The Computer TakeBack Campaign (CTBC) is pleased to release the 3rd annual Computer Report Card. The Report Card is issued each Fall to encourage consumers to leverage their buying power to foster greater corporate responsibility for protecting public health, worker safety and the environment. The Report Card analyzes the information on the websites of computer companies to compare and measure the environmental qualities of electronic equipment and the environmental performance of companies. Grading environmental performance is also intended to encourage brand-name firms to place information concerning various attributes of corporate "clean and green" responsibility on their websites, thereby allowing consumers to make more informed decisions.

CTBC was formed in Spring 2001 to promote "clean and green" electronics production and responsible end-of-life management through producer responsibility in the US -- that is at least comparable to certain European countries and Japan. During the past year, the CTBC developed the Electronics TakeBack Platform (see Appendix B). The criteria used to grade the companies' performance are derived from the principles in the platform.

Companies graded in this Report Card produce and sell the following consumer products: desktop computers, laptop computers, monitors and/or printers. Twenty-eight name brand computer companies were assessed, based on information provided on their websites, in the following categories: 1) use of hazardous materials; 2) extended producer responsibility (EPR)/product take-back ; 3) occupational health and safety; and 4) ease of accessing online information. This year’s evaluation reveals several troubling double standards in the global production of computers, take-back of computers, and government responsibility: among countries, among states within the US, among companies, and even within companies doing business in different areas of the world.

The high-tech electronics industry is the world's largest and fastest growing manufacturing industry. The current production of computers typically results in the use of thousands of toxic chemicals, including solvents, gases, heavy metals and acids. Lead and cadmium are used in circuits boards; lead oxide and barium are found in monitor cathode ray tubes; mercury is found in switches and flat screen monitors; and brominated flame retardants can be found on printed circuit boards, plastic casings and cable insulation. Thirty years of irresponsible manufacturing of electronics equipment across the U.S. have resulted in highly contaminated groundwater sites; workers suffering from miscarriages, cancer, and other illnesses, and children with birth defects. Like the processes used to manufacture electronics, electronic waste (e-waste) poses a significant threat to human and ecological health and worker safety due to both the volume of waste produced and the hazardous materials contained therein. E-waste has become one of the fastest growing and most toxic waste streams in the industrialized world. The National Safety Council predicts that over 315 million computers in the US will be obsolete by 2004.

The Report Card was first released in 1999 by the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition as a way to evaluate the environmental information posted on computer companies' websites. As the holiday buying season begins each year, the Report Cards provide consumers with a valuable tool -- before making purchases -- to compare and access the environmental qualities of electronic equipment and the environmental performance of companies. As consumers increasingly exercise their buying power to promote "clean and green" services, it is anticipated that the electronics industry will become more sensitive to health, safety and environmental concerns related to its products' production, use and disposal. The Report Card is used to highlight the leaders and laggards among computer companies and to encourage safe, clean and sustainable production practices. Read earlier Report Cards

During this year, several environmental and health initiatives with important impacts on the high-tech sector have been adopted in Europe and Japan. In April 2001, the Appliance Recycling Law in Japan was promulgated. Additionally, the European Parliament voted to adopt two important initiatives.

• Waste Electronics and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) Directive, which will require electronics manufacturers to assume full financial or physical responsibility for their products at the end of their consumer life; and
• Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (ROHS), which will phase out the use of some of the most hazardous substances in the electronics industry including: lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium and several types of brominated flame retardants.

In a separate action, the European Parliament approved the phase-out of the most toxic forms of brominated flame retardants. Like the more well-known polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), brominated flame retardants threaten environmental and human health--even in minute quantities. The use of brominated flame retardants was addressed directly in questions asked in the hazardous materials category in this year’s Report Card.

In stark contrast, there have been no major initiatives in the U.S. on these issues.

• No chemicals of concern have been targeted for phase-outs.
• No requirements exist to institute nationwide computer take-back programs in the U.S.
• In fact, prompted by U.S. electronics companies, the U.S. Trade Representative has lobbied extensively against the adoption of the European WEEE and ROHS initiatives as a threat to trade and illegal according to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

A widening chasm exists among practices of companies in Japan and those in the US. Seven out of the top ten ranked companies in this year’s Computer Report Card are based in Japan. On the overall scores, all Korean and Taiwanese--as well as most US companies--scored at the bottom of the scale. The lowest scoring four US companies (e-Machines, Gateway, Lexmark and Viewsonic) provided little or no information in any of the surveyed categories. Four large companies--AST, Daewoo, e-Machines, and Lucky Goldstar--scored "0". Unfortunately, many firms are still not taking the initiative to go beyond compliance and only supply the bare minimum information required by the US government and some state governments. Even the top-ranked company in the Report Card--Canon -- scored only in the 60^th percentile.

The Report Card results also illustrate that companies maintain disparate practices by meeting required higher standards outside of the U.S. Yet these same companies do not transfer those practices back home.

• IBM. For instance, since 1989, IBM has offered product take-back programs in certain European countries free of charge where required by law. While IBM announced a U.S. take-back effort earlier this year, they charge consumers $29.99 to participate -- a clear disincentive that discourages consumers fromb ringing computers back to the manufacturer.
• Apple. Due to legislative requirements, Apple Computer of Germany provides a take-back program where customers can return electronic appliances at no charge. Yet, Apple does not offer this program to US consumers.
• Sony. Sony has a full scale take-back program for computer monitors in Germany that charges no disposal fee. However, Sony Electronics and other partners unveiled a limited 5-year program in October 2000 to collect and recycle electronics from residential customers in parts of the US.

This year's report uncovered another chapter in the double standards of high-tech global production. The States of California and Massachusetts adopted regulations to ban the landfilling of cathode ray tubes (CRTs) because of the lead content in the glass, while other states continue to allow their haphazard disposal into municipal waste streams.

This year, the Report Card evaluates 28 companies, which produce one or more of the following products: desktop computers, laptop computers, monitors and/or printers. The Report Card grades these companies based on their practices in the United States. These companies included the following:

• Ten US companies: Apple, Compaq, Dell, e-Machines, Gateway, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Lexmark, Micron and Viewsonic

• Eleven Japanese companies: Brother, Canon, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Matsushita/Panasonic, NEC, Oki, Seiko Epson, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba

• One European company: Philips

• Three Korean companies: Daewoo, Lucky Goldstar and Samsung

• Three Taiwanese companies: Acer, AST, and Wyse Technologies

This year's Report Card evaluated several categories of corporate responsibility related to the following environmental, health and safety concerns:

• Hazardous Materials Use
• Extended Producer Responsibility/Manufacturer Take-Back
• Occupational Health and Safety
• Ease of Information Access

The highest possible score was 68 points (17 questions multiplied by a maximum of 4 points each). Canon received the highest number of points--35--for a total score of 51.5%. As discussed previously, Japanese companies scored disproportionately well in the higher ranks, well above US companies. Korean and Taiwanese companies were at the bottom of the ranking and mostly received scores of 0. The European company also scored near the bottom with 9 points or 13.2%.

As noted earlier, the Report Card evaluates the website descriptions of activities in the US. If the focus had been on the manufacturing and take-back practices of companies located in Europe and Japan, the overall scores would be much higher. Companies in Europe have stronger take-back programs, while Japanese companies share information on hazardous materials with their customers. Clearly, companies based in countries with more progressive policies (eg. take-back, recycling and hazardous materials reductions and phase-outs) are meeting a higher standard of corporate responsibility--despite the fact that they are not mandated to do so in the US.

In addition, all in-depth evaluations occurred only in the English language. Attempts were made to evaluate the websites in Korean and Russian. However, no environmental information was found in those languages.

URLs of all company websites can be found in Appendix D.

This category evaluates information about toxic materials use and plans for reduction and phase out. The hazardous materials that were evaluated are some of those targeted for phase-out by the European Union's Waste from Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) Directive--lead, mercury, brominated flame retardants. As discussed earlier, substantial progress has been made in Europe and Japan regarding phase-outs of several of the most persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals used in computer manufacturing. While some US companies are recognizing the changes in the global marketplace and are trying to catch up, legislative mandates have been virtually non-existent thus far in the US.

In April 2001, the Pollutant Release and Transfer Registry (PRTR) law was enacted in Japan. As a result, companies in Japan are now required to list the amounts of chemicals transferred to waste facilities, used to make products and released to air, water and land from a Designated list of 165 chemicals. All Japanese companies evaluated in the Report Card published this PRTR information in their environmental reports

A similar initiative, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) was enacted in the United States in 1987. The TRI was created under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 and is available (TRI) at www.epa.gov/tri. At first, the TRI was the world model for dissemination of right-to- know information. However, under pressure from industry, the US government rejected efforts to require reporting of toxic chemicals used in products, and is limiting information requirements only to emission and transfer data. As a result, few US companies have taken the initiative to include such information on their websites or to make it easily accessible.

Lead. CTBC estimates that there are over one billion pounds of lead contained in obsolete computers in the U.S. The effects of lead on human health have been well known. It was first banned from gasoline in the 1970s. Known health effects include damage to the central nervous system, slowed mental development in children, anemia, kidney and reproductive system damage. Many concerns now exist regarding the use of lead in circuit boards and cathode ray tubes (CRTs). During the past year, CRTs were banned from municipal landfills in California and Massachusetts because of their recognized hazardous nature.

Mercury. Mercury, which is used in flat panel displays, poses another serious hazard. Mercury can cause damage to various organs including the brain and kidneys as well as the fetus. Most importantly, the developing fetus is highly susceptible through maternal exposure to mercury. Forty-one states now have health advisories warning consumers (and, in particular, pregnant women and women of childbearing age) to limit or not eat freshwater fish due to high mercury levels. The Food & Drug Administration warns pregnant women not to eat certain marine fish and warns women of childbearing age and young children to limit consumption due to mercury levels in fish.

Brominated Flame Retardants. Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) are used in the plastic housings of electronic equipment and in circuit boards to prevent fires from spreading. There are four main types of BFRs: polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs), tetrabromobisphenol – A (TBBPA), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE), which make up a family of chemicals that have 209 members (3 of which have just been targeted for phase out by the European Parliament between the years of 2003 and 2006). Over 50% of BFR usage in the electronics industry consist of TBBPA; another 10% is PBDE and less than 1% is PBB.

Health concerns are growing regarding the use of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in computers and other electronic equipment. BFRs constitute roughly 25% of all flame retardants produced globally. BFRs are potential endocrine disruptors, persistent in the environment and store in the fat of animals and humans. An endocrine disruptor is defined as a chemical that causes a hormone imbalance by out-competing or mimicking the body’s natural hormones.

Many BFRs and PCBs are thyroid hormone "mimics". Studies have found that TBBPA -- a brominated flame retardant -- can out-compete thyroxine, a natural hormone, which is secreted by the thyroid. This hormone helps control metabolic processes and aids in normal physical development. The chemical mimic disrupts those natural processes. Specific effects of exposure to endocrine disruptors include decreased period of lactation, infertility and intellectual impairment in children.

Indoor air has been documented as an exposure route for flame retardants. According to several studies, both TBBPA and several forms of PBDEs were found in the air at several electronics recycling plants in Sweden. A 1995 study revealed that some of the TBBPA in circuit boards can leach out or be emitted into the surrounding environment. (For a more in-depth discussion see Just Say No to E-Waste at http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/pubs/sayno.htm.)

Polyvinyl Chloride. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) is a soft plastic used in cables and wires. As with many other chlorine containing compounds, dioxin can be formed when burned within a certain temperature range. Dioxin is a persistent, bioaccumulative compound that is considered among the most toxic substances and results from the waste incineration of PVC.

The results of the evaluation demonstrate that Japanese companies scored higher than their US counterparts, although the top score was again only 67% of the total 24 possible points. Most US companies scored below 21%. The one European company evaluated scored in the group of lowest scoring 10 companies with 13.2%.

Concern about specific hazardous materials goes further than information access, however. The use of lead, mercury and brominated flame retardants in computers and electronic equipment has been growing worldwide. In response, there is a international effort to phase out the use of some of the most toxic hazards currently used in finished electrical products as studies have documented the widespread release and impacts of these toxic materials on human health and the environment.

Yet many of the hazardous materials used in computers today have safer alternatives. The US needs to hold computer manufacturers accountable to the substances used in their products by requiring them to disclose information to the public and mandating phase-outs of the highly hazardous materials like lead and mercury. It is, therefore, important to document the progress--and lack of progress -- of each company.

Hazardous Materials Questions

1. How informative is information regarding chemicals used in the manufacturing process?
2. Is there any information about the current reduction/phase out of PVC?
3. Is there any information about the current reduction/phase out of lead?
4. Is there any information about the current reduction/phase out of mercury?
5. Is there any information about the current reduction/phase out of halogenated (including brominated) flame-retardants?
6. How are toxic material phase-out goals stated?

The aim of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is to encourage producers to prevent pollution and reduce resource and energy use in each stage of the product lifecycle through changes in product Design and process technology. In its widest sense, EPR calls on the producer to bear responsibility for the lifecycle environmental and health impacts of their products. The lifecycle of a product includes raw material selections, production processes, use and then final disposal of the product. Specifically, product take-back needs to go hand-in-hand with mandatory phase-outs of e-toxics and Design for the environment changes to foster reuse and recycling. The ideal example of EPR is where a producer takes back a product at the end of its useful life (i.e., when discarded) either directly or through a third party and assumes responsibility for the environmentally preferable recycling, proper management or disposal of that product.

The European Union (EU) recognized the need to incorporate EPR into its policies dealing with electronic waste. In so doing, the EU adopted the Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (the WEEE) and Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (ROHS) directives. Many companies stated in their environmental reports that they comply with take-back legislation, but are not likely to provide this service if not required by law.

All companies, including those from the U.S., selling computers in Germany must establish take-back programs for their products. Each Sony monitor sold in Germany has a sticker, which Designates its return, free of charge, at one of 800 countrywide recycling sites. Apple Computer, IBM and Sony provide take-back programs only when required by law. IBM provides take-back programs for free in Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Taiwan and Sweden.

After last years’ Report Card was released two major US companies -- IBM and Hewlett-Packard -- began take-back programs in the US that were aimed at individual customers. As discussed previously, these programs are only available if a consumer is willing to pay $30 at the time of drop-off.

Several Japanese companies -- Sony, Panasonic and Sharp -- organized pilot projects in Minnesota and elsewhere in conjunction with Waste Management Inc.’s Asset Recovery Group and utilized their drop off site. For 3 hours on specific Saturday mornings customers were able to bring Sony, Panasonic, and Sharp-labeled equipment to the site, free of charge. At all other times and for other brands, a charge is applied. These programs are small steps in the direction of producer responsibility--but the US still has a long way to go. Moreover, the ultimate disposition methods and locations are unclear or unknown.

We selected our categories this year to evaluate the progress toward implementing the goals of these directives.

This category evaluates the degree that producer responsibility is practiced by US, Japanese, European, Taiwanese and Korean companies in the US.

Out of a possible score of 24, the highest score registered was 16 points or 66.7%. Half of the 10 top-scoring companies are based in the US and half in Japan. It should be noted that Apple and IBM make detailed technical specifications sheets available to their customers. These sheets include information on eco-labels and upgradeability of equipment; serve as models for other companies and as beneficial tools for customers to make informed purchasing decisions .

1. Has the company developed take-back goals and if so, how are they stated?
1. To what depth is the take-back program discussed on the company website for individual customers?
2. To what depth is the take-back program discussed for corporate customers?
3. How are upgrade capabilities for products described?
4. How does the company report whether their products qualify for any 3^rd party product eco-labels?
5. Are products Designed for recyclability and disassembly?

Worker health and safety is a critical area for evaluation of corporate responsibility. Workers involved in the production of semiconductor chips and other computer components (such as disk drives) are exposed to industrial solvents and a host of other highly toxic chemicals. As a result, workers at many high-tech plants are suffering from cancers, miscarriages, birth defects to their children, and a host of other health-related problems.

Communication of worker health and safety measures and statistics is equally important. Conventional company practice is to combine injury and illness statistics into one metric, making it difficult to get an accurate sense of the health and safety record of a particular company. It is, therefore, difficult to obtain information on acute injuries (e.g. slips, trips and falls), chronic injuries (e.g.: ergonomic), acute chemical exposures (e.g. short-term exposures as a result of a chemical accident) and chronic chemical exposures (e.g. illnesses due to long-term chemical exposure). We believe that this information should be reported separately in company environmental reports.

Most companies evaluated this year scored very poorly on this indicator. All Taiwanese, European and Korean companies with the exception of Samsung received 0 points in this category. Half of the US companies evaluated--Dell, e-Machines, Gateway, Micron, and Viewsonic-- provided no information on occupational health and safety and also received 0 points. Even the company with the highest score, IBM, received only 5 out of 12 points or 41.7%. It should be noted that IBM is currently in litigation with hundreds of its workers around the country who are suing IBM for chronic health problems allegedly caused by toxic exposure on the job. Clearly, all companies should act responsibly and make this information available to the public, without the need for litigation.

1. How is information regarding injuries and illnesses differentiated?
2. How does the company monitor and report illnesses in their workforce?
3. How does the company monitor and report injuries in their workforce?

Environmental and occupational health and safety information is only as good as the public’s access to that information. Without making the environmental information easily accessible and prominently displayed on the website, people may not know what is available. Some companies are beginning to offer environmentally preferable products, but all too often consumers are unaware of them.

Consumer education is a large part of closing the loop on corporate responsibility. Consumers would purchase more environmentally friendly products, including computers, if availability of such products were clearly communicated. For example: IBM has a computer that is made with recycled plastic and NEC uses a non- phosphorus and non-halogenated plastic with flame retardant properties called NuCycle in computer casings. Instead of being prominently displayed in an attention-grabbing place, it is barely noticeable on websites and in environmental reports.

Questions asked quantify the ease of access to the environmental information.

This was the only category in which several companies scored 100% (Phillips, Brother, Seiko Epson, Toshiba). This meant that there was an "environment" link on the homepage and this link led to all environmental information on the site. A majority of Japanese companies have an environment link from their homepage while a majority of US companies have their environmental information in the "about" link, where customers are less likely to look.

Of the 10 highest scoring companies, nine are Japanese. Many US companies scored in the 50^th percentile including: Apple, Hewlett-Packard and many smaller companies. Even though they provided some information, IBM and Dell were among the lowest scoring companies, due to highly scattered and hard to find information.

1. Is all environmental/health information located within one place on the website?
2. Is all environmental/health information made obvious from the homepage or the same webpages customers use for shopping?

This category is evaluated using different criteria than other categories.

Score 0: No information

Score 1: Information scattered in more than 3 places on the company website or takes more than 3 clicks To access environmental report

Score 2: Information scattered in 3 places on the company website or takes 3 clicks to access environmental report

Score 3: Information scattered in 2 places on the company website or takes 2 clicks to access environmental report

Score 4: Information all in one place on the company website or link to environmental report on homepage

The grades in this Report Card clearly illustrate that computer companies must show marked improvement in all four categories evaluated above if they are to achieve behavior that exemplifies a responsible and environmentally sustainable computer company. However, none of the surveyed companies earned more than 50% of the total possible points. While certain companies scored relatively higher in certain categories than in others, it is critical to maintain a holistic approach and require that companies excel in all areas.

Japanese companies scored the highest in providing information on the use of hazardous materials--information now required by law. They have also demonstrated leadership in developing green Design goals that include the elimination of lead solder and brominated flame retardants in plastics. Most Japanese companies have environmental information in report form that is easily accessible via a link on the homepage.

As discussed, European legislation is requiring companies to take-back products and phase out hazardous materials. However, the only European company that was evaluated in this year’s Report Card was not found to be a leader in the U.S.--even though it is in Europe. Likewise, U.S. companies do much better in their European practices than they do in the U.S. Clearly, companies need the incentives required by Extended Producer Responsibility mandates in order to achieve a higher standard of health, worker safety and environmental performance.

US companies are playing catch-up with their counterparts in Europe and Japan. Some companies (US and Japanese) operating in Europe have had take-back programs operating without charge to the consumer for many years. In the last few months, such programs have emerged in the US, but consumers are charged for participating in these recycling programs at the time of disposal, thereby discouraging participation.

California and Massachusetts have banned municipal landfilling of cathode ray tubes (CRTs), but there is a clear lack of leadership federally in this arena. The US government has not taken the initiative to develop health-protective legislation similar to that in Europe and Japan. The US appears only to be supporting voluntary take-back systems while Japan and Europe have mandated certain aspects of Extended Producer Responsibility.

Over the course of the year, there has been some noticeable improvement by companies operating in the US with respect to take-back. This improvement is seen as a result of increased state and local government interest, grassroots activism and increased scrutiny of the behavior and practices of electronics companies in providing environmental information on their websites. Increased and coordinated pressure by consumers, environmental and consumer organizations, state and local government officials, and legislators will help ensure that electronics companies assume the highest levels of producer responsibility.

Rampant consumerism is at the crux of many environmental problems -- from excessive resource use to the rapidly increasing amount of e-waste. These place additional burdens on the health and well-being of our communities and on our environment. Please think twice before purchasing that flashy new computer or electronics component. Balance the desire for a new tool with the actual need for one.

If you must purchase then consider the most environmentally sound option and track the record of the seller. Eco-labels are an efficient way for consumers to quickly evaluate which products are environmentally sound. The TCO Swedish eco-label is recognized worldwide for its sound criteria. Some, although not many, products sold in the US display the TCO label. Please purchase equipment displaying the TCO eco-label. The SVTC website has a listing of eco-labeled computer monitors and a list of references computer companies make regarding the Design of their own equipment. Utilizing purchasing power is one of the strongest tools for initiating change in corporate behavior. For additional information on this, please visit http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/greenDesign/index.html

Consumers can contact companies directly by sending a letter or electronic mail stating their dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. Examples of such letters and email addresses for many companies can be found at http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/4ht_letters.htm.

If you know of anyone who needs to dispose of old computer equipment after the holiday season, please encourage them to visit the directory on the National Recycling Center website, at http://www.nrc-recycle.org. To access this site, click on National Recycling Coalition link in the left frame, click on programs, click on Electronics Recycling Initiative, and then click on database of recyclers in the main window.

If you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, go to SVTC’s Computer Reuse and Recycling Maps of the San Francisco Bay Area to get a listing of options to get rid of used and outdated equipment. See www.svtc.org/cleancc/recycle/index.html for further information.

Finally, please consider signing onto the Electronics TakeBack Platform to show your support for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) at http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/e_platform.

Currently, many communities in Massachusetts and California are adopting local resolutions, which exemplify the values in the Electronics TakeBack Platform. Please, consider bringing this resolution forth in your local city for adoption. This resolution is another tool to promote a nationwide Take-back plan that does NOT push the cost of electronics recycling onto local governments and therefore taxpayers. A sample resolution can be found at http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/recycle/sfresolution.htm

For more information on how your state or community can be more involved in promoting EPR, consider contacting the following:

• On the West Coast, contact Mark Murray, Californians Against Waste, at 916.443.5422,
• On the East Coast, please contact John McNabb, Clean Water Fund, at 781.383.6202 and
• For those in the central part of the country, contact David Wood, GrassRoots Recycling Network, at 608.270.0940.

When writing letters and resolutions, please also consider the following:

• learn from your counterparts in Europe and Japan and pass laws to establish EPR and take-back programs,
• pass mandates to phase out the most toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals,
• require reporting of toxic chemical use as well as releases, and.
• take steps to improve occupational health reporting, especially for cancer, birth defects and other chronic diseases related to chemical exposures on the job.

In order to be viewed as proactive--and not left behind in the global marketplace--it is imperative that US companies adopt EPR into their code of everyday business practices. Such EPR practices include adopting: 1) financial or physical responsibility for take-back and recycling; 2) appropriate communication regarding amounts of toxic materials used, released to air, water and land and transferred to other facilities; and 3) effective communication about corporate responsibility information on your website

Take the initiative to be sure your product earns an ecolabel and let consumers know about ecolabeled products--as awareness grows, consumers will increasingly use eco-labels as easy guides to making sound purchases.

Major name brand manufacturers (OEMs) should include clear and concise disclosures about their suppliers and subcontractors (i.e. a list of all subcontractors in all including the percentage of business). Finally, all companies should:

• include clear and concise disclosures on the identity and amounts of chemicals used, released, treated and disposed (similar to the Japanese PRTR);
• include clear and concise disclosures on the processes in which chemicals are used;
• include clear and concise disclosures on all global company locations, and
• have an environmental report link on the homepage of their website.

Acknowledgements: Thanks to interns SVTC Interns Karin Olefsky, Kimmy Kim and Wendy Scheiter for many the hours spent and excellent work on the data collection team, SVTC Staff Olga Meydbray and Leslie Byster for fact checking and writing the report and CTBC Members Michael Bender, Alex McPherson, Ted Smith, Leslie Byster, David Wood and Eric Most for their editorial help.

Clean Computer Campaign.The Clean Computer Campaign, a program of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), is working to clean up the computer lifecycle by drawing attention to the hazards computer equipment poses to the consumer, community and workers involved in the manufacturing, use and disposal of obsolete computers. At the same time, the campaign promotes take-back and extended producer responsibility to help solve the problems of the ever-escalating mountain of 'end-of-life' electronic products. SVTC was formed in 1982, works to improve the environmental and occupational health and safety practices of the high-tech electronics industry while at the same time urging greater corporate and governmental responsibility and accountability.