While both of these innovations are positive advances, BFRs are still used inside the machines.

Despite the improvements, it must also be noted that the information on BFRs can be misleading and the degree of phase out can be unclear. Moreover, while a number of companies have eliminated specific BFRs in anticipation of the EU's directive, most companies are not disclosing the chemical replacements. For example, Canon eliminated the use of PBB and PBDE in 1989, as have HP and Dell. Lexmark eliminated PBB and PBBO in some of their laser printers and circuit boards. They have not disclosed, however, the replacement chemicals, so it is impossible to know whether they are safer.

The CTBC believes differentiation MUST be made between acute injuries (slips and falls), chronic injuries (ergonomic), acute illness (short-term exposure from a chemical accident), and chronic illness (due to long-term chemical exposure).

Few companies mention cancer, reproductive problems, high rates of miscarriages and birth defects, which have been linked to industrial practices. Some companies whitewash health issues by highlighting employee benefits such as ergonomic measures and smoking cessation programs. This obscures the more serious issues of debilitating illnesses from chemical exposures.

Yet there is recognition that the health concerns deserve more attention. The Science Advisory Committee (SAC) submitted a report on the health of Silicon Valley workers in the semiconductor industry, to the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), the microchip industry's trade association. The SIA has withheld the findings and only released a generalized summary of the report. While the SAC's recommended an epidemiological study, the SIA responded with a proposal to conduct a study on the feasibility of doing the epidemiological study.

The Computer TakeBack Campaign believes that Dell's exceptional performance as a business should be matched by environmental leadership within the personal computer and consumer electronics industries. Dell has taken some steps to reduce its use of toxic and hazardous materials. However, in the U.S., Dell does not take back used computers from all consumers like it does in European countries - and soon will in Japan.

The Computer TakeBack Campaign believes that Dell's exceptional performance as a business should be matched by environmental leadership within the personal computer and consumer electronics industries.

Michael Dell's 1999 book Direct from Dell mentions the company's corporate takeback program for its largest customers such as Boeing. The company brags that it has received 2.2 million Dell and other brands' machines through this program, but never reveals how many machines have not been recovered. Between 1997 and 2001 Dell has sold 55 million computers -- so 2.2 million is a fraction of their overall sales. However, many other customers large and small have been left in the dark about the toxins inside computer equipment. They still lack convenient, sensible take back options for many individual and institutional buyers.

The Campaign is targeting Dell precisely because of the company's sales leadership and their unique direct sales model. No other PC manufacturer or brand owner knows every single one of its customers by name, e-mail address, mailing address, phone number, type of equipment owned, and date of purchase. Dell's assembly process bar codes every component of every piece of equipment they sell. Combined, their sales model and assembly process give the company everything it needs to develop and execute an effective take back system applicable to every customer.

Moreover, if Dell developed a take back reverse logistics system paired to its sales and delivery model (when you buy a new Dell, the box it comes in can be used to return to the old one - Easy as Dell!), it could virtually lock in customer loyalty and further grow market share.

Instead of moving strategically to build their business in this way, Dell has ginned up its public relations machine to paint a picture of environmental leadership. Dell has commenced a new program allowing consumers to ship back used equipment at the consumer's expense. Similar programs have failed to address the hundreds of millions of obsolete computers in the U.S. While IBM processes large customer returns from corporate purchases, its consumer-based program processed approximately 1000 computers in a year, about.03% of its annual sales.

The Campaign has met with Dell's managers on two occasions to discuss an effective e-waste policy. To our amazement, this results-driven company could not articulate for us the means by which the Company will evaluate the success or failure of their mail back and other product recovery programs. For instance, staff could not give us goals or timetables for the program.

Dell's public relations support for their consumer ship back program has failed to fully inform the public about important aspects of the program, including that much of the equipment mailed back is sent directly to federal prisons for processing by inmate labor under contract to UNICOR, otherwise known as Federal Prison Industries. (SeeChemical Engineering News, "Doing Hardware Time: Prisoners do much of the electronics recycling in the U.S. July 2002. See the web site http://pubs.acs.org/cen)

Prison laborers are not guaranteed the worker health and safety protections necessary to ensure their protection against the hazards of recycling e-waste. Furthermore, high tech chain gangs ultimately undermine a vital electronics recycling sector that provides decent wages and safe working conditions and that makes necessary technological advances. Dell started up their ship back program after IBM and HP acknowledged that their similar voluntary ship back program wasn't working. Dell says, "Our goal is recycling leadership in the U.S." ¹⁷ However, Dell's decision to be the first computer producer to rely on prison labor for their voluntary ship back program sets a new lower industry standard.

An effective computer take back program will probably include a fee on computers when they are sold, either built into the price or as a separate item. Because Dell's products are not sold in traditional retail outlets, Dell's signature Internet and phone sales strategy must be accounted for in any financing system for computer recycling and disposal. Even other computer companies are concerned about whether and how Dell would be included in any financing system. This is another reason why Dell's agreement to participate in an effective takeback program in the U.S. is critical.

When questioned about computer recycling at Dell's Annual Meeting in July 2002, Michael Dell stated that consumer demand for the service and all that was needed were more people who wanted to recycle. However, the company had already received hundreds of hand-written letters and many emails from consumers in favor of computer takeback. When pressed about his assertion that consumer research did not show a demand for recycling, Mr. Dell could not come up with any specifics about that research. When activists raised the point that Dell provided many European customers with takeback (as required by law), Dell erroneously state that the recycling rates in Europe were no better those of the United States. Norway has already met the takeback targets set by the European Union.

Just before this report went to press, the Computer Takeback Campaign learned that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would soon be unveiling a consumer education campaign on electronics recycling. We also learned that Dell was going to be a lead corporate partner of this public relations campaign. The EPA's program will do nothing to stem the tide of e-waste being exported or being dumped into the country's landfills or incinerators.

In 2002, Dell's President, Kevin Rollins, spoke about "The Soul of Dell." He described it as the company's "operating principles -- how we want to behave ethically, treat each other, our customers, our shareholders".¹⁸ In a later article, Rollins said that Dell had "to aspire to something higher than what's legal. Is what you're doing right? ¹⁹

The Computer TakeBack Campaign believes that the Dell position on e-waste is a stain on the Soul of Dell -- the company and its founder. Michael Dell and his wife Susan make generous donations to children's health and environmental charities in the U.S., but ignore the health and environmental impacts of e-waste on children and adults in China and other parts of the world. The company and its founder pride themselves on being direct. If a computer comes direct from Dell, the e-waste should go back direct to Dell.

For information on all of Dell's programs, as well as an analysis of Dell's communications to campaign supporters, check out Michael Dell: Toxic Dude

FINAL THOUGHTS

Misleading Information: As previously mentioned, numbers and percentages are often provided out of context. For example, we are told the percentage of recycled units, but not the total number the percentage represents. We may be told the number of units or the tonnage that was recycled during the previous year, but have no idea if these figures are laudable since we don't know how many similar products were sold or were in need of recycling. A company will also admit to using thousands of chemicals and then list only a few Pollution Release and Transfer Registry (PRTR) substances, leaving the consumer to wonder what the missing materials are. For instance, Canon, which produces one of the best reports, claims to use over 12,000 chemicals in manufacturing, but only lists 19 substances on their PRTR Balance Sheet for 2001. Many companies only list the PRTR substances, without indicating that there are others being used. While it may not be possible to include hundreds or thousands of chemicals in a report, a link to a listing, or information on the families of chemicals used, would be useful.

Companies also use terms that can be misleading. For instance, the phrases "chemical management" and "reductions in chemical emissions" do not mean "the phase out of those substances." The word "management" refers to monitoring the use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials. "Reducing emissions," while important, simply means that a smaller amount of toxics are being discharged or escaping into the environment. This does not mean that fewer toxins are contained in products or used in processes. Consequently, workers are still at risk handling them and end of life disposal of products can still threaten our communities. Obviously, if toxic chemicals are phased out, management and emissions reductions will become unnecessary.

Energy, Energy, Energy: Conserving the energy resources of the world is extremely important, and something that every company with an environmental report or section on their web site discusses. For that reason, Energy Star, an EPA Program, often dominates the discussion of eco-labels. Eco-labels are tools for informing consumers about the environmental attributes of their products. Energy Star, however, has become so widespread that lengthy discussion is not necessary. Instead, we would like to see more on those labels such as TCO, Nordic Swan, Blue Angel, or those that are company designed that indicate reductions in hazardous waste, recyclability, or recycling options, as well as energy saving features.Find out more information on eco-labels.

Often times, eco-label information is provided with the product's description, instead of in the environmental section. Wherever it appears, descriptions of the various traits a label covers are often given without indicating which of these qualities the product includes. For instance, Dell produces monitors that meet label certification standards for labels "such as Germany's Blue Angel and Sweden's TCO '95 and TCO '99 [which] focus on features such as recyclable design, energy efficiency, product take back, ergonomics, emissions, and avoidance of hazardous materials." (TC0 -95measures environmental qualities.) We are not told exactly which labels the products themselves have earned or which of the criteria the products met. A better presentation is Lucky Goldstar's comment that their N2200P monitor is TCO'99 low-emission compliant, as well as Energy Star labeled. Apple provides comprehensive product information on its web site including, in most cases, environmental attributes. While their explanation of TCO labels is general, they do say that they offer TCO computer displays that "comply with strict standards for low power consumption, low emissions, safety, ergonomics, and recycling." They then provide a link for a list of their TCO labeled products. These specifics offer the consumer more opportunity to choose environmentally sound products.

Internal Recycling: The scope of a company's environmental report should cover internal recycling. For instance, a company may focus on recycling office paper, cardboard, and wooden pallets -- commendable and appropriate environmental practices -- there is little discussion of what is done with machinery and toxins. In addition, while many companies report aspiring to, or actually realizing zero landfill of hazardous materials, they include incineration or discharge into air and water as factors in reaching such goals. Hiding these practices behind white paper and cardboard boxes is not appropriate.

Burning = Bad!: Finally, incineration is not recycling, something that the WEEE Directive makes very clear. Instead, it is burning, which produces high levels of deadly substances and toxic ash.Studies have shown that people living near incinerators suffer high rates of cancer and other life-threatening illnesses. A number of companies, especially the Asian producers, will include this under the recycling heading. For example, Samsung uses heat from waste incineration to "cut energy consumption." Hitachi actually promotes incineration under the heading "A Project Promoting Environmental Symbiosis" in which it uses shredder dust to produce heat and energy. The company claims that this converts industrial waste into harmless material, despite the fact that the very act of burning produces serious pollution.

Computer Ingredients: Despite PRTR information and discussion about lead, BFRs, PVCs, and other specific materials, computer products don't come with a complete list of the toxins they contain and the amounts. While companies like Apple include good product information, they fall short of answering this question. If other consumer products require labels of "ingredients" why can't computers, either on an actual label, in owner's manuals, or in the form of Material Safety Data Sheets such as are available for toner and ink products. Such listings should include both known and potentially hazardous materials, beyond PRTR reporting requirements. Posting this information on corporate web sites would also enable interested consumers to do product research before making a purchase.

Introduction       The Problem   Report Card Results   Seven Deadly Sins   Final Thoughts      Conclusions   Take Action   A Consumer's Guide

TAKE ACTION The Computer TakeBack Campaign is working to ensure greater Extended Producer Responsibility, reductions in hazardous materials used in electronics, worker safety, and more transparency about corporate policies. We need the help of all computer users to attain these goals. It's Time to Get Involved Here are just a few suggestions on what you can do: Use your purchasing power to send a message that only responsible companies deserve to earn your business. Choose products from those companies who score in the top 10 of our Report Card. Call, write, or e-mail the manufacturer of your computer, printer, monitor, etc. and ask them about the hazardous materials in their products and their takeback policies. Specifically ask if they use prison labor, send e-waste overseas, or are sure that any outside recyclers they contract with don't follow these practices. See Appendix D for web addresses. Support and become active in the in the CTBC. Sign up at the campaign web site to receive updates. A web site has been developed for campus activists. Support local organizations participating in the CTBC. See Appendix A for a list of participating organizations. Help introduce or support legislation or regulations that will build recycling infrastructure, ban landfilling and incineration of e-waste, build computer recycling infrastructure, outlaw export of e-waste, and require reductions in hazardous materials, especially lead, BFRs, and PVCs. Participate in our efforts to pressure companies through shareholder action. If you, your union, or employer own stock in computer companies, support resolutions filed by socially responsible investment firms. Specifically, become or identify shareholders, especially in Dell Computers, who will attend the Annual Meeting in the summer of 2003 or who will vote their shares in favor of CTBC goals. (People in most states can buy one share of Dell stock. Lobby your university, mutual fund or pension plan to support shareholder resolutions if they invest in computer producers. Get your company, university or organization to use their purchasing power to buy environmentally preferable equipment and to press for takeback programs. If you make IT purchases, or recommendations of purchases for a company, agency, or institution, demand takeback provisions in sales contracts. Encourage organizations to endorse and become active in the campaign.

A Consumer's Guide

Are you buying a computer this year? Do you wonder how you'll get rid of the old one? Wish you knew it wouldn't end up on a mountain of trash? Ever hope things might be different the next time you want to upgrade?

In 1999, the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition published its first Computer Report Card to help you figure out which computer companies were doing something about the environment, and which ones weren't. We graded them on the quality, quantity, and user-friendliness of information on their web sites about their environmental practices.

Since 2001, the Report Card gained more attention throught the emergence of the national Computer TakeBack Campaign, a collaboration with more than 20 groups across the United States. For the fourth year running, we're getting the word out about the efforts of 28 major companies, so you can tell at a glance which ones use the fewest toxic chemicals in production and are moving the fastest to make their gear recyclable.

The bad news is that there's still a long way to go before electronics are truly recyclable - especially in the U.S. Although computer recycling programs are growing, between 50 and 80 percent of the e-waste collected goes to developing countries, where it gets broken up and dumped, exposing workers and the environment to the toxic components. Few companies in the US have embraced producer responsibility by taking full financial and physical responsibility for their products throughout their life cycle, including end of life recycling, reuse, or disposal.

The good news is that in the four years since we started handing out grades, some companies have started listening to your concerns about tossing electronics in the landfill. They've have begun to set goals to make their products more eco-friendly by phasing out toxic chemicals and planning for new designs that will use fewer materials and come apart more easily for recycling. They also post information on the web about their environmental practices. The greatest movement in this area is in Japan and Europe where regulations on product takeback and phase out of hazardous substances have pushed companies to clean up their processes, protect workers, and take responsibility for the final disposal of their products.

If you want to see exactly what we did, read about our methodology. Check out the company web sites too.

Only one company, Fujitsu, recieved a 'passing' grade, and that's at 51.5%. Eight "need improvement", 3 are "poor", and 16 are "failing."

Company Grades

Fujitsu - Rank: 1 - PASSING

In 2002 Fujitsu led the computer industry in both environmental innovation and public disclosure. The environmental section on its web site is one of the most complete out there - so complete that our "extra credit" survey didn't turn up anything new.

On the manufacturing side, Fujitsu made strides by setting deadlines and goals for eliminating lead from its products. Those efforts built on its Advanced Printing Bump technology, which replaced lead solder with a solder paste in December 2001.

We suspect that the leadership of company president Naoyuki Akikusa has a lot to do with sending Fujitsu to the head of the class. Calling environmental preservation one of the "most pressing issues we all face as members of the human race," Akikusa moved environmental issues up the priority list from "countermeasures" to "strategies."