Global trade association criticises methodology in Greenpeace Electronics Guide

The guide rates consumer electronics companies against Greenpeace criteria on hazardous substances, recycling, energy use and climate change. But IPC is questioning the criteria by which Greenpeace continues to mark down leading consumer electronics manufacturers. In a statement, the trade association said: "Several computer manufacturers received lower scores for not aggressively removing brominated flame retardants (bfrs) from their products. The science does not support the need to phase out all BFRs. In fact, the World Health Organisation and the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks conducted separate, comprehensive scientific assessments of Tetrabromobisphenol-A (TBBPA), a widely used BFR, and both found TBBPA to be safe for human health and the environment." The organisation says it is also concerned about Greenpeace's methods in penalising companies for 'failing to openly support restrictions on ... brominated flame retardants (BFRs)'. "In fact," the statement continues, "Greenpeace provides specific wording it would like to see companies use in calling for an expansion of the RoHS Directive to include the ban of BFRs. Demonising certain substances without a scientific basis can lead industries to adopt substances that have a greater environmental impact or that cause resources to be inefficiently used. IPC calls on nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and regulators to adopt scientific principles in the evaluation and banning of any chemicals and substances."