the
key examples are the Energy Star scheme and upgradability. If
organisations do not use these, where there is a clear
advantage for them, they will be unlikely to use other schemes
or standards.Computer Procurement Survey - Report
and the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply, January 2001
Contents
1.1 Information and communications technologies (ICTs) are at the heart of economic growth in the modern world. They enable us to process and exchange information in increasingly greater quantities, at higher speeds, with more detail and provide easier and wider access to information. There is a mass of analysis on how the benefits of ICTs can be captured for economic gain via e-business and e-commerce, and increasing attention to the social and economic impacts of the use of the technology. There has been less attention by users to the environmental impacts of the hardware they're using, particularly in its manufacture and disposal. They have accordingly not exercised any significant influence on manufacturers, and progress has tended to come from manufacturers' voluntary initiatives and through some regulatory and NGO pressure.
1.2 UK CEED has been investigating the dividends and liabilities for sustainable development from the use of ICTs (the software) since 1995, and this survey of corporate purchasing professionals is an extension of this work to production, use and disposal of the hardware. In product and service supply lines, corporate purchasers have tremendous influence. They usually operate with the balance of market power in their favour, enabling them to exert downward pressure on prices and production/delivery timescales and upward pressure on quality. There is therefore in principle no reason why the same cannot apply to pressure on environmental standards, although in practice lack of knowledge about the relevant standards and their accessibility is a major obstacle.
1.3 Accordingly this survey, undertaken with the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply (CIPS), sought to identify what buyers know about environmental standards for computer equipment, the environmental information flows to them and the criteria buyers attach to their computer procurement. The objectives were to
Environmental Issues
2.1 The three main environmental problems associated with computer equipment are energy consumption, the use of hazardous substances and the difficulty of recycling.
2.2 Energy This issue has received more attention than the others, mainly through widespread adoption of the Energy Star scheme operated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Products compliant with this scheme have a 'sleep mode', powering down below a maximum energy consumption level when not in use over a period. However, the specified energy consumption of compliant products can vary quite widely according to make and model, both in use and in sleep mode, and there are differences between models for the US and other markets. This means that purchasing choices which take account of energy consumption can yield environmental and economic gains.
2.3 Hazardous substances The main substances are lead, cadmium, mercury and brominated flame retardant compounds. Their uses and potential effects are briefly described below. A detailed table showing the materials used in desktop computers and their functions is at Annex 1.
2.4 Lead is mainly used in computers for:
2.5 Cadmium:
2.6 Mercury:
2.7 Brominated flame retardants:
2.8 Scientific evidence suggests that lead, cadmium and mercury do not have any known useful function in biological systems. Although the level of risk they and brominated compounds present in different situations is still in some cases subject to debate, they all variously accumulate in the body and environment and are toxic to life and to a number of systems in the human body. Human exposure is through some or all of water, soil and air, and pollution arises from mining, processing, production of consumer equipment and waste processing.
2.9 For those wanting more detailed information about hazardous substances, an extensive European Commission commentary on its proposals for the legislation described below is at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2000/en_500PC0347_02.pdf or in HTML at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/dat/2000/en_500PC0347_01.html. The UK government has some reservations on the Commission's position, and these can be found at http://www.dti.gov.uk/support/waste_electrical.pdf or in HTML at http://www.dti.gov.uk/support/summary.htm.
2.10 Difficulty of Recycling- Most computers are currently difficult to recycle on four counts:-
2.11 A recent report by the Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling put some figures (from 1998) on these issues. The industrial countries (and increasingly the industrialising south) are generating an increasing amount of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) waste. In 1998 the UK figure was 915,000 tonnes, of which IT equipment comprised 357,000 tonnes or 39%. 94,080 tonnes of IT and office EEE (about 26% of the 357,000 tonnes) went to recyclers.
2.12 About 40% of the material in IT equipment sent for recycling in 1998 was recovered. The only material recovered in large quantities was metal. This was mostly ferrous but also included amounts of non-ferrous and precious metals. An estimated 10% of all the EEE going to recyclers was refurbished for re-use. This was mostly IT and office equipment - PCs and photocopiers - nearly half of which were refurbished, with very little waste going to landfill sites. The rest was dismantled to recover material and components.
Pressures for Change
2.13 Two recent reports (Ethical Consumer magazine Buyers' Guide - Computers. Issue 65, June /July 2000 and Henderson Investors Socially Responsible Investment Team Internet Position Paper. June 2000), have shown that, in overall terms, the IT industry has had a poor record and preparedness to improve with respect to its environmental performance and its management of labour conditions, particularly for its many sub-contractors. At a recent seminar, a Sun Microsystems representative confirmed that these matters were rarely raised by their customers (Henderson Investors E-commerce Seminar, 12 July 2000).
2.14 The industry is gradually adapting to pressure to improve, although companies are anxious that competitiveness is not prejudiced and that unnecessary action is not forced upon it. On the whole they experience little pressure from customers on these issues.
Ecolabel Schemes
2.15 Pressure on the industry to improve performance comes from an array of ecolabelling schemes in Europe and the Far East. Common elements include standards for :
Recycled content
Responsibility for takeback
Reduced levels of toxic additives
Upgradability
Labelling/customer information.
2.16 The EU's PC Ecolabel scheme, agreed in February 1999, has provisions regarding energy saving, upgradability, take-back and recycling, user instructions and consumer information. There is a similar scheme for portables. The UK (DETR) is considering whether to introduce its own scheme, although the Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment (ACCPE) recommended in October 2000 that wider measures on product environmental credentials were needed instead, including leveraging the power of corporate purchasers. PC producers have not supported the Ecolabel scheme, with the exception of LG Electronics, which has the only product (a monitor) accredited to carry the label.
2.17 These schemes provide an opportunity for corporate PC purchasers to specify standards for suppliers and so to influence both the environmental and consumer communications practices of PC producers. Corporate buyers are potentially strong drivers of improvements. Within legal bounds they can influence standards directly by setting specifications or indirectly through the advice they give to corporate directors. E-tailing is tending to act as a force against such development, with a main attractant of lower prices. For example, Freemarkets.com runs live auctions for all kinds of contracts in which suppliers bid against each other; price is the overriding determinant of who wins. Conversely, greater information transparency brought about in some B2B transactions (the 'glass pipeline') may allow such issues to be given greater prominence.
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive
2.18 The EU Ecolabel scheme was first introduced in 1992 for all types of domestic appliance, including electronic ones. The PC criteria were agreed in February 1999, with a provision for revision every two years. The revision in early 2001 will have to take account of the WEEE Directives, now agreed within the Commission and being considered by the European Parliament (early 2001). The main Directive makes requirements regarding responsibility for collection of electronic and electrical equipment (EEE) at the end of its life, financing of collection, the facilities waste processors should have, the proportion of products which should be recovered from the waste stream and the proportion of new products which should contain reused or recycled components, materials and substances. The takeback provision from private households is limited to a target of 4kg per citizen per year of EEE, leaving significant amounts of material uncollected. The 'take-back' and 'recycled proportion of products' requirements have to be complied with by 2006. A second Directive contains provisions restricting the use of certain hazardous substances in EEE, although the deadline for national implementing legislation is June 2004 with the requirements not taking effect until 2008. A third Directive, still in an early draft stage, will deal with the design of computers to minimise environmental and health impacts.
2.19 Compliance with the Directives will be gradual and probably disputatious, and there is also scope for improvement beyond the Directives' requirements. As with Ecolabel schemes, there is an opportunity for buyers to catalyse and improve environmental performance.
3.1 A questionnaire approach was used to establish a baseline assessment of the environmental criteria used by organisations in purchasing computer equipment. The Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply (CIPS) was consulted on drafts. It was sent to 1,000 CIPS members. They were selected by first categorising the entire membership into the industry sectors in section 9 of the questionnaire, then selecting at random within each group up to a total proportionate to the number of the entire membership in that group.
3.2 A further 87 questionnaires were later sent to the "Environment/Health & Safety Manager" at a range of organisations, and 3 to specific organisations.
3.3 The sectors and the overall number and proportion of questionnaires sent to each were:-
|
|
|
|
|
Private sector - manufacturing |
|
|
|
Private sector - services |
|
|
|
Central government, including non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) |
|
|
|
NHS |
|
|
|
Local authority |
|
|
|
Other public sector (e.g. BBC, museums) |
|
|
|
NGO/not for-profit |
|
|
|
EU body |
|
|
|
UN body |
|
|
3.4 In total 45 completed questionnaires were returned, a 4.1% response. This is well below the usual response rates experienced by CIPS of 20-30%. Although it is a reasonable rate for a survey of this kind, the actual number of responses means that the results should be interpreted as more indicative than conclusive. A quantitative analysis of the responses is attached at Annex 2.
4.1 The low response rate to the survey, particularly when compared with the usual CIPS figure, either indicates that the environmental impact of computers is not a high priority for corporate buyers compared to other issues they are surveyed on, or is because an outside body was involved. It is reasonable to believe that the low rate is due to both causes. Follow-up to the survey may reveal if procurement managers and buyers themselves do not consider the issues to be greatly significant, or whether they are not given much of a steer by their organisations about computers or environmental criteria in general.
4.2 Environmental standards schemes Question 1 asked about the use of environmental standards schemes in buying decisions. Awareness of schemes is nearly 1 in 4 on average (using all responses for question 1), with the DETR Guide, Energy Star and Swedish TCO95 schemes being the most well known. There is very little use of any scheme as guidance or to specify standards. A few organisations assess suppliers' own standards themselves.
4.3 Cross analysis of Q1 responses shows that
4.4 The low use of the Energy Star scheme is surprising since organisations have a direct financial interest in achieving the lowest energy use commensurate with their computing needs, and most manufacturers follow the scheme to differing levels. Buyers may be assuming that all machines have energy saving features or that those with an Energy Star label all meet the same standard. This is not the case: there are widely differing energy thresholds under the Energy Star scheme depending on the configuration of the machine. Extensive tables can be found at www.epa.gov.
4.5 Environmental issues Question 2 obtained a more detailed picture of whether/how specific environmental issues were used by buyers.
Energy consumption It is surprising that only about a third of respondents (14) received information about energy consumption, less than a quarter (10) without requesting, although this might be information known by the IT manager but not communicated to the buyer. Over half (6) of those requesting information (10) didn't receive it. None of the organisations which use Energy Star as guidance (4, from Question 1) or to specify standards (5) discuss energy consumption with suppliers, while about a third (7) of those aware of Energy Star (from Question 1) discuss energy consumption with suppliers.
Levels/presence of hazardous materials Few organisations address this issue in computer buying, although there is a core group (3-6 respondents) which does, indicating there is a foundation of awareness and engagement which could be built upon. The flow of information from suppliers is very low, and only 1 organisation both requested and received information.
Takeback and recyclability It is encouraging that only 1 of the 6 organisations which discusses takeback with suppliers disposes of their computer equipment in the general waste stream (Question 6), but disconcerting that 3 of the 8 which discuss recyclability with suppliers dispose of in the general waste stream. There is a fairly low level of requesting and receiving information on these issues, indicating the work which will need to be done in raising awareness as the WEEE Directives are implemented.
Proportion of recycled materials There is little interest in this issue.
Upgradability This issue is of direct functional and economic interest to organisations, as well as having environmental implications, so it is not surprising that more buyers take an active interest. 30 organisations discuss with suppliers or request information, and another 4 do both (34 is 75.6% of respondents). This level of engagement is good for both organisations' bottom line and operational performance and reduces the environmental burden of discarded machines. However, 19 (42.2%) do not discuss upgradability with suppliers or specify standards. Taken together, these results suggest that there are environmental gains to be had where environmentally better features can be linked to functionally attractive features of a product, because these will be chosen, as it were, by default. This is probably more effective than expecting organisations to specify environmental standards on their own merits.
Provision of customer information In line with the overall trend of responses, there is little concern about the amount and quality of information provided by suppliers.
Environmental management systems The same is true for whether suppliers/manufacturers operate under an EMS, although there is a significant minority (8) which discusses the matter with suppliers.
4.6 Question 3 sought to obtain buyers' perceptions about their access to environmental information about computers. Over half of respondents consider it difficult, while 1 in 6 find it easy. It would be valuable to determine why it is apparently easy in some cases and identify any good practice.
4.7 Question 4 looked at the potential for following up the survey with information tailored to corporate buyers. In all 31 respondents are potentially interested in this, indicating a large audience for information in the professional procurement community.
4.8 Environmental management Question 5 sought to profile respondents in terms of their application of environmental management systems. Cross analysis with the responses to whether important environmental standards and issues are discussed with suppliers (questions 1 and 2) showed a tendency for buying organisations accredited to or following the principles of an EMS to discuss issues with suppliers, although with small datasets this could not be deemed statistically strong evidence.
4.9 Obsolete computers Question 6 was a simple categorisation of computer disposal streams, inviting respondents to put themselves into a category. Nearly half disposed of equipment in general waste, indicating scope for improvement, although this figure is better than the UK average of about 74% reported by ICER (see paragraph 2.10 above). Analysing the 18 organisations which send their computers to a refurbishment or recycling company, there is a small trend for these to be medium or larger organisations in terms of staff or number of computers, with the reverse trend applying somewhat more strongly for the 20 organisations which dispose of in general waste. This confirms that smaller organisations have the greatest problems in dealing with waste computer equipment in an environmentally better way. Of the 20, half were manufacturers, while none of the 6 local authorities disposed of their computers in general waste. The EU Commission donates its computers to charity.
4.10 Labour/sub-contractor standards Question 7 widened the scope of the survey to cover an aspect of the third element of sustainable development, the social responsibility of manufacturers for the conditions at production facilities. The progress made on this issue in industries such as clothing and footwear is not reflected in the computer industry, and there is a concomitant lack of profile among over 90% of buyers. Report on follow-up work. There is considerable scope for more work here.
4.11 Additional comments The additional comments in Question 8 did not show any trend in thinking or concerns. One respondent said that there was some increased pressure from local authority buyers for supplies to adopt or follow environmental management systems, which is consistent with the indications in the responses to the question on disposal of obsolete computers and the relatively high response rate from local authorities that this sector is perhaps linking computer procurement and environmental criteria more than other sectors. Another respondent commented that their organisation was too large to have full visibility, which is a professional issue to provoke considerable discussion.
4.12 Organisation profile Cross analyses above have made use of this information, but the numbers of responses in each sector are too small for further examination, except for manufacturers.
5.1 The overall results provide indications that in their purchase of computers corporate procurement departments
the
key examples are the Energy Star scheme and upgradability. If
organisations do not use these, where there is a clear
advantage for them, they will be unlikely to use other schemes
or standards.5.2 The results also indicate that
5.3 The survey results provide a strong indication that many opportunities to use market pressure to improve standards are being missed. The reasons probably include a low priority being attached to computer environmental standards by purchasing organisations and a lack of information available in the right form to purchasing professionals.
5.4 It may be that environmental information and responsibility for action generally reside with IT managers. If so, if environmental issues are to be seriously addressed, buyers need more advice from IT managers, or more of a mandate and direct responsibility, in the same way as they have to achieve certain levels of product quality.
5.5 It is unlikely that manufacturers will seek to adopt the EU ecolabels for their products, or that more than the few using other ecolabel schemes will by joined by a host of other manufacturers. Nevertheless, the issues remain important from a sustainable development perspective and will continue to grow in profile as computer devices proliferate in number and variety. Whilst regulatory pressures in Europe will increase, this will be a slow process and is not being matched by pressures in markets elsewhere.
5.6 In a fiercely competitive market there is scope for a multi-way approach to the problem, through
Buyers - procurement standards
Legislators - regulations and enforcement
NGOs - moral and business arguments.
Market pressure applied by corporate end users, through obtaining information and picking the environmental and quality best products is a 'natural selection' process which refines standards to a 'purer' or higher level. As noted earlier, this approach has been supported by the independent Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment, set up by the government to advise civil servants and ministers.
5.7 To make the market pressure dynamic work it is essential that corporate procurement and IT directors are briefed on the environmental issues and the opportunities they have to incorporate environmental considerations into policies without compromising performance and, in many cases, cost criteria. Purchasing and IT professionals at the next level in the corporate hierarchy need specific information on manufacturers' approaches to environmental standards and which machines are better in this respect than others.
5.8 UK CEED and the CIPS will therefore work together with other appropriately skilled organisations to develop resources to assist purchasing professionals and organisations. These could include
5.9 We will also discuss with publishers of product quality guides for corporate purchasers and B2B websites how they could make environmental information about computers more available to buyers, for example by entering into partnerships with suppliers of such information.
© UK CEED and CIPS, 2000
Thanks to Linda Dolby for her database skills and to Carolyn Munton, Mark Henderson and Andrea Martin at CIPS for their assistance.
|
Based on a typical desktop computer, weighing ~60 lbs. Multiply by 2.2 for kg. |
|||
|
Table presented in: Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC). 1996. Electronics Industry Environmental Roadmap. Austin, TX: MCC. |
|||
|
|
(% of total weight) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Includes organics, oxides other than silica |
|
|
|
|
Metal joining, radiation shield/CRT, PWB |
|
|
|
|
Structural, conductivity/housing, CRT, PWB, connectors |
|
|
|
|
Semiconductor/PWB |
|
|
|
|
Semiconductor/PWB |
|
|
|
|
Structural magnetivity/(steel) housing, CRT, PWB |
|
|
|
|
Metal joining/PWB, CRT |
|
|
|
|
Conductivity/CRT, PWB, connectors |
|
|
|
|
In vacuum tube/CRT |
|
|
|
|
Structural, agnetivity/(steel) housing, CRT, PWB |
|
|
|
|
Battery, phosphor emitter/PWB, CRT |
|
|
|
|
Capacitors/PWB, power supply |
|
|
|
|
Transistor, rectifiers/PWB |
|
|
|
|
Red phosphor emitter/CRT |
|
|
|
|
Green phosphor activator, dopant/CRT, PWB |
|
|
|
|
Thermal conductivity/PWB, connectors |
|
|
|
|
Connectivity, conductivity/PWB, connectors |
|
|
|
|
Phosphor activator/PWB |
|
|
|
|
Pigment, alloying agent/(aluminum) housing |
|
|
|
|
Resistive circuit/PWB |
|
|
|
|
Structural, magnetivity/(steel) housing, CRT, PWB |
|
|
|
|
Connectivity, conductivity/PWB, connectors |
|
|
|
|
Structural, magnetivity/(steel) housing, CRT, PWB |
|
|
|
|
Conductivity/PWB, connectors |
|
|
|
|
Diodes/housing, PWB, CRT |
|
|
|
|
Wetting agent in thick film/PWB |
|
|
|
|
Decorative, hardener/(steel) housing |
|
|
|
|
Battery, glu-green phosphor emitter/housing, PWB, CRT |
|
|
|
|
Rectifiers/PWB |
|
|
|
|
Welding allow/housing |
|
|
|
|
Red phosphor emitter/CRT |
|
|
|
|
Thick film conductor/PWB |
|
|
|
|
Thick film conductor/PWB |
|
|
|
|
Batteries, switches/housing, PWB |
|
|
|
|
Doping agents in transistors/PWB |
|
|
|
|
Glass, solid state devices/CRT,PWB |
Note: plastics contain polybrominated flame retardants, and hundreds of additives and stabilisers not listed separately.
This Annex reproduces the survey questionnaire and provides results for each question.
Thank you for taking part in this survey, which you should be able to complete in about 15 minutes. Respondents will be notified when the survey report is available on the CIPS and UK CEED websites. The results will assist us to identify areas where dialogue with IT equipment manufacturers and buyers could help in greening the IT supply chain.
The questions are relevant to leasing arrangements as well as purchase.
Environmental Standards Schemes
1. The following schemes and guidance documents set specific environmental standards for computers. Please tick those you are aware of and those which your organisation uses as guidance or to specify standards for its computers.
|
Aware of |
Organisation uses as guidance |
Organisation uses to specify standards |
||
|
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Guide for Choosing Environmentally Preferable IT Equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
Energy Star (US Environmental Protection Agency) |
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed WEEE Directives (Commission proposal, published June 2000) |
|
|
|
|
|
EU Ecolabel Award for Personal Computers (February 1999) |
|
|
|
|
|
EU Ecolabel Award for Portable Computers (October 1999) |
|
|
|
|
|
Blue Angel |
|
|
|
|
|
White Swan |
|
|
|
|
|
TCO 95 (Sweden) |
|
|
|
|
|
Others (for example, ecolabel schemes for computer equipment manufacturers in Korea, Taiwan and Thailand) Please specify: _______________ |
|
|
|
|
|
Assessment by your organisation of suppliers' independent environmental product standards |
|
|
|
|
Environmental Issues
2. The following are important environmental issues with respect to computers. Please indicate for each issue how your organisation engages with suppliers by ticking any box which applies.
|
Specifies standards different to those in schemes listed in Q1 |
Discusses with suppliers |
Requests information from suppliers |
Receives information from suppliers |
||
|
Energy consumption |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Levels/presence of heavy metals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Levels/presence of brominated flame retardants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Levels/presence of other halogenated materials |
|
|
|
|
|
|
End of use takeback |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recyclability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proportion of recycled materials used in equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upgradability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer information on the above issues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental management systems |
|
|
|
|
|
Please if possible enclose or email (p.sheppard@ukceed.org) a copy of any standards specified, or give a reference source for further information.
3. In broad terms how easy or difficult is it in your view for corporate purchasers to obtain environmental information about computers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Would your organisation be interested in discussing how it could improve the environmental credentials of its computer procurement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental Management
5. Please tick the boxes which apply to your organisation:-
|
|
|
||
|
ISO 14001 |
9 (20%) |
ISO 14001 |
10 (22.2%) |
|
EMAS |
0 |
EMAS |
2 (4.4%) |
|
Other - please specify: |
|
The Natural Step |
0 |
|
ISO9000 |
4 (20%) |
Other - please specify: |
|
|
Effsis, 3MMA, XLP |
1 (2.2%) |
"Early in conception of standard for the company" |
1 (2.2%) |
Obsolete Computers
6. What does your organisation do with its obsolete computers?
Returns to manufacturer------------------------------------------------------------1 (2.2%)
Sends to/collected by refurbishment/recycling company-----------------18 (40%)
Dealt with by external organisation ---------------------------------------------5 (11.1%)
(e.g. suppliers of, or consultants installing, new equipment)
Disposed of in general waste stream------------------------------------------20 (44.4%)
Donated to charity--------------------------------------------------------------------3 (6.7%)
Sold to staff-----------------------------------------------------------------------------2 (4.4%)
Disposed of by (Defence) Disposals Sales Agency-----------------------1 (2.2%)
Labour/Sub-Contractor Standards
7. Does your organisation require evidence that its computer manufacturers monitor labour standards (e.g. child labour, health & safety, wages, hours) at production facilities in certain parts of the world?
|
Yes |
Partly |
No |
|
1 (2.2%) |
2 (4.4%) |
41 (91.1%) |
If Yes or Partly please give brief details, or a reference for further information:-
"QA request written confirmation that the above conditions do not apply in the manufacture."
"All suppliers need to be approved before use."
Additional/Qualifying Comments
8. Please include here any comments on the issues addressed in the previous questions which will give a more detailed picture of your organisation's position (attach extra pages if necessary).
See below
9. Company/Organisation Profile
Size
|
Small (<50 staff) |
8 (17.8%) |
|
Medium (50-500 staff) |
19 (42.2%) |
|
Large (>500 staff) |
18 (40%) |
|
|
|
|
Number of personal computers/ network terminals |
|
|
<50 |
13 (28.9%) |
|
50-250 |
14 (31.1%) |
|
>250 |
17 (37.8%) |
Sector
|
Sector |
Total |
Number and proportion sent out |
Proportion of the questionnaires circulated to that sector |
Proportion of all responses |
|
Private sector-Manufacturing |
24 |
724 (66.4%) |
3.3% |
53.3% |
|
Private sector-Services |
5 |
163 (15%) |
3% |
11.1% |
|
Central Government (including NDPBs) |
3 |
62 (5.7%) |
4.8% |
6.7% |
|
NHS |
3 |
89 (8.2%) |
3.8% |
6.7% |
|
Local Authority |
6 |
46 (4.2%) |
13% |
13.3% |
|
Other public sector (e,g BBC, museums) |
4 (The 3 extra probably due to self-reclassification) |
1 |
|
8.9% |
|
NGO/Not-for-profit |
3 |
0 |
|
|
|
EU body |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
UN body |
0 |
1 |
|
|
Contact name: __________________________________
Phone: __________________________________
Email : __________________________________
CIPS and UK CEED will not pass on contact details to other parties but may wish to contact you in the course of analysing returns. Please tick the box if would not wish to be contacted.
Many thanks for taking part in this survey. Please return the questionnaire, along with any enclosures, in the pre-paid envelope to Phil Sheppard at UK CEED (3-7 Priestgate, Peterborough PE1 1JN in case the envelope is mislaid). If it's easier to fax or email, use 01733 312782 or p.sheppard@ukceed.org.
1. We subcontract out all out IT requirements to EDS who supply, maintain and dispose of all out IT. Therefore I probably cannot comment properly on your survey.
2. Over the last few months some of our local authorities have begun to ask us to address EMAS and ISO 14001. They were both part of the award criteria in our last ITT but not mandatory. However, they will be of greater importance in the next ITT.
3. Due to most PCs being manufactured in Taiwan, we discuss these issues at the time of awarding contracts
4. We seldom buy computer equipment and would therefore rely heavily on the manufacturers to be addressing environmental issues. We rarely dispose of equipment but when we do, we tend to scrap them - as we gain ISO14001 accreditation,
5. Our company has a proactive environmental management system - with corporate governance where required. Computer use is not one of the most significant environmental aspects.
6. Tend to purchase to standards specified in NHS contracts.
7. We don't seem to have a policy on this one.
8. We set standards for computer equipment from tier 1 suppliers only. As part of that initial selection process we have checked (to some degree) their awareness and position on green issues such as power consumption & recyclability.
9. Too large an organisation to have full visibility.