UNICE / UEAPME Ecolabel Information Day Eco-Labelling: Chances, Limitations and Alternatives Silvio.Weeren@de.IBM.com
World Wide Eco Label w/o EU Environmental Choice Canada Nordic Swan Iceland Croatia China Certification Committee for Environmental Labelling Products (CCEL) Green Seal USA Eco Mark Japan Israel India Korea Brasil Green Mark Taiwan (C) IBM Deutschland GmbH Indonesia Thai Green Label
Eco Label in Europe (C) IBM Deutschland GmbH
Overview ICT+CE Eco Labels Flood of eco labels - WWW / EU / national / privat BUT: worldwide product developement Need for HARMONISATION Newest: Blue Angel for mobil phones 0206 Market relevance in EU (very general): lower on consumers, higher on GPP only few producers / few products
Benefits and Chances Interaction with Design for Environment (DfE) many (large) companies (global players) partly (far) ahead of eco labels / legislation eco label limited to some product attributes and not focused on usage of products or solutions general environmental protection not covered e.g. ISO 14001 / EMAS certification Green (Public) Procurement may be efficient Consolidated criteria catalog for product groups Harmonized in EU (or worldwide) Improved market demand for green products
IBM Climate Protection Program IBM worldwide leadership Benefits for environment and IBM WWF climate savers program 4% target for annual CO2 emission reduction through new energy saving projects each year 7 IBM CO2 Reduction IBM-WWF Reduction Plan 6 5 4 3 2 1 % CO2 Reduction Rate 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 0
Experience EU Ecolabel Concentration on major impacts factors "Harmonisation" supported by industry Revision 2001 for PC / notebooks (initial 1999) good cooperation: Nicola Breier / Jim Poll concern: political vs technical requirements e.g. noise, mercury content, EM emissions Current version practically unusable (EM) Industry acceptance low (one application) low public awareness -> low sales benefit unpractical reqs, costs (vs. margin dealers) Market relevance: very low but increasing (GPP)
Experience Blue Angel Eco label pioneer (25th anniv. in 2003) 87 product groups (21 without applications) simple products vs complex products active companies: PC 7 / notebook 1 New mobil phone label political label, weak tech. reqs (SAR) Technical expertise partly very different - balance with other reqs (economics/safety) Unwillingness to delete / change old criteria
Privat Labels (TCO, GEEA, TÜV,...) Competition of eco labels increase reqs without harmonisation Partly weak cooperation with industry partly no good scientific arguments resistant against industry consulting partly no participation in standards work Business interests "sold" as customer interests / environmental benefits design of unique propriatary standards against industry tend to open/interoperable systems
"The most successful Eco Label" Energy Star in European program (2001) Widest participation worldwide Criteria continiously enhanced in early and fair cooperation with industry Low administration and application costs Draft proposal 2002: tough requirements! Number of Systems 150 100 50 0 A C P I S3 Energy Star for Computer 2001/04/01 CompFeb01.pdf 2000/07 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 W standby (equal or below) for EICTA
ACPI Powermanagement Advanced Configuration and Powermanagement Interface It works! 100 90 wake-up from off (S4) in 20 seconds Desktop ready to sleep (S3) in 10 sec from sleep (S3) in 12 sec Desktop ready Power Consumption (Watt) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 (C) IBM Deutschland GmbH 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Time (seconds) Typical PC Power Consumptions (e.g. IBM NetVista M41, 1.8GHz P4, 256MB, 40GB, Windows 2000) power supply 160W max power 129W normal power 62W idle power 46W standby (S2)= Video+HD off 36W sleep (S3) 3-4W off (S4) 2-3W
Alternatives Industry Supplier Declarations mandatory for CE marking (safety, EMC) provide not b/w on limited attributes but detailed information with complete scope ECMA TR/70 (example IBM T22) NITO/SITO - for the Nordics Green Procurement Guidelines e.g. BITKOM: complete and updated to avoid reference to outdated standards, unreasonable reqs, labelling costs for customers
Green Policy Aspects Pro-active vs conservative behaviours ICT cooperation punished by legislation? EU: RoHS, EEE, EER, Labeling directive Life cycle knowledge vs. env. dogmatism Nordic Swan: no mercury in notebooks -> overall negative effect on the environment Trustworthyness of industry claims 3% vs 35% for independant orgs (e.g. Stiftung Warentest / eco test magazine) different in institutional vs consumer market
Conclusions Less Theory - Better Practices e.g. no Typ III eco labels (life cycle based) e.g. EMS in administrations (incl. GPP) Customer / user involvement is the KEY mind the driving forces (market, policy, legislation) eco label itself does not create new sales enhance awareness e.g. Energy Star Campaigns improve education provide information on environmental attributes Be the change you want to see in the world -- Mahatma Gandhi