EPEAT Program
Continuous Monitoring Outcomes Report
Computers and Displays
CD-2024-02
August 8, 2024

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 arerequired 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 CD-2024-02 conducted
for the Computers and Displays category.

2.0 Overview of Continuous Monitoring Round CD-2024-02
2.1

Investigation Activities

As per the published Round Plan, Continuous Monitoring Round CD-2024-02 used Level 0 Investigations, which
involve reviewing publicly available information to determine Participating Manufacturers’ conformance withspecific EPEAT Criteria. GEC-approved CABs had a discrete time period to locate and review publicly available
information to determine conformance with EPEAT Criteria selected for investigation. CABs then maderecommendations on conformity based solely on the publicly available evidence, and sent Investigation
Reports to the EPEAT Program. The EPEAT Program made the final decisions on conformity for theinvestigations.

Global Electronics Council

Outcomes Report – Level 0 Investigations (P41C Issue1 Rev0)

Page 1 of 6

CD-2024-02 Outcomes Report

2.2

August 8, 2024

Criteria InvestigatedContinuous Monitoring Round CD-2024-02 focused exclusively on criteria that can be evaluated using publiclyavailable information. While the EPEAT Program generally tries to focus on a specific impact or issue area inselecting criteria for investigation, the focus in this Round was instead on criteria which have requirements tomake information publicly available.
Participating Manufacturers received up to three investigations: two of the criteria selected for investigation
were Required Criteria, and one was an Optional Criterion. As a result, all Participating Manufacturers received
at least two investigations, and a third investigation was assigned if the manufacturer had selected theOptional Criterion.
Table 1: Criteria Investigated in Round CD-2024-02
Criteria Number

Criterion Title

4.5.1.1

Conformance to current ENERGY STAR® program requirements

4.8.2.1

Corporate carbon footprint

4.10.2.1

Public disclosure regarding conflict minerals in products

3.0 Summary of Investigations and Final Decisions on Conformity for CD-2024-02
Highlights from this Continuous Monitoring Round are:
•87 investigations completed•

52 decisions of Conformance•

33 decisions of Inconclusive•

2 decisions of Nonconformance

Further details provided in Section 4Figure 1: Final Conformity Decisions for CD-2024-02(shown as percentage of total investigations)

Note: For inconclusive findings, the EPEAT Program may require the CAB to investigate the same Criterion in asubsequent Level 1 Round to definitively determine conformance.

Global Electronics Council

Outcomes Report – Level 0 Investigations (P41C Issue1 Rev0)

Page 2 of 6

CD-2024-02 Outcomes ReportAugust 8, 2024

4.0 Further Details on Nonconformances for CD-2024-02
Table 2 below provides a further breakdown of the nonconformances by Criterion. 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.
Table 2: Breakdown of Nonconformances by Criterion for CD-2024-02
Criteria Number

Criterion Title

Total Nonconformances

4.5.1.1

Conformance to current ENERGY STAR® program requirements

2Both nonconformances in CD-2024-02 were demonstrated nonconformances.
4.1

Minor Errors Versus Nonconformances

All nonconformances must be categorized as either a minor error, nonconformance, or nonconformance dueto CAB inaction or delay not attributable to the Participating Manufacturer. Minor errors are non-critical or
clerical 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).
No minor errors were identified in Continuous Monitoring Round CD-2024-02.
4.2

Minor Errors

For Level 0 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 minor errors were identified in Continuous Monitoring Round CD-2024-02.
4.3

Nonconformances

Both nonconformances in Continuous Monitoring Round CD-2024-02 were demonstrated nonconformances,which means that evidence definitively proved the criterion was not met.

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”).

Global Electronics Council

Outcomes Report – Level 0 Investigations (P41C Issue1 Rev0)

Page 3 of 6

CD-2024-02 Outcomes ReportAugust 8, 2024

The following actions were taken to restore accuracy to the EPEAT Registry as a result of Continuous
Monitoring Round CD-2024-02:•

1 investigation

Additional data provided by Participating Manufacturer, bringing the productinto conformance with the Criterion•1 investigation

Product archived by Participating Manufacturer

Table 3 in Section 7 identifies the Participating Manufacturers and products that received nonconformances inContinuous Monitoring Round CD-2024-02.

6.0 Key Findings
6.1

Equivalent Test Methods

Participating Manufacturers are reminded to reach out to their CABs and the EPEAT Program to review theacceptability of equivalent test methods per the requirements in P66 before using the equivalentmethodology.
6.2

Energy Star Certification for Non-Energy Star Partner Countries

Energy Star certification in the U.S, Canada, Taiwan, and Switzerland can be used as a proxy to demonstrate
conformance in non-Energy Star partner countries. For example, Energy Star certification in the United States(a 115 V country) can be used to demonstrate conformance with other non-Energy Star partner countries that
also use 115 V.
6.3

Criteria with Annual Requirements

For Criteria with annual requirements, information must be updated once every 12 months. The 12-monthreporting period may change, as long as there is no gap in reporting. It is acceptable for some fluctuation in theplus/minus of publishing of annual reports year over year. For example, it is acceptable for annual reports tonot be published on the exact same calendar day year over year, however the fluctuation must be reasonable
and there cannot be a gap in data.
Participating Manufacturers are encouraged to proactively notify their CAB if they are changing their annual
reporting cycle.
6.4

Criterion 4.10.2.1 Conflict Minerals Annual Reporting

Required Criterion 4.10.2.1—Public disclosure regarding conflict minerals in products, requires Participating
Manufacturers to annually disclose information on the use of conflict minerals, including a company sourcing
policy or supplier code of conduct that addresses conflict minerals, description of their reasonable country oforigin inquiry (RCOI), list of smelters or refiners reported by suppliers, and a description of the due diligencemeasures taken. The annual requirement of the Criterion requires the Participating Manufacturer to annuallyconduct their RCOI, identify and disclose the list of smelters and act on their due diligence process. It is
acceptable if the company’s policy or supplier code of conduct, process for conducting their RCOI and process
for conducting due diligence is not updated or changed annually.

Global Electronics Council

Outcomes Report – Level 0 Investigations (P41C Issue1 Rev0)

Page 4 of 6CD-2024-02 Outcomes ReportAugust 8, 2024

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
NumberCIARA TECH

ARIUS 13580-24

Integrated Desktop

Canada4.5.1.1

Howard Technology Solutions, A
Division of Howard

Q470MKBDesktop

United States

4.5.1.1

Global Electronics Council

Criterion Title

Conformance to current ENERGY STAR®
program requirements
Conformance to current ENERGY STAR®
program requirements

Required or
Optional

Underlying Reason for Nonconformance

Corrective Action Taken

Required

Demonstrated nonconformance

Required

Demonstrated nonconformance

Manufacturer provided evidence
demonstrating conformance
Manufacturer archived productOutcomes Report – Level 0 Investigations (P41C Issue1 Rev0)

Page 5 of 6

CD-2024-02 Outcomes ReportAugust 8, 2024

Document Control and Change History
Issue1Revision0Owner
Senior Manager,
Ecolabels andResources

Global Electronics Council

ApproverVice President,
Ecolabels andManufacturer
Resources

Description
Initial release

Outcomes Report – Level 0 Investigations (P41C Issue1 Rev0)

Approval Date
18 Apr 23

Effective Date
19 Apr 23

Page 6 of 6