EPEAT Program
Continuous Monitoring Outcomes Report
Mobile Phones
MP-2022-03
March 20, 2023

1.0 Background
EPEAT® is a comprehensive voluntary sustainability Type 1 ecolabel that helps purchasers identify sustainable
technology products and services. Central to EPEAT are conformity assurance activities that meet the technicalrigor and credibility needs of the institutional purchasers who rely upon EPEAT. The EPEAT Program ensures
the ongoing conformance of EPEAT-registered products through an ongoing surveillance process known asContinuous Monitoring. Continuous Monitoring activities occur throughout the year and test the ability ofParticipating Manufacturers to prove conformance with EPEAT Criteria on an ongoing basis.
Some Continuous Monitoring activities require that Investigations be conducted in discrete timeframes calledRounds. The EPEAT Program develops an individual plan for each Continuous Monitoring Round, which
specifies the EPEAT Criteria to be investigated, the method of investigation that GEC-approved Conformity
Assurance Bodies (CABs) must use and the specific dates when the Investigation activities must be completed.
The EPEAT Program also selects the Participating Manufacturers and EPEAT-registered products and assigns
Investigations to CABs, which must fully participate in and are responsible for implementing Continuous
Monitoring Round activities with their Participating Manufacturer clients. Participating Manufacturers are
required to cooperate fully with their GEC-approved CAB during Round activities.
To maintain the level of transparency relied on by purchasers, the EPEAT Program publishes an Outcomes
Report at the conclusion of each Round to summarize the activities conducted and to identify the products andParticipating Manufacturers that received nonconformances and the actions taken to restore accuracy of theEPEAT Registry.
This document summarizes the activities and results of Continuous Monitoring Round MP-2022-03 conducted
for the Mobile Phones category.

2.0 Overview of Continuous Monitoring Round MP-2022-03
2.1

Investigation Activities

As per the published Round Plan, Continuous Monitoring Round MP-2022-03 used Level 1 Investigations(documentation review activities to determine Participating Manufacturers’ conformance with specific EPEAT
Criteria). Participating Manufacturers had a discrete time period to provide their CABs with evidence
supporting conformance with the selected EPEAT Criteria. GEC-approved CABs reviewed the documentation,
made recommendations on conformity based solely on the evidence provided by Participating Manufacturers,
and sent Investigation Reports to the EPEAT Program. The EPEAT Program made the final decisions on
conformity for the Investigations.

Global Electronics Council

Outcomes Report – Level 1 Investigations (P41B Issue2 Rev2)

Page 1 of 6

MP-2022-03 Outcomes Report

2.2

March 20, 2023

Criteria InvestigatedBoth the products and Criteria for investigation in Continuous Monitoring Round MP-2022-03 were selected
randomly using a random number generator. Each Participating Manufacturer was assigned two investigations.
Table 1: Criteria Investigated in Round MP-2022-03
Criteria NumberCriterion Title

11.1.1Take-back program

11.8.1

Notification regarding and the identification of materials and components requiring selective treatment

12.6.1

Environmentally preferable paper/ paperboard in POS packaging

12.9.1

Improve packaging efficiency

13.1.1

Corporate sustainability (CS) reporting

15.1.1

Supplier responsibility

15.3.3

Participation in conflict mineral responsible sourcing program

3.0 Summary of Investigations and Final Decisions on Conformity for MP-2022-03
Highlights from this Continuous Monitoring Round are:•8 investigations completed•

8 decisions of Nonconformance

Further details provided in Section 4. All nonconformanceswere due to CAB inaction or delay not attributable to theParticipating Manufacturer.

100% of the final conformity decisions were nonconformances due to CAB failure to submit the Investigation
Report.

4.0 Further Details on Nonconformances for MP-2022-03
All nonconformances must be categorized as either a minor error, nonconformance, or nonconformance dueto CAB inaction or delay not attributable to the Participating Manufacturer. All nonconformances in this Roundwere due to CAB inaction or delay not attributable to the Participating Manufacturer.
Table 2 below provides a further breakdown of the nonconformances by Criterion.
Table 2: Breakdown of Nonconformances by Criterion for MP-2022-03
Criteria Number

Criterion Title

11.1.1

1

12.6.1Take-back program
Notification regarding and the identification of materials and components
requiring selective treatment
Environmentally preferable paper/ paperboard in POS packaging

12.9.1

Improve packaging efficiency

1

13.1.1

Corporate sustainability (CS) reporting

115.1.1

Supplier responsibility

2

15.3.3

Participation in conflict mineral responsible sourcing program

111.8.1

Global Electronics Council

Total NonconformancesOutcomes Report – Level 1 Investigations (P41B Issue2 Rev2)

1
1

Page 2 of 6

MP-2022-03 Outcomes Report

4.1

March 20, 2023

Minor Errors Versus Nonconformances

All nonconformances must be categorized as either a minor error, nonconformance, or nonconformance due
to CAB inaction or delay not attributable to the Participating Manufacturer. Minor errors are non-critical orclerical in nature and do not materially affect the validity of conformance with EPEAT Criteria. Allnonconformances that do not meet the definition of minor errors are categorized as nonconformances (unlessthey are due to CAB inaction or delay).
All nonconformances in Continuous Monitoring Round MP-2022-03 were nonconformances due to CAB
inaction or delay not attributable to the Participating Manufacturer.
4.2

Minor Errors

For Level 1 Investigations, nonconformances may be categorized as minor errors for the following reasons:•••Minor human error in data entry (e.g., value cited for EPEAT-product registration is insignificantly
above or below the actual value).
Minor administrative errors (e.g., broken URLs, reports/certificates marginally outdated).
No documentation provided by a Participating Manufacturer where the Participating Manufacturer
indicated the product has reached end-of-life and is no longer available on the market.

There were no minor errors found in Round MP-2022-03.
4.3

Nonconformances

All nonconformances in Continuous Monitoring Round MP-2022-03 were nonconformances due to CAB
inaction or delay not attributable to the Participating Manufacturer, because the CAB failed to submit theInvestigation Report.

5.0 Actions to Restore Conformance
Where the final conformity decision is nonconformance (including minor errors and those due to CAB inaction
or delay), Participating Manufacturers must make corrections to restore the accuracy of the EPEAT Registryduring the Corrective Action Phase. These activities may include providing additional evidence to demonstrate
conformance with the criterion or unselecting the criteria in the EPEAT Registry. Where the product was foundnonconformant and is no longer available in the marketplace, the product must be archived.
During the Corrective Action Phase, Participating Manufacturers must also develop Corrective Action Plans forother EPEAT-registered products that may be affected by the same underlying issue causing thenonconformance but were not the subject of investigation (called “similarly affected products”).
The following actions were taken to restore accuracy to the EPEAT Registry as a result of Continuous
Monitoring Round MP-2022-03:•8 investigations

CAB reviewed evidence originally submitted by Participating Manufacturers,
which demonstrated conformance

Table 3 in Section 7 identifies the Participating Manufacturers and products that received nonconformances inContinuous Monitoring Round MP-2022-03.

Global Electronics Council

Outcomes Report – Level 1 Investigations (P41B Issue2 Rev2)

Page 3 of 6

MP-2022-03 Outcomes Report

March 20, 2023

6.0 Key Findings
6.1

11.1.1 – Take Back Programs in Jurisdictions with Laws and/or Regulations

Participating Manufacturers are reminded that they must provide a take-back program for products declared
to conform. If demonstrating conformance using existing laws and/or regulations which establish a program
for the collection and recycling of products in a jurisdiction, and those existing laws and/or regulations do notcover the entire country/ Location of Use, (e.g., regulations only cover some states or provinces), then theParticipating Manufacturer must provide their own program in states or provinces not covered under existinglaws and/or regulations.
6.2

12.6.1 – Environmentally Preferable Virgin Fiber-Based in POS Packaging

If virgin fiber-based materials in the POS packaging contain certified sources of fiber-based materials, themanufacturer shall provide documentation to demonstrate that the chosen certification includes both chainof-custody certification and chain-of-custody documentation for the material.

Global Electronics Council

Outcomes Report – Level 1 Investigations (P41B Issue2 Rev2)

Page 4 of 6

MP-2022-03 Outcomes Report

March 20, 2023

7.0 Identification of Nonconformances and Corrections Made by Participating Manufacturers
In the interest of transparency, the EPEAT Program identifies the Participating Manufacturers and products that received nonconformances and the actions taken to restore accuracy of the EPEAT Registry.
Minor errors are generally clerical in nature and do not materially affect the validity of products in the EPEAT Registry. As such, these are not identified in the table below.

Table 3: Summary of Nonconformances and Corrections Made by Participating Manufacturers
Participating Manufacturer

ProductProduct TypeCountry

Criterion Number

Criterion Title

Required or Optional

Underlying Reason for Nonconformance

Corrective Action Taken

Apple IncApple iPhone 12

Mobile Phone

Canada12.9.1

Improve packaging
efficiency

Optional

CAB inaction or delay not attributableto Participating Manufacturer

Apple IncApple iPhone SE

Mobile Phone

United States

11.1.1Take-back program

Required

CAB inaction or delay not attributableto Participating Manufacturer

GoogleGoogle Pixel 4
XL

Mobile Phone

United States

12.6.1

Optional

CAB inaction or delay not attributableto Participating Manufacturer

GooglePixel 6

Mobile Phone

United States

15.1.1

Environmentally
preferable
paper/paperboard in POS
packaging
Supplier responsibility

CAB reviewed evidence originally submitted byParticipating Manufacturer which
demonstrated conformance
CAB reviewed evidence originally submitted byParticipating Manufacturer which
demonstrated conformance
CAB reviewed evidence originally submitted byParticipating Manufacturer which
demonstrated conformance

Optional

CAB inaction or delay not attributableto Participating Manufacturer

MicrosoftSurface Duo 2

Mobile Phone

United States

15.3.3

Optional

CAB inaction or delay not attributableto Participating Manufacturer

MicrosoftSurface Duo 2

Mobile Phone

United States

13.1.1

Participation in conflictmineral responsible
sourcing program
Corporate sustainability(CS) reporting

Required

CAB inaction or delay not attributableto Participating Manufacturer

Samsung

Galaxy A13 5G

Mobile Phone

United States

11.8.1Required

CAB inaction or delay not attributableto Participating Manufacturer

Samsung

Galaxy S20 5G /SM-G981V(Verizon)

Mobile Phone

United States

15.1.1

Notification regarding
and the identification ofmaterials andcomponents requiring
selective treatment
Supplier responsibility

Optional

CAB inaction or delay not attributableto Participating Manufacturer

Global Electronics Council

Outcomes Report – Level 1 Investigations (P41B Issue2 Rev2)

CAB reviewed evidence originally submitted byParticipating Manufacturer which
demonstrated conformance
CAB reviewed evidence originally submitted byParticipating Manufacturer which
demonstrated conformance
CAB reviewed evidence originally submitted byParticipating Manufacturer which
demonstrated conformance
CAB reviewed evidence originally submitted byParticipating Manufacturer which
demonstrated conformance

CAB reviewed evidence originally submitted byParticipating Manufacturer which
demonstrated conformance

Page 5 of 6

MP-2022-03 Outcomes Report

March 20, 2023

Document Control and Change History
Issue
1Revision
0Owner
EPEAT Conformity
Assurance Manager
EPEAT Conformity
Assurance Manager
Senior Manager,
Ecolabels andResources11202

1Senior Manager,
Ecolabels andResources

22Senior Manager,
Ecolabels andResources

Global Electronics Council

ApproverDirector, EPEAT
ProgramDirector, EPEAT
Program
Senior Director,
Ecolabels andManufacturerResources
Vice President,Ecolabels andManufacturer
Resources
Vice President,Ecolabels andManufacturer
Resources

Description
Initial release

Approval Date

Effective Date2018 Dec 112018 Dec 11

Reformatting of document. Addition ofstandardized text.

2021 Mar 25

2021 Mar 30

Updated terminology fornonconformances to include“nonconformances” and “minor errors”,
in alignment with revisions to P66.
Updated to reflect new nonconformance
category for CAB inaction or delay

2022 Sep 152022 Sep 30

2023 Mar 92022 Mar 13

Outcomes Report – Level 1 Investigations (P41B Issue2 Rev2)

Page 6 of 6