Green Electronics Council
Registry Services Department

Outcomes Report

P41Issue 1 Rev 0

Green Electronics Council
227 SW Pine Street, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • V: (503) 279-9382 • F: (503) 279-9381 • www.epeat.net

OUTCOMES REPORTEPEAT VERIFICATION ROUND TV-2017-01
1. Overview of Verification RoundThis report provides detailed results of Verification Round TV-2017-01. Six total investigations werecompleted during this round on criteria which had not been previously verified. Each criterion wasinvestigated at Level 1. Products were selected from a list of all active products on the registry, and all
manufacturers and geographies were eligible for inclusion. The criteria investigated were:
4.2.1.2: Optional- Minimum 5% to 10% of postconsumer recycled plastic
4.3.4.1: Required- Minimum reusable/recyclable rate based on EU WEEE directive
4.4.1.1: Required- Upgradable firmware
4.5.2.2: Optional- Low standby power
4.7.2.1: Required- Public disclosure of key environmental aspects
4.8.3.1: Required- Recovered content in select fiber-based packaging materials

2. Summary of Outcomes
Highlights from this Verification Round: 6 investigations completed
 3 decisions of Conformance 3 decisions of Non-Conformance

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round TV-2017-01

Page 1October 2017

Figure 1. Overall Conformance Status for TV-2017-01 (as apercentage of total investigations)

50%

50%

Conformance
Nonconformance

Figure 2. Reasons for Nonconformances
3.5
31

2.5
2

Demonstrated
nonconformance
Insufficient documentation toprove conformance1

1.5

No documentation provided

11

0.5

0Figure 3. Corrective Actions TakenCriterion undeclared byManufacturer
111Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round TV-2017-01

Product archived by
Manufacturer
Manufacturer provided
evidence of changes maderesulting in Conformance

Page 2October 2017

3. Key Lessons
Criterion 4.7.2.1- Public disclosure of key environmental aspects
Criterion 4.7.2.1 requires public disclosure related to GHG emissions, water, waste and toxics. The
manufacturer’s public disclosure must address each requirement listed in the criterion and besupported by evidence demonstrating performance against goals, targets and objectives. This
information need not be found in the same place but must be publically available.

4. General Message to Manufacturers
Products “Active” on the EPEAT Registry: All Active products on the EPEAT Registry are subject toVerification. When products reach their end of life, Manufacturers should remove the products fromthe EPEAT Registry. If a product which is Active on the EPEAT Registry has reached end of life and aManufacturer cannot obtain required evidence for verification due to the age of the product, it
would still be considered a Non-Conformance.
Understanding documentation requirements for Verification Rounds:EPEAT has pre-recorded training modules for every criterion in the 1680.3 standard. To gain accessto these modules, log in to EPEAT.net and go to the “My Account” page. From here click on “KeyDocuments”. There you will find a link to “EPEAT Criteria Training Videos”. These modules aredesigned to de-mystify the standard’s requirements, and to illustrate the types of informationneeded during a Verification Round. Manufacturers are encouraged to access these modules.
Initial response to Auditors:
When contacted regarding participation in a Verification Round, Manufacturers should respond tothe Auditor as soon as possible to let them know they are communicating with the correct person orto inform them of the correct contact. This also helps the Auditor know that the e-mail address isvalid.
Conformance of products that may share similar traits and/or supply chains:
If a Non-Conformance is found for a particular criterion and product, Manufacturers should beprepared to determine if other products on the EPEAT Registry are similarly impacted due to use ofsimilar materials and/or supply chains, and develop corrective action plans to address the future
conformance of these other products.

5. Looking Forward
Plans for Future Verification Activities:
There is one verification round planned for Televisions in 2018.
Conformity Packets:
This and all future Verification Rounds have and will be conducted according to the guidance
provided in the Conformity Packets posted on www.epeat.net.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round TV-2017-01

Page 3October 2017

6. Investigations Table

TABLE 1: Specific Non-Conformance Findings and Corrective Action Taken
Participating
Manufacturer

ProductCountry

Product Type

Criterion

Requiredor Optional

Samsung
Electronics

UN40H5203AF

UnitedStatesTV

4.2.1.2

Optional

Samsung
Electronics

HG55NE890UF

UnitedStatesTV

4.3.4.1

RequiredLG Electronics Inc.

43LX560H

UnitedStatesTV

4.7.2.1

Required

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round TV-2017-01

Criterion Description

NC Finding Description

Corrective Action Taken

Minimum 5% to 10% of
postconsumer recycledplastic

No documentation
providedCriterion undeclared by
Manufacturer

Minimum
reusable/recyclable rate
based on EU WEEE
directive

Insufficient
documentation to prove
conformance

Product archived byManufacturer

Public disclosure of key
environmental aspects

Demonstrated nonconformance

Manufacturer provided
evidence of changes
made resulting inconformance

Page 4
October 2017

7. BackgroundTo assure the credibility of the EPEAT Registry, verification of the claims by Participating
Manufacturers are rigorous, independent and transparent. Verification is conducted according topolicies and procedures described in documents provided on www.epeat.net. Manufacturers are
given no forewarning that their products will be verified, and verification is performed based on thedeclarations as they are in the Registry at the time the Verification Round begins.
Investigations are performed by expert technical contractors called Auditors working for aConformity Assurance Body approved by the Green Electronics Council (GEC). Auditors are free ofconflicts of interest, and their recommended decisions are reviewed and finalized by a four-person
panel of independent technical experts (called the Conformity Decision Panel) who are also
contractors free of conflicts of interest. Decisions of conformity by the Conformity Decision Panelare made blind to the identity of the products and companies they are judging, based only on
evidence collected and analyzed by Auditors. A serious consequence of receiving a NonConformance is that it is published publicly in an Outcomes Report, for purchasers, competitors, andothers to see.
In a Level 0 investigation, an Auditor assesses Conformance to a criterion by examining publicly
available information only – no products are obtained for inspection or testing, and theManufacturer is not asked to submit documentation. If the publicly available information isinconclusive (i.e. was not available, could not be found from public sources, or did not provide
enough details to determine conformance), the Auditor may be instructed to proceed with a
Level 1 investigation.

In a Level 1 investigation, an Auditor assess Conformance to a criterion by examininginformation submitted by a Manufacturer. The Manufacturer is required to provide detailed andaccurate information in a timely manner.

In Level 2 investigations, the Conformity Assurance Body obtains a product without theManufacturer’s knowledge or involvement, and has the product disassembled and inspected toassess conformance with one or more criteria.

In Level 3 investigations, the Conformity Assurance Body obtains a product without the
Manufacturer’s knowledge or involvement, and has the product analytically tested to assess
conformance with one or more criteria.

Manufacturers must correct Non-Conformances, either by bringing the product into Conformance,by un-declaring the criterion until Conformance is achieved, or by removing the product from theRegistry. The Green Electronics Council also requires that Manufacturers examine other registeredproducts to determine if their declarations should be corrected as well. If a Manufacturer corrects
the Non-Conformance by un-declaring the criterion and the criterion is an optional criterion, theylose that point, and possibly the product drops a tier. If it is a required criterion, they must archive
the product. If it is a required corporate criterion, they must archive all of their registered products.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round TV-2017-01

Page 5October 2017