gather information from existing
roadmaps: iNEMI; GreenTech
Upcoming events:
• 2012 Eco-Design, Japan
• 2013 International Symposium on Sustain-
able Systems and Technology, USA
• 2014 Care Innovation, Austria
Websites
• iNEMI.org
• greentech.org
Publications
• Resource Conservation and Recycling
• Environmental Science and Technology
• Journal of Industrial Ecology
Additional Events/Forums for EPA to organize
• Education of EPA
• Education by EPA of the consumer
Recommendations for EPA
• Education on sustainability
• Benchmarking of other countries
For other players
• Recommend business incentives for the
informal sector.
46
-------
PART 3.
5. Meeting Summary
Sustainable
Electronics Forum
October 15 - 18. 2012
The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread
Racine, W1
Meeting Summary
Johnson
l-'oundati
47
-------
5.0 Day 1 - October 16, 2012
5.1. Welcome and Conference Objectives
Representatives from each of the Forum co-sponsors: EPA, GEC and TJF, gave a brief introduction to the
Forum and spoke about Forum goals for their respective organizations. The Sustainable Electronics
Forum was facilitated by Ms. Helen Clarkson and Dr. James Taplin of Forum for the Future, who
introduced their organization, described the meeting process and Forum objectives.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Alan Hecht, Director of Sustainable Development, ORD
Dr. Alan Hecht welcomed all participants to the Forum and expressed gratitude for their preparation and
involvement. He thanked TJF for hosting the event and EPA colleagues: Drs. Meadow Anderson, John
Leazer and Endalkachew Sahle-Demessie for helping plan the Forum. Dr. Hecht remarked on the
incredible assembly of experts in sustainable electronics who possessed insight to contribute to the
roadmap development. The outcome of the discussions will be helpful for EPA as well other federal
agencies and the private sector.
EPA is focusing on the theme of sustainability to guide current projects and future initiatives. The
Agency's traditional role as a regulator of industry has been evolving toward a proactive, holistic
approach to achieve sustainable outcomes. Understanding the economic, social and environmental
impacts of various actions helps decision makers move in a sustainable direction.
In 2011, EPA commissioned a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on how best to incorporate
sustainability Agency-wide. The report was followed by more than 80 listening sessions that consulted a
variety of stakeholders to garner feedback on how to move sustainability forward at EPA. Stakeholders
responded positively that EPA should be investigating how to solve current global issues, not those
limited to regulation. They agreed that problems will be solved by applying a "sustainability lens" to
global issues. As a consequence of these discussions, EPA developed a sustainability plan that currently is
under review.
The Agency is developing breakthrough objectives to address high-priority sustainability goals. Zero
waste is a long-term objective, and to achieve this goal, science and technology advances are needed. One
example is the underlying science that will enable developed products to be more recyclable. Partners
such as the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), are collaborating on initiatives to
enhance the recyclability of rare earth elements, leverage tools for product labeling and improve recycling
guidelines.
Dr. Hecht emphasized that through collaboration, government and business can achieve tremendous
success, especially in the areas of electronics manufacturing, labeling, and import and export. The long-
term global sustainability issues will continue to challenge how to apply EPA's internal research
capabilities to achieve breakthrough objectives. The insights, discussions and results of the Forum will
help EPA plan for a sustainable future.
Green Electronics Council
Wayne Rifer, Director of Standards
48
-------
Mr. Wayne Rifer encouraged participants to take advantage of the beautiful conference facility at TJF, to
think big about the challenges facing the electronics industry. He explained that the role of GEC, a
nonprofit organization, is to advance sustainable ICT and manage the environmental rating system known
as EPEAT®. The success of EPEAT® already has contributed to making electronics more sustainable by
improving the performance of registered products; and the tool is being enhanced. The global demand for
ICT products is increasing, but the supply must be sustainable. From Forum discussions and other
stakeholder processes, GEC would like to garner input that will influence the future direction of EPEAT®.
Mr. Rifer described the role of the four GEC representatives present at the Forum. Mr. Robert Frisbee,
possessing a business background, is the CEO of GEC and directs the organization. Mr. Jeff Omelchuck,
who founded GEC, runs the daily operation of the EPEAT® registry. Mr. Omelchuck also managed this
event's predecessor, a workshop in 2008 that explored sustainable ICT. Ms. Pamela Brody-Heine and
Mr. Rifer work together to run the standards program by engaging stakeholders to ensure that the
standard-setting process is done well and fairly, and that all voices are heard.
GEC management recently decided to include in EPEAT® environmental standards for televisions and
imaging equipment. Importantly, standards set a benchmark for a new product group and the process of
setting standards encourages industry to engage in accomplishing sustainability objectives. GEC
appreciates industry feedback and support, and could not accomplish its objectives without partnerships
with industry, NGOs and EPA.
GEC staff expect Forum outcomes to guide the organization in setting guidelines for what industry should
strive to accomplish. Mr. Rifer encouraged all participants to leave their stakes in the process behind, and
contribute his or her unique perspective and expertise to the collective thinking about the interests of the
society at large. It is important to consider everyone's perspective as the group discusses various topics,
including product disassembly, resource conservation and EoL. Mr. Rifer emphasized that the goal of the
Forum was to explore opportunities and differences to develop a sustainable electronics roadmap. This
will detail research objectives and specific criteria for standards to inform the ICT industry of the
destinations and how to proceed toward them.
The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread
Susie Seidelman, Environment Program Associate
Ms. Susie Seidelman welcomed participants to the conference facility, noting that TJF acts as a convener
to encourage innovative solutions with sustained impact for important sustainability challenges. She
expressed appreciation to her colleague Ms. Lynn Broaddus, Director of Environment Programs, for
speaking to the assembly at the welcoming dinner last evening. Ms. Seidelman mentioned that TJF's
President, Mr. Roger Dower, also was present during the meeting. She reminded participants that she and
other TJF staff would be available for the duration of the Forum to provide any assistance needed.
Forum for the Future
Helen Clarkson, Director, and James Taplin, Principal Sustainability Advisor
Sustainable Electronics Forum Facilitators
Ms. Clarkson explained that the mission of Forum for the Future is to work globally with business and
government to create a more sustainable world. Forum for the Future was founded in the United Kingdom
16 years ago because the environmental movement needed to establish a voice for what a sustainable
future should look like and identify practical ways to achieve that future. Ms. Clarkson specializes in the
"futures" process, which applies a systems approach to identify leverage points available to address
49
-------
change. Dr. Taplin, specializes in identifying gaps in using ICT for sustainability and which services
should be provided to customers to make a more sustainable future.
Sustainability is an achievable goal, but urgent actions are needed to get there. Forum for the Future
works to harness the power of companies that are looking at opportunities available through sustainability
initiatives. The organization applies the same techniques and processes to companies as diverse as
PepsiCo and Nike to facilitate change and help minimize the learning curve associated with sustainability
efforts. Another goal of Forum for the Future is to convene diverse stakeholders to achieve consensus on
important sustainability-related topics. Dr. Taplin explained that direct and indirect effects of actions on
sustainability must be considered in developing a collaborative network for sustainable solutions.
5.2 Participant Introductions
The delegates introduced themselves, each stating his or her name, organization and one objective that the
electronics sector should achieve by the year 2030 (see Appendix I for the list of Forum attendees). The
delegates produced the following list of aspirations:
• 100 percent of electronics recycled and reused through formal channels.
A serious cross-industry international effort to reduce toxics.
• Products that minimize energy used and maximize recyclability.
• Living in a truly closed-loop society.
Many people in the developing world employed in recycling electronics safely.
• Electronics based on green chemistry and sustainable materials.
A service model to address the use of materials.
Groups of people coalescing around common goals.
• Conflict resolution between product longevity and business models.
Use of design to address hazards throughout the lifecycle, especially production.
A full chemical inventory of all materials in products and agreement on alternative assessments.
• Electronics viewed as having been a driver for advancing sustainability.
Fulfilling the promise for creating healthy and prosperous lives globally, while avoiding negative
impacts.
• Quantitative design tools to evaluate sustainability performance.
Application of the social elements of sustainability to the entire supply chain.
• All manufacturing facilities practicing the best environmental and safety standards.
• Demonstration of leadership in supply chain transparency.
Join forces to grasp opportunities to be more sustainable.
• Develop a systems integration method to better optimize resources.
• Consumers have a responsibility to influence sustainability.
No further need for EPA because sustainability has been achieved.
• Every electronic device is designed for sustainability.
• Develop a new power system not reliant on rare earth minerals.
Consumers expect all products to be "green."
• Drive greater cross-industry collaboration.
Change the business model to a service model, with multiple reuse and recovery at EoL.
On the road toward sustainability in the right direction.
• Home-use ICT runs on zero energy.
Unified vision of the vast benefits of sustainable ICT and a common framework to assess these
benefits.
50
-------
5.3 Overview of the Forum
The purpose of the Forum was "to bring together forward thinkers in electronics design, manufacturing
and recycling to develop a shared vision and roadmap for sustainable electronics of the future, and
produce specific recommendations for research agendas, standards setting and voluntary manufacturer
initiatives." The Forum was designed such that each stage in the process built upon the one before (see
Appendix II for the Forum agenda). The first stage was for participants to think about the future of
sustainable electronics, including what the sector needs to look like by 2030. The second stage was to set
a top-level vision to address how the electronics sector contributes to a sustainable future, how
megatrends affect the sector and what key themes should be considered for the roadmap. The third stage,
"roadmapping," was comprised of setting the outcomes for each theme, agreeing on goals and milestones,
and populating the roadmap with details concerning research questions, standards development and
voluntary initiatives.
The first day of the Forum focused on development of a collective vision for sustainable electronics and
the identification of sustainability themes. These were based on topics identified by the participants
through interviews in advance of the Forum (see Appendix III for a compilation of the interview results).
The next two days were used to develop a roadmap that details research and standards recommendations
suggested by the group. Participants considered the key research questions, necessary standards, who
needs to be involved, the role of regulation, available resources, and barriers to achieving each goal. Ms.
Clarkson noted that the agenda was flexible and the process would be reevaluated periodically during the
Forum to ensure that progress was being made toward accomplishing the stated objectives.
The Forum was designed as a "futures" process. This is a formal technique to identify long-term
objectives and how best to achieve them, thus improving decisions. The futures process strengthens long-
term strategic planning; stimulates product, service and system innovation; prepares organizations for
emerging trends; helps build future visions; drives organizational change; and inspires new ideas through
dialogue and convening. Ms. Clarkson noted that disagreement and challenge is an integral part of the
process, and better outcomes will be developed if participants consider all facets of an issue. With regard
to scope, the Forum will address the integrated relationship between ICT and sustainability.
As one example, in the pre-Forum expert interviews (see Appendix III), participants identified currently
unsustainable ICT business models as an important topic to address. Organizations should think about and
plan for a sustainable future to remain competitive in the long term; a company with a business model
based in resource depletion will not be sustainable in 30 years. Thinking about this issue now will prevent
crises in the future.
5.4 Sustainable Electronics Vision
Participants worked together to develop a high-level vision for the future of sustainable electronics, and a
shared overall goal for the roadmap. The participants began the vision development process by imagining
how society might be 30 years from today. As a contrast, attendees were directed to think about
life 30 years ago, including housing, entertainment and hopes for the future. For example, Sony
released a CD player in 1982 that cost $1,000. The Cold War was ongoing, and Cal Ripken, Jr.,
began his baseball streak. Using these examples, participants discussed other changes seen over
this period of time to explain the scale of change that could happen within a 30-year span.
51
-------
One participant remarked that people communicated with letters or phone calls; email had not
been invented. Climate change was not recognized as a concern; recycling did not exist; and
organic food had not yet become popular. EPA's Superfund program was being established, and
brown water contamination was a concern. Another participant remarked that 30 years ago
marked the beginning of the proliferation of cheaper air fares, encouraging mobility. One
attendee noted that it had been more difficult to find needed information 30 years ago; however,
it remains difficult today because of information overload on the Internet. Several attendees
concurred that quality of life is more of a challenge now, and being laid off is more of a concern.
College costs have risen dramatically, and manufacturing has globalized.
5.5 Future Scenarios
Given the scale of change possible in a 30-year span, participants then used "Futurescapes"
scenarios developed by Forum for the Future in collaboration with Sony to consider
sustainability trends and their interactions. To stimulate broad discussions during the visioning
process, the meeting facilitators presented four alternate scenarios for the future of technology
and asked participants to discuss what a sustainable ICT industry would look like in each
scenario. The scenarios were not predictions of the future, but rather potential options to help
participants think more broadly about long-term narratives.
All scenarios began with the question, "What is the role of technology in helping people lead
more sustainable lives in 2025?" The overall process was to consider the scenarios in the context
of the future of sustainable electronics to develop innovative ideas about the future. The four
scenarios included:
Hyper-Innovation
Rapid innovation has ushered in a low carbon world. Lifestyles and business practices
have been minimally affected—people live in a fast-paced consumerist society. Against a
background of diminishing resources, however, there is growing concern about the long-
term sustainability of this "innovation treadmill."
Centralized Survival
Stunned into a belated response by a series of severe climate shocks in the early 2020s,
governments have taken tough measures to combat climate change. People live in a world
where technology has maximized its limits to impose sustainability on the population.
There is a sort of "blitz" spirit despite the restrictions on personal freedom.
Shared Ownership
Growing concern about climate instability has driven governments worldwide to agree on
an early response to climate change. The results are high carbon costs and an entirely new
perception of ownership. People live in a world where many businesses have had to develop
models that deliver a service at the lowest carbon cost.
52
-------
Prosperity Redefined
After an extended recession, new priorities of "well-being" and "quality of life" are bubbling up
across the world as more sustainable forms of living become established. People live in a society
with strong sustainability values and connections to the community. Technology facilitates
collaboration at local and global levels.
Participants broke into groups to contemplate the four scenarios and generate material to develop the
vision for sustainable electronics. Each group was presented with a short video and a detailed introduction
to the scenario. They were given instructions to discuss the ICT products and services that exist in that
fictional world. After the groups reported back on the attributes of sustainable ICT within their prescribed
scenario, the plenary assembly would identify similarities and differences between the scenarios.
Common strategies that worked for multiple scenarios would be taken as particularly effective. The
important ICT themes for each scenario, developed by participants, included:
Hyper-Innovation
Electronics are manufactured as cheaply as possible and trade regulations are lax, leading to high-
throughput innovation. This society needs high-efficiency data centers and products that have
energy-efficient infrastructure and long lives. Video surveillance is a possibility in this scenario.
Biologically based materials and intelligent interfaces are more popular. People have universal
access to computers, and business models have become more service-oriented.
Centralized Survival
The centralized survival society is characterized by government mandates for energy
minimization, resulting in intense monitoring of personal energy use and shared use of energy-
intensive products. Electronics are modular and designed for a long life. Microenergy harvesting,
using kinetic energy is popular. "Smart grid" technology has improved energy robustness. All
supply chain toxic materials are transparently reported and LCA tools justify each product's
material composition. This is a service-based community with tools to build community
connectivity.
Shared Ownership
ICT in a shared ownership society is energy-efficient and operates using a service model. The
energy-consuming components of ICT are modular and cloud computing is prevalent. Electronics
are produced with low-impact and lightweight materials. Metal recycling, three-dimensional
printing and carbon monitoring are popular. Despite the positive impacts of a closed-loop
electronics sector, people lack privacy and human interaction.
Prosperity Redefined
In the prosperity-redefined society, communal living and collective use of ICT products is the
norm. An emphasis is placed on quality of life and health, and facilitated by biofeedback sensors
built into every type of product. Software is universally open-source, and centralized data centers
result in less client-side hardware and less waste. ICT capacity for storage, memory and
computation has increased dramatically while reducing energy use. Constant and ubiquitous
monitoring of all activities ensures full transparency of all processes, and enables OEMs to track
products so that no resources are wasted. People have less privacy in this scenario but have
decided that the benefits of a communal society outweigh the lack of privacy.
53
-------
The participants discussed theme clusters from each of the four scenarios, including supply chain
transparency, energy efficiency, sustainable materials and new business models. The clustered themes
developed from this exercise are described in Appendix IV. Participants brought together common themes
from each scenario to shape attributes of a sustainable ICT industry. They also used common themes to
develop a broad vision statement to ground future discussions about the roadmap details and drive actions
forward.
5.6 Vision Statements
To stimulate thinking about an overarching vision for the electronics sector, attendees arranged
themselves into five groups that included representatives from each scenario group. They were instructed
to draft a top-line vision statement for the industry based on previous discussions. The facilitators
provided an example vision statement, which read, "Electronic devices are materially efficient, multi-
functional and long-lived. They are part of a closed loop. They require very small amounts of energy to
run and are usually grid-independent. They support services that are socially valuable." The following
Forum vision statements were developed by the five groups:
Group 1
Sustainable ICT will enable us to maximize human potential over time while minimizing the life-
cycle adverse impacts of devices, infrastructure and services.
Group 2
We envision a world where electronics facilitate social justice, equity and internalized costs; and
are biologically benign across the entire lifecycle. This is based on sustainably managed
renewables and nonrenewables (infinite recyclability), that maintain ecosystem services and are
less resource-intensive.
Group 3
Design electronic technology and services to empower people, promote innovation; and protect
and enhance human health, well-being and the environment. In order to be sustainable from a
life-cycle perspective, electronic devices and services are: energy and resource efficient;
nontoxic; long-lived and refurbishable (modular); 100 percent reused and recyclable; closed loop;
manufactured with transparent supply chains and materials (verifiable); affordable; and designed
to promote human potential.
Group 4
Universal and simple metrics exist for: material and process toxicity; resource efficiency; value
efficiency (is it worth it?); safety and profitability of EoL; and enabling other industry efficiency.
Group 5
Electronics are sustainably designed to take into account responsibility for the entire lifecycle,
multigenerational impacts and planetary system boundaries. This includes: closed loop, material
and energy resource efficiency, benign materials, transparent supply chains, and meeting both
individual and societal needs.
The participants combined elements from each of the draft vision statements to develop consensus on the
following working vision statement:
54
-------
Sustainable ICT will enable us to protect and enhance human health, well-being and the
environment over generations, while minimizing the adverse life-cycle impacts of devices,
infrastructure and services.
The group used Forum for the Future's Sustainable Economy Framework to expand this vision for
particular social and environmental constraints, including greenhouse gas emissions and human rights.
They considered the actions necessary to achieve the vision statement. This was the first step in
developing the roadmap themes based on the vision statement.
5.7 The Sustainable Economy Framework and Implications for the Future
of Electronics
During the Forum, participants considered the macro question: What would a sustainable economy look
like, and how will the electronics industry fit into a sustainable economy? To frame the conversation,
Forum for the Future provided an overview of the Sustainable Economy Framework
(http://www.forumforthefuture.org/project/framework-sustainable-economv/overview). This is a tool that
defines the characteristics of a sustainable economy in 2030 as one that operates within safe
environmental limits and enriches people's lives. Forum for the Future developed the Sustainable
Economy Framework in partnership with the Technology Strategy Board and Aviva Investors. It is based
on the analysis of more than 40 sources and frameworks examining the topic of a sustainable economy.
Sources included the World Business Council for Sustainable Development's "Vision 2050," the United
Nations Millennium Development Goals, and Tim Jackson's "Prosperity Without Growth," as well as
extensive stakeholder consultation.
The goal for the future is to help nine billion people lead happy, fulfilled lives. Resources are not evenly
distributed, and future access to resources will change as consumption approaches finite resource limits.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, only an eight-year supply remains for some metals if they
continue to be consumed at the current rate. A shift toward reincorporating resources into products will
extend the availability of nonrenewable resources. The Sustainable Economy Framework was designed to
clarify the characteristics of a sustainable economy, identify what needs to change, and develop research
goals. The outcome goal involves universal and continuous access for current and future generations, to
the resources and opportunities to live well. A stable economy, supported by a stable social and political
foundation, is needed to achieve this outcome. Environmental boundaries encompass a stable economy
and society. Notably, the Sustainable Economy Framework paradigm is similar to the environmental,
social and economic issues that comprise the three pillars of sustainability.
Waste is one example of a Sustainable Economy Framework application. It is important that waste is not
produced at a rate greater than natural systems can process it. A broad range of structures needs to be in
place to honor this limit. Understanding long-term management of resources, what constitutes waste, and
how to best recycle products at EoL, all play into efficient waste management. In a future closed-loop
society, waste will be a commodity that will be efficiently utilized to minimize virgin resource
consumption.
The participants used the Sustainable Economy Framework as a tool to explore the range of impacts from
electronics. This included threats and opportunities, which will affect a sustainable economy. Notably, the
Sustainable Economy Framework does not address population growth but instead looks to improve life
for all people. In applying the Sustainable Economy Framework, it is important to consider hard
biophysical limits. For example, crossing any environmental boundary increases the risk to operations
while relieving pressure on a boundary opens new opportunities. Socio-political limits, including social
55
-------
and political foundations, make long-term success possible. Working where these foundations are not in
place increases the threat to the success of operations. Referring to the waste example, a hard biophysical
boundary is that waste must not be produced faster than natural systems can process it. To achieve that
outcome, the correct socio-political foundations of "long-termism," information and supply chain skills
must be in place.
Dr. Taplin and Ms. Clarkson presented a series of 32 Sustainable Economy Framework cards, each of
which defines one element within the environmental boundaries or socio-political conditions. Participants
were instructed to prioritize the cards with respect to their impact on electronics. They chose to focus on
the environmental boundary cards, which detailed global warming/carbon reduction, chemical pollution,
renewable resources, nonrenewable resources, blue water, biodiversity, land use and waste.
Environmental boundary cards that were put in a "maybe" category included ocean acidification, the
ozone layer and atmospheric aerosols. Socio-political limit cards prioritized by participants included
equity, information, accountable government, resilience, inter-dependence of human and natural systems,
skills, universal access to energy, education, science, trust, human rights, measurement and long-term
thinking. Cards in the "maybe" category included civil society and poverty.
After prioritizing the Sustainable Economy Framework cards, participants formed small groups to discuss
each relevant issue as it relates to a sustainable electronics industry. Attendees were instructed to think
about the recently developed vision with respect to each environmental or socio-political condition. They
also discussed changes within the electronics industry crucial to achieving the desired outcomes prior to
2030, and noted specific actions to be taken. Following the small group discussions, participants reported
back on the issues identified for a subset of the environmental boundary and socio-political conditions,
describing how the topic impacts the vision statement and any actions or priorities identified. The report
back included a discussion about the following Sustainable Economy Framework topics:
Accountability. Supply chain transparency of resources is needed long term.
Blue water. Water use throughout the supply chain needs to be minimized to reduce long-term
effects on water availability.
Chemical pollution. Employing LCA to evaluate the impacts of chemicals is very important;
furthermore, all assessments must be transparent and standard across all businesses. An important
question is what chemicals are used in materials and processes, and are they toxic. If they are
toxic, what is the best way to encourage use of a less toxic or benign replacement? One strategy
to address this topic is for EPA to create a standard assessment methodology for LCA so that
chemicals and alternatives can be compared easily. EPA already has a database with more than
8,000 chemicals. LCA of an electronic product, however, needs to address the impact of more
than one material; the efficiency of this process needs dramatic improvement.
Energy efficiency is a very complicated problem, and aggressive goals are warranted.
Equity can be considered from two sides: equal use of ICT and how that use can affect global
equity. For example, global access to information can be achieved by increasing the investments
of global coverage to improve infrastructure and taking industry-wide actions to stop censorship.
Better transparency throughout the supply chain can be achieved if consumers and large
purchasers demand living wage and benefit information for all products.
56
-------
Global warming/carbon reduction. Greenhouse gas reduction can be achieved by applying a
systems perspective to optimize processes related to components manufacturing. Improving
system architecture and design, as well as product management, will help to mitigate global
warming.
Human rights. There needs to be criteria for human rights, and contracts should be based on
sustainability. Reducing the gap between those who have access to information technology and
those who do not is another important priority.
Land use. Land use is an important consideration when locating manufacturing and recycling
facilities with regard to global equity.
Nonrenewable resources. Innovative, minimally invasive exploration technologies to identify
sources of mineral and fossil resources need to be developed. Importantly, metals are needed to
produce energy, so resource limitations have energy implications. One primary extraction
principal is to improve the comprehensive recovery of resources while minimizing adverse
impacts. Also, resource availability and appropriate alternatives should be considered when
developing and designing products to reduce material intensity in products and services.
Transparency surrounding electronics' EoL will maximize recycling and reuse while minimizing
pollution. Finally, any adverse effects on land, water or air from nonrenewable resource
extraction should be considered, and consumers should be educated about the impacts of
resources used in electronics.
Renewable resources. Renewable resources should be valued and used as often as possible in
electronic production. Alternative assessments help to identify the most efficient and benign
materials for a given functionality. Renewable energy resources, such as hydroelectric power,
should be prioritized.
Resilience, defined as the ability for human and natural systems to cope with shocks and stress,
requires participatory institutions with the credibility to advance objectives.
Science must be valued fundamentally by society. In the electronics sector, there is variability in
how the science is evaluated. When possible, quality assurance processes should be implemented
to increase trust and reduce uncertainty in the data. Certifications and standards are not clear or
harmonized. American and European governments have the responsibility to do more evidence-
based policy making, which requires better science and technology research.
Trust is when common goals and understanding are built through an open process involving all
stakeholders.
Waste is defined as any substance that the owner or user discards. A more appropriate definition
is "maximized material recovery." Electronic products and toxic materials should be eliminated
in landfills, by improving recovery of used electronics and eliminating toxics in manufacturing.
Participants discussed the possibility that a landfill is still the best option for certain materials and
noted that all options must be evaluated.
57
-------
Discussion
Dr. Hecht remarked that incentivization is very important to encourage businesses to move toward
sustainability. The United Kingdom (UK), Technology Strategy Board's mission is "for the UK to be a
global leader in innovation and a magnet for innovative businesses, which can apply technology rapidly,
effectively and sustainably to create wealth and enhance quality of life," This mission works by
accelerating particular sustainability topics. One example explains how funding for communities in the
Future Cities project goes through a sustainability evaluation process to distribute small funding awards.
The United States could similarly develop incentive awards. In light of all of the challenges of today,
what are the recommendations for an improved role of the federal government in incentivizing change?
Identifying important actions and who is responsible for which actions is an important step, and Dr. Hecht
reminded participants to capture that information during roadmap development.
The meeting attendees discussed the differences between LCA and toxics evaluation. One participant
clarified that toxicity assessment and LCA are interrelated yet distinct processes. A different perspective
is to perform alternative assessments with a life-cycle outlook. An important issue to consider is what
toxics are produced and in what amounts. Also, how dangerous is the cocktail of chemicals within a
product? Risk assessment methodologies should be developed to prioritize actions until there is zero risk.
It is important for organizations to be recognized for taking actions to reduce toxic exposure. Emissions,
resource scarcity and potential toxicity are other elements to be considered.
A participant noted that alternatives assessments are used for decision making. Notably, if the outcomes
identified during the Forum are reached, these chemicals will no longer be called "alternatives" as they
will be part of the mainstream manufacturing process. Another attendee commented that information on
toxics and alternatives needs to be public, transparent, relevant and validated to make an impact. For
example, Hewlett-Packard (HP) has had success with its GreenSpring program, and those results should
be shared throughout the community. Supply chain transparency is a mechanism to identify where
alternative assessments should happen. Assessments are not a consensus process; rather, they are based on
robust science. Businesses would need to be willing to come up with a list of "clean" chemicals that
identifies the best choices despite pointing out that some chemicals are not as good. Articulating
assessment results clearly, along with the uncertainty in measurements, is important, and material
disclosure on electronics is needed to support scientific impact assessments. It also is important not to
shift the burden of toxicity across processes.
A participant remarked that one theme on the roadmap should address developing a toolkit to assess
impacts across the lifecycle of electronics. Identifying what the tools will be used for and which impacts
should be measured will be important. Another participant mentioned that it would be useful to model
derivative impacts and the upstream and downstream systemic implications of the chemical content
associated with products.
Another important issue is the impacts from critical minerals. Some organizations have the attitude that
"we will find more," which is not useful from a sustainability perspective. Tools related to mining
impacts—particularly the impacts of new mines on communities and biodiversity—should be developed.
Preserving natural capital and biodiversity in all facets of the manufacturing process should be prioritized,
and this can be accomplished in part by requiring OEMs to disclose the origin of the materials.
Metrics are an important consideration for the electronics industry and should be used to measure
progress toward goals and the minimization of harms. It would be very useful to develop a value method
to balance tradeoffs when making important sustainability decisions. Although the application of new
58
-------
electronics can reduce emissions, it can be costly. Policy makers can correct market barriers by providing
incentives.
One participant mentioned that linking the electronics business model to fashion (i.e., making
sustainability fashionable), might facilitate adoption. Another participant remarked that it is important to
develop an attractive long-term financial model that shifts away from "planned obsolescence." This
occurs in part because consumers want the newest gadget and corporations make the most profit by
selling new products. Taking the environmental load into consideration when pricing products will
promote belter use of resources. Importantly, sustainability practices often are financially beneficial for
business. One method to incentivize these efforts is to base managers' bonuses on sustainable progress in
the company. Building sustainable business models for the electronics industry is fundamental to
environmental sustainability.
Another business model element is to expand water and carbon taxes, to encourage conservation of
resources. One participant mentioned that many companies would find a competitive advantage if carbon
taxes were levied. Another participant reiterated the importance of pricing externalities into all products,
which is one area where the environmental community could help. The ecological endpoints need to be
translated into price through methods such as carbon taxes.
Another need is for absolute, as opposed to relative (local), supply chain requirements. The specificity
will be crucial to encourage adherence to the law.
The discussion began coalescing around specific roadmap themes. Participants agreed that health care and
impacts of the application of ICT are important themes to explore during roadmap development. Energy
and resource efficiency, alternatives assessment, closed-loop processes, EoL practices, supply chain
transparency and product longevity are also important issues. Social elements to integrate common
objectives throughout the supply chain through consumer engagement, should be considered.
The participants discussed the possibility of organizing the roadmap themes by life-cycle stage, such as
product design and EoL, versus topic area or by a matrix. The purpose of the vertical approach would be
to consider all trends together in harmonization. The facilitators reminded participants that regardless of
the themes chosen, the roadmap should encompass a timeline for actions related to the sustainability
goals.
5.8 Wrap-Up
The facilitators and participants reviewed what was achieved during the day and outlined the objectives
for the following day. The seven themes that emerged from the visioning, scenarios and Sustainable
Economy Framework exercises included: building the assessment toolkit, supply chain transparency,
resource optimization, energy efficiency, new business models, access to ICT, and the enabling role of
ICT. The outcomes of Day 1 are summarized in Appendix IV. Facilitators and participants decided that
the expert presentations on the state and future of sustainable electronics, originally scheduled for the
afternoon, should occur in the morning to better inform the roadmap detail development. The
presentations will stimulate thought to finalize theme development. Following the presentations,
participants will divide into self-selected groups to begin discussions about a roadmap for each
sustainability theme. After time for discussion, each group will report back in a plenary session to garner
feedback from all participants regarding the important issues, research questions and standards.
59
-------
To conclude the first day of the Forum, Mr. Dower, President of TJF, welcomed participants to the
facility and described his interest in the topic of sustainable electronics. He encouraged attendees to
participate in the tour of the Wingspread house, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, which would take place
following dinner. Mr. Dower also noted that the Presidential debate could be viewed in the Guest House
living room, and invited all participants to watch the debate together.
60
-------
6.0 Day 2 - October 17, 2012
6.1 Welcome and Reflections
Ms. Clarkson welcomed the participants to the second day of the meeting, provided a recap of the
meeting thus far and explained the process that would be followed for the day. The participants were
tasked with thinking about the future and setting a top-level vision as a tool to guide the discussions.
Ultimately, the goal was to develop questions to be answered and problems to be solved across the
roadmap. The agenda included a balance of plenary discussions with the whole group and more detailed
small group discussions. She instructed the participants to discuss the themes identified on the previous
day in terms of setting a goal to reach by 2030. One of the goals of the following day's discussions would
be to examine the near term (i.e., next five years).
Dr. Hecht asked the participants to consider strategic events or opportunities that might present
themselves in the next two years that would be influential and relevant. Businesses make many decisions,
and it would be beneficial to examine those in relation to sustainable manufacturing by bringing business
people together to discuss these issues. The Administration is looking for action items for the next
two years.
6.2 The State and Future of Sustainable Electronics
Several expert participants, including Barbara Kyle from the Electronics TakeBack Coalition,
Dr. Christian Hageliiken from Umicore and Dr. Bob Pfahl from iNEMI, presented an overview of their
topics of expertise. The presentations were designed to stimulate thinking about specific challenges faced
by the electronics community. The presentations and discussion were moderated by Mr. Rifer.
The Sustainable Electronics Vision Project
Barbara Kyle, National Coordinator, Electronics TakeBack Coalition
The Electronics TakeBack Coalition has begun to consider the traits of green electronics as well as
metrics and standards that can be used to move toward sustainable electronics. The Coalition identified
seven different categories of current electronics impacts. The first is hazards and harm to workers,
communities, consumers and the environment as a result of toxic chemicals used during production and in
the products themselves. Electronics production workers have high occupational exposures to carcinogens
and reproductive toxicants (e.g., solvents, heavy metals, epoxy resins), leading to significantly elevated
risks for several types of cancers. Women working in semiconductor fabrication have displayed increased
rates of spontaneous abortion and birth defects. Growing concerns regarding the harmful health effects
resulting from the production of electronic components have led to epidemiological studies in several
countries. Another hazard identified is environmental exposures from discharges.
A second category of impacts identified by the Coalition is the destruction of communities and resources.
Extreme pollution of resources destroys sustainable economies (e.g., fishing, farming), and permanently
alters traditional lands. Physical effects may also occur downstream and downwind of production
activities. A third category is wasted resources. Extraction and production, including chemical refining,
consume large quantities of energy from nonrenewable sources and water that is not reclaimed. The
fourth and fifth categories are wasteful inputs and wasteful outputs, respectively. Many processes use
rare, virgin materials and are inefficient, creating large amounts of waste that is not easily recyclable. The
sixth category of current impacts is "sweatshop" working conditions in developing nations where weak
laws and enforcement do not protect workers. The final category is the industry's business model, which
61
-------
increases the severity of ICT-related problems because its primary metric is quarterly earnings. The
products are designed to be obsolete so that they will be replaced with new products by the consumer.
Product design focuses on product performance rather than life-cycle impacts.
The Coalition identified solutions to each of the following impact categories that provide a vision for
sustainable electronics: (1) materials and processes cause no harm, including interim protections for
workers until this goal is reached; (2) communities are enriched, with activities having a long-term
positive impact; (3) natural resources (e.g., energy, water, air) are protected, and processes use low
amounts of energy and water and recycle resources; (4) inputs are sustainable, and processes use
renewable materials rather than critical minerals; (5) outputs are sustainable, with processes creating zero
waste with maximum recycling; (6) working conditions are safe and fair, with decent wages and working
hours and no child or slave labor; and (7) new business models prioritize sustainability and embrace life-
cycle goals.
The Coalition next examined the broad solution categories across the lifecycles. Broad goals need to be
applied to each life-cycle phase, including extraction, production, transportation and retail packaging,
product use, and EoL. To determine how to apply the broad goals across each phase, more detailed goals
were developed within each category. The Coalition realized the types of problems that needed to be
addressed generally fell within three categories: (1) those that could be resolved through product design,
(2) those related to sourcing, and (3) those that could be resolved by changing the process design. A
color-coded goals matrix was developed as a result, which revealed the supply chain is a critical
component of the solution. As a result, a color-coded goals matrix was developed, which revealed that the
supply chain is a critical component of the solution.
The Coalition's priority focus is hazardous chemicals, which have the most impacts but receive the least
amount of attention. There is inadequate testing before chemicals are placed into commerce, with the
workplace and the environment acting as the testing ground. This issue has been complicated by the
introduction of nanomaterials, which have been studied even less. Currently, the electronics industry is
dealing with hazardous chemicals by phasing them out per the European Union's Restriction of
Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive. Whether the replacements have been evaluated remains unclear.
Because most work is focused on the list of known hazards, the industry has moved toward less-
thoroughly evaluated chemicals. A proactive, precautionary approach that includes transparency is
needed. Too much information is hidden behind proprietary claims. Efforts must go beyond list-based
approaches with more OEM control over the supply chain. Better workplace monitoring as well as
evaluation and tracking of health impacts must be instituted. Cross-industry efforts to find safer
substitutes must be established.
Closing the Metals Loop: Recycling Opportunities and Challenges
Christian Hagelilken, Umicore
Global electronics sales continue to increase annually, thus increasing demand for technology metals.
More than 40 percent of the global mine production of copper, tin, antimony, indium, ruthenium and rare
earth elements is used annually for electronics production. Mobile phones and computers account for
four percent of global mine production of gold and silver and 20 percent of palladium and cobalt. More
than 60 percent of platinum group metals (PGMs) mine production is used in automobiles, which contain
an increasing number of electronics. More than 80 percent of the rare earth elements, PGMs, gallium and
indium that have ever been mined have been extracted during the last 30 years. Additionally, there has
been a massive shift from geological to anthropogenic deposits (i.e., "urban mines") containing large
amounts of technology metals. There is confusion regarding the various terms, however, the term
62
-------
"technology metals" is a descriptive term comprising most precious and special metals crucial to
electronic products for technical functionality based on their unique properties.
There is consensus on the benefits of a circular economy. The system is complex, and activities in each
phase of the lifecycle influence the other phases. As a result, a system-wide approach is necessary to
reduce the generation of residues, collect and recycle residues, and improve metal yields via recycling.
Although metal applications may change, the unique metal properties will not. Although recycling is
crucial for modern society, recycling of most technology metals still lags behind other recycling rates. For
example, precious metal recycling rates are below 15 percent. Urban mining "deposits" can be much
richer than primary mining ores, however, the challenge is how to accumulate millions of EoL products
into urban mines that are of an economically viable size. Recycling requires a chain rather than a single
process. Again, a system approach is crucial, with the total efficiency determined by the weakest step in
the chain. Therefore, the focus should be on the weakest steps.
The process begins with the product, and certain products are brought together with certain connections.
Most products cannot go into metallurgical recovery and must be subdivided. Recovery of low
concentrations of technology metals from complex products is another challenge; and smart recycling is
needed because traditional mass-focused recycling is not appropriate. The focus should be on high-
throughput, low-cost strategies and on trace elements and value. In some cases, higher costs are
worthwhile if higher value can be recovered. Metals separation for final metallurgical recovery is a
preprocessing challenge, since precious metals, precious steel and aluminum may be lost. Sometimes it is
belter to lose aluminum or plastics rather than precious metals. The majority of metals are lost if they are
not removed prior to shredding. Shredding is a good solution for easy products, but for complex products,
it needs to be combined with preprocessing. Rare earth elements, indium and cobalt-lithium recycling,
however, do not fit within the process. Dedicated processes exist for certain components, but they require
magnet removal. This highlights the importance of preprocessing and product design.
Dr. Hageliiken described Umicore's European plant, which is complex and costly to operate. The facility
recovers 20 different metals via two processes, including a universal process and dedicated processes for
battery recycling to recover cobalt. The driver is the value of precious metals; and sophisticated
technology enables the co-recovery of these precious metals. Recycling is not as easy as it is sometimes
portrayed. There are three challenges for metal recycling from complex products: (1) accessibility of
relevant components and materials, (2) thermodynamic limits and difficult substance combinations for
trace elements, and (3) severe deficits in closing the loop for consumer goods. Collection of consumer
products with a high relevance for critical technology metals is poor, and once collected, a great deal of
material escapes the system. Increased knowledge about material flows is necessary. For example, the
overall life-cycle efficiency for the whole palladium chain is 80 to 90 percent for industrial applications
and below 10 percent for electronics. The issue is collection and pretreatment. The industrial closed-loop
system has built-in transparency compared to an open-loop system, which has high but avoidable losses.
OEMs need to use innovative business models to recycle products that have high relevance for critical
metals. One vision is to create closed loops by OEM service subcontracting throughout the recycling
chain. Although it is difficult for the manufacturer to control the chain, in this vision the OEM would
recover precious metals from its own products. This standard already is in place for industry catalysts.
There is a proposal for a mandatory certification scheme that emphasizes transparency, with the ultimate
goal of ensuring high-quality recycling throughout the entire chain. To be successful, comprehensive
collection is necessary, and the recycling chain must be set up in an optimal manner. It also is necessary
to examine the system from two perspectives: material and product. When these aspects, including design
and consumer awareness, come together, success is achievable. There also are a number of research
63
-------
requirements, some of which are less focused on technology but highly relevant (e.g., logistics,
socioeconomics).
Producers and recyclers can work together on product development, manufacturing, sales and
distribution, and recycling at EoL. The European Union and the United States can work together in the
area of recycling by better understanding and monitoring EoL product and material flows as well as by
aligning research on the recycling of complex products and residues. The two can collaborate to create a
global framework for increased and higher quality recycling.
Discussion
Mr. Rifer noted that some tools to address particular issues (e.g., product design) already exist, but it is
not clear what should be achieved with each tool. Standards development is a necessary outcome of this
effort. How can the standards help accomplish goals?
Sustainable Electronics
Bob Pfahl, International Electronics Manufacturing Initiative
At a keynote address given 10 years ago, Dr. Pfahl presciently concluded that regulations and
requirements were increasing faster than industry could respond effectively. He also noted that industry
needed be more proactive in responding by developing solutions based on science and technology. He
thought that these solutions needed be available in advance of new regulations and influence future
regulations for more sustainable results. Dr. Pfahl predicted that sustainability would be a major
undertaking for industry and society and that electronic solutions could help to empower people to live
more sustainable lifestyles. By 2021, the primary focus should be on electronic products that empower
sustainable lifestyles. It's also important to continue to reduce product energy use and increase product
recycling and reuse; and expand the understanding of the ecological impacts on the world.
iNEMFs mission is to forecast and accelerate improvements in the electronics manufacturing industry for
a sustainable future. The initiative has a strong research component and three major focus areas:
miniaturization, the environment and medical electronics. Technology roadmaps are among its key
deliverables. The 2011 iNEMI roadmap defines the needs during the next decade that are necessary for
industry to continue to move forward and develop products and new technology. Approximately
600 participants from more than 300 companies in 18 countries across four continents participated in the
process of developing the 2011 roadmap by working within 21 technology working groups. The
Environmentally Sustainable Electronics Roadmap, issued biannually since 1996, is cross-cutting in that
it provides feedback to 20 other roadmaps. In addition to trying to dispose of gold wire bond, iNEMI has
been leading projects on lead-free reliability since 2000, as well as polyvinyl chloride alternatives and
halogenated flame retardant-free high reliability since 2009. The initiative has also been developing LCA
tools for ICT products since 2009. It has sponsored biannual environmental stakeholder forums since
2008. Several research proposals were identified as important during the forum held in 2010, including
those focused on LCA. iNEMI, in partnership with other institutions and organizations, has used funding
from the National Science Foundation to establish a global traineeship in sustainable electronics. This
traineeeship will create a new integrative, collaborative model for graduate research and education that is
needed to enable meaningful and measurable improvements in the global sustainability of electronics.
The goals of the 2012 forum, focused on progress in green electronics, and were created to: (1) engage a
wide range of perspectives and inputs regarding the electronics industry and iNEMFs environmental
focus, and (2) define critical incremental electronics industry- environmental focus and deliverables- for
64
-------
2013 and beyond. There was a strong dialogue among research institutes, industry and NGOs. Two
follow-up webinars were held to focus on the proposals developed at the forum.
In terms of industry impact studies, Dr. Pfahl provided a case study (cleaning of flux), that indicates the
need for ongoing scientific and technical evaluation and multi-attribute value analysis. In addition to
technology issues, economic, social, environmental and governance issues must be considered. Other
problems that industry faces, including materials and their replacements, are better defined. Multi-
stakeholder review and prioritization of the more than 400 substances on the International Chemical
Secretariat (ChemSec) Substitute It Now (SIN) list are needed. The list must be evaluated for alternatives
and their risk and reduced to a manageable level. There also is a need to identify and communicate best
practices for recycling as well as to examine eco-design for recycling and sustainability that includes
toxicity assessment and critical usage/application. Additionally, there is a need to define the measurable
attributes of products that are truly recyclable/reusable.
In terms of next generation tools, transient input-output is needed for new material applications.
Simplified LCA is needed for various segments and electronic materials. Also necessary is improved
knowledge of user behavior and EoL scenarios. These requirements are cross-cutting and encompass
several industries. To conclude his presentation, Dr. Pfahl reminded participants that electronic products
are leading the journey to a sustainable world.
6.3. Consensus on Roadmap Themes
Following the presentations, Forum attendees discussed the themes that the group had developed during
the previous sessions (see Appendix IV), and compared them with other sets of themes to develop the
roadmap. There were multiple ways to divide the issues into themes, and the participants debated the
merits of each method. The group chose to work on the seven themes developed by the Electronics
TakeBack Coalition and presented by Dr. Kyle, including: Community Enrichment; Safe and Fair
Working Conditions; Sustainable Inputs; Sustainable Outputs; Protection of Natural Resources (Energy,
Water and Biodiversity); Materials and Processes Cause No Harm; and Business Models. The participants
combined Sustainable Inputs and Sustainable Outputs into one group called "Resource Optimization,"
which had been one of the themes from the previous sessions.
The attendees confirmed all of the topics that had been raised during the previous sessions were covered
by these themes. They then broke into small groups of self-selected participants to produce a draft
roadmap for each theme containing several related issues.
The group agreed on the following final list of roadmap themes:
1. Materials and Processes Cause No Harm
2. Resource Optimization
3. Energy, Water and Biodiversity
4. Enriching Communities
5. Safe and Fair Working Conditions
6. Business Models
65
-------
Dr. Kyle briefly explained what each theme was designed to address. Materials and Processes Cause No
Harm was focused on the toxicity and hazards of materials used in ICT products. Resource Optimization
considered closed-loop systems with infinite recyclability and zero waste as outputs; as well as the use of
virgin versus recycled content. The Energy, Water and Biodiversity theme included energy conservation,
greenhouse gas reduction and the maximization of natural resources. The Enriching Communities theme
involved the impacts on communities by each life-cycle stage of electronic products, including
production, use and EoL, as well as applications of ICT. Safe and Fair Working Conditions considered
the well-being of workers within the electronics industry. Business Models involved improving product
longevity, modifying systems to be service-based, OEM transparency, how people interact with
electronics during the use phase and so forth. Assessment tools (e.g., LCA), unintended consequences,
how to motivate organizations to drive the greatest change possible, and the enabling role of ICT would
be considered within all theme groups as cross-cutting issues.
6.4 Sustainable Electronics Roadmap Development
Participants divided into six groups to discuss the sustainability roadmap themes. Each group was given a
timeline and instructed to identify five to seven issues related to each theme. For each issue, participants
considered the key research questions, available resources, necessary standards, the role for regulation
and stakeholder involvement. They also identified potential barriers and approaches that could be used to
solve each issue; and considered how each issue is relevant to a sustainable society. Participants
collaborated throughout the afternoon to develop a draft roadmap that indicated short-term (three to five-
year) and long-term (2030) goals for each sustainability theme, including milestones for five-year
intervals. The participants also built roadmap detail for the next three to five years, including immediate
steps to be taken; upcoming events or publications to build from; additional events or forums useful for
EPA to organize and any additional research recommendations for EPA; standards recommendations for
GEC; and recommendations for other stakeholders. Ultimately, the draft roadmap would depict what a
sustainable electronics system would look like in 2030.
66
-------
7.0 Day 3 - October 18, 2012
7.1 Roadmap Reports
Participants came together in a plenary session to share the detailed roadmap themes that were developed
in the small groups during the previous day. The groups each selected a representative to describe the
theme they had addressed; the 2030 outcome; the list of issues and associated 2030 outcomes per issue;
and some of the key highlights, milestones and recommendations. These presentations provided a chance
for the entire group to reflect on, build and finish the roadmap. The draft Sustainable Electronics
Roadmap developed by Forum participants is available as a companion document to this meeting
summary.
Ms. Clarkson reviewed the day's agenda. She noted that many productive discussions had taken place
during the conference, and expressed hope that these would continue long after the conference. In the
interest of time management, however, today's goal was to summarize what had been discussed rather
than raise new issues. She described the schedule: a brief time for each group to meet, a plenary session
for group reports, final reflections and adjournment. She suggested that during the group session, each
group should decide what to share in the plenary session and delegate presentation responsibilities. She
asked groups to ensure that all of their thoughts, including feedback on the flip charts, are written down so
that they can be captured in the draft roadmap.
During the plenary session, each group should provide a reminder of its theme and expected 2030
outcome; present the issues that were addressed; desired 2030 outcomes associated with those issues and
steps needed to achieve those outcomes; and end with some of the key highlights and milestones of the
group's discussions. Details will be captured in the conference summary. Ms. Clarkson advised groups to
keep the reports concise to allow time for questions and discussion. The session wrap-up, will include
discussion of next steps led by GEC, and EPA will offer concluding comments.
7.2 Materials and Processes Cause No Harm
Ms. Pamela Brody-Heine, the group's representative, stated that the theme was Materials and Processes
Cause No Harm (i.e., toxics). She noted that the group did not attempt to constrain itself by reality and
instead strove to think creatively. The group discussed six research questions on toxics in the ICT supply
chain:
• What chemicals are in products?
• What chemicals are used in production?
• What chemicals are used in the extraction of virgin materials used to make electronic
products?
• What chemicals are used in EoL processing?
• How can hazardous materials be eliminated across product lifecycles?
• What are the hazardous emissions to air, water and land from the ICT supply chain?
Ms. Brody-Heine stated the goal for research that would address the first question would be to develop an
inventory of 100 percent of the chemical makeup of ICT products. An inventory available to product
designers could be in the format of a computer-aided design (CAD) tool, which would be fully populated
with chemical hazard data and manufacturer information. Ultimately, the goal of this analysis would be to
67
-------
use only biologically benign materials in products. Steps to achieve this goal would include: reaching an
agreement among OEMs on the format for requesting this information from suppliers, committing to
consistently requesting this information, gathering hazard information, and making the inventory data
publicly available.
To determine what chemicals are being used in production, research would be starting later in the process.
The steps to take would include: identifying processes used in production; determining what chemicals
generally are used in those manufacturing processes (without being manufacturer-specific); identifying
hot spots to target; and developing models of best practices, an activity in which the pharmaceutical
industry is advanced. Pressure must come from the ICT industry to require chemical manufacturers to
develop alternatives to hot spot hazards. As for product chemical composition, the end goal of this
research would be an inventory of hazards and chemicals in production that would be verified and
publicly available.
The group noted that information generally is available on the chemicals that are used in the extraction of
materials, but needs to be made more accessible. Research is needed on what chemicals are used, their
impacts, possible alternatives and sourcing from safe mines. Increased use of recovered materials should
also be a priority. The end goal would be all virgin material sourced from mines that are certified as safe.
For EoL processing, research is necessary on what chemicals are being used and what alternatives are
available to those that are hazardous.
With respect to eliminating hazardous materials across the lifecycle of electronics products, the group
focused on alternatives assessment. This would involve gathering hazard information on chemicals,
identifying a list of "bad" and "good" chemicals, agreeing on a harmonized approach to alternatives
assessment, and developing methods for comparing chemicals and materials. Because of the magnitude of
the task, it would be practical to group chemicals when conducting alternatives assessments. The goal
would be this process would become routine so that no chemical selection would be made without
conducting an assessment, unless the chemical is already on the "good" list.
To eliminate emission of hazardous materials across product lifecycles, clean emissions standards need to
be developed for water and land. An emissions certification system for mines and production facilities
would need to be established.
Ms. Holly Elwood presented the group's ideas of what could be implemented within the next three to five
years. EPA could present developers of bromine-free flame retardants (BFRs), with a Presidential Green
Chemistry Challenge award to draw public attention to these chemicals. The Agency also could launch
education efforts, such as conferences for computer OEMs and NGOs about 1680.1 standard updates.
EPA should market the .2 and .3 standards to federal purchasers and encourage them to purchase only
those products that meet the standards. A roadmap is needed for next steps on creating new standards for
products. EPA's ORD and Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), could help form
a consortium to create the inventories of chemicals in ICT materials and processes. A first step to making
a comprehensive list of "good" and "bad" chemicals would be to create a registry of preferred chemicals,
perhaps starting with flame retardants. In this effort, it would be helpful if EPA's Computational
Toxicology Research (CompTox) tools were made publicly available. EPA could consider developing a
"GreenStar" program similar to ENERGY STAR to educate consumers on the "greenness" of ICT
products. In addition, the group suggested that members of voluntary trade organizations and not-for-
profits, including iNEMI, the Electronics Working Group of the Sustainability Consortium, the Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the Comprehensive Approach for the Resource- and
Energy-Efficiency (CARE) Electronics, could be briefed on the ideas that the group had developed. This
68
-------
could be accomplished, for example, through presentations at the Electronics Goes Green (EGG) and
CARE conferences.
The group participants identified the pressing research questions that should be addressed:
• How can better test methods to verify what is in products be developed?
• How can better information on the fate and transformation of chemicals be obtained?
• What methods can be used to compare alternative chemicals not just on a chemical-to-
chemical basis but by comparing chemicals to alternative materials?
• What are the best approaches to develop biologically benign materials?
• What options are available to source different materials?
• What is the best way to map the process chemistry used to develop ICT products?
• Where are the hazard hot spots in ICT manufacturing?
• What chemicals are used in these hot spots?
• What alternatives to these chemicals exist?
• Which processes result in which emissions?
• What is the best way to integrate alternative assessments into CAD tools?
• What chemicals and processes are used in materials recycling and recovery?
• How can the culture and "mindset" of the chemical industry be changed to be more
supportive of the move toward green chemistry?
Discussion
A participant commented that process participles should be considered in the roadmap; and pointed out
that the EICC is trying to address this issue. She asked where a repository of "white list" chemicals
should be kept. She noted that EPA and industry take different approaches to green chemistry for
products. A coordinated approach to phase out hazardous chemicals would be highly valuable.
Another participant asked how the activities of the Materials and Processes Cause No Harm Group could
be related to those of other groups. Ms. Brody-Heine's response confirmed their ideas are in accordance
with international efforts toward harmonization of sustainable approaches.
A participant pointed out that recycling can involve toxic chemicals as well. For example, cyanide is
needed in gold leaching operations.
7.3 Resource Optimization
Mr. Rifer, the group representative, noted that the group members had very interesting discussions on
outcomes that they plan to continue. He expressed the hope that other groups also would continue their
work beyond the end of the conference. The group elected to change its theme from "Sustainable
Resources" to "Sustainable Resource Optimization" or "Resource Optimization." The 2030 outcome that
they considered was to have radically better closed-loop management of resources where it makes sense.
This outcome was intended to capture sustainable inputs and outputs. The group expressed doubt that
closed-loop management of resources was achievable by 2030, but believed that radical improvements
toward that goal were possible. A number of terms related to the 2030 outcome must be defined:
"radically better," "closed loop" and "where it makes sense." This last term requires a multidimensional
69
-------
definition. For example, would it make sense to transport plastic bottles from Nome, Alaska, to the
continental United States for processing? The answer is probably not.
The key issues discussed by the group were: defining what makes sense for sustainable resource
optimization; quantifying "radically better"; considering collection, product design and transparency of
material flows; and optimizing system design and control.
The group recommended setting collection goals in terms of a given percentage of "arising" (i.e., waste
generated) that should be recycled, processed and disposed of in landfills. Prioritized devices will need to
be collected into responsibly managed channels. Work is needed on identifying which devices to
prioritize.
Product design should be proactive, taking into account designing for disassembly, recovery and
refurbishing. Incompatible materials should be avoided as long as this does not interfere with
functionality. This is a condition that applies in general to sustainable resource optimization: functionality
should not be sacrificed to create an ecologically friendly product. Products should be designed for
tracking and detection, and mechanisms need to be established for tracking. Considering tradeoffs,
products should be designed for less material use.
Transparency of material flows involves knowing the destination and volumes of all prioritized products.
Monitoring should be standardized, and the parties responsible and accountable for this information
should be identified. Tracing and tracking technology will be required for prioritized products. The
absolute amounts and potential toxicity of product components will need to be determined. Questions that
arose about transparency were:
• Who needs to know about transparency?
• To whom should this information be provided?
• What will be the technical and economic drivers, rules and incentives?
The group acknowledged that more data is needed about EoL processes: collection, preprocessing and
recycling. A problem is that at each stage in the product lifecycle, there are losses of materials. The ability
to optimize recovery at each step depends on the previous one; therefore, the entire system needs to be
optimized. Currently, health and safety issues hold primacy over efficiency in the recycling chain and
drive requirements of the initial provider. Instead, end users should establish the principles for
preprocessing, sorting, triage and other activities involved in recycling.
Although defining "closed loop" was recognized as important, the group did not address it, partially in the
interest of time.
Discussion
A participant asked for a time frame for establishing definitions. The group agreed that this was a short-
term goal that could be accomplished in the next few years. It was recognized that it is valuable to have
concrete goals and time frames that are thoughtfully defined. For establishing definitions and standards,
the participants discussed the importance of including multiple disciplines and stakeholders from
government, NGOs, industry and academia. The Zero Waste Alliance, though small, is such a multi-
stakeholder organization that could help lead the effort to set definitions and standards. Dr. Carol
Handwerker and Dr. Pfahl volunteered to ensure that the meeting's 2030 sustainability goals are included
in the iNEMI roadmap.
70
-------
A participant pointed out that many of these activities take place overseas, where EPA has no jurisdiction
or influence. It was recognized that it is unlikely that a single institution would be able to address all
issues related to ICT sustainability.
In response to a participant's question, Mr. Rifer replied that the process by which his group planned to
continue its work was to engage in further discussion via email. He will capture the ideas discussed, and
the group will provide feedback to refine them. Another group member added that there was more detail
to their deliberations that had not been included in the report back (e.g., research questions). This will
need to be captured as well. To continue the work of all groups, participants are needed for their own
expertise and to serve as mentors.
7.4 Energy, Water and Biodiversity
Dr. Eric Masanet explained that his group's task was the broad theme of Energy, Water and Biodiversity.
The group focused on a few key aspirational goals for 2030. The overarching issue was the ability to
understand all the applications of ICT and quantify the resulting benefits of all end uses of electronics.
The broad goal for 2030 was to maximize such benefits of ICT deployment, which involves intermediary
steps. The first specific outcome was to understand manufacturing and supply chain energy use and
thereby achieve a zero net energy and/or carbon footprint. The group judged achieving a zero carbon
footprint to be the more feasible goal. The second outcome was to attain zero net water use, which the
group recognized would be location-specific. The biodiversity goal was for ICT to have no negative
impact on biodiversity or improve it. The group found significant intersection among the issues of energy,
water and biodiversity.
There are case studies that provide good data on maximizing the benefits of ICT in sectors such as
manufacturing and buildings, but there is much that is not known about ICT benefits and how they
change over time and space. For example, what are the benefits of email or digital downloads? The first
step would be to inventory what data are available, what data are missing, and where new and existing
applications are being deployed. The benefits of ICT use (e.g., energy efficiency) need to be promoted
better. Barriers to moving beyond simple, cost-effective applications include the failure to take a life-
cycle perspective.
The benefits of developing new markets and applications are poorly known. Research roadmaps are
needed for developing quantitative tools and models to quantify benefits. Policy planning is necessary to
overcome market barriers. Another challenge is that new ICT solutions might not be adopted because
outcomes are not known. Secrecy within the industry can be problematic when attempting to demonstrate
potential benefits of new products. The group concluded that verifying, tracking and documenting ICT
benefits is a broad area with many opportunities.
The group found that a challenge for achieving a zero net energy and/or carbon footprint is the high
degree of secrecy in the supply chain. For example, carbon footprint data are only available at a highly
aggregated level. Development of energy performance indicators requires detailed data. This type of
information is available for some industries (e.g., steel and cement manufacturing) but not at every step of
the supply chain for industries as complex as electronics. An example of industry metrics for energy
performance is ENERGY STAR, a joint program of EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). If
metrics could be established for energy use and performance, OEMs would be able to define standards,
71
-------
best practices and worst practices that would allow comparisons with other OEMs. Policy makers could
devise incentives to achieve best practices. If companies minimize their energy demands, maximize their
materials efficiency and embrace renewable energy sources, zero net carbon manufacturing might be
achievable. Incentives based on metrics will be needed to achieve this goal.
Dr. Karsten Schischke suggested that LCA could provide a basis for developing carbon footprint models,
although there are still gaps and uncertainties in such assessments. A footprint model for carbon would be
a first step; later, water and other environmental impacts could be modeled. For water, data transparency
is a problem. Indicators are needed on the manufacturing plant level to compare facilities. Once indicators
are developed, targets can be set and the performance of the supply chain could be regulated. Standards
for zero net water use will need to be appropriate to local conditions and linked to product design to be
helpful.
Dr. Patrick Eagan noted that the 2030 outcome sought for biodiversity was for ICT to have zero effect on
biodiversity or enhance current trends. Little work has been done on ICT's effects on biodiversity.
Assessing such effects is challenging when extraction, manufacturing and product use occur in different
locations. Biodiversity knowledge and metrics will need to be developed on a regional level. The
variables that affect these metrics will need to be understood better. The group recognized that
biodiversity is critical for sustainability and is a resource that cannot be recovered once lost. The hope is
that by 2020, EPA will develop a way to link biodiversity and resource use. Water use, for example, is
linked to biodiversity.
Discussion
A participant asked for a time frame for establishing definitions. The group agreed that this was a short-
term goal that could be accomplished in the next few years. It was recognized that it is valuable to have
concrete goals and time frames that are thoughtfully defined. For establishing definitions and standards,
the participants discussed the importance of including multiple disciplines and stakeholders from
government, NGOs, industry and academia. The Zero Waste Alliance, though small, is such a multi-
stakeholder organization that could help lead the effort to set definitions and standards. Dr. Carol
Handwerker and Dr. Pfahl volunteered to ensure that the meeting's 2030 sustainability goals are included
in the iNEMI roadmap.
A participant pointed out that many of these activities take place overseas, where EPA has no jurisdiction
or influence. It was recognized that it is unlikely that a single institution would be able to address all
issues related to ICT sustainability.
In response to a participant's question, Mr. Rifer replied that the process by which his group planned to
continue its work was to engage in further discussion via email. He will capture the ideas discussed, and
the group will provide feedback to refine them. Another group member added that there was more detail
to their deliberations that had not been included in the report back (e.g., research questions). This will
need to be captured as well. To continue the work of all groups, participants are needed for their own
expertise and to serve as mentors.
7.5 Enriching Communities
The three parts of the ICT lifecycle—extraction, production and EoL—each have significant impacts on
the health, wealth and safety of local communities. Extraction often has destructive impacts on land and
72
-------
communities. Groups such as the Framework for Responsible Mining have formed to address these
issues. A key step is to establish a procedure to guarantee that the free and informed consent of the
community be obtained before opening a mine. The same approach could be applied to production and
EoL. Siting of production facilities is an issue that is open to corporate abuse, with companies often
pitting communities against one another to offer concessions such as tax breaks in return for the economic
benefits of jobs and economic development. Increased transparency will bring greater public awareness of
these issues at all parts of the supply chain. Currently, the EoL phase has received the most publicity, with
camera crews reporting on conditions in waste locations. Extraction also has received attention,
particularly around conflict minerals, but there are other issues, such as smelters.
The group discussed the need to develop models to bring together the formal and informal sectors. A
workable business model is required to use current skills without destroying incentives. HP and other
companies provide some examples, but experimentation is needed to develop relevant policy. Offering
bounties that would be similar to bottle redemption fees was one suggestion. Metrics are necessary to
measure the social impacts of ICT production throughout the supply chain. The long-term 2030 goal of
addressing the social impacts of ICT production would be that no ICT materials are sourced from conflict
areas and all are reasonably extracted. Research will define this goal further.
Discussion
A participant asked whether the group had considered incentivizing recycling and reuse of critical
minerals to reduce the need for new mines. Mr. Ted Smith replied that this had not been discussed, but
widespread awareness of critical mineral issues likely already is driving such efforts.
Another participant asked about enrichment of communities when considering internalization of costs.
The participant's group had devised a model for considering enrichment of communities. Mr. Smith
answered that this might be complicated to measure. For example, communities have offered tax benefits
to manufacturers for plant siting and incurred both positive and negative economic effects that can be
complex.
The issue of the enrichment of communities by the use phase of the product lifecycle was raised.
Mr. Smith responded that this area already was receiving much attention.
Another participant mentioned the International Council on Mining and Metals, which is involved with
extraction problems. The Council has multiple initiatives through which it is collecting information that
combines the efforts of the formal and informal sectors.
7.6 Safe and Fair Working Conditions
Group leader Mr. Smith indicated that the group's discussions on health and safety standards were
couched in terms of the recent recommendations put forth by the United Nations under its initiative on
electronic waste codified in the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM).
These recommendations apply to the entire product lifecycle: design, midstream (production) and EoL.
The desired 2030 outcome was for all ICT hardware to be manufactured in facilities with best-in-class
health and environmental health standards, specifically no forced overtime, forced labor or child labor.
The participants suggested that an initial step toward achieving this goal was to increase consumer
awareness by putting a "human face" on occupational and environmental health problems. Because most
73
-------
manufacturing occurs outside the United States, U.S. consumers are less aware of problems. NGOs have
been instrumental in trying to increase consumer understanding. As a first step toward equalizing health
and environmental standards globally, participants recognized that best-in-class standards need to be
identified. Health standards for workers are orders of magnitude less protective than environmental
standards.
Participants noted that increasing transparency will require improved monitoring of community health,
workplace safety and emissions throughout the full supply chain. Efforts from other industries, such as
the Fair Factories Clearinghouse from the apparel and footwear industries, can provide examples.
Emissions disclosures should be required for the full supply chain. Comprehensive health and industrial
hygiene monitoring is needed as is fair compensation for worker illness. Worker education and
empowerment training are important so that workers understand the health implications of toxic
exposures and availability of tools to protect their health.
In regard to social impacts, the group called for adopting ILO conventions on living wages, forced
overtime, child labor and discrimination. Formation of the EICC was a major step forward for the
electronics industry, but other vehicles are needed to advance implementation of the coalition's standards.
EICC includes many brands and suppliers from the business sector but has no direct collaboration with
government decision makers and NGOs. A major research effort will be required to develop meaningful
indicators of the social impacts of implementing changes such as requiring living wages and banning
child labor.
Participants identified other key research questions: establishing global best practices for health and
safety safeguards for the whole supply chain, determining what new standards are called for, and
identifying who should be involved in this effort. Assistance from global experts on specialized subjects
will be needed. International institutions such as ILO and the World Health Organization (WHO), as well
as the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), can offer their extensive expertise. Barriers in these efforts
include lack of visibility and resources.
7.7 New Business Models
The group's theme was developing new business models to achieve the outcome of aligning business
decisions with sustainability objectives. Mr. Jeff Eagan, the group leader, indicated that the group had
suggested revising the desired outcome by removing the term "business" and instead set a goal of aligning
all decisions through the supply chain with sustainability objectives. The six topics discussed were the
following: enabling sustainability through broad application of ICT, internalizing all costs throughout the
lifecycle, increasing product utilization with a lease model, researching consumer behavior related to
sustainability, and aligning decisions within the informal sector to sustainability objectives.
The participants identified the 2030 outcome for using ICT as an enabler of sustainability as being
smarter use of natural resources. The group struggled, however, to identify discrete steps to achieve that
goal because of the broadness of the desired outcome. ICT could be used to improve medical care and
motor efficiency. One suggestion was to award carbon credits directly to ICT providers for ICT
applications that improve efficiency, such as coal-fired plants or the transportation sector.
74
-------
The desired 2030 outcome of internalizing all costs throughout a product's lifecycle was to embed all
external costs in the price of a product or service. The participants discussed extensively the methodology
to achieve this goal. It was agreed that the process should proceed in a stepwise fashion to reduce political
and economic shock. Each advance would be iterative, shaped by new data and science provided by
previous steps. First, a model would be proposed and vetted. Businesses then would report within a
prescribed scope, costs that had been internalized. From this information, the economic and political
repercussions of voluntary, market-driven, or mandated standards could be assessed. The group discussed
companies voluntarily reporting all costs that previously had been internalized. For example, a price tag
might list both the market price and the "real" price, which would include all internalized costs.
To increase product utilization, the participants suggested a lease model with a goal of maximal
utilization of all ICT products throughout their lifecycles. Rather than finding an application for ICT
products that are not currently in use, the participants specified that the model should be meeting user
needs with the minimum number of devices. A tiered ownership lease model was proposed that involved
tiered pricing for new and used models over multiple generations. The zero tier—the EoL tier—could
involve the informal sector.
The role of consumer research would be to change consumer behavior to align with sustainability goals.
Smart phones, for example, could have an EoL "app" that informs users when a new device is available,
provides instructions on how to recycle the device and identifies the three nearest recyclers. Users could
transfer all phone data from the old to the new device on site. A key issue would be relieving consumer
anxiety about relinquishing old devices. The participants agreed that multiple consumer intervention
models could be tested to identify which one was the most effective.
The participants indicated that corporate governance and culture need to be adapted so that business and
supply chain decisions become consistent with long-term sustainability. Business models could be
changed by establishing research boards to set transparency goals. The emphasis should be on the long-
term view. Motivation would be supplied by such boards and possibly, investment pressure.
The goal identified by participants for the informal sector was to empower the informal collection and
disassembly sector. A micro licensing scheme could be implemented, and collection activities could be
supported by providing personal protective equipment. Recycling activities should be the provenance of
the formal sector, which has the capital and environmental controls to do it safely and well. Participants
suggested providing device "bounties" in the developing world, which would be equivalent to bottle
return deposits, to incentivize collection efforts.
Discussion
Regarding ICT as an enabler of sustainability, a participant proposed that hardware/software solutions
should be pursued to maximize energy savings in the end application. There should be a mechanism, such
as carbon credits, by which credit for these savings could be awarded to the manufacturer.
Instead of a leasing model, one participant suggested that products should become modular. A participant
responded that a better alternative might be to make software- rather than hardware-driven upgrades. One
approach to alleviate consumer reluctance to relinquish old devices would be to focus on continuity of the
delivery of content.
75
-------
A participant proposed that marketing would be necessary to change consumer psychology to accept
leasing. There was some concern that if innovations were not dramatic enough between models, the
leasing idea would not be viable. If cars are considered as an example, performance advances have not
been dramatic enough to motivate intergenerational ownership among consumers. Institutional owners,
however, have embraced the leasing option.
In addition, in the tiered model, a participant suggested that partnerships between localities and
manufacturers should be fostered to directly involve the manufacturer in recycling.
7.8 Reflections and Adjournment
Ms. Clarkson indicated that proceedings from the conference will be distributed within the next few
weeks. She asked for a contact person for each group to coordinate communication among the
participants through an email directory. She thanked participants for their investments of time and effort
in the process initiated at the Forum and for offering imaginative and far-reaching ideas, noting that much
work remains to be done. She expressed gratitude to TJF for providing the conference venue.
On behalf of EPA, Dr. Sahle-Demessie thanked attendees for taking time from their schedules to
participate in the conference. It was a critical and timely discussion. EPA would like to use the
information and ideas provided by attendees to inform science policy and planning. Planning for the
Forum began a year ago with the idea of organizing an electronics industry stakeholders' workshop.
Much work went into brainstorming themes and ideas for the Forum, and he thanked TJF, especially
Ms. Seidelman; the organizing team, including Drs. Anderson and Leazer, Mr. Rifer and the staff of
GEC; and Forum for the Future. GEC was instrumental in helping draft the agenda and providing
facilitation at the conference. He also thanked The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc., (SCG) for
documenting the Forum's proceedings and providing logistical support. Dr. Sahle-Demessie reminded
participants to send their reimbursement requests to SCG and complete the online process survey. He then
wished conference attendees safe travel as they returned home.
Mr. Rifer added his thanks to the participants, acknowledging the efforts of Dr. Sahle-Demessie and EPA.
The first forum was organized in 2008 by Mr. Omelchuck and former EPA Administrator Dr. Paul
Anastas. GEC has been engaged in the standard development and implementation process and has met
with great success due to the contributions of many of those who participated in that conference. He
expressed hope that this Forum will be a watershed in developing and implementing standards and that
attendees will catalyze the process by engaging stakeholders, facilitating communication among them and
providing direction. An upcoming challenge will be refreshing the IEEE's 1680.1 computer standards.
The participants discussed mechanisms for continued communication among the attendees. Mr. Smith
suggested a mechanism such as a drop box rather than email exchanges. Mr. Omelchuck offered access to
GEC's collaboration website so that documents and work could be shared. The participants' goal is to
complete a formal product from the Forum by the end of 2012. They expressed a desire to work together
in the future to support EPA's efforts. The conference was adjourned.
76
-------
Appendices
77
-------
Laura Meadow Anderson
Pamela Brody-Heine
Helen Clarkson
John Dickenson
Jeff Eagan
Patrick Eagan
Holly Elwood
Appendix I
List of Participants
AAAS Fellow 2010-2012
3345 NE 76th Avenue
Portland, OR 97213
meadow.anderson@gmail.com
Director
Standards Development Projects
Green Electronics Council
227 SW Pine Street, Suite 220
Portland, OR 97204
pbrodyheine@greenelectronicscouncil.org
Director
Forum for the Future
394 Broadway, Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10013
h.clarkson@forumforthefuture .org
Vice President for Business Development
AERCCR
42840 Christy Street, Suite 205
Fremont, CA 94538
john.dickenson@aerccr.com
Electronics Stewardship Coordinator
U.S. Department of Energy
7803 Custer Road
Bethesda, MD 20814
jeff.eagan@hq.doe.gov
Professor
Office of Sustainability
Department of Engineering
Professional Development
University of Wisconsin-Madison
432 N Lake Street
Madison, WI 53706
eagan@engr.wisc.edu
Senior Program Manager
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building (7409M)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
elwood.holly@epamail.epa.gov
78
-------
Robert Frisbee
Rob Guzzo
Christian Hageliiken
Carol Handwerker
Alan Hecht
Lauren Heine
Helen Holder
Chief Executive Officer
EPEAT®
Green Electronics Council
227 SW Pine Street, Suite 220
Portland, OR 97204
robertffrisbee@gmail.com
Manager
Environmental Technologies Group
Apple, Inc.
MS: 33-1ET
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014
rguzzo@apple .com
EU Government Affairs
Umicore AG & Co. KG
Rodenbacher Chaussee 4
63457 Hanau-Wolfgang
Germany
christian.hagelueken@eu.umicore.com
Purdue University
School of Materials Engineering
701 W Stadium Avenue
West Lafayette, IN 47907
handwerker@purdue .edu
Director of Sustainable Development
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building (8101R)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
hecht.alan@epamail.epa.gov
Consulting Co-Director
Clean Production Action
2986 Foster Avenue
Juneau,AK 99801
lauren@lheinegroup. com
Corporate Material Selection Manager
Hewlett-Packard Company
1501 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
helen.holder@hp.com
79
-------
Randolph Kirchain
Barbara Kyle
John Leazer
Eric Masanet
Jennifer McCulley
Scott O'Connell
Jeff Omelchuck
Principal Research Scientist
Engineering Systems Division
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
kirchain@mit.edu
National Coordinator
Electronics TakeBack Coalition
60 29th Street, #230
San Francisco, CA 94110
bkyle@etakeback.org
Director, Sustainable Technology Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code 497
26 W Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
leazer.john@epa.gov
Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Northwestern University
2145 Sheridan Road, Room L494
Evanston, IL 60208
eric.masanet@northwestern.edu
Senior Science Writer
The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
656 Quince Orchard Road, Suite 210
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
j mcculley@scgcorp .com
Dell Inc.
One Dell Way
Round Rock, TX 78682
scott_oconnell@dell.com
Executive Director
EPEAT®
Green Electronics Council
15 70 NW 117th Court
Portland, OR 97229
jeff.omelchuck@greenelectronicscouncil.org
80
-------
Neil Peters-Michaud
Robert Pfahl
Elizabeth Resek
Wayne Rifer
Endalkachew Sahle-Demessie
Karsten Schischke
Ted Smith
Chief Executive Officer
Cascade Asset Management, LLC
6701 Manufacturers Drive
Madison, WI 53704
nmichaud@cascade-assets.com
Vice President of Global Operations
International Electronics Manufacturing Initiative
2214 Rock Hill Road, Suite 110
Herndon,VA 20170
bob .pfahl@inemi .org
Chief
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building (5306P)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
resek.elizabeth@epamail.epa.gov
Director of Standards
Green Electronics Council
1075 113th Avenue, NW
Portland, OR 97229
wayne.rifer@greenelectronicscouncil.org
www.epeat.net
Senior Research Engineer
Clean Processes Branch
Sustainable Technology Division
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code 443
26 W Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
sahle-demessie.endalkachew@epa.gov
Environmental and Reliability Engineering
Fraunhofer-Institut fur Zuverlassigkeit
und Mikrointegration
Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25
13355 Berlin
Germany
karsten.schischke@izm.fraunhofer.de
Coordinator
International Campaign for Responsible Technology
760 N First Street
San Jose, CA 95112
tsmith@igc.org
81
-------
Ab Stevels
James Taplin
Eric Williams
Joseph Williams
Professor
Design for Sustainability Laboratory
Delft University of Technology
Herinkhave 3
5565JL Eindhoven
The Netherlands
stevels@xs4all.nl
Principal Sustainability Advisor
Forum for the Future
Overseas House
19-23 Ironmonger Row
LONDON
EC1 V3QN
GREAT BRITAIN
j .taplin@forumforthefuture.org
Rochester Institute of Technology
Golisano Institute for Sustainability
111 Lomb Memorial Drive
Rochester, NY 14623
exwgis@rit.edu
Assistant Laboratory Director for Chemical Safety
for Sustainability Research
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PO Box 1198
919 Kerr Research Drive
Ada, OK 74820
williams j oe@epa.gov
82
-------
Appendix II
Key Themes Developed—Sustainable Electronics Forum, Day 1
Building the Assessment Toolkit
From the scenarios work, we said: in 2030—everything has carbon metrics, carbon conservation is
cool, systems for personal carbon trading and personal data, tools for real life-cycle analysis (LCA)
evaluation.
• Developing a toolkit.
• Mechanism to allow group alternative assessment.
• Measuring benefits of information and communications technology (ICT) in society.
• Assessing toxicity of products.
• Assessing organizations—how well they do against toxics action.
• Public/transparent/validated.
• Build absolute requirements into Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC).
• Agreed alternative assessment method.
• Full inventory of chemicals in products and processes.
• Measurement: develop metrics on goals of enhancements of metrics reports.
• Measurement: establish third-party verification of metrics reports.
• Measurement: develop methods of balance and trade-off for metrics.
• Need to demonstrate to the industry that chemical reduction processes improve their bottom line.
• For any action related to chemical use or substitution, a full LCA will need to be evaluated and
understood.
• Transparency in LCA process is important—businesses must apply standard LCA methodology.
• Assessment methodology (life-cycle and chemical impact) needs to be developed; EPA should
develop it.
Supply Chain Transparency
From the scenarios work, we said: in 2030—global trade regulations, global environmental health and
safety standards, transparent reporting of supply chain toxics, sharing and tracking of resource use.
• Full inventory of materials in products.
• Material disclosure to support scientific assessment of impacts and opportunities.
• Disclose where materials came from in supply chain (particularly as affects biodiversity).
• Eco label to require living wage and benefit information and worker health and safety (H&S) data
for ICT "manufacturing" employees (including mining, manufacture, End of Life [EoL]).
• Agree on Human Rights (HR) (locally adapted?) criteria. Evaluate/track HR performance.
Contracts based on HR performance.
• Engagement across the supply chain:
83
-------
o Consumer engagement.
o Educate consumers about significance of nonrenewable resources.
o Educate consumers about their influence and responsibility in sustainable electronics.
o Link supply chain operators such that they know their influence and interdependence
with one another.
Resource Optimization
From the scenarios work, we said: in 2030—move towards lighter materials; more materials with lower
energy impacts; big incentive for metals recycling; ICT is less material more versatile; long-living
products with inbuilt recyclability and modularity.
• Exploration
o Improve geological inventory with details about depth, concentrations, ore types, etc.
(physical limits to availability).
o Quantity of resources needed to get material (energy, water, land, etc.).
o Define adverse effects (social, biodiversity).
o Develop innovative exploration technology (minimal invasive, affordable, effective).
• Primary Extraction and Refining
o Improve towards comprehensive recovery of constrained resources while minimizing
adverse effects.
o Improve recovery of historical mine/smelter waste.
• Manufacture
o Consider nonrenewable resource issues when developing/designing product (including
quantitative design tools).
o Minimize and comprehensively recycle production waste.
o Reduce material intensity in products and services.
o Look for appropriate single-use system (SUS) initiatives, but consider adverse effects.
• Use
o Avoid dilution (entropy) and dissolution.
• EoL
o Create transparency about real EoL—flows, certification, accountability.
o Design/improve entire recycling chain with its interactions and interfaces.
o Develop improved recycling technology.
o Minimize and recycle process residues.
o Industrial symbiosis.
• Incentivise collection and recovery of waste streams.
• Develop infrastructure for 100 percent recovery of material.
• Eliminate toxic materials.
• Eliminate exposure to toxics.
• Tools do not currently factor in land use issues of new minerals.
• Closed-loop systems.
• Nonrenewable resources.
84
-------
o Different metals have an interdependence with fossil fuels.
o Energy needs to supply minerals/metals.
o Metal needs to generate energy.
Change resource mix towards renewables.
Redefine waste and maximize material recovery.
Eliminate landfill of materials and products.
Water metering and analysis for efficient end use.
Energy Efficiency
From the scenarios work, we said: in 2030—energy efficient infrastructure with long product life;
electronics is simple, on when needed, micro-energy harvesting; infrastructure energy efficiency;
energy efficiency of data centers and the cloud; centralized computing = less hardware demand = less
waste.
Energy efficient components/processes.
Energy efficient system architecture and design.
Smart power management.
Potential of ICT as energy-efficient enabler.
Information/tools to inform on systemic energy impact.
New Business Models
From the scenarios work, we said: in 2030—service models that include access for people at all income
levels; shared ownership of energy intensive products; closed loop system to help build local; energy
consuming part of IT is modular; open source; 100 percent software.
• Modularity.
• Product longevity.
• Long-termism—develop a financial model more attractive to consumers and service providers
that shifts from planned obsolescence to providing tech solutions.
• Contracts based on sustainability performance.
• Build incentives for long product use, recycle and take back/collection.
Access to ICT
From the scenarios work, we said: in 2030—community building tools to provide societal connectivity
and reinforce common global good; control versus empower; privacy?
• Industry-wide action to stop internet censorship.
• Increase investments to enable global access coverage to data connections by improved
infrastructure and kiosks/devices.
• ICT can worsen HR through disparity in access.
85
-------
o Need to create devices and services for low income.
o User interfaces for excluded groups.
Enabling Role of ICT
• ICT can enable renewable energy and reduce water use in power generation.
• Use ICT to support enhanced sustainable agricultural productivity.
• Use ICT to monitor global land use to encourage biodiversity.
• Enabling HR—communications (social media).
• Understanding valuable applications for SMART ICT.
How and Who
• Broad agreement to prohibit undeveloped land for manufacturing and recycling.
• Lobbying for carbon tax.
• Need a participatory, collaborative, credible institution that is a well-resourced technology expert
to implement the research and action agenda.
• Participation governance for research and vehicle and action agenda for sustainable electronics
that is credible, transparent and well-researched for the long term.
• Build common goals and understanding through an open process. NGO—Government—Industry.
Business-to-Business.
• Water tax.
• Carbon tax.
• State and federal governments will base policy on scientific evidence. Evidence passes
requirements for quality assurance, including uncertainty analysis.
• European Union has the responsibility to do more evidence-based policymaking because of
international implications.
• International collaboration between governments to ensure consistency and leverage resources.
86
-------
Appendix III
Agenda
Sustainable Electronics Forum
October 15-18, 2012
Sponsored by:
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Foundation
• The Green Electronics Council ATWINGSPREAD
• The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread
in-.* llml /H.
-------
Program
Monday
October 15, 2012
5:30 p.m. HOSPITALITY
Living Room-
Guest House
6:30 p.m. Welcome and Dinner
Wingspread
Lynn Broaddus
Director, Environment Program
The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread
8:00 p.m. EVENING HOSPITALITY
Living Room-
Guest House
Tuesday
October 16, 2012
7:00-8:45 a.m. BREAKFAST
Living Room-
Guest House
9:00 a.m. Welcome and Conference Objectives
Living Room—
The House AlanHecht
Director of Sustainable Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wayne Rifer
EPEAT® Director of Standards
Green Electronics Council
Susie Seidelman
Environment Program Associate
The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread
-------
Tuesday Continued
October 16, 2012
10:05 a.m.
10:15 a.m.
12:15 p.m.
Wingspread
1:15 p.m.
Living Room—
The House
3:15 p.m.
Helen Clarkson
Director
Forum for the Future
James Taplin
Principal Sustainability Advisor
Forum for the Future
Introductions and Overview of the Forum
a. Introductions from all participants
b. Overview of the process for the Forum
BREAK
Setting a Top-Level Vision
a. Future scenarios: What would sustainable electronics look like in
the future?
b. Creating a vision and guiding principles for sustainable
electronics.
LUNCHEON
PLENARY SESSION
The Sustainable Economy Framework and Implications for
the Future of Electronics
Participants will consider the environmental barriers and social
conditions of a sustainable economy and the implications for
sustainable electronics.
BREAK
89
-------
Tuesday Continued
October 16, 2012
3:25 p.m. Roadmapping I
Participants will develop themes and headings to take
forward for the roadmapping sessions.
Wrap-Up
We will review what has been achieved during the day and outline
the objectives for Wednesday.
5:15 p.m. WORKSHOP CLOSES FOR THE DAY
5:30 p.m. HOSPITALITY/TOUR OF WINGSPREAD (optional)
Wingspread
6:15 p.m. DINNER
7:45 p.m. EVENING HOSPITALITY
Living Room-
Guest House
Wednesday
October 17, 2012
7:00-8.45 a.m. BREAKFAST
Living Room-
Guest House
9:00 a.m. Welcome and Reflections
Living Room—
The House Group discussion to reflect on insights from Day One.
Building From Today
The participants will build on the vision and roadmap developed,
drawing on the trends and insights from today.
10:00 a.m. BREAK
90
-------
Wednesday Continued
October 17, 2012
10:15 a.m. Roadmapping II
12:45 P.m.
Wingspread
1:45 p.m.
Living Room—
The House
3:15 p.m.
3:30 p.m.
5:15 p.m.
The participants will develop measures of success and milestones for
the roadmap.
LUNCHEON
Diving into the Detail
The participants will hear from expert speakers on various topics,
from resource recovery to standards development.
Wayne Rifer
Green Electronics Council
Barbara Kyle
Electronics TakeBack Coalition
Christian Hageliiken
Umicore
Bob Pfahl
iNEMI
BREAK
Roadmapping III
Participants will break into groups and continue to develop the goals
and milestones outlined in the roadmap and vision, focusing in
particular on research agendas, standards setting and voluntary
manufacturer initiatives.
Wrap-Up
We will review what has been achieved during the day and outline
the objectives for Thursday.
WORKSHOP CLOSES FOR THE DAY
91
-------
Wednesday Continued
October 17, 2012
5:30 p.m.
Wingspread
6:00 p.m.
7:30 p.m.
Living Room-
Guest House
HOSPITALITY
DINNER
EVENING HOSPITALITY
Thursday
October 18, 2012
7:00-8.45 a.m.
Living Room-
Guest House
9:00 a.m.
Living Room—
The House
10:30 a.m.
10:45 a.m.
12:00 noon
Living Room-
Guest House
i:oop.m.
BREAKFAST
Bringing the Roadmap Together
Participants will come together and share the roadmaps developed
in the small groups with the wider group in a plenary session. This
will be a chance for the wider group to reflect on, build and finish the
roadmap.
BREAK
Bringing the Roadmap Together front.)
The plenary discussion continues.
Reflections and Wrap-Up
EPA and GECwill share reflections and outline the next steps.
BUFFET LUNCHEON
CONFERENCE ADJOURNS
Departures from the Guest House.
92
-------
oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED
STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES
PAID EPA
PFRMITND G-3B
Office of Research and Development
(8101R) Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
93
------- |