The Race to the Top. Greenpeace International

Transcription

1 Guide to Greener Electronics The Race to the Top Iza Kruszewska, Martin Hojsik Greenpeace International

2 The problem

3 Greenpeace expectations ti OEMS should: Eliminate the use of the most hazardous substances Take responsibility for their end-of-life products Contribute to tackling climate change

4 Benchmarking Tools Guide to Greener Electronics Published quarterly since August 2006 Evaluates the overall policy and practice of the ranked companies Includes 18 market leaders in PCs, mobile phones, TVs and game consoles Electronics Survey Aims to identify and evaluate the leading models of products in terms of their environmental performance

5 Guide to Greener Electronics

6 Underlying principle i of the ranking Guide Transparency The evaluation of company performance is based solely on the information that it makes publicly available, primarily via its corporate website.

7 Chemicals criteria Overall aim is to stimulate substitution i of hazardous chemicals in electronic products and their production processes.

8 Chemicals criteria C1. Precautionary Principle C2. Chemicals Management C3. PVC and BFR phaseout + Timeline Strong definition reflecting preventive action despite scientific uncertainty Lists restricted or banned substances and comms along supply chain + a list of substances considered for future restriction + criteria for identifying `future substances' ' for elimination i Commitment to complete PVC and BFR phase out + Reasonable timeline for ALL applications C4. Phase out of additional substances with timeline(s) C5. PVC-free and/or BFR-free models on the market 2+ named substances (ALL phthalates, Beryllium, including alloys and compounds and Antimony/antimony compounds) + reasonable timelines (end of 2012) + all new models. All new models are both PVC- and BFR-free (double points)

9 Chemicals criteria Progress Growing support for Precautionary principle Improvements in chemicals management and communication along supply chain Widespread commitments to phase out BFRs and PVC Start of phase out of additional substances Increasing number of BFR- and PVC-free and partially `f free ' products on the market

10 Chemicals Towards PVC and BFR-free Commitments with timelines: v.1 Aug 2006 Nokia: PVC-free models since end of 2005 Sony Ericsson: complete BFR elimination by start of 2006 Dell: timeline of 2009 for BFRs and PVC Samsung: BFRs by end of 2010, PVC by 2011 LGE: BFRs and PVC by end of 2010

11 Chemicals Towards PVC and BFR-free Commitments with timelines v.2 - Nov 2006 Lenovo: PVC/BFRs by end of 2009 Acer: PVC/BFRs by end of 2009 SE: PVC by 1st Jan 2007 v.4 - June 07 Apple: PVC/BFRs in all products by end of 2008 Toshiba: BFRs and PVC by end of 2009 Panasonic: PVC out of its notebooks by 2011

12 Green my apple Campaign Announcement by Jobs (2 nd May 2007): Apple to eliminate the use of PVC and BFRs in its products by the end of 2008 To increase amount of e-waste recycled from 9.5% in 2006 to 20% in 2008 and nearly 30% in 2010

13 Products free of PVC & BFRs The Leaders (v.1 Aug 2006): Sony Ericsson: PVC-free end of 2005 and BFRfree January 2008 Nokia: PVC-free end of 2005; BFR-free by end of 2009 Sony: `Eco-Info Info' Mark products free of BFRs in housings and PWBs and reduced PVC; (v.6 Sept 07): Models of VAIO notebook, Walkman, camcorder, digital camera. Toshiba: models of laptop (Portégé) with PWBs free of BFRs and EcoMark products without PVC

14 Products free of PVC & BFRs Fujitsu Siemens Computers (v.1 Aug 06) `Green PCs' BFR-free plastics & PWBs Panasonic (v.4, v.5 June, Sept 07): PVC-free models of DVD players & recorders, home cinemas, VCRs and BFR-free lighting. Samsung (v.6, Dec 07): PVC-free LCD panels, since July 07 part BFR-free mobile phones. Halogen-free memory chips & semiconductors for some applications. Apple (v.6, Dec 07), all new imacs have bromine- free enclosures and PWB laminates as well as PVCfree internal cables. Millions of ipods with bromine-free enclosures and PWB laminates.

15 E-waste criteria Greenpeace expects companies: (1)to take financial responsibility for dealing with the e- waste generated by their products when discarded d d by consumers, (2)to take back discarded products in all countries with sales of their products and (3)to re-use or recycle them responsibly.

16 E-waste criteria W1. Support for Individual Public and explicit support for IPR, such that Producer Responsibility the end-of-life management systems support ownbrand differentiation and internalisation of real own-brand end-of-life costs, including high recycling standards W2. Provides effective Free, easy and GLOBAL takeback for ALL products voluntary take-back where in all countries where products are sold. no EPR laws W3. Info for individual Clear info on what individual customers can do customers on take-back in with e-waste accessible to customers in every all countries where product country where products sold. sold W4. Reports on amount of Reports on the global lblamount recycled ld as % of e-waste recycled past sales by product type + achieves over 25% recycling rate for at least one specified product group W5. Use of recycled plastic across all products and timelines for increasing content At least 15% of all plastics sourced is recycled plastic + timeline for increasing to 25%.

17 E-waste criteria Progress Increasing support for Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR) Active lobby for implementation of IPR EU IPRworks.org WEEE Art. 8.2 India, Argentina producer responsibility laws proposed US Dissolution of EMCRR active ARF lobby Growth of voluntary take back programs where no laws Improved information for customers about take back options Competition" in amounts recycled Use of recycled plastics is on the agenda

18 E-waste: Support for Individual Producer Responsibility v.1 Guide (Aug 06) Dell, LGE, Nokia, HP &S Samsung By v.5 (Sept 06) Also: Acer, Sony Ericsson, FSC and Motorola

19 Bad lobby against IPR double standards Brands leaving EMCRR (US-based Coalition against IPR): Dec 06: Samsung (avoids penalty point) Sept 07: Sony, LGE (penalty point lifted) Dec 07: Toshiba (avoids penalty point) July 08: Panasonic (avoids penalty point) 11 August 2008: EMCRR dissolved by Panasonic, Sharp, Philips and Sanyo

20 E-waste: Voluntary takeback & recycling v.1 Aug 06 Only 8 brands doing any voluntary t/b, mainly printer cartridges, batteries, some PCs in USA and mobile phones in US & China v.10 Nov 08 Nokia: 124 countries + almost 5000 collection points Motorola: 72 countries, incl. modems, routers in US Dell: 71 countries Lenovo: 56 countries, where direct sales only Sony (Sept 07), LGE (Sept 08), Samsung (Nov 08): all products in US

21 E-waste: Amounts Recycled v.1: HP is 1 st to report per GP metric; 10.3% (2005) and 15% (2007) v.4: Apple 9.5% (2006); 18% (2007) forecast 32% (2008) v.4: Dell 12.4% (2006) v.10: Samsung (2007) TVs 137%; PCs 12% & MPs 9% v.10: LGE (2007) TVs 110%; PCs 25% & MPs 4%

22 Energy criteria added June 2008 To evaluate corporate progress towards implementing the necessary steps needed to protect the climate and prevent the rise of global temperatures above 2 ºC. To achieve this goal, global emissions of GHGs need to be halved. This is possible primarily il via improved energy efficiency and a massive increase in the use of renewable energy.

23 Energy criteria E1.Support for global mandatory reduction of GHG emissions E2. Disclosure of GHG emissions of own operations and 2 stages of the supply chain E3.Commitment to absolute reduction of GHGs from own operations with timelines Supports global cuts of at least 50% by 2050 (from 1990 levels) and cuts by industrialised countries of at least 30% as a group by 2020 GHG emissions from company s own operations and those of at least 2 product supply chain stages Commitment to reduce ABSOLUTE GHG emissions from own operations by at least 20% by E4. Amount of renewable energy Proportion of renewable energy in total used as proportion of total electricity use of company s own operations electricity use in own operations above 25%. E5. Energy efficiency of New All new models of specified products meet the Models of specified products latest Energy Star standard and 30% exceed (PCs, mobile phones, TVs, the ES standard (by 50% or more in sleep and consoles) standby/no-load modes, where applicable) double points

24 E1. Energy Political Commitment v.8 (June 2008) Only FSC supports all cuts in global/oecd l/oecd GHG emissions i v.9 (Sept 08) FSC and Philips support cuts v.10 (Nov 08) v.10 (Nov 08) FSC, Philips and Sharp support cuts

25 E2. Energy Disclosure of GHG emissions v.8 June 2008 Disclosure of GHGs from own operations + third party verification: Sony, Philips, Sharp, HP v.10 Nov 2008 Disclosure of GHGs from own operations + 80% of 1 st tier suppliers + third party verification: HP Disclosure of GHGs from own operations + 1 supply chain + third party verification: Sony, Motorola, Panasonic, Dell, Philips, Sharp

26 E3. Energy Commitment to absolute cuts in GHGs v.8 June 2008 HP: 25 % below 2005 levels l by 2010 Philips: 25% below 2007 levels by 2012 Nokia: 6% cuts in energy use (not GHGs) based on 2006 levels by 2010 v.10 Nov 2008 Weaker cuts: Sony, Motorola, Panasonic, Toshiba, Nokia, Nintendo

27 E4. Energy Use of renewable energy as % of total electricity use in own operations v.8 June 2008 Nokia: 25% in 2007; 50% by 2010 Philips: 10% in 2007; 25% by 2012 Motorola: 5.4% in 2007; Sony: 1.02% in 2006 v.10 Dec 2008 FSC: 15% in 2007; 20% by 2020 Sony: 2.5% globally; 43% in EU Motorola: 9.7%; Toshiba: 10.1% HP: 2% in 2007; ~4% in 2008; 8% in 2012 Microsoft: 24.4% in 2007 Dell: 3.7% in 2008

28 E5. Energy efficiency of New Models of specified products v.8 June 2008 Full marks: Apple, Sony Ericsson v.10 Dec 2008 Full marks: Sony Ericsson, LGE, Panasonic, Nokia, Apple, Samsung

29 Criteria for Penalty Points the `stick' Product testing reveals specific hazardous substances Situation ti on the ground (scandals) Double standards Any other corporate misbehaviour

30 Penalty ypoints imposed to date HP for lying after Greenpeace testing of laptop found use of decabde (v.2 Dec 06) Sony and LGE for double standards on IPR policy (v.3 and v.4) Nokia for deficiencies in takeback practice in Thailand, Russia & Argentina (v.6, v.7, v.8) Motorola for deficiencies in takeback practice in Philippines, i Thailand and India (v.6) Philips for bad lobby in EU (v.8, v.9, v.10)

31 Thank you Contact Iza Kruszewska