In advance of the 2011 Consumer Electronics Show (CES), the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) has updated their sustainability progress report for about one percent of their 2,000 members with the highest global revenues since the first report in 2008. Given that the report is published to highlight the success stories within the industry they represent, it is no surprise that the report is dripping with good news and avoids the unflattering attributes that would have provided a more well-rounded perspective of sustainability initiatives within the consumer electronics sector.

In another blog post today, I said that Greenpeace’s Guide to Greener Electronics (corporate policies and practices focus) and periodic Green Electronics Survey (product specific focus) may have run their course because it appears that progress toward truly green electronics is not being made by some of the same companies, but compared to CEA’s assessment, I think the Greenpeace reports provide a more well-rounded perspective.

CEA and its members should be applauded for their efforts. The association and many of its members have received awards from third-party entities for their sustainability progress. In addition, the CES event last year diverted 68% of the solid waste generated (~372 tons) from landfill by recycling cardboard, paper, metals, wood, carpet padding and plastics generated during the “green” event and this year there will be a Sustainable Planet Tech Zone at the show. CEA is pushing for a nationwide, industry specific, e-cycling approach, which is targeted for rollout this year. Also, many of the best practices developed by CEA members are being shared and deployed in other companies. In 2009, the e-cycling efforts of members diverted an estimated 100,000 tons of electronic equipment that would have otherwise been buried. The report also highlights, in case study format, the accomplishments of about 20 companies covering all the major segments of a sustainable business (product and packaging design, sustainable transport and delivery, product and facility energy efficiency, e-cycling, social contributions and transparent reporting) and claims that “there are thousands of other leading examples across our industry and we applaud such efforts.”

So what’s missing? Consumer electronics companies must give an even higher priority to sustainable designs and reduce the emphasis on marketing that promotes consumption and discarding of perfectly good hardware (i.e., two year mobile phone contracts) that are replaced by electronic products with durable, repairable and upgradeable attributes valued by the customer.

E-cycling remains a critical issue, and CEA talks in general about guidelines, but stops short of advocating all members be certified to either R2 or e-Stewards. In addition, global supply chain management issues related to end-of-life electronics is a huge opportunity for CEA to lend their support to the U.S. ratification of the Basil Convention and its amendments.

In their report, CEA is emphasizing innovation and technology as the key to a sustainable future, but says nothing about the cultural changes in consumer consumption, extending product lifecycles or the declining availability of critical raw materials as limiters to the conventional business models of ever increasing sales and meeting quarterly analyst earnings expectations to preserve market capitalizations.

A Pike Research report soon to be released on the topic of Sustainable Electronics Design concludes that sustainability initiatives are concentrated in the largest of the Fortune 500 companies and the further away from the consumer electronics segments you get, sustainability efforts drop off significantly.

Greenpeace published two documents that are advocates for improved environmental performance of the consumer electronics industry while providing consumers with information related to the degree of “green” in a limited number of consumer electronics products. Their “Guide to Greener Electronics”, which evaluates corporate level policies and practices to 15 criteria began in August 2006 and has been updated quarterly. The Guide was last published in October 2010. Greenpeace’s “Green Electronics Survey” evaluates individual products in three key areas:

1. Removal of hazardous chemical substances

2. Power consumption during use

3. Manufacturing and product lifecycle analysis including raw materials extraction, end-of-life take-back / recycling, extended product lifecycles, recycled content etc.

The “Green Electronics Survey” was first published in March 2008, a second time in January 2009, and again today for the third time at CES in January 2011. The guide results for the three reports published in 2010 show that the average of 18 company scores is less than half the truly “green product” score.

The survey is based on voluntary participation by companies willing to submit their products for evaluation, but not every company invited to participate has agreed to do so. The number of non-participants has declined over the three-year history of the survey. This reveals both a weakness in the Greenpeace approach and a marketing opportunity for companies that participate when their product’s score is high. I believe the approach is weak because it captures only a very small fraction of the consumer electronics products available in the segment and says nothing about other electronic equipment segments. The real message from Greenpeace is “customer beware”: there are toxic and hazardous components in consumer electronics. Greenpeace would like to use that message as a way to influence consumer buying habits and encourage change in product design.

I applaud Greenpeace, as they have been successful over the last several years in prodding electronics companies to change some of their designs, reducing the number and quantity of toxic and hazardous chemicals, and improving energy efficiency of their products. However, most of the impetus to change is driven by company culture, compliance with the RoHS directive, Energy Star and other legislated mandates. This more global and increasing emphasis on operational sustainability captures the energy conservation and lifecycle elements contained in their survey. This is also where the marketing opportunity for companies that participate comes into play. The existing process allows the companies to “cherry pick” products they know will do well rather than Greenpeace selecting and evaluating products selected at random from retail outlets or websites based on features or price point.

In my opinion, both the survey and more detailed guide have run their course in their present form. Perhaps there is an opportunity to replicate the survey and guide processes for more detailed aspects of the electronic product lifecycle in areas like e-waste handling and more accurate reporting of recycled quantities. However, the likelihood of voluntary company participation would be diminished as there is no marketing value in these details. At the end of the day, the electronics sector is driven by consumption: the sale, not the lifecycle impact.