GEC Criteria
Development
Process

This document identifies the process followed by the Global Electronics Council (GEC) to develop
criteria, revise criteria, and evaluate criteria for use in its ecolabels, including the EPEAT Program.
GEC reviews GEC Criteria Development Process (P74) on an annual basis to determine if revisions are
required.
The latest revisions to this document were published on February 15, 2024. These revisions, unlessotherwise noted, are effective as of July 1, 2024.
Please direct any questions on this document to CRITERIA@GEC.org.

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

Contents
1.0

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2

2.0

Criteria Development Process ..................................................................................... 3
2.1.

State of Sustainability Research............................................................................................ 4

2.2.

Criteria .................................................................................................................................. 5
2.2.1. Criteria Drafting ........................................................................................................ 5
2.2.2. Selection of Verification Requirements .................................................................... 6
2.2.3. Required and Optional Criteria ................................................................................. 6

2.3.

Expert Ad Hoc Groups ........................................................................................................... 6
2.3.1. Expert Ad Hoc Group Membership ........................................................................... 7

2.4.

Full Draft Criteria Document ................................................................................................. 8

2.5.

Voluntary Consensus Process ............................................................................................... 8
2.5.1. Technical Committee Participation........................................................................... 9
2.5.1.1. Technical Committee Member ............................................................... 10
2.5.1.2. Technical Committee Observers ............................................................. 11
2.5.1.3. Invited Experts ........................................................................................ 11
2.5.2. Public Consultation ................................................................................................. 11
2.5.3. Editorial Review and Delivery to GEC ..................................................................... 11

2.6.

Criteria Revisions ................................................................................................................ 122.6.1. Full Criteria Revision ............................................................................................... 122.6.2. Limited Criteria Revision ......................................................................................... 13
2.6.3. Interim Corrections ................................................................................................. 14

2.7.

Complaints and Appeals ..................................................................................................... 15

2.8.

Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................................. 16

2.9.

Patent Policy ....................................................................................................................... 17

3.0

Use of Criteria by GEC................................................................................................ 17

4.0

Revisions and Effective Date ...................................................................................... 18

5.0

Supplementary Information ...................................................................................... 18
5.1.

References .......................................................................................................................... 18

5.2.

Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 18

5.3.

Document Change History .................................................................................................. 20

Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 1

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

1.0

Introduction

The Global Electronics Council® (GEC) is a mission driven non-profit working to create a moresustainable and just world. To achieve this goal, we focus on technology and supporting institutionalpurchasers in procuring only credible sustainable and circular technology products and services. GEC
owns and operates EPEAT®, a comprehensive voluntary sustainability ecolabel that helps purchasers
identify more sustainable and circular technology products and services. GEC ecolabel criteria address
priority impacts throughout the life cycle of the product, based on an evaluation of scientific researchand international best practices. Criteria are developed in balanced, voluntary consensus processes thatalign with and draw from the characteristics of voluntary consensus defined in:•

ISO 14024 Environmental labels and declarations – Type 1 environmental labelling – Principles
and procedures1, and•U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, OMB Circular A-119:
Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in
Conformity Assessment Activities2.

With its criteria development process, and specifically through the use of modular criteria, GEC
implements an efficient and scalable voluntary consensus process that encourages broad and balanced
stakeholder participation. GEC develops a Business Case to decide whether to launch a criteria
development process; the Business Case identifies the landscape of relevant technology providers,large-scale purchaser demand, and where criteria have the potential to reduce sustainability impacts.
The criteria development process, combined with routine maintenance of criteria, ensures thatpurchasers are able to procure technology products and services that respond to evolving science,leverage best practices and integrate a global perspective.
GEC Criteria are owned by GEC and, unless noted otherwise, their use is constrained to the tools andresources developed by GEC as part of its mission activities. GEC is interested in the harmonization ofenvironmental and social criteria with existing regulations and global standards, as well as otherecolabels and voluntary programs, and welcomes requests to collaborate. All GEC Criteria are publicly
available free of charge.

1
2

Available at: https://www.iso.org
Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/revised_circular_a-119_as_of_1_22.pdf

Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 2

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

2.0

Criteria Development Process

The key goals of GEC’s criteria development process, as illustrated in Figure 1, are:•

Criteria are science-based and address priority environmental and social impacts throughout
the life cycle of electronic products and services, and harmonized with international bestpractices and standards, where applicable.

•

Criteria developed with and adhering to the principles of transparency and voluntary
consensus, including a process that is open without discrimination to interested parties andrepresenting a balance of stakeholder interests.

•

Criteria are continually maintained to ensure relevance, credibility and reflect market
innovation in addressing sustainability impacts.
Figure 1: GEC Criteria Development Process

As shown in the process schematic in Figure 2, GEC performs preparatory work for criteria development,
including State of Sustainability Research and compiling existing criteria that address identified
sustainability impacts. GEC then brings together subject matter experts in Expert Ad Hoc Groups toprovide technical guidance in the drafting of criteria. Draft criteria are provided as a starting point for
the voluntary consensus process undertaken by the multi-stakeholder Technical Committee. GEC
partners with third-party Criteria Development Organizations to manage the Technical Committee andensure the objective adherence of the process to the principles of voluntary consensus.
Public consultation is actively sought and open to all stakeholders at two critical points in the criteria
development process: 1) on the issuance of the draft State of Sustainability Research; and 2) on the Full
Draft Criteria Document. These documents are initially available for public consultation for a period of
no less than 60 days. A second stakeholder comment period also occurs to solicit feedback on changes
made to the Full Draft Criteria Document by the Technical Committee after the initial public
Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 3

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

consultation. This second stakeholder comment period is open for no less than 30 days. GEC notifies
stakeholders of public consultation through GEC newsletters and specific announcements.
Each of the steps in the process are described in more detail below.
Figure 2: Steps in Criteria Development Process

2.1.

State of Sustainability Research

GEC publishes State of Sustainability Research as the initial step in the development and revision of
criteria. The research identifies science-based social and environmental impacts across the life cycle oftechnology products and services, and strategies to reduce the identified sustainability impacts. The
research also identifies best practices, existing regulations and existing voluntary leadership programs
designed to reduce sustainability impacts. The data and analyses in the State of Sustainability Research
serves as the foundation for the development and revision of criteria, as well as identification ofopportunities for harmonization. GEC may contract with third parties for research and data analysis
assistance during this step. At its discretion, GEC may also choose to contract with third parties for
preparation of the State of Sustainability Research.
GEC makes the draft State of Sustainability Research available for public consultation for a minimum of
60 days. In the public consultation process, GEC invites stakeholders to review the scientific evidence
presented in the State of Sustainability Research, identify gaps in the data, and share additional data andimpact mitigation strategies. GEC notifies stakeholders of the availability of State of Sustainability
Research for public consultation through GEC newsletters and announcements. All comments are
considered, and, if appropriate, the State of Sustainability Research modified. The final State of
Sustainability Research is published and made available on the GEC website. GEC also prepares a
stakeholder comment report that summarizes comments received and how the research was modified
in response. The stakeholder comment report includes a list of organizations who provided comments.
The stakeholder comment report is provided directly to all public commenters and is available tointerested stakeholders upon request.

Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 4

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

2.2.

Criteria

2.2.1.

Criteria Drafting

GEC Criteria are intended to meet the six Principles for GEC Criteria in Table 1.
Table 1: Principles for GEC Criteria
1.

Criteria address priority sustainability impacts throughout the life cycle of products and services, inclusiveof the supply chain.

2.

Criteria establish baseline leadership performance by specifying criteria that are required to be met, while
incentivizing continuous improvement and innovation through the use of optional criteria.

3.

Criteria represent leadership and current best practice for reducing identified sustainability impacts, withdue consideration of life-cycle trade-offs, and of the ability of the market to meet the criterion within areasonable timeframe.

4.

Criteria differentiate environmentally and socially preferable products from others in the market based on
measurable differences in impact, acknowledging that the ability to quantify the outcome may be limited
under some circumstances.

5.

Criteria align with international leadership best practices, whether regulations, standards or voluntary
programs and do not create obstacles to international trade.

6.

Criteria requirements can be independently verified through objective measures and commonly accepted
tools, methodologies, or standards.

Criteria are required to address sustainability impacts throughout the technology life cycle as identified
in the State of Sustainability Research. Typically, this includes impacts in the areas of climate change,sustainable use of resources, chemicals of concern and supply chain performance. Criteria may also
address impacts unique to a specific product type or category.
Criteria are also developed to reflect and address product function characteristics such as performance,
lifetime, durability, repairability, and upgradability. Criteria include performance requirements as well as
documentation and methods for the verification of conformance.
Draft criteria may originate from different sources, including, but not limited to:•

Existing GEC or EPEAT Criteria, if available and representing leadership, with or without
modifications.

•

GEC staff or partner organizations.

•

Submissions from stakeholders.

•Expert Ad Hoc Groups.

•

Technical Committees.

Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 5

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

2.2.2.

Selection of Verification Requirements

GEC, in conjunction with the Technical Committee, ensures all elements of a criterion can be
independently verified in a manner that reduces bias and uncertainty, uses the best quality qualitativeand quantitative data available, and to the extent possible, aligns with internationally recognizedmethods. Verification requirements are developed and approved for every criterion by the TechnicalCommittee and identify the evidence necessary to demonstrate conformance with the criterion
requirements. Verification requirements align with all required elements of the criterion, and to theextent applicable, specify published test methods, international standards (e.g., ISO, IEC) andcertifications, regional and national standards (e.g., EU CEN, US ENERGY STAR), and recognizedvoluntary programs (e.g., Science Based Targets Initiative). Consideration is also given to the availabilityof qualified organizations, such as laboratories or certification bodies, to perform any required testing or
evaluation of specific criteria elements. Where applicable, verification requirements may also outline
alternative evidence that will demonstrate conformance to the criterion.
2.2.3.

Required and Optional Criteria

Criteria are identified as Required and Optional and EPEAT-registered products are identified in the
EPEAT Registry by tier as EPEAT Bronze, EPEAT Silver or EPEAT Gold. The tiers differentiate products by
the percentage of Optional Criteria the products meet.
The Technical Committee is responsible for determining which criteria are identified as Required or as
Optional, as part of the voluntary consensus process. Required Criteria must be met for a product toappear in the EPEAT Registry, and these criteria outline baseline sustainability leadership performancerequirements for the EPEAT ecolabel. When designating criteria as Required, consideration is given to
the ability of the market to meet the criterion in a reasonable timeframe, demonstrated best practices
and availability of standardized methods, and the capacity of small and medium-sized enterprises toconform to the criterion.
Optional Criteria are used to incentivize innovation, to promote continuous improvement in product andsupply chain performance, and to further develop methods and approaches to impact reduction.
Products meeting all Required Criteria and a minimum of 50% of the available points for Optional
Criteria achieve the EPEAT Silver tier recognition. Products meeting all Required Criteria and a minimumof 75% of the available points for Optional Criteria achieve EPEAT Gold tier recognition.

2.3.

Expert Ad Hoc Groups

All draft criteria are reviewed, deliberated, and modified, as needed, by Expert Ad Hoc Groups before
consideration by the consensus body, referred to as the Technical Committee. The review andrefinement of draft criteria by the Expert Ad Hoc Groups prior to review by the Technical Committee
streamlines the criteria development process and broadens multistakeholder participation.
GEC convenes Expert Ad Hoc Groups by impact topic, mitigation strategy, or cluster of closely related
criteria associated with an impact identified in the State of Sustainability Research. The Expert Ad HocGroups review draft criteria and evaluate whether the draft criteria, as proposed, have the potential tomitigate the identified sustainability impacts and meet the Principles for GEC Criteria in Table 1. Expert

Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 6

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

Ad Hoc Groups may be asked to develop draft criteria to address a specific impact identified by the Stateof Sustainability Research.
The goal of Expert Ad Hoc Groups is to provide technical guidance on the approach, requirements, andlanguage of draft criteria for the assigned topic to be included in the full draft of criteria submitted to
the Technical Committee. GEC considers the Principles for GEC Criteria in Table 1 to determine criteria
language to forward to the Technical Committee. GEC may choose to forward 2 or more criteria options(e.g., Option A and B) to the Technical Committee if upon evaluation it is determined that alternative
approaches to draft criteria meet the Principles for GEC Criteria and address the impacts identified in
the State of Sustainability Research. A summary of the Expert Ad Hoc Group discussions, rationale, andany points of technical dissension is documented and transmitted to the Technical Committee, alongwith the criteria recommendations.
Expert Ad Hoc Groups typically meet by teleconference on a schedule acceptable to participants, and toaccommodate diverse time zones, as needed. The review of criteria by Expert Ad Hoc Groups also may
be executed by electronic mail.
2.3.1.

Expert Ad Hoc Group Membership

GEC assembles stakeholders with expertise and perspectives on the topic under consideration for eachExpert Ad Hoc Group. GEC seeks representation from the following stakeholder categories, which are
the same stakeholder categories assembled for the Technical Committee: manufacturers; sustainability
advocates and government policy; purchasers and ecolabel criteria users; and other industry in the
supply chain, as relevant to the criteria topic. GEC strives to include representation from each of thesestakeholder categories; however, the primary focus is to ensure the Expert Ad Hoc Groups include
expertise relevant to the topic under consideration. See Table 2 for the definition of each stakeholder
category.
Table 2: Stakeholder Categories
Manufacturers

Manufacturers of products or services covered by the scope of the criteria and theirtrade associations.

Other Industry

Other businesses commercially engaged with the products or services such as:• Suppliers and their trade associations• Recyclers, repair and refurbish companies, asset management service providers,
and their trade associations• Other types of businesses commercially engaged with the product.

Sustainability
Advocates andGovernment Policy

Individual from a public agency (local, regional, state, federal, or international) with anenvironmental / sustainability mission or representative of a professional public /environmental health / safety organization, academia, or not-for-profit environmentalorganization.

Purchasers andEcolabel Criteria
Users

An individual whose organization purchases, uses, or specifies products or services
covered in the scope of the criteria. User/consumers and their trade association
representatives, institutional purchasers, third-party conformity assessment bodies(e.g., testing laboratories), and retailers are included in this membership classification.

Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 7

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

GEC notifies stakeholders of the opportunity to join Expert Ad Hoc Groups, following publication of thedraft State of Sustainability Research. Any interested stakeholders may participate in Expert Ad HocGroups by notifying GEC staff of their interest. GEC may also recruit individuals with relevant technicalexpertise and stakeholder perspectives. Only one member from a single organization may serve on an
Expert Ad Hoc Group to help maintain a balance of perspectives, unless the representatives represent
different stakeholder categories. A member may invite technical experts to participate on calls, if
needed, and designate an alternate participant if they are unable to attend a meeting. Individuals mustcomplete GEC’s Participant Agreement prior to joining an Expert Ad Hoc Group. A list of organizations
participating in Expert Ad Hoc Groups is made available to the Technical Committee and is publicly
available in the Full Draft Criteria Document.
If stakeholder category representation or expertise relevant to the criteria is not achieved for an Expert
Ad Hoc Group, GEC may reach out to stakeholders not represented or underrepresented on the Expert
Ad Hoc Group to bring in their perspectives. However, the work of the Expert Ad Hoc Group willproceed.

2.4.

Full Draft Criteria Document

GEC compiles a comprehensive Full Draft Criteria Document based on the recommendations andtechnical guidance of the Expert Ad Hoc Groups and submits it to the Technical Committee (theconsensus body) as the starting point for their deliberation. GEC reviews the Full Draft Criteria
Document to determine if it addresses the environmental and social impacts identified in the State of
Sustainability Research. If gaps are identified in the Full Draft Criteria Document, GEC may note this forconsideration by the Technical Committee, or for future criteria updates.
The Full Draft Criteria Document is accompanied by a summary that includes the origins of the criteria,
key discussion points, as well as areas of technical disagreement identified by the Expert Ad Hoc, toprovide context for the Technical Committee. This summary also may identify whether an Expert Ad Hoc
was unable to or chose not to develop a criterion recommendation to address an impact identified in
the State of Sustainability Research, and why.

2.5.

Voluntary Consensus Process

GEC partners with third-party Criteria Development Organizations to manage the multi-stakeholder
consensus body, called the Technical Committee. Since credible and objective criteria development isimportant to GEC’s mission, GEC selects partner organizations with experience in managing voluntary
consensus processes involving participation of diverse stakeholders and without conflicts of interest orundue influence by any one stakeholder group on their activities. GEC only partners with organizations
that maintain impartiality in their management of the Voluntary Consensus Process. The Criteria
Development Organization must have documented procedures, reviewed by GEC, that address andadhere to the five characteristics of voluntary consensus in Table 3. Further, the Criteria Development
Organization must allow sole ownership by GEC of the criteria resulting from the voluntary consensus
process.

Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 8

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

Table 3: Characteristics of Voluntary Consensus
1.

Openness: The process is open to participation by all interested parties. Such parties are provided
meaningful opportunities to participate in criteria development on a non-discriminatory basis. The
procedures or processes for participating in criteria development and for developing the criteria aretransparent.

2.

Balance of interests: The process includes a balance of stakeholder interests with no single interest
dominating decision-making.

3.

Due process: The process includes documented and publicly available policies and procedures, adequate
notice of meetings and other activities, sufficient time to review drafts and prepare views and objections,access to views and objections of other participants, and a fair and impartial process for resolving
conflicting views.

4.

Appeals process: A process must be available for the impartial handling of procedural appeals.

5.

Consensus: Consensus is defined as general agreement, but not necessarily unanimity, and includes aprocess for attempting to resolve objections by interested parties. All comments must be fairly considered,each objector must be advised of the disposition of his or her objection(s) and the reasons why, and theconsensus body members must be given an opportunity to change their opinion after reviewing thecomments.

Source: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, OMB Circular A-110: Federal Participation in theDevelopment and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, Section 2e. Accessed February
6, 2023 at: https://www.epa.gov/vcs.

The Criteria Development Organization must also have procedures in place to objectively selectTechnical Committee members, safeguard against anti-competitive behaviors, and avoid the use ofcommercial terms and other requirements that may restrict trade and competition. Approved minutesof Technical Committee meetings must be publicly available. GEC may provide technical support to the
Criteria Development Organization.
All final decisions regarding criteria are made by the Technical Committee, following the Criteria
Development Organization’s procedures for voluntary consensus. GEC requires consensus, as defined inTable 3, by the Technical Committee on the Criteria Document for adoption by EPEAT.
2.5.1.

Technical Committee Participation

GEC establishes general parameters, as identified throughout Section 2.5.1, for the operation of theTechnical Committee to ensure that the process of criteria development is open and transparent to allinterested organizations, while also fostering meaningful dialogue and the exchange of perspectives
among the four stakeholder interest groups in Table 2. GEC provides stakeholders with the following
opportunities for participation in the Technical Committee process: 1) Technical Committee Member; 2)
Technical Committee Observer; and 3) Invited Expert. GEC notifies stakeholders of the opportunity toparticipate on the Technical Committee through GEC newsletters and announcements.

Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 9Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

2.5.1.1.

Technical Committee Member

GEC seeks individuals with expertise on the topics under consideration by the Technical Committee toparticipate on the consensus body. GEC seeks representation from the following stakeholder categories,
as defined in Table 2: manufacturers; sustainability advocates and government policy; purchasers andecolabel criteria users; and other industry in the supply chain. See Table 2 for the definition of eachstakeholder category. The stakeholder categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, an individual
associated with a public agency may be considered a "purchaser and ecolabel criteria user" if their roleis specific to a procurement function within their organization.
Interested stakeholder must submit an application, including documentation of experience andqualifications, for membership on the Technical Committee. The Criteria Development Organization
processes applications for Technical Committee membership and may request assistance from GEC in
identifying prospective participants to achieve balanced stakeholder representation. The Criteria
Development Organization is responsible for the final selection of Technical Committee Members.
GEC requires balanced representation of stakeholders with Technical Committee Member status fromthe four interest categories. The Criteria Development Organization must strive to achieve balance,
defined as no one interest category representing more than 25% of voting Technical Committee
Members, including active recruitment of stakeholders to fill available Technical Committee seats. Ifbalanced representation is not achieved on a Technical Committee, weighted voting may be applied inballoting for criteria approval to achieve equal representation among the four stakeholder categories.3
Technical Committee Members are selected from among applications received for each stakeholder
category using objective evaluation factors, including technical qualifications of the applicant on thecriteria topic and geographic representation. For the manufacturer stakeholder group, the selection
process also considers the inclusion of small and medium-sized enterprises and the type(s) of products
manufactured by the brand. Applicants not selected for Technical Committee Member status are invited
to participate as a Technical Committee Observer (see Section 2.5.1.2).
Technical Committee Members must complete GEC’s Participant Agreement in advance of the first
Technical Committee meeting, or risk forfeiture of Technical Committee membership.
The role of the Technical Committee is to evaluate the criteria against the Principles for GEC Criteria in
Table 1, address public comments, and reach consensus on criteria. For transparency, the names ofTechnical Committee members and their affiliation are publicly available. Participation on the TechnicalCommittee does not constitute an endorsement of the EPEAT Program, nor the criteria developed by
the Technical Committee, by the individual or their affiliated organization.

3

In the application of weighted voting, each of the four stakeholder categories receives 25% of the voting power.
The value of votes cast by individual members of the Technical Committee is dependent on the number of voting
members in the stakeholder category casting a vote.
Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 10

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

2.5.1.2.

Technical Committee Observers

Stakeholders may also choose to sign up for observer status on the Technical Committee by notifying
the Criteria Development Organization that is managing the Technical Committee. Observer statusallows individuals to attend Technical Committee meetings and receive documents provided to theTechnical Committee, such as meeting agendas and updates to the Full Draft Criteria Document.
Technical Committee Observers may only observe meeting discussions, unless invited by the TechnicalCommittee Chair to contribute to the meeting, either verbally or electronically. Technical Committee
Observers submit comments through the public consultation process (see Section 2.5.2) and get nospecial treatment of their comments by the Technical Committee.
Technical Committee Observers are limited to two representatives from an organization. Organizations
that have a representative with Technical Committee Member status are eligible to have one TechnicalCommittee Observer. All Observers must sign an Observer Agreement before receiving TechnicalCommittee documents or attending meetings. The names and affiliations of all Technical Committee
Observers are publicly available.
2.5.1.3.

Invited Experts

The Criteria Development Organization or the Technical Committee Chair, at their discretion, may invite
technical experts to join a Technical Committee meeting for the express purpose of providing technicalexpertise on a discussion topic. Technical Committee members may also request of the Chair that a
specific technical expert attend a meeting.
2.5.2.

Public Consultation

The Full Draft Criteria Document is made publicly available for review and comment. The Criteria
Development Organization administers the public consultation process, which must be open for no lessthan 60 days. The Criteria Development Organization provides stakeholders with a second opportunity
to comment on changes made to the Full Draft Criteria Document by the Technical Committee since theinitial public consultation. The second public consultation is limited to changes to the document andmust be open for no less than 30 days. GEC notifies stakeholders of the public consultation period
through GEC newsletters and announcements.
The Technical Committee considers comments submitted through the public consultation process as
part of the Voluntary Consensus Process. The Criteria Development Organization prepares a comment
resolution report, notifies public commenters of the resolution of their comments, and makes comment
resolution publicly available.
2.5.3.

Editorial Review and Delivery to GEC

After reaching consensus, as defined in Table 3, the Full Draft Criteria Document undergoes final
editorial review by the Criteria Development Organization. Only editorial changes (e.g., typographicalerrors, formatting) are allowed at this step in the process. If any substantive issues are identified during
editorial review, the Full Draft Criteria Document must be returned to the Chair of the TechnicalCommittee to resolve the issue. Following editorial review, the final Criteria Document is delivered to
GEC, who publishes the Criteria Document. GEC is solely responsible for adopting, making publicly

Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 11

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

available, and implementing the Criteria within the EPEAT Program. Additional information on GEC useof the Criteria is in Section 3.0 of this document.

2.6.

Criteria Revisions

GEC reviews criteria approximately every three years from the last publication to ensure that the criteria
remain relevant, continue to be impactful and incentivize leadership performance. In its review of
criteria, GEC considers the following factors: 1) evolution of best practices and test methods since thelast publication; 2) new science and data on sustainability impacts; 3) age and impact of existing criteria;4) percentage of products meeting optional criteria; 5) evolution of technology, in general and productspecific; 6) priorities for government policy and purchasers; and 7) stakeholder requests for criteria
revisions. Based on this review, GEC may initiate a Full Criteria Revision or Limited Criteria Revision as
defined further in Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2, respectively. If results of the initial GEC review determinethat revisions are not necessary, GEC evaluates the need for revisions approximately every 12 months
thereafter. This cadence is intended to adjust criteria in a timely manner and with the evolution ofscience and best practices, while providing the market sufficient time to adopt criteria.
GEC may also choose to initiate a limited and focused revision, based on the qualifications outlined in
Section 2.6.2. Limited Criteria Revisions are published no more frequently than annually. The scope ofFull Criteria Revision and Limited Criteria Revision are defined further in Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2,
respectively. All modifications to Criteria Documents are considered and approved via voluntary
consensus by Technical Committees, as outlined in Section 2.5.
GEC welcomes ongoing feedback on its criteria from all interested stakeholders, including requests forrevisions to criteria, addition of new criteria, removal of existing criteria, or corrections to existing
criteria. Stakeholders must provide written feedback using the Criteria Feedback and Revision Request
Form, available upon request. This form requires stakeholders to provide the following information:•

The rationale for the proposed change, including evidence to support the request (e.g., newdata illustrating sustainability impact, availability of new standard; emerging best practice toreduce sustainability impact), as appropriate.

•

A specific proposal for the requested change including proposed text (e.g., what specificmodifications are proposed for an existing criterion; draft proposal for a new criterion.)

GEC acknowledges receipt of all completed Criteria Feedback and Revision Request Forms and provides
the stakeholder with information regarding the approximate timeframe for the next criteria review orrevision cycle. All feedback and requests are considered in the next regularly scheduled Full Criteria
Revision, as described in Section 2.6.1, unless the feedback meets the qualifications for a Limited Criteria
Revision (Section 2.6.2) or Interim Correction (Section 2.6.3), as determined by GEC and the EPEAT
Program.
2.6.1.

Full Criteria Revision

In a Full Criteria Revision, all criteria are open to modification and revision. A Full Criteria Revision
follows the Criteria Development Process, outlined in Sections 2.1 to 2.5 of this document, starting with
State of Sustainability Research. GEC notifies stakeholders of the launch of the Full Criteria Revision
Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 12

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

process. The notification includes a request for new/updated science, data and best practices, as well as
preliminary proposed criteria revisions including modifications, additions and deletions. GEC solicits
input from stakeholders by teleconference and/or in person meetings during the development of theState of Sustainability Research.
The State of Sustainability Research builds on the prior research and may be issued as an amendment ora substantially new report. The State of Sustainability Research for a Full Criterion Revision considers thefollowing:•

Highlights relevant changes in technology, science, and best practice since the previous
publication.

•

Includes an evaluation of existing criteria to determine whether they remain impactful,
represent leadership, and reflect the evolution in best practices.

•

Reviews stakeholder feedback as submitted through Criteria Feedback and Revision Request
Forms and Limited Criteria Revision (as described in Section 2.6.2.) since the last revision andany Interim Corrections (as described in Section 2.6.3).

•

Considers criteria deferred by the previous Technical Committee(s) for future criteria
development.

•

Recommends the scope of the Full Criteria Revision, including which criteria should be updated
or removed, which criteria should be transitioned from optional to required, as well as
proposed new criteria. GEC may determine that some criteria do not need to be updated.

The State of Sustainability Research for a Full Criteria Revision is released by GEC for a minimum 60-day
public comment period and follows the notification and publication process outlined in Section 2.1.
Following publication of the State of Sustainability Research, GEC proceeds with criteria development as
outlined in this document (P74), including convening Expert Ad Hoc Groups (Section 2.3), publishing a
Full Criteria Document (Section 2.4), and launching a Voluntary Consensus Process (Section 2.5). The
scope of the Full Criteria Revision is defined by the State of Sustainability Research. Public consultationon the Full Criteria Document follows the process described in Section 2.5.2.
2.6.2.

Limited Criteria Revision

GEC may choose to initiate a Limited Criteria Revision in between Full Criteria Revisions for the following
reasons:•

Significant issue in the text or requirements of Criteria that prohibits Criteria implementation by
manufacturers or the consistent evaluation of evidence by GEC-approved Conformity Assurance
Bodies (CABs) or results in unintended consequences that impede sustainability progress.

•

Proposal for an impactful new criterion (or criteria) that is time sensitive, addresses an emerging
critical issue or tackles a complex topic that would benefit from a focused criteria development
process.

Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 13

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

For Limited Criteria Revisions, GEC prepares a Proposal for Limited Criteria Revision, which outlines therationale for the revision and the proposed scope of the revision. GEC solicits stakeholder input by
teleconference and/or in person meetings during the development of the Proposal for Limited Criteria
Revision. If the Limited Criteria Revision proposes modifications to existing criteria, the proposal
indicates the scope of criteria covered in the Limited Criteria Revision. GEC makes the draft Proposal for
Limited Criteria Revision available for public consultation for a minimum of 30 days, notifying
stakeholders of its availability through GEC newsletters and announcements. All comments are
considered, and GEC makes a final determination about whether to proceed with the Limited Criteria
Revision. If appropriate, the Proposal for Limited Criteria Revision is modified, and a final Proposal for
Limited Criteria Revision is issued, and stakeholders notified through GEC newsletters andannouncements. GEC prepares a stakeholder comment report that summarizes comments received and,if applicable, how the proposal was modified in response to comments. The stakeholder comment
report includes a list of organizations who provided comments. The stakeholder comment report isprovided directly to all public commenters and is available to interested stakeholders upon request.
If the Limited Criteria Revision moves forward, GEC proceeds with criteria development as outlined inthis document [GEC Criteria Development Process (P74)], including convening Expert Ad Hoc Group(s)(Section 2.3) and launching a Voluntary Consensus Process per Section 2.5. The scope of the LimitedCriteria Revision is defined by the final Proposal for Limited Criteria Revision. Preparation of the FullCriteria Document (Section 2.4) reflects and is limited to the scope of the Limited Criteria Revision.
Public consultation follows the process described in Section 2.5.2.
2.6.3.

Interim Corrections

GEC may find it necessary to issue a provisional correction of EPEAT Criteria to address, in a timely
manner, minor errors (e.g., typographical error), omissions or outdated references that impede Criteria
implementation. A Criteria Feedback and Revision Request Form must be submitted for consideration of
an Interim Correction. Any stakeholders may submit a request for an Interim Correction, including but
not limited to, GEC, Conformity Assurance Bodies, and Participating Manufacturers. It is not the intent ofInterim Corrections to reverse decisions made by Technical Committees. For this reason, GEC defers to
the next Criteria Revision any requests for an Interim Correction when there is clear evidence that anerror or omission did not occur; such evidence would include, for example, Technical Committee ballots
and adjudication of negative ballots.
GEC forms and facilitates, on an as needed basis, Correction Committee(s) to review and reachagreement by voluntary consensus on requests for Interim Correction(s) of published Criteria. A
Correction Committee is comprised of a balance of stakeholder interests and individuals with relevant
topical expertise and product representation for Criteria under consideration for an Interim
Correction(s). GEC may also solicit the opinion of or invite to Committee meetings additional experts,
including past Technical Committee members and Expert Ad Hoc Group participants. All Interim
Corrections approved by a Correction Committee are issued by the EPEAT Program in a Criteria
Corrections document in redline/strikeout format and separate from published Criteria.
Interim Corrections are considered informative (not normative) and are maintained by the EPEAT
Program for use by Participating Manufacturers and GEC-approved CABs.

Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 14

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

GEC maintains a log of all decisions of Correction Committees. All Interim Corrections are subject toreview in the next Full Criteria Revision or Limited Criteria Revision, if within scope. The Interim
Correction sunsets when the Full Criterion Revision or Limited Criteria Revision is implemented by
EPEAT.

2.7.

Complaints and Appeals

GEC operates a complaints and appeals process to allow stakeholder concerns about criteria
development to be addressed fairly. GEC has a documented process to receive, evaluate, and makedecisions on complaints and appeals regarding GEC’s criteria development or revision activities.
•

Complaints may be raised, in writing, by any party and may address any aspect of GEC’s
criteria development or revision activities.

•

Any party may appeal, in writing, any procedural matter (actions or inactions) in theimplementation of GEC’s criteria development or revision activities. Examples of procedural
matters include but are not limited to whether procedures were followed to address public orTechnical Committee member comments or whether the voluntary consensus processprocedures were followed. Appeals regarding technical or substantive content of GEC Criteria
or GEC’s criteria development process are not permitted; however, appeals may be submitted
on whether a technical issue was afforded due process according to procedures. The
membership and recommendations of Expert Ad Hoc Groups cannot be appealed on either
technical or procedural grounds.

•

Complaints and appeals pertaining to the Voluntary Consensus Process must first be directed
to, and investigated by, the Criteria Development Organization managing the Voluntary
Consensus Process. If the complainant/appellant is not satisfied with the resolution of thecomplaint/appeal, then the complainant/appellant may raise the complaint or appeal, in
writing, directly with GEC.

Complaints and appeals must be made in writing to GEC within 30 calendar days of the decision or
action prompting the complaint or appeal, and must include the following information to be considered
complete:
1.

The reason for the complaint/appeal;2.

If the complaint or appeal was first raised with a Criteria Development Organization regarding
the Voluntary Consensus Process, the reason why the complainant/appellant does not deem
the resolution satisfactory;

3.

If the complaint/appeal is regarding GEC’s criteria development or revision activities,
identification of the relevant clause(s) of this document, GEC Criteria Development Process(P74) against which the complaint or appeal is based;

4.

Evidence substantiating the basis for the complaint/appeal;

5.

The specific damage(s) or disadvantage(s) caused by the decision, action, or inaction; and6.

The specific resolution requested.

Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 15

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

Within five business days of receipt of a complaint or appeal, GEC evaluates the complaint or appeal forcompleteness and notifies the complainant/appellant of the outcome of the evaluation. If determined tobe complete, GEC assigns a Complaint/Appeal Manager, conducts an investigation, and convenes aComplaints/Appeals Committee. The complainant or appellant is informed of the name and title of theindividuals serving on the Committee, which is comprised of at least three individuals. During theinvestigation, the complainant/appellant may be asked to respond to questions or provide additional
information.
The Complaints/Appeals Committee, which may be comprised of individuals outside of GEC, reviews thecomplaint/appeal, all submitted documentation, and results of the investigation and makes a final
decision on the complaint/appeal. The Complaint/Appeal Manager may also serve as a member of theCommittee.
Complaints and appeals are handled swiftly and as transparently as possible, while still respecting theconfidentiality of all parties involved. Any GEC personnel specifically cited in the complaint or appeal are
not involved in the investigation of that complaint or appeal and are not permitted to serve on the
Complaints/Appeals Committee. GEC ensures that complaints and appeals do not result in
discriminatory actions. No complainant, appellant, or other individual shall be negatively treated forbringing forward a complaint or appeal, providing information related to a complaint or appeal, or
helping to resolve a complaint or appeal.
GEC notifies the complainant/appellant in writing of its decision on the complaint/appeal within 60
business days of evaluating the complaint/appeal for completeness. GEC retains full authority to makethe final determination in the case of all complaints and appeals pertaining to GEC’s criteria
development process.
All GEC criteria development, revision, and implementation activities continue without limitation during
an investigation into a complaint or appeal.

2.8.

Conflicts of Interest

GEC recognizes that impartiality and managing conflicts of interest are fundamental to maintaining the
integrity of the EPEAT Program. To this end, GEC does not allow commercial, financial, or otherpressures to compromise impartiality in the EPEAT Program and eliminates or mitigates conflicts ofinterest that may influence development and maintenance of Criteria. The voluntary consensus process,by design, prevents any single stakeholder group or organization from having undue influence in thedevelopment and revision of criteria because the process requires, and ensures, balanced
representation from all stakeholder groups in the consensus body. If GEC accepts significant externalfunding (more than $10,000 or more than 20% of the anticipated funding needs) for a specific criteria
development initiative, the source of funding is disclosed at each step in the criteria development
process (Figure 2), and in the final criteria document.
More information regarding the EPEAT Program’s approach to managing impartiality and conflicts ofinterest can be found in Section 8.0 of the EPEAT Policy Manual (P65).

Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 16

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

2.9.

Patent Policy

GEC Criteria can include the use of an essential patent claim (one whose use would be required forcompliance with the Criteria) if it is considered that technical reasons justify this approach. Participantsin the criteria development process should bring patents with claims believed to be essential to theattention of GEC.
In order to include an essential patent claim in GEC Criteria, GEC shall receive from the patent holder ora party authorized to make assurances on its behalf, in written or electronic form, either:a)assurance in the form of a general disclaimer to the effect that such party does not hold anddoes not currently intend holding any essential patent claim(s); orb)

assurance that a license to such essential patent claim(s) will be made available to applicants
desiring to utilize the license for the purpose of implementing the GEC Criteria either:i)under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair
discrimination; orii) without compensation and under reasonable terms and conditions that aredemonstrably free of any unfair discrimination.
Such assurance shall indicate that the patent holder (or third party authorized to make assurances on its
behalf) will include in any documents transferring ownership of patents subject to the assurance,
provisions sufficient to ensure that the commitments in the assurance are binding on the transferee,and that the transferee will similarly include appropriate provisions in the event of future transfers withthe goal of binding each successor-in-interest. The assurance shall also indicate that it is intended to bebinding on successors-in-interest regardless of whether such provisions are included in the relevanttransfer documents.
When GEC receives assurance from a patent holder the affected GEC Ecolabel or Criteria shall include anote as follows:
NOTE – The user’s attention is called to the possibility that conformance with these criteria requires
use of an invention covered by patent rights. The patent holder has filed a statement with GEC ofwillingness to grant a license under these rights on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms andconditions to applicants desiring to obtain such a license. Details may be obtained from GEC.

3.0

Use of Criteria by GEC

GEC considers for adoption in EPEAT and other initiatives criteria developed using the GEC Criteria
Development Process (P74). Before criteria can be used by the EPEAT Program, they must be formally
adopted. Further details regarding the adoption of GEC criteria for use in the EPEAT Program areavailable in the EPEAT Policy Manual (P65). GEC only considers for adoption Criteria as developed andapproved by the voluntary consensus process without modification. This includes newly developed
criteria, Full Criteria Revisions or Limited Criteria Revisions. Interim Corrections are consideredinformative (not normative). As such, adoption for use by the EPEAT Program is not necessary.

Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 17

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

GEC Criteria are owned by GEC and, unless noted otherwise, their use is constrained to the tools andresources developed by GEC as part of its mission activities. GEC is interested in the harmonization ofenvironmental and social criteria with existing regulations and global standards, as well as otherecolabels and voluntary programs, and welcomes requests to collaborate. All GEC Criteria are publicly
available free of charge.

4.0

Revisions and Effective Date

GEC reviews GEC Criteria Development Process (P74) on an annual basis to determine if revisions are
required. Revisions to this document are generally published on February 15 and take effect on July 1 ofany given year; however, GEC may, at its sole discretion, identify specific revisions which take effect onanother date before or after July 1.
GEC considers programmatic needs when determining the effective date for all revisions and iscommitted to ensuring its decision is transparent and fair for all stakeholders, including Participating
Manufacturers, GEC-approved CABs, and purchasers.

5.0

Supplementary Information

5.1.

References

The following documents are referenced in this document, GEC Criteria Development Process (P74), andare indispensable for its application. Undated references indicate that the latest edition of thereferenced document applies.
•

ISO 14024 Environmental labels and declarations – Type 1 environmental labelling – Principles
and procedures•

ISO/IEC 17020 Conformity assessment—Requirements for the operation of various types ofbodies performing inspection•

ISO/IEC 17065 Conformity assessment—Requirements for bodies certifying products,
processes, and services•

U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, OMB Circular A-119:
Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in
Conformity Assessment Activities

5.2.

Definitions

The following definitions are referenced throughout this document, GEC Criteria Development Process(P74), and are indispensable for its application.
Appeal: For the purposes of this document, GEC Criteria Development Process (P74), a written request
for reconsideration of a procedural decision in the development of GEC Criteria that is considered by theappellant to be inconsistent with the policies and procedures in this document. Based on definition of
appeal in ISO/IEC 17000 Conformity assessment — Vocabulary and general principles.
Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 18

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

Complaint: For the purposes of this document, GEC Criteria Development Process (P74), a complaint is a
written expression of dissatisfaction, that is not a procedural appeal, regarding GEC’s criteria
development or revision activities, and/or GEC’s management of the EPEAT Program. Based on
definition of complaint in ISO/IEC 17000 Conformity assessment — Vocabulary and general principles.
Consensus Body: The multi-stakeholder Technical Committee charged with reaching consensus on GEC
criteria.
Continuous Maintenance Process: The process for reviewing and revising GEC Criteria to ensure theyremain relevant, continue to be impactful, and recognize changes in technology, science, and bestpractice in reducing impacts.
Criteria Development Organization: The third-party organization that administers all aspects of theTechnical Committee, which is the consensus body for the criteria development process.
Criteria Document: The criteria with associated definitions, references and annexes that is approved by
the Voluntary Consensus Process and considered for adoption by the EPEAT Program.
Criteria Development Process: The process used by GEC to develop its Criteria consistent with thecharacteristics of voluntary consensus and the requirements of ISO 14024 Environmental label anddeclarations – Type 1 environmental labelling – Principles and procedures.
Expert Ad Hoc Group: A multi-stakeholder group convened by GEC and serving in an advisory capacity toreview and draft criteria that address sustainability impacts for a technology or service.
GEC Criteria: Environmental and social requirement intended to reduce the sustainability impacts of atechnology or service, developed through a balanced, voluntary consensus process, and adopted by GEC
for application it its ecolabel(s).
Full Draft Criteria Document: The compilation of criteria recommendations from the Expert Ad HocGroups into a single document, which is the starting point for deliberation by the Technical Committee.
Impartiality / Impartial: Presence of objectivity, where objectivity is understood to mean that conflictsof interest do not exist or are resolved so as not to adversely influence conformity assurance andprogrammatic activities. Based on the definition of impartiality in ISO/IEC 17000 Conformity assessment— Vocabulary and general principles and ISO/IEC 17065 Conformity assessment—Requirements forbodies certifying products, processes, and services.
Participating Manufacturer: Brand owner that registers products to a GEC ecolabel and is responsible
for ensuring ongoing conformance of the products against the GEC Criteria selected for those products.
Sometimes referred to as Manufacturer.
State of Sustainability Research: The presentation and analysis of available data on the life cycle
sustainability impacts of a technology or service that guides the development of GEC Criteria.
Technical Committee: The multi-stakeholder committee serving as the voluntary consensus body for
GEC Criteria and administered by a third-party Criteria Development Organization.

Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 19

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

Voluntary Consensus Process: The process used to develop GEC Criteria that aligns with and draws fromsimilar principles for the characteristics of voluntary consensus as defined in ISO 14024 Environmental
labels and declarations – Type 1 environmental labelling – Principles and procedures and in the US
Government’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119: Federal Participation in theDevelopment and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities.

5.3.

Document Change History

This document, GEC Criteria Development Process (P74), defines the process that GEC follows for thedevelopment, routine maintenance, and revision of criteria. While not solely dedicated to thedevelopment of EPEAT Criteria, this document, GEC Criteria Development Process (P74), is controlled aspart of the EPEAT Quality Management System.
Issue

Revision

10

AuthorDescription of Change

ApproverApproval Date

Effective Date

Snr Director,
Category andCriteria
Development
Snr Director,
Category andCriteria
Development
Snr Director,
Category andCriteria
Development
Snr Director,
Category andCriteria
Development

Initial releaseCEO

2021 April 30

2021 April 30

1

1

Added Section 2.8, Patent Policy

CEO2021 May 20

2021 May 20

12

Updated Section 1.0 to reference Business
Case

CEO

2021 June 17

2021 June 17

1

3

Section 2.5.1 Addition of further details on
Technical Committee Participation. New
section 2.5.1.1 for Technical Committee
Member and addition of consideration of
MSMEs. New Section 2.5.1.2 forObservers. New Section 2.5.1.3 for Invited
Experts.
Further clarifications to existing policies:
GEC Criteria available free of charge (1.0,3.0); Expert Ad Hoc Groups (2.3, 2.3.1);
Voluntary Consensus Process (2.5.2);
Weighted voting (2.5.1.1); Continuous
Maintenance (2.6); Complaints andappeals (2.7); Definitions (4.2). New: 60day public consultation instead of 30-day(2.0, 2.1, 2.5.2). Addition of definitions
used in other EPEAT documents (4.2).
Clarifications: Updated Figure 1 to clarify
key aspects of GEC’s Criteria Development
Process (2.0); Clarified role of Expert Ad
Hoc Groups (2.0, 2.3, 2.4); Further
clarification regarding how criteria address
product function characteristics (2.2.1);
Additional clarity on Expert Ad Hoc Groupparticipation (2.3.1), Technical Committee
membership (2.5.1.1), Continuous
Maintenance (2.6), and Complaints andAppeals (2.7). Additions: Addition of
second stakeholder comment period (2.0,
2.5.2); Clarity on availability of State of
Sustainability Research (2.1); Additional
details regarding CDO’s GEC may partner

CEO

2022 Jan 142022 Jan 14

1

4

Snr Director,
Category andCriteria
Development

CEO2022 Feb 152022 Feb 15

1

5

VP, Criteria
and Category
Development

CEO2023 Feb 152023 Jul 01

Global Electronics Council

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 20

Published February 15, 2024 and Effective July 1, 2024

Issue

1

Revision

6

Author

VP, Criteria
and Category
Development

Global Electronics Council

Description of Changewith (2.5); New sections related to
Selection of Verification Requirements(2.2.2), Required and Optional Criteria(2.2.3), Conflicts of Interest (2.8), andRevisions and Effective Date (4.0); New
definition for Consensus Body (5.2).
Additions: Third parties may develop Stateof Sustainability Research (2.1); Proposal
for new criteria may originate in TechnicalCommittee (2.2.1); Members of Expert Ad
Hoc Groups may invite experts toparticipate in meetings (2.3.1); Editorial
review / delivery of criteria to GEC (newsection 2.5.3); Evaluation factors used toinitiate criteria revisions (2.6); New
definitions (Criteria Document, FullCriteria Revision, Limited Criteria Revision,
Interim Correction) (5.2). Additional
Clarity: Consensus on criteria required for
EPEAT adoption (2.5, 3.0); Stakeholder
categories for Technical Committees (TCs)(2.5.1.1); TC members may request Invited
Experts attend TC meetings (2.5.1.3).
Changes: Nomenclature for criteria
development and criteria revision
throughout; Criteria Development
Organization must strive to achieve
stakeholder balance on TCs (2.5.1.1);
Increased number of TC Committee
Observers (2.5.1.2); Corporate ESG impact
area now “supply chain performance”(2.2.1); Restructured and redefined theCriteria Revision Process (2.6).

ApproverApproval Date

Effective Date

CEO2024 Feb 01

2024 Jul 01

GEC Criteria Development Process (P74 Issue 1 Rev 6)
Hard copy print outs of this document are uncontrolled© 2021 Green Electronics Council dba Global Electronics Council. All rights reserved.

Page 21