EPEAT Program
Continuous Monitoring Outcomes ReportServers
SV-2020-01
April 12, 2021

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 major nonconformances and the actions taken to restore accuracyof the EPEAT Registry.
This document summarizes the activities and results of Continuous Monitoring Round SV-2020-01 conducted
for the Servers category.

2.0 Overview of Continuous Monitoring Round SV-2020-01
2.1Investigation Activities

As per the published Round Plan, Continuous Monitoring Round SV-2020-01 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 Rev0)

Page 1 of 7

SV-2020-01 Outcomes Report

2.2

April 12, 2021

Criteria InvestigatedCriteria were selected for Continuous Monitoring Round SV-2020-01 based on the positive sustainability
impact the Criteria will have when adopted, and the potential to drive change in the sector. Each Participating
Manufacturer selecting the Criteria was assigned investigations and products were chosen randomly. Any
Participating Manufacturer that received a Major Nonconformance during 2019 Continuous Monitoring
activities in the Server category received an additional Investigation in this Round.
Table 1: Criteria Investigated in Round SV-2020-01
Criteria Number

Criterion Title

7.1.2

Minimum post-consumer recycled content in external enclosures

9.1.1

Design for repair, reuse and recycling

3.0 Summary of Investigations and Final Decisions on Conformity for SV-2020-01
Highlights from this Continuous Monitoring Round are:•8 investigations completed•

6 decisions of Conformance•2 decisions of Nonconformance

Further details provided in Section 4•

1 investigations cancelled

Cancelled due to administrative issue.

Figure 1: Final Conformity Decisions for SV-2020-01(shown as percentage of total investigations)Global Electronics Council

Outcomes Report – Level 1 Investigations (P41B Issue2 Rev0)

Page 2 of 7

SV-2020-01 Outcomes ReportApril 12, 2021

4.0 Further Details on Nonconformances for SV-2020-01Figure 2 below provides a further breakdown of the nonconformances by Criterion.
Figure 2: Breakdown of Nonconformances by Criterion for SV-2020-01(shown as a percentage of total nonconformances)

Figure 3 provides a further breakdown by the underlying reason for the nonconformances.

Figure 3: Underlying Reason for Nonconformances in SV-2020-01(shown as a percentage of total nonconformances)

4.1

Major Versus Minor Nonconformances

All nonconformances must be categorized as either major or minor. Minor nonconformances are non-criticalor clerical in nature and do not materially affect the validity of conformance with EPEAT Criteria. Allnonconformances that do not meet the definition of minor are categorized as major.

Global Electronics CouncilOutcomes Report – Level 1 Investigations (P41B Issue2 Rev0)

Page 3 of 7

SV-2020-01 Outcomes Report

April 12, 2021

Figure 4: Major versus Minor Nonconformances for SV-2020-01(shown as a percentage of total nonconformances)

4.2

Minor Nonconformances

For Level 1 Investigations, nonconformances may be categorized as minor 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.

One minor nonconformance was found in Round SV-2020-01 and it was due to a demonstrated
nonconformance due to a data entry error.
4.3

Major Nonconformances

Major nonconformances may be found due to a demonstrated nonconformance, insufficient evidence
provided to demonstrate conformance, or because no documentation was provided. One Major
Nonconformance was found in Round SV-2020-01 and it was due to insufficient evidence to demonstrateconformance.
The Major Nonconformance in SV-2020-01 pertained to Criterion 9.1.1. This Criterion has multiple elements,
all of which must be met to demonstrate conformance. These elements are removability of externalenclosures, replaceability of selected components, including power and data cables and identification andremovability of components requiring selective treatment. For Criterion 9.1.1, components requiring selectivetreatment must be identified in product documentation required by Criterion 9.2.1 or marked visually on theproduct as required in Criterion 9.2.3. Components requiring selective treatment are defined in the EU WEEE
Directive Annex VII.

Global Electronics Council

Outcomes Report – Level 1 Investigations (P41B Issue2 Rev0)

Page 4 of 7

SV-2020-01 Outcomes Report

April 12, 2021

5.0 Actions to Restore Conformance
Where the final conformity decision is nonconformance (whether major or minor), Participating Manufacturers
must make corrections to restore the accuracy of the EPEAT Registry during the Corrective Action Phase. Theseactivities may include providing additional evidence to demonstrate conformance with the Criterion or
unselecting the Criteria in the EPEAT Registry. Where the product was found nonconformant 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 SV-2020-01:•1 investigation

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

Table 2 in Section 7 identifies the Participating Manufacturers and products that received major
nonconformances in Continuous Monitoring Round SV-2020-01.

6.0 Key Findings
6.1

Data Entry for Criterion 7.1.2

If the external enclosure of a product does not contain plastic “Not Applicable” should be claimed in the EPEAT
Registry. If the sum of all plastic parts in the external enclosure weighs <10% of the total weight of all external
enclosure parts, “Not Applicable” can also be claimed. Products claiming “Yes” for Criterion 7.1.2 are required
to demonstrate that the external enclosure contains a minimum of 10% postconsumer recycled plasticcontent.
6.2

Conformity Against All Elements of a Criterion

As identified in Section 4.3 of this report, Criterion 9.1.1 has multiple elements against which conformancemust be shown, including documentation that addresses external enclosures, selected components andcomponents requiring selective treatment per the EU WEEE Directive Annex VII. Past Continuous Monitoring
Rounds have shown that not all applicable components such as cables and components requiring selectivetreatment are identified in product documentation. Manufacturers are encouraged to review the list ofcomponents requiring selective treatment identified in the EU WEEE Directive that are applicable to theirproducts and ensure product documentation for Criterion 9.1.1 covers all Criterion elements. Participating
Manufacturers should be prepared to demonstrate conformance with all of these elements and areencouraged to work with their CABs if they have questions.

Global Electronics Council

Outcomes Report – Level 1 Investigations (P41B Issue2 Rev0)

Page 5 of 7

SV-2020-01 Outcomes Report

April 12, 2021

7.0 Identification of Major Nonconformances and Corrections Made by Participating Manufacturers
In the interest of transparency, the EPEAT Program identifies the Participating Manufacturers and products that received major nonconformances and the actions taken to restore accuracy of the EPEAT
Registry. Minor nonconformances 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 1: Summary of Major Nonconformances and Corrections Made by Participating Manufacturers
Participating Manufacturer

ProductProduct TypeCountry

Criterion
NumberCisco

USCB-B200-M5

Blade Server

United States

9.1.1

Global Electronics Council

Criterion Title

Design for repair, reuse andrecycling

Required or
Optional

Required

Outcomes Report – Level 1 Investigations (P41B Issue2 Rev0)

Underlying Reason for Nonconformance

Corrective Action TakenInsufficient evidence to demonstrate
conformance

Participating Manufacturer provided
additional data demonstrating
conformance

Page 6 of 7

SV-2020-01 Outcomes Report

April 12, 2021

Document Control and Change History
Issue
1Revision01120Owner
EPEAT Conformity
Assurance Manager
EPEAT Conformity
Assurance Manager
Senior Manager,
Ecolabels andResources

Global Electronics Council

ApproverDirector, EPEAT
ProgramDirector, EPEAT
Program
Senior Director,
Ecolabels andManufacturer
Resources

Description
Initial release

Reformatting of document. Addition ofstandardized text.

Outcomes Report – Level 1 Investigations (P41B Issue2 Rev0)

Approval Date

Effective Date2018 Dec 112018 Dec 112021 Mar 25

2021 Mar 30

Page 7 of 7