Revision of the EU green public procurement (GPP) criteria for computers and monitors (and extension to smartphones) : technical report v3.0 : final criteria.
Date: 2021-05-28
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: computer, computer equipment, eco-label, environmental impact, environmental protection, green public procurement, maintenance, manufactured goods, mobile phone, product life, recycled product, research report

Revision of the EU Green Public 
Procurement (GPP) Criteria for Computers 
and Monitors (and extension to 
Smartphones) 

Technical Report v3.0:       
Final Criteria  

Alfieri Felice, Sanfélix Javier, Bernad Beltrán 
David, Spiliotopoulos Christoforos (JRC Dir. B – 
Growth and Innovation)  

Graulich Kathrin, Moch Katja, Quack Dietlinde 
(Oeko-Institut e.V.) 

March 2021 

EUR 30722 EN 

 
 
 
 
This report has been developed in the context of the Administrative Arrangement "Scientific support to the EU Ecolabel and Green Public 
Procurement Green Public Procurement (SupELGPP 2018)” between DG Environment and DG Joint Research Centre. The project 
responsible for DG Environment was: Enrico Degiorgis. 

This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge 
service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does 
not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the 
Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying 
the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the 
referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion 
whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or 
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

Contact information  
Name: JRC Directorate B – Growth and Innovation 
Address: C/ Inca Garcilaso, s/n 
Email: JRC-B5-GPP-COMPUTERS@ec.europa.eu 
Tel.: +34 954 48 8293 

EU Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC124294 

EUR 30722 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-38086-3 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/124337 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 

© European Union, 2021 

The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the 
reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under 
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that 
reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other 
material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 

All content © European Union, 2021, except: where the source is specified in the caption of a figure or a table. 

How to cite this report: Felice Alfieri., Javier Sanfélix, David Bernad Beltrán, Christoforos Spiliotopoulos, Kathrin Graulich, Katja Moch, 
Dietlinde Quack. Revision of the EU Green Public Procurement (GPP) Criteria for Computers and Monitors (and extension to Smartphones), 
EUR 30722 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-38086-3, doi:10.2760/124337, 
JRC124294 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 

1 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 

1.1  The criteria revision process and evidence base ........................................................................................................................................... 4 

1.2  Scope definition ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 

1.2.1 

Stakeholder feedback ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 

1.2.2 

Revised scope proposal ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 

1.2.3 
Europe 

Policy context: the new Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more competitive 
 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 

1.2.4 

Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation..................................... 8 

1.2.5 

Further background after the second stakeholder consultation .................................................................................. 8 

1.3  Market analysis ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 

1.3.1 

Current status and forecast for desktop PCs, laptops and tablets ........................................................................10 

1.3.2 

Current status and forecast for smartphones ............................................................................................................................12 

1.3.3 

Contribution of the public sector in the EU market ...............................................................................................................13 

1.4  Environmental impact analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................................15 

1.4.1 

Desktop computers and notebooks ......................................................................................................................................................15 

1.4.2 

Tablets ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................17 

1.4.3 

Smartphones ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................17 

1.5  Procurement routes ................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 

2  DRAFT CRITERIA AREAS AND PROPOSALS ......................................................................................................................................................................21 

2.1  Criteria area 1 – Product lifetime extension ..................................................................................................................................................21 

2.1.1 

Criterion 1.1 – Reparability, Reusability and Upgradeability ........................................................................................21 

2.1.1.1 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed criteria ...............................................................................26 

2.1.1.2 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed verification ....................................................................30 

2.1.1.3 

Summary of stakeholder answers from the initial survey ...............................................................................30 

2.1.1.4 

Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation ....................31 

2.1.1.5 

Further background after the second stakeholder consultation .................................................................32 

2.1.2 

Criterion 1.2 – Rechargeable battery life and endurance ...............................................................................................34 

2.1.2.1 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed criteria ...............................................................................36 

2.1.2.2 

Initial background for the proposed verification ........................................................................................................38 

2.1.2.3 

Summary of stakeholder answers from the initial survey ...............................................................................39 

2.1.2.4 

Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation ....................39 

2.1.2.5 

Further background after the second stakeholder consultation .................................................................40 

2.1.3 

Criterion 1.3 – Mobile equipment durability testing .............................................................................................................40 

2.1.3.1 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed criteria ...............................................................................45 

2.1.3.2 

Comments from the initial GPP survey 2019 ...............................................................................................................47 

i 

2.1.3.3 

Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation ....................47 

2.1.3.4 

Further background after second stakeholder consultation ...........................................................................47 

2.1.4 

Criterion 1.4 (new!) – Interoperability and reusability of components ...............................................................47 

2.1.4.1 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed criteria ...............................................................................49 

2.1.4.2 

Initial background for the proposed verification ........................................................................................................51 

2.1.4.3 

Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation ....................51 

2.1.4.4 

Further background after the second stakeholder consultation .................................................................51 

2.1.5 

Criterion 1.5 (new!) – Recycled content.............................................................................................................................................52 

2.1.5.1 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed criteria ...............................................................................52 

2.1.5.2 

First criteria proposal: summary of the comments received and rationale for the revision.. 
 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................53 

2.1.5.3 

Further background after the second stakeholder consultation .................................................................53 

2.2  Criteria area 2 – Energy consumption ..................................................................................................................................................................55 

2.2.1 

Background and rationale for the criteria revision ................................................................................................................58 

2.2.1.1 

Computer products ..................................................................................................................................................................................58 

2.2.1.2 

Thin client solutions ................................................................................................................................................................................59 

2.2.1.3 

Computer monitors .................................................................................................................................................................................60 

2.2.1.4 

Batteries ............................................................................................................................................................................................................62 

2.2.2 

Initial background and rationale for the criteria verification .......................................................................................62 

2.2.2.1 

Computers .......................................................................................................................................................................................................62 

2.2.2.2  Displays ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................62 

2.2.3 

Summary of stakeholder answers from the initial survey .............................................................................................62 

2.2.4 

Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation..................................63 

2.2.5 

Further background after the second stakeholder consultation ...............................................................................64 

2.3  Criteria area 3 – Hazardous substances ............................................................................................................................................................65 

2.3.1 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed criteria ............................................................................................68 

2.3.2 

Background for the proposed verification ......................................................................................................................................70 

2.3.3 

Summary of stakeholder answers from the initial survey .............................................................................................70 

2.3.4 

Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation..................................71 

2.3.5 

Further background after the second stakeholder consultation ...............................................................................74 

2.4  Criteria area 4 – End-of-life management ......................................................................................................................................................76 

2.4.1 

Criterion 4.1 – Design for recycling ......................................................................................................................................................76 

2.4.1.1 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed criteria ...............................................................................79 

2.4.1.2 

Comments from the initial GPP survey 2019 ...............................................................................................................82 

2.4.1.3 

Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation ....................82 

2.4.1.4 

Further background after the second stakeholder consultation .................................................................83 

2.4.2 

Criterion 4.2 – Design for dismantling ...............................................................................................................................................84 

2.4.3 

Criterion 4.3 – End-of-life management .........................................................................................................................................85 

2.4.3.1 

Background and rationale for the proposed criteria ...............................................................................................87 

2.4.3.2 

Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation ....................87 

ii 

 
2.5  Criteria area 5 – Criteria proposals for “refurbished/remanufactured products” (separate procurement 
route)..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................89 

2.5.1 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed criteria ............................................................................................89 

2.5.2 

Further feedback and background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation .. 
 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................91 

2.5.3 

Revised criteria proposal for the procurement of refurbished/remanufactured products ...............91 

2.5.4 

Further feedback and background after the second stakeholder consultation ..........................................96 

3  GUIDANCE: CRITERIA APPLICABILITY AND PRIORITIES FOR THE DIFFERENT PRODUCT GROUPS IN THE SCOPE
 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................97 

3.1  Applicability of criteria for the different product groups in the scope ..................................................................................97 

3.1.1 

Stationary ICT devices (computers, computer displays) ...................................................................................................97 

3.1.1.1 

Stationary computers ...........................................................................................................................................................................97 

3.1.1.2 

Computer displays ...................................................................................................................................................................................98 

3.1.2  Mobile ICT devices .................................................................................................................................................................................................98 

3.1.2.1 

Portable computers (notebooks, two-in-one notebooks, mobile thin clients) ................................98 

3.1.2.2 

Tablet computers and smartphones ......................................................................................................................................99 

3.2  Use of labels as means of proof ........................................................................................................................................................................... 101 

Annexes ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 106 

Annex 1: Battery testing according to IEC EN 61960-3:2017 ................................................................................................................ 106 

Annex 2: Durability tests for mobile equipment................................................................................................................................................... 107 

Annex 3: Minimum energy performance for computers (based on Energy Star for Computers, Specification 
7.1)   ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 109 

iii 

 
 
 
 
List of figures 

Figure 1. Global shipments 2010-2018 and estimates for 2019, 2022 and 2023 ............................. 10 

Figure 2. Global computer market 2020 ............................................................................ 11 

Figure 3. PC shipments by vendor 2018 ............................................................................ 11 

Figure 4. Tablet shipments by vendor 2018 ........................................................................ 11 

Figure 5. Smartphone shipments worldwide 2010-2017 and estimates for 2018 and 2022 ................. 12 

Figure 6. Smartphone shipments worldwide by vendor Q1 2018 ................................................ 13 

Figure 7. Analysis of tenders in the period mid-May to mid-June 2019 ......................................... 14 

Figure 8. Comparison of the total greenhouse gas potential (THG100) of the three types of computer 
workstation (values rounded, without recycling credits) ............................................................ 15 

Figure 9. Multi-display use ........................................................................................... 16 

Figure 10. Possible procurement routes identified for public organisations ..................................... 20 

Figure 11. Damage to mobile equipment in organisations reported by the IDC study (2016) ................. 45 

Figure 12. Basic Universal Power Adaptor (UPA) configurations and connection options (Source: ITU-T 2016)
 .......................................................................................................................... 50 

Figure 13. Measured power and energy use for different modes of operation ................................. 59 

Figure 14. Energy label class distribution of standard electronic display models available in the EU over the 
period 2010-2030 ..................................................................................................... 61 

Figure 15. Distribution of displays from the 2018 dataset with a projection of expected improvements at the 
entry into force of the rescaled labels ............................................................................... 61 

iv 

 
 
List of tables 

Table 1. Proposed revised scope of the GPP criteria for ICT devices .............................................. 6 

Table 2. Estimated ICT market value in different EU and non-EU countries (Bechtle AG) ...................... 13 

Table 3. Reparability, reusability and upgradeability - current criteria (2016) and TR v3.0 ..................... 21 

Table 4. Rechargeable battery life and endurance - current criteria (2016) and TR v3.0 ....................... 34 

Table 5. Electrical tests and acceptance criteria covered by IEC EN 61960:3-2017 ............................ 37 

Table 6. Mobile equipment durability testing - current criteria (2016) and TR v3.0 ............................. 40 

Table 7. Differences in test conditions of durability tests between EU GPP and TCO ........................... 46 

Table 8. Interoperability and reusability of components - current criteria (2016) and TR v3.0................. 47 

Table 9. Energy consumption - current criteria (2016) and TR v3.0 .............................................. 55 

Table 10. Energy efficiency classes and corresponding Energy Efficiency Index for displays .................. 60 

Table 11. Hazardous substances - current criteria (2016) and TR v3.0 .......................................... 65 

Table 12. Criteria on halogenated flame retardants in different ecolabelling schemes ........................ 69 

Table 13. Design for recycling - current criteria (2016) and TR v3.0 ............................................. 76 

Table 14. Analysis of EU GPP and ecolabel schemes: Differences in criteria on marking of plastic parts ..... 80 

Table 15. List of CRM present in the products under the scope................................................... 81 

Table 16. End-of-life management - current criteria (2016) and TR v3.0 ....................................... 85 

Table 17. Initial criteria proposal TS8 Refurbished Products (GPP Technical Report Draft V1 November 2019)
 .......................................................................................................................... 90 

Table 18. GPP criteria applicable to stationary computers ........................................................ 97 

Table 19. GPP criteria applicable to computer displays ........................................................... 98 

Table 20. GPP criteria applicable to portable computers .......................................................... 99 

Table 21. GPP criteria applicable to tablet computers and smartphones ...................................... 100 

Table 22. Applicability of labels as means of proof for the Product Lifetime Extension Criteria ............. 102 

Table 23. Applicability of labels as means of proof for the Energy Efficiency Criteria ........................ 103 

Table 24. Applicability of labels as means of proof for the Hazardous Substances Criteria ................. 104 

Table 25. Applicability of labels as means of proof for the End-of-Life Criteria .............................. 105 

Table 26. Power Supply Efficiency Allowance .................................................................... 109 

Table 27. Base TEC (TECBASE) Allowances for Desktops or Integrated Desktops and Notebooks .............. 110 

Table 28. Functional Adder Allowances for Desktop, Integrated Desktop, and Notebook Computers ........ 111 

Table 29. Adder Allowances for Thin Clients ............................................................................ 112 

v 

 
 
 
 
List of acronyms 

AC 

Award criterion 

AHWG 

Ad Hoc Working Group 

B2B 

Business to Business 

AHWG 

Ad Hoc Working Group 

BBP 

CPC 

CPU 

CRM 

DaaS 

DBP 

DEHP 

DIBP 

EMI 

EoL 

EPS 

ESD 

GHG 

GPP 

GWP 

HDD 

Benzyl Butyl Phthalate 

Contract Performance Clause 

Central Processing Unit  

Critical Raw Materials  

Device as a Service 

Dibutyl phthalate   

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate   

Diisobutyl phthalate  

Electromagnetic Interference  

End of Life 

External Power Supply 

Electrostatic Discharge 

Greenhouse Gas     

Green Public Procurement 

Global Warming Potential 

Hard Disk Drive  

HDMI 

High-Definition Multimedia Interface 

IC 

ICT 

LCA 

LCC 

LCD 

ODD 

OEM 

PBB 

Integrated Circuit   

Information and Communications Technology 

Life Cycle Assessment 

Life Cycle Costing  

Liquid Crystal Display 

Optical Disc Drive   

Original Equipment Manufacturer 

Polybrominated biphenyls 

PBDE 

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers 

PC 

PCB 

PCF 

PCC 

PD 

PPM 

Personal Computer 

Printed Circuit Board 

Product Carbon Footprint 

Post-Consumer Recycled Content 

Power Delivery 

Parts Per Million 

PMMA 

Poly(methyl methacrylate) 

PSU 

Power Supply Unit 

vi 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
RAM 

Random Access Memory 

REACH 

Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals 

RoHS 

Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive 

SC 

SCIP 

SoC 

SoH 

SME 

SSD 

Selection criteria 

Substances of Concern in Products 

State of Charge 

State of Health 

Small to Medium-Sized Enterprise 

Solid-state Drive 

SVHC 

Substance of Very High Concern 

TS 

UPA 

USB 

VGA 

Technical specification 

Universal power adapter 

Universal Serial Bus 

Video Graphics Array 

vii 

 
 
Abstract 

This report is the final science for policy report supporting the revision of the EU  Green Public Procurement (GPP) Criteria for 
Computers and Monitors, and the extension of these criteria to Smartphones. 

These EU GPP Criteria aim at helping public authorities to ensure that ICT equipment and services are procured in such a way 
that they deliver environmental improvements that contribute to  European policy objectives for energy, climate change and 
resource  efficiency,  as  well  as  reducing  life  cycle  costs.  The  revision  process  has  taken  into  account  market  and  technical 
developments as well as the experience gained by stakeholders in the application of the previous version of criteria. 

These criteria for computers, monitors, tablets and smartphones focus on the most significant environmental impacts during 
their life cycle, which have been divided into four distinct  areas: product lifetime extension; energy consumption; hazardous 
substances;  end-of-life  management.  This  set  of  criteria  also  includes  a  further  category  of  criteria  that  apply  to  separate 
procurements for refurbished/remanufactured devices and related services.  

For each area of focus, one or more criteria are provided, accompanied by the background technical rationale and a summary 
of the stakeholder contributions that support the final version of each criterion. Procurers can apply the criteria and engage 
tenderers  to  reduce  the  life  cycle  environmental  impacts  of  their  activities,  focusing  on  those  areas  presenting  the  most 
improvement  opportunities  from  cost  and  market  perspectives  and  for  which  performance  can  be  verified.  The  identified 
procurement  processes  and  final  green  criteria  are  also  described  in  a  separate  document,  published  as  a  Staff  Working 
Document  of  the  Commission:  SWD(2021)  57  final.  Together  these  two  documents  aim  to  provide  public  authorities  with 
orientation on how to effectively integrate these EU GPP criteria into their procurement processes. 

  1 

 
Acknowledgements 

The authors would like to thank the experts involved in the development of this study for the valuable input 
provided,  including  the  colleagues  from  other  European  Commission  DGs  providing  inputs  and  support,  the 
members of the GPP Advisory Group and the organisations participating in the stakeholder consultation. The 
authors are also grateful to Ms. Carmen Ramirez and Mr. Rick Nowfer (DG JRC) for the support provided during 
the stakeholder consultation process and for the editorial support, and also to Ms. Anna Atkinson (DG JRC) for 
the proof-reading. 

  2 

 
 
 
1 

Introduction 

This  document  is  intended  to  provide  the  background  information  for  the  revision  of  the  EU  Green  Public 
Procurement  (GPP)  criteria  for  Computers  and  Displays.  The  new  proposed  title  of  the  Staff  Working 
Document  is  EU  Green  Public  Procurement  (GPP)  Criteria  for  Computers,  Monitors,  Tablets  and 
Smartphones.  

The study has been carried out by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) with technical support from the consulting 
firm  Oeko-Institut.  The  work  has  been  developed  for  the  European  Commission’s  Directorate-General  for 
Environment. EU  GPP criteria aim at assisting  public authorities with the purchase of  products,  services and 
works with reduced environmental impacts.  

The use of the criteria is voluntary. The criteria are formulated in such a way that, if deemed appropriate by 
the individual authority, they can be integrated into its tender documents.  

There are four main types of GPP criteria: 

a. Selection criteria (SC) assess the suitability of an economic operator to carry out a contract and may relate to: 

- (a) suitability to pursue the professional activity; 

- (b) economic and financial standing; 

- (c) technical and professional ability. 

b.  Technical  specifications  (TS),  the  required  characteristics  of  a  product  or  a  service  including  requirements 
relevant to the product at any stage of the life cycle of the supply or service and conformity assessment procedures; 

c.  Award  criteria  (AC),  qualitative  criteria  with  a  weighted  scoring  which  are  chosen  to  determine  the  most 
economically advantageous tender. The criteria are linked to  the subject matter of the public contract in question 
and may comprise, for instance: 

- environmental performance characteristics, including technical merit, 

functional and other innovative characteristics; 

- organisation, qualification and experience of staff assigned to perform the contract, where the quality of 
the staff assigned can have a significant impact on the level of performance of the contract; or 

- after-sales service and technical assistance, delivery conditions such as delivery date, delivery process 
and delivery period or period of completion. 

Award criteria shall be considered to be linked to the subject matter of the public contract where they relate to the 
works, supplies  or services to be provided under that contract in  any respect and at any stage  of their life cycle, 
including factors involved in: 

- (a) the specific process of production, provision or trading of those works, supplies or services; or 

- (b) a specific process for another stage of their life cycle, even where such factors do not form part of 
their material substance. 

d. Contract performance clauses (CPC), special conditions laid down that relate to the performance of a contract 
and how it shall be carried out and monitored, provided that they are linked to the subject matter of the contract. 

For each set of criteria there is a choice between two ambition levels: 

●  The core criteria are designed to allow for easy application of GPP, focussing on the key area(s) 
of  environmental  performance  of  a  product  and  aimed  at  keeping  administrative  costs  for 
companies to a minimum. 

●  The comprehensive criteria take into account more aspects or higher levels of environmental 
performance,  for  use  by  authorities  that  want  to  go  further  in  supporting  environmental  and 
innovation goals. 

  3 

 
 
1.1  The criteria revision process and evidence base 

The main purpose of this document is to present the third draft of the criteria developed, taking into account 
the  background  technical  analysis  presented  in  the  preliminary  report  produced  by  Oeko-Institut  and 
addressing key aspects of this product group: 

●  market development since the last update; 

●  application of current GPP criteria; 

● 

technical aspects (including existing GPP criteria, legal provisions and voluntary approaches). 

A general questionnaire about scope was sent out to a wide range of stakeholders in May 2019. The target 
groups  were  government,  industry,  service  providers,  NGOs,  academics  and  public  procurers.  The  input 
provided were incorporated into the first draft report and, together with the outcome of the preliminary report, 
were the basis for the proposed revised criteria and for continuing the consultation with the stakeholders.  

The second draft report was the outcome of the 1st AHWG meeting which took place on 11 December 2019 in 
Seville  (Spain)  and  the  following  commenting  period  that  took  place  until  3  February  2020.  This  revision 
included  guidance  for  the  applicability  of  the  criteria  to  different  product  groups  and  prioritisation  (Chapter 
3.1) and  guidance on the  use of labels as means of proof (Chapter 3.2). Moreover,  the order of the criteria 
area has been changed to better reflect the priority areas identified. 

A  written  consultation  took  place  from  24  June  to  14  August  2020.  Based  on  the  comments  received,  this 
third (final) version of the technical report has been drafted.  

In  order  to  simplify  and reduce  the  text  and  reduce  the  risk of  making  the  criteria  text  obsolete, the  list  of 
applicable ecolabels has been summarised in Section 3.2 and removed from the criteria text boxes. 

  4 

 
 
1.2  Scope definition 

The previous version of the  EU GPP  criteria for computers and monitors (2016)1 had the following products 
under their scope: 

 Stationary computers 

●  Desktop Computers (including Integrated Desktop Computers and Thin Clients) 

●  Small-scale Servers 

●  Workstations 

Display devices 

●  Computer Monitors 

Portable computers 

●  Notebook Computers (including subnotebooks) 

●  Two-In-One Notebooks 

●  Tablet Computers  

●  Portable All-In-One Computers 

●  Mobile Thin Clients 

1.2.1  Stakeholder feedback  

In the initial phase of the revision process, stakeholders were asked through a questionnaire (May 2019) to 
provide  feedback  on  whether  the  current  scope  reflects  computer  and  monitor  equipment  procurement 
priorities. Many of the respondents agreed that the scope covers the needs, although some comments asking 
for clarifications and/or the possibility to adapt the scope were received:  

●  Small-scale servers should be addressed in the server-related GPP (i.e. devices installed in a data 

centre or server room).  

●  The terminology for portable computers should be revised 

●  Most All-In-One Computers are stationary and not part of the portable segment. 

●  Smartphones could be a part of the GPP criteria for computers.  

●  Display devices should include projectors and large-format displays. 

Some  stakeholders  also  suggested  that  a  more  harmonised  approach  could  help  the  procurers  in  the 
implementation of GPP criteria. . Additional clarifications on the scope were suggested during the first written 
consultation, including the differentiation between mobile and stationary workstations. 

1.2.2  Revised scope proposal 

The preliminary analysis carried out at the beginning of this revision process highlighted a substantial overlap 
between  criteria  applicable  for  portable  devices  as  smartphones,  tablets  and  notebooks.  Moreover,  the 
analysis of environmental impacts (see Section 1.4)  shows very similar hotspots related to the life  cycle of 
these  products.  Based  on  this evidence  and taking  into  account  the  feedbacks  received  by  the  stakeholders 
(see  section  1.2.1)  the  extension  of  the  criteria  scope  to  smartphone  has  been  agreed  with  DG  ENV,  The 
following scope was proposed and agreed by stakeholders at the first AHWG meeting (Table 1): 

1 http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/product-

bureau//sites/default/files/contentype/product_group_documents/1581682454/EU_GPP_criteria_for_computers_and_monitors.pdf 

  5 

 
 
                                           
Table 1. Proposed revised scope of the GPP criteria for ICT devices  

Proposed revised scope of the GPP criteria (second proposal)  

Stationary ICT devices 

 

Computers 
 
 
 
 

Desktop computers  
Integrated desktop computers 
Desktop thin clients 
Desktop workstations (or workstations) 

 

Computer displays 

Mobile ICT devices 

 

Portable computers 

 
 
 
 

Notebook computers 
Two-in-one notebooks 
Mobile thin Clients 
Mobile workstations 

 
 

Tablets 
Smartphones 

The following definitions are applied according to Commission Regulation No 617/2013 of 26 June 2013 with 
regard to ecodesign requirements for computers and computer servers: 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

‘Desktop  computer’  means  a  computer  where  the  main  unit  is  intended  to  be  located  in  a 
permanent  location  and  is  not  designed  for  portability  and  which  is  designed  for  use  with  an 
external display and external peripherals such as a keyboard and mouse. 

‘All-in-one  computer’  (or  integrated  desktop  computer)  means  a  computer  in  which  the 
computer and the display function as a single unit, which receives its AC power through a single 
cable. Integrated desktop computers come in one of two possible forms: (1) a product where the 
display and the computer are physically combined into a single unit; or (2) a product where the 
display  is  separated  from  the  computer  but  it  is  connected  to  the  main  chassis  by  a  direct 
current  (DC)  power  cord.  An  integrated  desktop  computer  is  intended  to  be  located  in  a 
permanent  location  and  is  not  designed  for  portability.  Integrated  desktop  computers  are  not 
primarily designed for the display and reception of audiovisual signals. 

‘Desktop  thin  client’  means  a  computer  that  relies  on  a  connection  to  remote  computing 
resources  (e.g.  servers)  to  obtain  primary  functionality  and  has  no  rotational  storage  media 
integral  to  the  product.  The  main  unit  of  a  desktop  thin  client  must  be  intended  for  use  in  a 
permanent  location  (e.g.  on  a  desk)  and  not  for  portability.  Desktop  thin  clients  can  output 
information to either an external or, where included with the product, an internal display. 

‘Workstation’  means  a  high-performance,  single-user  computer  primarily  used  for  graphics, 
Computer-Aided Design, software development, financial and scientific applications among other 
compute intensive tasks. 

‘Notebook  computer’  means  a  computer  designed  specifically  for  portability  and  to  be 
operated for extended periods of time either with or without a direct connection to an AC power 
source. 

‘Mobile thin client’ means a type of notebook computer that relies on a connection to remote 
computing  resources  (e.g.  computer server,  remote  workstation)  to  obtain  primary  functionality 
and has no rotational storage media integral to the product. 

The  following  definition  is applied  according  to  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  2019/2021  of  1  October  2019 
laying down ecodesign requirements for electronic displays: 

  6 

 
 
 
 
● 

‘Computer  display’,  ‘monitor’  or  ‘computer  monitor’  means  an  electronic  display  intended 
for one person for close viewing such as in a desk-based environment2. 

The scope of these EU GPP criteria covers a broader range of ICT products available on the market. Additional 
definitions  applied  are  based  on  ecolabels  (e.g.  EU  Ecolabel,  TCO  Certified  Generation  8,  EPEAT),  on  the 
Preparatory  Study  on  the  Review  of  Regulation  617/20133  and  the  Ecodesign  preparatory  study  on  mobile 
phones, smartphones and tablets (Task 1)4. The following definitions apply: 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

‘Tablet  Computer’  (often  referred  to  as ‘slate  computer’)  means  a  mobile  personal  computer 
that meets the two following criteria: 

(a)  includes  an  integrated  touch-sensitive  display  as  the  main  input  and  output  medium  and 
relies on users' activation of the touch-sensitive display for inputs;  

(b) does not have an integrated physical keyboard, although a detached keyboard may be used 
as a separated input device.  

‘Two-in-one  notebook’  means  a  computer  which  resembles  a  traditional  notebook  computer 
but has a detachable display which can act as an independent slate/tablet when disconnected. 

‘Smartphone’  is  an  electronic  device  used  for  long-range  communication  over  a  cellular 
network of specialised base stations known as cell sites. It must also have functionality similar to 
a  wireless,  portable  computer that  is  primarily  for  battery  mode  usage  and  has  a  touchscreen 
interface. Connection to the  mains via an external power supply is considered to be  mainly for 
battery charging purposes and an onscreen virtual keyboard or a digital pen takes the place of a 
physical  keyboard.  A  smartphone  is  furthermore  characterised  by  an  operating  system,  Wi-Fi 
connectivity,  mobile  use  of  internet  services,  and  the  ability  to  accept  original  and  third-party 
software applications. A smartphone has an integrated touchscreen display with a diagonal size 
between 4 and 7 inches. 

These product definitions are inclusive of any external peripherals (e.g. mouse, track pad, keyboard) and power 
supplies that can be supplied with the product.  

The GPP criteria presented in this report are applicable to different procurement routes as described in Section 
1.5.  The  scope  of  this  proposal  also  covers  the  procurement  of  refurbished/remanufactured  devices  (see 
Section  2.5).  Guidance  for  the  applicability  of  the  criteria  to  different  product  groups  and  prioritisation  is 
presented in Section 3.1 of this report. 

1.2.3  Policy  context:  the  new  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan  for  a  cleaner  and  more 

competitive Europe 

Due to the relevance of the new EU policy initiatives launched after the first criteria proposal, this new section 
aims to provide a short summary of the policy context. 

The  new  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan5  (CEAP)  of  the  European  Commission  foresees  a  ‘Circular  Electronics 
Initiative’ mobilising existing and new instruments. In particular, the following actions are planned in the time 
period 2020-2022: 

—  New  and/or  revised  ecodesign  measures  for  electronics  and  ICT  computers  including mobile  phones, 
tablets and computers in order to ensure that devices are designed for energy efficiency and durability, 
reparability, upgradability, maintenance, reuse and recycling.  

—  Focus on electronics and ICT as a priority sector for implementing the ‘right to repair’, including a right 

to update obsolete software. 

2 Other categories of electronic displays under Commission Regulation EU 2019/2021 are not proposed under the scope of these criteria. 
3  Preparatory  study  on  the  review  of  Regulation  617/2013  Computers  and  Computer  Servers  –  Task  7  (2017)  Viegand  Maagoe  and  Vito.  Available  at 

https://computerregulationreview.eu/documents 

4  Ecodesign  preparatory  study  on  mobile phones,  smartphones  and  tablets  Draft  Task  1  Report  Scope  (definitions,  standards  and  legislation).  Available  at 

https://www.ecosmartphones.info/documents/  

5 COM(2020)98 A new Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and more competitive Europe. 

  7 

 
 
                                           
—  Regulatory measures on chargers for mobile phones and similar devices, including the introduction of 
a  common  charger, improving  the  durability  of  charging  cables,  and  incentives  to  decouple  the 
purchase of chargers from the purchase of new devices.6  

—  Improving  the  collection  and  treatment  of  waste  electrical  and  electronic  equipment  including  by 
exploring options  for an  EU-wide take-back scheme to return or sell back old mobile phones, tablets 
and chargers. 

—  Review  of  EU  rules  on restrictions  of  hazardous  substances  in  electrical  and  electronic 
equipment  and  provision  of  guidance  to  improve  coherence  with  relevant  legislation,  including 
REACH and Ecodesign. 

The  CEAP  also  foresees  initiatives  enhancing  the  sustainability  of  batteries.  A  new  legislative  proposal 
builds  on  the  evaluation  of  the  Batteries  Directive  and  the  work  of  the  Batteries  Alliance 7.  Possible  aspects 
that  would  be  addressed  are  rules  on  recycled  content,  sustainability  and  transparency  requirements,  the 
carbon footprint of battery manufacturing, the ethical sourcing of raw materials and security of supply, and 
facilitating reuse, repurposing and recycling7. 

Furthermore, a process for the definition of the EU Ecolabel Criteria for Electronic Displays has recently been 
finalised, covering also computer monitors in the scope. The EU Ecolabel Criteria for Electronic Displays8 were 
voted on in June 2020 and published in the Official Journal in November 2020.  

Regarding smartphones and tablets, an Ecodesign preparatory study is assessing the feasibility of proposing 
Ecodesign and/or Energy Labelling requirements for these product groups9. A preparatory study on the review 
of  Ecodesign  Regulation  617/2013  for  computers  was  also  conducted  between  January  2017  and  July 
201810. Related study documents are available at. Both studies are based on the Methodology for Ecodesign 
of Energy-related Products (MEErP) detailed on the methodology pages.  

1.2.4  Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation 

Overall, the stakeholders welcomed the scope expansion of the criteria to smartphones. In order to deal with 
the increased complexity of the criteria, stakeholders requested clarification on the applicability of the criteria 
to each product type and also to different procurement areas (e.g. device as a service) or to specific end use 
applications (e.g. in the case of rugged devices). It was also requested to better take into account differences 
between  products.  Clarifications  were  also  asked  for  on  the  classification  of  workstations  that  can  be  both 
stationary and mobile. Some stakeholders expressed concern about the high number of criteria, asking for a 
reduction and to  highlight the most  relevant ones. Several stakeholders also requested  clarifications on the 
use of specific labels as means of proof. Based on these comments, an additional section has been added at 
the end of this report to help the reader map the applicability of the criteria for the different products in the 
scope (Section 3.1) and to guide them on the use of labels as means of proof (Section 0). 

In  addition,  some  concern  was expressed  about  the  level  of  ambition,  considering  that  some  of  the  criteria 
could soon become mandatory requirements due to the revision of the Ecodesign implementing measure for 
computers11  and,  for  this  reason,  it  was  suggested  that  the  level  of  ambition  in  terms  of  environmental 
performance should be increased.  

1.2.5  Further background after the second stakeholder consultation 

Several  stakeholders  welcomed  the  simplifications  introduced  in  the  second  revision  and  the  applicability 
guidance in Chapter 3 of this report. However, it is pointed out that there are fewer award criteria and less use 
of the core and comprehensive levels, and this is not necessarily considered the best way of simplifying the 
criteria. Moreover, there is still the request for a reduction in the number of applicable criteria. 

6 An impact assessment study on this topic was published in December 2019, focusing on mobile phones and potentially to be extended to other portable 

electronics https://op.europa.eu/nl/publication-detail/-/publication/c6fadfea-4641-11ea-b81b-01aa75ed71a1 
7 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/Proposal_for_a_Regulation_on_batteries_and_waste_batteries.pdf 
8 Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1804 of 27 November 2020 establishing the EU Ecolabel criteria for electronic displays (notified under document C(2020) 

8156) (Text with EEA relevance) C/2020/8156 OJ L 402, 1.12.2020, p. 73–88 

9 https://www.ecosmartphones.info/. 
10 https://computerregulationreview.eu/documents 
11

  Regulation  (EU)  No  617/2013  of  26  June  2013  implementing  Directive  2009/125/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  with  regard  to 

ecodesign requirements for computers and computer servers. OJ L 175 of 27 June 2013 

  8 

 
 
                                           
In general, stakeholders consider that the most relevant ecological criteria have been included. However, there 
are criteria areas deemed important and not within the scope, in particular social aspects in the supply chain, 
conflict  minerals,  but  also  critical  raw  materials  (CRM)  (see  also  the  discussion  in  Section  2.4.1),  recycled 
content (see Section 2.1.5) and energy in manufacturing (see Section 2.2). In particular, the inclusion of social 
aspects has been advocated by a wide group of stakeholders (i.e. manufacturers, NGOs, Member States) along 
the entire revision process. Although the development of social criteria is not within the scope of this EU GPP 
criteria  revision  process,  relevant  examples  of  socially  responsible  procurement  criteria  are  provided  by  the 
Commission  report  “Making  Socially  Responsible  Public  Procurement  work:  71  Good  Practice  Cases” 12.  Four 
cases applicable to the ICT sector from three EU Member States are included in this collection of case studies. 
According to this analysis, ICT equipment has the particular difficulty of long, complex supply chains, which is 
a challenge for contracting authorities and suppliers alike when trying to ensure compliance and verification. 
Cases  reported  in  this  study  show  that  a  suite  of  measures  exist,  including  Codes  of  Conduct,  technical 
specifications, award criteria and contract performance clauses, all of which aim to increase transparency and 
to establish due diligence as standard practice. 

Another general point raised by several Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) refers to the requirement for 
test reports/certificates from an accredited conformity assessment body (specifically ISO 17025 13 accredited 
laboratories and testing bodies). The need for these is questioned and considered to add lead time and costs 
without  environmental  benefits.  The  JRC  believes  that  accreditation  enhances  the  reliability  of  test  results 
provided by laboratories.  

Moreover,  the  same  Procurement  Directive14  allows  for  some  flexibility  in  the  implementation  of  this 
requirement:  Art.  44(2)  “contracting  authorities  shall  accept  other  appropriate  means  of  proof  (such  as  a 
technical  dossier  of  the  manufacturer)  where  the  economic  operator  concerned  had  no  access  to  the 
certificates or test reports referred, or no possibility of obtaining them within the relevant time limits, provided 
that the lack of access is not attributable to the economic operator concerned and provided that the economic 
operator concerned thereby proves that the works, supplies or services provided by it meet the requirements 
or criteria set out in the criterion”.  

12 Authors: Tepper P., McLennan A., Hirt R., Defranceschi P., ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability and Caimi V., Elu A, AEIDL. With the support of Public 
Procurement Analysis, Dialog Makarna and Social Economy Europe (2020). Making socially responsible public procurement work 71 good practice cases, 
ISBN  978-92-9202-958-6  doi:  10.2826/844552.  Avaialable  at:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/69fc6007-a970-11ea-bb7a-
01aa75ed71a1 

13 ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories 
14 Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on Public Procurement 

  9 

 
 
                                           
1.3  Market analysis 

This section provides an overview of the market for desktop PCs, laptops, tablets and smartphones, as well as 
a forecast for the next few years at global level. Additional data and estimations were collected after the first 
stakeholder meeting, especially regarding the market contribution of the  public  sector, addressed in Section 
1.3.3.  

It is important to highlight that the market trends and forecast presented below are based on data collected 
pre-COVID-19.  During  the  current  COVID-19  pandemic,  consumers,  businesses  and  public  administrations 
have had to adapt quickly to a “new normal”. ICT has helped in many areas, from smart working to distance 
learning,  remote  asset  control,  and  automation.  ICT  products  represent  a  way  to  help  both  businesses  and 
society  respond  to  this  crisis.  On  the  other  hand,  the  economic  crisis  caused  by  COVID-19  has  created  a 
challenging  environment  for  businesses,  citizens  and  public  administrations  to  invest  in  ICT  products  and 
services. 

1.3.1  Current status and forecast for desktop PCs, laptops and tablets 

The  desktop  PC,  laptop  and  tablet  market  is  generally  considered  a  stable,  high-turnover  market,  with  over 
400  million  units  sold  globally  in  2018.  Despite  this  high  level,  the  market  has  shown  regressive  sales 
numbers  in  recent  years  (2014-2018),  also  known  as  a  'declining  plateau'  in  sales  (Figure  1).  In  particular, 
desktop  PCs  have  shown  a  significant  decline  in  the  period  2010-2018  and  are  expected  to  have  a  similar 
pattern up to 2023. Laptops have shown a slower decline in the same period, although this product range has 
potential  for  improvement  up  to  2023,  mainly  due  to  the  growing  market  of  the  'ultramobile'  products: 
notebooks with 4''-7'' screens. Tablets, which peaked in 2014 with 230 million units sold, have shown an even 
faster decline since then, expecting to have a similar pattern up to 2023.  

Estimates for 2020 indicate that laptops will still dominate the market with 44% of the total, with tablets still 
strong  in  the  market  with  29%  despite  regressive  sales.  Desktop  PCs  –including  integrated  PCs, thin  clients 
and  workstations–  will  account  for  the  remaining  27%  of  the  market  (Figure  2).  These  numbers  are  not 
expected to change significantly between 2020 and 203015. 

Figure 1. Global shipments 2010-2018 and estimates for 2019, 2022 and 202316 

15Preparatory  study  on  the  review  of  Regulation  617/2013  Computers  and  Computer  Servers  –  Task  7  (2017)  Viegand  Maagoe  and  Vito. 

https://computerregulationreview.eu/documents 

16https://www.statista.com/statistics/272595/global-shipments-forecast-for-tablets-laptops-and-desktop-pcs/ (accessed on June 2019) 

  10 

 
 
 
                                           
Figure 2. Global computer market 202017 

The regressive market trend for PCs, laptops and tablets is mostly explained by shifting consumer demands 
and technology overlap. Consumers have adopted smartphones for applications previously provided by larger 
computer types. At the same time, tablet consumers seem to be moving either towards 'ultramobile' laptops, 
which are constantly being made smaller and lighter, or to smartphones, which show a constant increase in 
screen  size  and  functionality.  It  is  expected  that  the  demand  for  PCs  will  remain  strong  in  business 
applications  and  show  a  faster  decline  in  private  uses,  whereas  laptops  and  tablets  will  remain  a  stronger 
market in private applications.  

The main desktop PC vendors in 2018 were Lenovo and HP, both with 23% of the market, followed by Dell 
(17%),  Apple  and  Acer  (7%  each)  (Figure  3).  A  clear  market  trend  seems  to  be  the  consolidation  of  big 
manufacturers,  with  Lenovo,  HP  and  Dell  showing  a  significant  growth  tendency  over  the  past  few  years; 
together with a decrease in sales for PC makers that are not part of the top three (Bott, 2019).  

In tablets, the market is led  by Apple (27%), followed by  Samsung (14%),  Amazon (12%) and  Huawei (9%) 
(Figure 4). It is worth noting that Lenovo leads the desktop PC market with 23% but also accounts for 6% of 
the tablets market. A similar situation occurs with Apple, which accounts for 7% of the desktop PC market and 
leads the tablets market with significant distance to its competitors. 

Figure 3. PC shipments by vendor 2018 

Figure 4. Tablet shipments by vendor 2018 

Source: (Statista, 2019b) 

Source: (Statista, 2019c) 

17  Preparatory  study  on  the  review  of  Regulation  617/2013  Computers  and  Computer  Servers  –  Task  7  (2017)  Viegand  Maagoe  and  Vito. 

https://computerregulationreview.eu/documents 

  11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
1.3.2  Current status and forecast for smartphones 

The smartphones market is very strong, with more than 1.4 billion units shipped in 2018 (Figure 5). The total 
number  of  smartphone  users  was  estimated  to  be  around  2.5  billion  in  2018.  This  market  showed  a  fast 
growth between 2010 and 2015, with a declining plateau from then up to 2019, similar to the one observed 
with the computers market18. Potential reasons for this decline are: 

● 

slowing down of technological innovation (less incentive for consumers to have the latest model); 

●  market saturation (90-100% in developed markets); 

●  elongation  of  replacement  cycles 

(due  to  durability,  waterproofing  and  battery 

life 

improvements); 

●  growth deceleration in some developing economies (e.g. China). 

Figure 5. Smartphone shipments worldwide 2010-2017 and estimates for 2018 and 202219 

From 2019 onwards, with the progressive equipping of developing countries and the introduction of innovative 
technologies such as 5G (0.5% of total smartphones that year), shipments are expected to grow again to over 
1.5 billion units in 2023 (when 5G is expected to account for 26.3% of the total).  

In terms of smartphone vendors, the market is led by Samsung (19%), followed by Apple and Huawei (14% 
each)  according  to  data  from  2018.  It  is  worth  mentioning  that  Huawei  was  the  only  manufacturer  which 
showed growth in 201920. OEMs that are relatively unknown in Europe and the USA such as Xiaomi, Oppo and 
Vivo are huge brands in China, globally achieving 23% combined (Figure 6).  

18  Swearingen,  2018.  We're 

no 

longer 

in 

smartphone 

plateau.  We're 

in 

the 

smartphone 

decline.  New 

York 

Intelligencer. 

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/global-u-s-growth-in-smartphone-growth-starts-to-decline.html (accessed on October 2019). 

19  Statista,  2018.  Number  of  smartphone  users  worldwide  from  2014  to  2020  (in  billions),  https://www.statista.com/statistics/263441/global-smartphone-

shipments-forecast/ (accessed on June 2019) 

IDC,  2019.  Smartphone 

20 
shipments 
https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS45042319 (accessed on June 2019) 

experience  deeper  decline 

in  Q1  with  a 

clear 

shakeup  among 

the  market 

leaders. 

  12 

 
 
 
                                           
Figure 6. Smartphone shipments worldwide by vendor Q1 201821 

Considering  PCs,  tablets  and  smartphones  combined,  Apple  seems  to  be  the  only  brand  with  a  significant 
presence in every market (7%, 27% and 14%, respectively). Samsung is a big actor both in tablets (14%) and 
smartphones (19%), similarly to Huawei (9% and 14%, respectively).  

1.3.3  Contribution of the public sector in the EU market 

The total value of reported ICT public procurement contracts in the EU was estimated to be about EUR 50.3 
billion in 201122. According to this study, service contracts represent 60% of the ICT total contract value, while 
only 25% is spent on supplies. Estimations of the public market value for ICT in 2019 were shared by Bechtle 
during  the  consultation  process  (Table  2  below).  In  the  countries  analysed  the  ICT  public  expenditure  per 
person varies from around EUR 90 for the UK and Spain up to more than EUR 200 for France and Ireland.  

Table 2. Estimated ICT market value in different EU and non-EU countries (estimations shared by Bechtle AG) 

Country 

Overall ICT market value 
(in million €) 

Estimation for public 
sector  (in million €) 

UK 

Switzerland 

Spain 

France 

Belgium 

Ireland 

Netherlands 

Austria 

15,318 

29,354 

48,199 

60,900 

20,029 

8,860 

41,035 

13,496 

Ratio 
public to 
total 

39% 

4% 

8% 

6,000 

1,300 

4,000 

17,400 

162% 

2,000 

1,000 

3,000 

1,200 

10% 

11% 

7% 

9% 

Population 
(million) 

Public spend on ICT 
per head (in € / 
person) 

67 

8.5 

46 

66 

11.5 

4.7 

17 

8.8 

90.12 

152.18 

87.50 

264.77 

171.79 

210.35 

174.49 

136.22 

clear 

shakeup  among 

the  market 

leaders. 

21 

IDC,  2019.  Smartphone 
https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS45042319 (accessed on June 2019) 

experience  deeper  decline 

shipments 

in  Q1  with  a 

22  DG  Communications  Networks,  Content  &  Technology  (2011).  Quantifying  public  procurement  of  R&D  of  ICT  solutions  in  Europe  SMART  2011/0036 

estimates, ISBN 978-92-79-40167-1 DOI 10.2759/76021 

  13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
In the framework of this study for the revision of the EU GPP criteria for computers and monitors, the contract 
notices available  on  the  Tenders  Electronic  Daily  (TED)  website23  were  screened  from  mid-May  to  mid-June 
2019 (NB. Above: business sectors analysed. Below: calculation of the estimated value. 

). The tenders classified under the Common Procurement Vocabulary (CPV) 30200000 ‘Computer equipment 
and supplies’  were analysed.  Among the 102 tenders identified, only  54 reported their economic value. The 
value of the remaining tenders has been estimated according to the average value of the contracts identified. 
A  total  of  EUR 277  million  has  been  calculated  as  the  economic  value  for  the  tenders  related  to  computer 
equipment and supplies in Europe in this period of time (mid-May to mid-June 2019).  

However,  this  estimation  clearly  represents  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  budget  that  EU  public  authorities 
allocate to the procurement of ICT products and services as 1) the obligation to publish the tender on the TED 
website is only for procurements above a certain financial threshold and 2) a relevant share of the budget is 
dedicated  to  ICT  services  (CPV  72000000)  and  software  (CPV  48000000)  that  are  not  included  in  this 
estimation. 

Overall, the relevance of the public sector in the EU ICT market and the potentially important impact of GPP in 
driving the change toward a greener ICT sector is clear. 

Figure 7. Analysis of tenders in the period mid-May to mid-June 2019 

NB. Above: business sectors analysed. Below: calculation of the estimated value. 

23 https://ted.europa.eu/  

  14 

 
 
 
 
                                           
1.4  Environmental impact analysis 

In this section, the main environmental impacts of ICT devices under the scope of this revision are outlined. 
The  focus  is  on  broadly  understood  and  reported  impact  categories  such  as  global  warming  potential  or 
energy consumption, although other categories might be referenced if relevant. The aim of this section is to 
serve  as a  basis for the  subsequent  definition  of  GPP  criteria.  In  terms  of  relative  contribution  to  life  cycle 
GHG  emissions,  a  study  from  the  McMaster  University  (Canada)24  provides  a  comparison  of  different  ICT 
product categories. 

A  key  finding  of  the  study  was  the  increasing  contribution  of  smartphones  to  the  total  ICT  footprint.  The 
authors  found  that  by  2020  the  relative  contribution  of  smartphones  will  surpass  the  impact  (in  terms  of 
global  warming  potential  and  energy  consumption)  of  desktop  computers,  laptops  and  displays,  due  to  the 
increasing number of smartphones on the market.  

As  a  general  conclusion,  similar  environmental  patterns  have  been  identified  for  the  different  ICT  end-user 
devices,  and  therefore  similar  strategies  may  be  implemented  to  reduce  their  environmental  impact, 
prioritising their lifetime extension and circularity.  

1.4.1  Desktop computers and notebooks 

When assessing the environmental impacts of desktop computers and laptops, there is a general consensus 
among  researchers  conducting  Life  Cycle  Assessment  (LCA)  studies:  the  life  cycle  stages  with  the  most 
significant  impacts  are  manufacturing  and  use,  particularly  when  analysing  energy  consumption  and  global 
warming potential25, although the relative importance of these two differs between product types (i.e. desktop 
computers  and  notebooks).  Looking  at  Figure  8  it  appears  that  the  dominant  contributor  to  greenhouse 
potential impact is the manufacturing stage.  

Figure 8. Comparison of the total greenhouse gas potential (THG100) of the three types of computer workstation (values 
rounded, without recycling credits)26 

24 Belkhir L, Elmeligi A. (2018). Assessing ICT global emissions footprint: Trends to 2040 & recommendations. Journal of Cleaner Production 177 (2018) 448-

463 

25 Arushanyan et al. (2014) Lessons learned. Review of LCAs for ICT products and services. Computers in Industry. 

26 Prakash et al. (2016) Computer am Arbeitsplatz: Wirtschaftlichkeit und Umweltschutz - Ratgeber für Verwaltungen. Umweltbundesamt 

  15 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Focusing  on  the  manufacture  of  specific  components,  those  with  the  highest  contribution  in  computers  are 
printed circuit boards (PCBs), due to the high amount of energy required for producing the active components 
(semiconductors) as well as the impact caused by the mining and processing of minerals such as gold.  

Production of PCBs and integrated circuits (ICs) is known as a process with substantial energy and resource 
use,  considered  among  the  highest  environmental  impacts  per  mass  of  unit.  Generally,  the  higher  the 
performance of a  computer in terms of processing  capacity or memory, the larger the content of PCBs and 
ICs. Therefore, measures aimed at helping organisations make the right choice in terms of the performance of 
ICT equipment that they purchase will have a significant positive impact on their overall footprint.  

From  an  environmental  perspective,  another  relevant  component  of  desktop  computers  is  the  monitor. 
Considering the whole life cycle impact of an average desktop computer, manufacturing of the monitor can 
account for 26% of total GHG life cycle emissions. If we consider the impact of the use phase of the monitor, 
that adds to a combined 33% of life cycle emissions27.  

Still related to the use phase, it is worth introducing the concept of 'rebound effect', which can be defined as 
an indirect, non-intended negative consequence of a  specific strategic decision. For example, making  use of 
very energy-efficient equipment does not guarantee that the net emissions of an organisation will be lower. 
For example, a typical rebound effect could be that procuring highly efficient computers and monitors might 
mean that the organisations take less  care about shutting  down  computers and monitors at the end of the 
working day.  

Overprovisioning  can  also  be  a  cause  of  negative  environmental  effects.  For  example,  if  an  organisation 
decides to purchase more ICT equipment than it actually needs (or with a processing capacity / memory much 
higher than needed), it would result in a higher net environmental impact. It is therefore important that the 
devices  purchased  (and  used)  are  fit-for-purpose  for  their  activities  or  that  the  number  of  devices  they 
acquire  does  not  exceed  their  actual  needs.  The  net  “worst-case”  effect  of  user-determined  factors  is  the 
high-power multi-display system (see Figure 9). A system such as this could increase the energy consumption 
even with highly efficient devices28.  

Figure 9. Multi-display use 

Another life cycle stage  frequently considered in LCA studies is the end of life, and it usually highlights the 
potential  positive  benefit  of  reusing  and  recycling  strategies.  Specifically  on  reuse,  a  study 29  highlights  the 
potential benefit of using laptops in a secondary application, resulting in a 40% reduction in GHG emissions. 
Another study30 points in the same direction with regards to lifetime extension of laptops: increasing it from 3 
to 5 years can reduce an organisation’s GHG emissions by 37%.  

Transport  and  logistics  stages  seem  to  have  the  lowest  environmental  impact  for  these  types  of  products. 
These stages are generally affected by the size and mass of items to be transported. Therefore, simplification 
and  light-weighting  of  packaging  elements  will  have  a  positive  (but  limited)  contribution  to  the  life  cycle 
impact of ICT products.  

27 Andrae (2013) Comparative LCA of physical and virtual desktops. Journal of Green Engineering. 
28 Nathaniel Mills & Evan Mills (2016). Taming the energy use of gaming computers. Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:321–338. DOI 10.1007/s12053-015-9371-1 
29 André et al. (2019) Resource and environmental impacts of using second-hand laptop computers: A case study of commercial reuse. Waste Management 
30 The shift project (2019) Lean ICT – Towards digital sobriety 

  16 

 
 
 
                                           
Several LCA studies indicate the environmental benefits of laptop reuse and second-hand laptops provided by 
a real commercial reuse company, instead of new ones. 31,32 

1.4.2  Tablets 

In  the  case  of  tablets,  a  similar  pattern  to  computers  can  be  observed.  Most  of  the  impact  happens  in  the 
manufacturing  stage,  with  a  considerably  lower  burden  associated  with  the  use  stage33.  As  in  the  case  of 
computers,  PCBs  and  ICs  are  responsible  for  the  majority  of  the  embodied  GHG  emissions  in  tablets,  even 
taking into account that these components represent a small percentage of their mass. The overall impact of 
product casings is generally small unless it includes energy-intensive materials such as magnesium.  

The  tablets  market  has  evolved  over  the  years  towards  smaller,  even  more  portable  devices,  which  are 
actually hybrids between smartphones and tablets  –products also known as 'phablets'. Studies indicate that 
phablets have a lower environmental impact than tablets, although the distribution of impact among life cycle 
stages is similar, the main ones being the manufacturing and use stages34.  

Displays also have a significant contribution due to the high amount of energy needed to produce them. It  is 
worth noting that GHG emissions of displays usually correlate with size34. Size is therefore a relevant factor to 
consider when evaluating the environmental impact of devices. Studies point out that, generally, the lower the 
size and mass of the device, the lower its footprint. Similarly, the impact of mobile devices such as tablets or 
phablets is very small compared to laptops or desktop PCs. This brings to the table the concept of right-sizing. 
If the main tasks to be performed with a device can be satisfactorily done with a mobile device, from a GHG 
emissions perspective it is worth acquiring a tablet (or a notebook) rather than a desktop PC. Often consumers 
own both types of appliances, creating a rebound effect. 

In terms of technology, it has been observed that modern devices have fewer ICs and PCBs, a consequence of 
higher levels of on-chip integration enabled by Moore's law. Considering that these are the components with 
the highest impact, this suggests that if an organisation does need to purchase new ICT equipment, from the 
environmental perspective it is worth investing in modern devices35. 

Accessories  such  as  chargers  and  cables  are  an  important  aspect  to  consider  in  mobile  devices. 
Standardisation and interoperability can allow the implementation of strategies to reduce the redundancies of 
these accessories (e.g. the same charger/cable used for different equipment or reused at the end of life of the 
equipment). 

1.4.3  Smartphones 

Considering GWP as a relevant indicator, the most significant environmental impact of smartphones happens 
in  the  manufacturing  stage:  75%  of  total  impact  for  a  common  smartphone  in  2015.  In  terms  of  specific 
components, the largest contribution is from the ICs, which account for 58%  of the total life cycle impact36. 
Another component with a significant contribution to GWP is the display, with 6% of the total impact. As with 
tablets,  devices  with  larger  displays  tend  to  have  a  higher  environmental  burden.  From  an  organisational 
perspective, making the right choices in terms of smartphone capabilities and display size can help to reduce 
the overall environmental footprint.  

In terms of the use phase, studies indicate that using the phone with an average frequency over a period of 3 
years  accounts  for  13%  of  the  total  contribution  to  GWP36.  Moreover,  current  usage  trends,  with  an  ever-
increasing  use  of  applications,  cause  a  net  growth  in  energy  use:  although  modern  smartphones  have 

31  André  H,  Ljunggren  Söderman  M,  Nordelöf  A,  (2019)  Resource  and  environmental  impacts  of  using  second-hand  laptop  computers:  A  case  study  of 

commercial reuse. Waste Management 88 (2019) 268–279 

32 Prakash, S., Kohler, A., Liu, R., Stobbe, L., Proske, M., Schischke, K., IEEE, 2016. Paradigm Shift in Green IT – Extending the Life-Times of Computers in the 

Public Authorities in Germany. 2016 Electronics Goes Green 2016+ (Egg), 7. 

33 Apple, (2019) iPad Air Product Environmental Report. Available at: https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/ipad/iPadAir_PER_Mar2019.pdf 
(Accessed on October 2019) 

34 Stutz (2011) Carbon Footprint of the Dell Streat Tablet. Avaiable at:  http://i.dell.com/sites/content/corporate/corp-comm/en/Documents/dell-carbon-footprint-

streak.pdf (Accessed on October 2019) 

35 Teehan et al. (2013) Comparring embodied Greenhouse Gas Emissions of modern computing and electronics products. Environmental Science & Technology. 

47(9) DOI: 10.1021/es303012r 

36 Ercan et al. (2016) Life cycle Assessment of a Smartphone. Proceedings of ICT for Sustainability 2016. https://doi.org/10.2991/ict4s-16.2016.15  

  17 

 
 
 
                                           
batteries with larger capacities, they are recharged equally or even more often due to this intensive use of 
applications30.  

An important aspect to take into account in smartphones is the potential impact of the infrastructure needed. 
The  functioning  of  these  devices  relies  heavily  on  internet  connection  and  therefore  needs  a  complex 
infrastructure  to  work:  servers  to  store  data  generated  and  networks  to  be  able  to  transfer  it.  When 
quantifying  the  environmental  burden  of  smartphones,  the  additional  impact  of  infrastructure  needs  to  be 
accounted  for  as  well.  As  a  general  figure,  a  study37  suggests  that  one  server  is  required  for  every  400 
smartphones. In that study, it is highlighted that the footprint of a smartphone may be doubled if the impact 
of  the  associated  infrastructure  is  properly  accounted  for.  This  argument  on  network  infrastructure  is  also 
valid for desktop computers, notebooks and tablets, where more and more data is stored and processed in the 
Cloud.  Organisations  have  to  take  this  into  account  when  making  decisions  regarding  acquisition  of  ICT 
equipment/services: the impact of the devices comes with an additional impact on 'hidden' infrastructure. 

Redundancy  of  devices  is  another  aspect  contributing  to  the  impact  of  ICT  equipment  like  smartphones. 
Initiatives  which  consist  of  combining  personal  and  professional  uses  in  the  same  terminal  (using 
smartphones with two SIM cards) can help to reduce the GHG emissions of an organisation. Studies indicate 
that increasing these initiatives can help cut their emissions30.  

Although  replacement  cycles  are  lengthening,  consumers  still  tend  to  switch  their  smartphones  for  newer 
models even if the former ones are still in good condition. This is also driven by the fact that new versions of 
operating systems are often not compatible with older generation smartphones, causing poorer performance 
and a reduction in the useful capacity of the battery. These quick replacement cycles lead to an inefficient use 
of  resources,  since  materials  and  energy  invested  in  manufacturing  devices  are  not  fully  exploited.  Some 
might argue that faster replacement cycles of smartphones might be beneficial, as society might benefit from 
energy  efficiency  improvements  of  new-generation  mobile  phones.  However,  certain  studies  highlight  that, 
even assuming 20% improvements in phone efficiency every 4 years, after 10 years of life, it would still be 
more sustainable to use an old phone38. Similar findings, but on a larger scale, where obtained for notebooks, 
where  even  if  a  new  notebook  uses  around  10%  less  energy  than  an  old  one,  it  would  have  to  remain  in 
service  for  around  80  years  in  order  to  compensate  for  the  energy  consumed  in  its  manufacture26.  Annual 
efficiency  improvement  has  to  be  very  high  to  justify  new  ICT  equipment  for  environmental  reasons.  It  is 
paramount  to  encourage  activities  which  enable  extension  of  the  lifetime  of  ICT  devices.  In  the  case  of 
smartphones, it has been estimated that increasing their lifetime from 2.5 to 3.5 years allows GHG emissions 
to be reduced by 26%30.  

It is also important to highlight the intensive use of rare metals in smartphones (as well as in notebooks and 
tablets): Indium in touchscreens and displays; cobalt and lithium in batteries; gold, silver, platinum, tantalum, 
tungsten and copper in electronic boards; etc. There are several environmental issues potentially related to the 
use  of  rare  metals.  Most  of  them  are  produced  in  highly  unstable  countries  or  monopolistically  by 
superpowers (supply risks and pressure on prices) which classifies them as Critical Raw Materials (CRM). They 
are also a source of soil pollution and ecosystem disturbance during extraction (it has been estimated that it 
is necessary to disturb 40 times more volume of an ecosystem than the volume of the actual device). They 
tend to generate large amounts of GHG emissions and some of them also have a large contribution in other 
impact categories such as Human Toxicity, Ecosystem Toxicity, Abiotic Depletion Potential and Eutrophication.  

Appropriate  end-of-life  initiatives  aimed  at  the  recovery  of  those  valuable  materials  have  the  ability  to 
significantly  reduce  the  impact  caused  by  those  minerals.  In  the  case  of  smartphones,  consumers  tend  to 
store them for long periods of time before deciding what to do with them at end of life. This might have a 
positive effect as they are diverted from negative waste management options such as landfilling, as long as 
the devices are safely stored in consumers' properties. However, it has been demonstrated that retention of 
the devices for an extended period after their use reduces their value to any secondary markets 37. Therefore, 
it  is  important  to  encourage  initiatives  to  recover  valuable  materials  from  smartphones,  and  other  ICT 
equipment, as soon as the devices have concluded their useful life.  

In general, dealing with ICT equipment appropriately at end of life can have a significant beneficial effect on 
impact  categories  besides  GWP,  such  as  human  toxicity  or  freshwater  ecotoxicity.  Computers,  tablets  and 

37  Suckling  et  al.  (2015)  Redefining  scope:  the  true  environmental  impact  of  smartphones?  International  Journal  of  Life  Cycle  Assessment,  Volume  20, 
pages1181–1196(2015) 

38 Frey et al. (2006) Ecological footprint analysis applied to mobile phones. Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Yale University.  

  18 

 
                                           
smartphones have several valuable materials that can be recovered at end of life, diverted from landfills and 
used  again  in  other  devices.  The  glass  of  LCD  screens  can  be  recycled.  Aluminium  alloys  and  plastics  in 
casings  can  be  sorted,  shredded  and  recycled.  PCBs  can  be  manually  sorted,  their  precious  metals  recycled 
and their plastics incinerated with energy recovery. If easily detachable, batteries can be manually sorted and 
their constituent components recycled. Avoiding the use of chemicals that could influence the ability to recycle 
components of ICT equipment is also an aspect to consider. A study39 points out that, considering freshwater 
ecotoxicity,  up  to  30%  improvements  can  be  achieved  by  recovering  a  significant  amount  of  valuable 
materials at end of life. This improvement is up to 90% when considering human toxicity.  

39  Arduin  (2017)  Life  cycle  assessment  of  end  of  life  scenarios.  Tablet  case  study.  Sixteenth  International  Waste  Management  and  Landfill  Symposium. 

Proceedings Sardinia 2017 

  19 

 
                                           
1.5  Procurement routes 

When public organisations procure stationary and/or mobile ICT equipment and/or services, these typically fit 
within one of the following routes: 

●  Purchase  of  devices  only;  in  these  cases  the  public  organisation  should  have  a  dedicated  ICT 
team  which  deals  with  the  issues  related  to  the  purchased  products  (e.g.  maintenance,  repair, 
upgrade). 

●  Purchase of devices and ICT services; in these cases the public organisation outsources the ICT 
services associated with the usage of the purchased devices (e.g. maintenance, repair, upgrade). 

●  Purchase of Devices as a Service (DaaS); in these cases the public organisation pays a periodical 

subscription fee to lease endpoint hardware and management services from the tenderer. 

The procurement routes should be defined based on the procurement needs of public organisations. Figure 10 
illustrates some examples of the assumed routes based on current knowledge of the market.  

Although  the  procurement  of  “refurbished”  (also  called  “reconditioned”)  and  remanufactured  products  is 
currently not a common procurement route in the  public  sector, Section  2.5 of this report presents possible 
green criteria applicable to this procurement route. 

In the context of this report, the IEEE Std 1680.1:2018 definition of refurbishment is applied:  “the process by 
which a used electronic product or component is restored to a defined condition in function and form that is 
comparable to, or better than, a new unit, while not significantly changing the unit’s composition and design”. 

The term remanufacturing, instead, indicates a treatment or modification of a product, or parts of a product, 
in industrial processes to restore it to original as new condition  and performance, or better 40 (Cordella et al., 
2019; BS8887-2:2009) and, from the customer’s viewpoint, the remanufactured products can be considered 
to be the same as the new products. It means that any subsequent warranty is generally at least equal to that 
of new products. 

Figure 10. Possible procurement routes identified for public organisations 

40 Cordella et al. (2019) Improving material efficiency in the life cycle of products: a review of EU Ecolabel criteria. The International Journal of Life Cycle 

Assessment · March 2019. DOI: 10.1007/s11367-019-01608-8 

  20 

 
 
 
 
                                           
2  CRITERIA AREAS AND PROPOSALS  

The  order  of  the  criteria  area  has  been  revised  compared  to  the  SWD(2016)  346  final41  and  the  related 
technical  report42.  The  aim  is  to  better  highlight  criteria  aiming  to  extend  the  product  lifetime,  which  can 
provide both environmental and life cycle cost benefits.  

2.1  Criteria area 1 – Product lifetime extension 

2.1.1  Criterion 1.1 – Reparability, Reusability and Upgradeability 

Compared to the current set of criteria (GPP 2016), the following criteria are proposed to be removed: 

●  The TS on the ease of replacement for rechargeable batteries as this is covered by the criterion 

on a more general level of design for reparability. 

●  The AC on cost competitiveness of spare parts as this aspect should be considered as an element 

of the Life Cycle Costing calculation and not as a quality aspect. 

●  The  AC  on  longer  warranty  as  this  has  to  be  defined  according  to  the  public  administration’s 

needs and should be clearly specified in the tender. 

●  The ACs on tablet and all-in-one notebook memory and storage as this aspect is already covered 
in  the  design  for  reparability  criterion  and the  current  criterion  could, in  some  way, restrict  the 
market. 

Moreover, the criterion on warranty and service agreement has been reformulated to focus more specifically 
on service agreements associated with the procurement of equipment or Device as a Service (DaaS) business 
models;  a  related  CPC  is  also  proposed  in  order  to  ensure  reporting  on  the  compliance  with  the  service 
agreement. 

New  technical  specifications  have  been  proposed  in  order  to  increase  the  reusability  of  products  on  the 
provision of software for secure data erasure. 

The following table compares the existing GPP criteria with the new proposals. 

Table 3. Reparability, reusability and upgradeability - current criteria (2016) and TR v3.0 

GPP 2016 

TR v3.0 Proposal 

TS4. Warranty and service agreements 

TS1. Provision of an extended service agreement + TS3. Manufacturer’s 
warranty 

TS5(a). Continued availability of spare parts 

TS2. Continued availability of spare parts 

TS5(b). Design for repairability 

TS4. Design for reparability 

TS5(c). Ease of replacement for rechargeable batteries 

AC2. Cost competitiveness of spare parts 

AC3. Longer warranties and services agreements 

AC4. Tablet and all-in-one notebook memory and storage  

New! TS5. Functionality for secure data deletion 

CPC1. Service agreement 

41 SWD(2016) 346 Final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EU GPP Criteria for Computers and Monitors 
42  Dodd,N.  Vidal-Abarca  Garrido.C,  Gama  Caldas,M,  Graulich.K,  Bunke.D,  Groß.R,  Liu.R,  Manhart.A,  and  Prakash.S,  2016.  Revision  of  the  EU  Green  Public 

Procurement (GPP) Criteria for Computers and Monitors. Technical report: final criteria; EUR 28199 EN; doi:10.2791/027791 

  21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Summary of the main changes after the first stakeholder consultation 

The main changes introduced are related to the classification of criteria into core and comprehensive levels: 
criteria on service agreement (TS1),  manufacturer warranty (TS3) and availability of spare parts (TS2)  were 
modified to provide more flexibility in terms of threshold applied. Criterion TS4 on design for reparability was 
split  in  two:  a  core  level  generally  ensuring  that  repair  is  not  prevented  and  a  comprehensive  level  where 
disassembly can be carried out using basic tools. Clarifications on the use of ecolabels as proof of compliance 
are introduced for all the criteria. The proposal for refurbished/remanufactured products is moved to Section 
2.5. More details of the changes implemented are provided in Section 2.1.1.4.   

Summary of the main changes after the second stakeholder consultation 

The criteria TS1, TS2 and TS3 have been split into core and comprehensive levels in order to provide different 
levels of ambition. The minimum length of warranty and service agreement has been set at 3 years, for the 
comprehensive  level.  Provision  of  information  on  price  for  original  or  compatible  spare  parts  and  indicative 
labour  costs  for  their  replacement  has  been  added  to  TS2.  Regarding  TS5,  it  has  been  clarified  that 
functionality  for  secure  data  deletion  is  applicable  to  the  private  data  only,  and  instructions  can  also  be 
provided via a web link.  

The following table shows the criteria as revised after the second stakeholder consultation. 

Third criteria proposal 

Core criteria 

Subject Matter:  

Service agreement associated to the supply of the ICT equipment. 

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 

Comprehensive criteria 

 TS1. Provision of an extended services agreement 

TS1. Provision of an extended services agreement 

Applicable to all categories of devices except 
refurbished/remanufactured devices. 

For refurbished/remanufactured devices, see criterion TS28. 

The tenderer must provide X years [minimum 2, to be defined] of 
services as detailed in the Service Level Requirements document 
(see explanatory note below).  

Verification:  

The tenderer must provide a written declaration that the products 
supplied will be warrantied in conformity with the contract 
specifications and the related service level agreement. 

Applicable to all categories of devices except 
refurbished/remanufactured devices. 

For refurbished/remanufactured devices, see criterion TS28.    

The tenderer must provide X years [minimum 3, to be defined] of 
services as detailed in the Service Level Requirements document 
(see explanatory note below).  

Verification:  

The tenderer must provide a written declaration that the products 
supplied will be warrantied in conformity with the contract 
specifications and the related service level agreement. 

Explanatory note: Examples of service level requirements 

A Service Level Requirements document describes how the service should be delivered to the customer. Examples of possible service level 
requirements to be included are listed below:  

 

 

Access to the manufacturer’s warranty: register the manufacturer’s warranty; manage any documentation or proof required to 
invoke the manufacturer’s warranty; invoke the manufacturer’s warranty on behalf of a public administration (during the 
manufacturer’s warranty); follow up with the manufacturer to ensure that the terms of the manufacturer’s warranty are met.  

Pick-up and return: pick up the product(s) from a specified location on the public administration’s premises and return it/them to a 
specific location on the public administration’s premises (alternative options for convenient return of products can also be 
specified). 

  Management of failures: provide an efficient single point of contact for technical issues and escalations of problems, a person 

responsible for following the progress of the case, reports on progress, transparent access to a warranty database (whoever 
manages this warranty data) to verify warranty status, and incident status for open incidents.  

  22 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Access to diagnostic and repair tools: access to all technical tools necessary to perform hardware diagnostics and corrections; 
access to any technical training required to become a certified repair technician; possibility, through non-exclusivity, to become a 
certified technical partner (perform warranty repairs). 

Battery coverage: the service explicitly covers battery defects for applicable products with rechargeable batteries, such as failure 
to charge or a faulty battery connection. A progressive drop in battery capacity due to usage must not be considered a defect 
unless it is covered by the battery replacement policy in the bullet below. 

Battery replacement policy: the service covers the replacement of batteries that do not fulfil minimum performance conditions 
related to endurance in terms of number of cycles.  

Provision of failure statistics: provision of high-level, aggregated, anonymous and non-traceable statistics on incident types 
(nature and quantity), problems and diagnostics concerning the products within the scope of the contract. 

Incident management/problem management/preventive maintenance: this service includes all the operations necessary to 
maintain the ICT products in perfect working order, or to restore a defective product or one of its components to perfect working 
order, including incident management, problem management and preventive maintenance. Preventive maintenance during the 
warranty period includes ensuring OS (operating system) and security updates for the duration of the contract. 

Upgrading: a scan for upgrading possibilities and needs can take place after a certain period (e.g. 3 years) and cover performance 
aspects like CPU/Memory/Disk.  

Repair/replacement activities: repair or replace any products which become damaged or defective in the course of normal use 
during the extended warranty period with products which have identical or better performance characteristics. Breakdowns 
related to firmware are also covered. If part of an item is replaced, the replacement part must be covered by the same level and 
duration of extended warranty as the part that has been replaced. The extended warranty applies to both hardware and software, 
unless explicitly agreed otherwise. 

TS2 Continued availability of spare parts 

TS2 Continued availability of spare parts 

Applicable 
refurbished/remanufactured devices. 

categories 

all 

to 

of 

devices 

except 

Applicable to all categories of devices except 
refurbished/remanufactured devices.    

This criterion is not relevant if the availability of spare parts is already 
ensured under TS1.    

This criterion is not relevant if the availability of spare parts is already 
ensured under TS1. 

The tenderer must guarantee the availability of spare parts (critical 
components), including as a minimum43 those identified in criterion 
TS4,  for  X  years  [minimum  2,  to  be  defined]  from  the  date  of 
purchase. 

 The tenderer must guarantee the availability of spare parts (critical 
components), including as a minimum43 those identified in criterion 
TS4, for X years [minimum 3, to be defined] from the date of 
purchase.  

The spare parts/replacement components can be: 

The spare parts/replacement components can be: 

 
 

 

a like-for-like used part; 
a  new  or  used  OEM  (original  equipment  manufacturer)  part 
that conforms to specifications; 
an  after  sales 
specifications. 

(third-party)  part 

that  conforms 

to 

 
 
 

a like-for-like used part; 
a new or used OEM part that conforms to specifications; 
an  after  sales 
specifications. 

(third-party)  part 

that  conforms 

to 

All critical components identified must be: 

All critical components identified must be: 

 
 

available to be purchased; 
or replaced by a service network for repair and maintenance. 

 
 

available to be purchased; 
or replaced by a service network for repair and 
maintenance. 

The  tenderer  must  provide  a  price  list  for  original  or  compatible 
spare  parts  and  indicative  labour  costs  for  their  replacement, 
including rechargeable batteries (if applicable). 

The tenderer must provide a price list for original or compatible 
spare parts and indicative labour costs for their replacement, 
including rechargeable batteries (if applicable). 

Verification: 

Verification: 

The  tenderer  must  provide  a  declaration  that  the  requested  spare 
parts  will  be  available  for  X  years  [minimum  2,  to  be  defined]  for 
each model provided.  

The tenderer must provide a declaration that the requested spare 
parts will be available for X years [minimum 3, to be defined] for 
each model provided.  

Equipment holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply.  

Equipment holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply. 

Subject Matter:  

43 Additional critical components could be identified by the contracting authority at the tendering stage. 

  23 

 
                                           
Supply of ICT equipment 

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 

TS3 Manufacturer's warranty 

Applicable 
refurbished/remanufactured devices.   

categories 

all 

to 

TS3 Manufacturer's warranty 

of 

devices 

except 

Applicable to all categories of devices except 
refurbished/remanufactured devices.  

For refurbished/remanufactured devices, see criterion TS24. 

For refurbished/remanufactured devices, see criterion TS24.    

The tenderer must provide products covered by X years [minimum 2, 
to be defined] of the manufacturer’s warranty.  

The tenderer must provide products covered by X years [minimum 3, 
to be defined] of the manufacturer’s warranty.  

Verification:  

Verification:  

The tenderer must provide written evidence of the manufacturer’s 
warranty. Equipment holding a Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply. 

The tenderer must provide written evidence of the manufacturer’s 
warranty. Equipment holding a Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply. 

TS4 Design for reparability 

TS4 Design for reparability 

Applicable to all categories of devices except 
refurbished/remanufactured devices.  

The tenderer must ensure that joining or sealing techniques for the 
products supplied do not prevent the repair and replacement of the 
parts (critical components) listed below:  

 

 

 

 

 
 

Notebooks: Battery, Display panel/Display assembly, Storage 
(SSD, HDD, RAM), External/internal PSU, Keyboard, 
System/motherboard 
Desktops: CPU, GPU (PCIe), External/internal PSU, Storage (SSD, 
HDD, ODD, RAM), System/motherboard 
All-in-one PCs: External/internal PSU, Storage (SSD, HDD, ODD, 
RAM), System/motherboard 
Tablets: Battery, Display panel/Display assembly, 
External/internal PSU 
Smartphones: Battery, Display panel/Display assembly, Charger 
Computer displays: Connectivity cables, Power cables, External 
PSU 

Note 1: On-board soldered CPUs are excluded from the critical 
component list. 

Note 2: A list of mandatory replaceable components for computer 
displays is set out in Annex II (D. Material efficiency requirements. 
Point 5. A) of Regulation (EU) 2019/2021. 

Instructions on how to replace the parts must be provided with a 
service/repair manual. The manual must include security measures 
to ensure safe repair, an exploded diagram of the device illustrating 
the parts that can be accessed and replaced (which could also be 
provided in the form of a tutorial video), and the tools required. The 
service/repair manual must be available online, free of charge. 

Verification: 

The tenderer must provide: 

 

 

 

A statement that the applicable parts are replaceable by the 
end-user and/or a technician. 
The service/repair manual with instructions on how to replace 
the parts through a direct link to the document on the 
manufacturer’s website.  
Repair information according to EN 45559:2019 – Methods for 
providing information relating to material efficiency aspects of 

Applicable 
refurbished/remanufactured devices.  

categories 

all 

to 

of 

devices 

except 

The  tenderer  must  ensure  that  the  following  parts  (critical 
components) are easily accessible, repairable and replaceable by the 
use  of  commercially  available  tools  (class  A,  B  or  C,  as  defined 
according to EN 45554:2020 – see the explanatory note below): 

 

 

 

 

 
 

PSU, 

External/internal 

Notebooks:  Battery,  Display  panel/Display  assembly,  Storage 
(SSD,  HDD, 
Keyboard, 
RAM), 
System/motherboard  
Desktops: CPU, GPU (PCIe), External/internal PSU, Storage (SSD, 
HDD, ODD, RAM), System/motherboard 
All-in-one PCs: External/internal PSU, Storage (SSD, HDD, ODD, 
RAM), System/motherboard 
Tablets: 
Battery, 
External/internal PSU 
Smartphones: Battery, Display panel/Display assembly, Charger 
Computer displays: Screen assembly and LED backlight, power 
and control circuit boards 

panel/Display 

assembly, 

Display 

Note  1:  On-board  soldered  CPUs  are  excluded  from  the  critical 
component list. 

Note  2:  A  list  of  mandatory  replaceable  components  for  computer 
displays  is  set  out  in  Annex  II  (D.  Material  efficiency  requirements. 
Point 5. A) of Regulation (EU) 2019/2021. 

Instructions  on  how  to  replace  the  parts  must  be  provided  with  a 
service/repair  manual.  The  manual  must  include  security  measures 
to ensure safe repair, an exploded diagram of the device illustrating 
the  parts  that  can  be  accessed  and  replaced  (which  could  also  be 
provided in the form of a tutorial video), and the tools required. The 
service/repair manual must be available online, free of charge. 

Verification: 

The tenderer must provide: 

 

 

 

A  statement  that  the  applicable  parts  are  replaceable  by  the 
end-user and/or a technician. 
The service/repair manual with instructions on how to replace 
the  parts  through  a  direct  link  to  the  document  on  the 
manufacturer’s website.   
Repair 
information  must  be  provided  according  to  EN 
45559:2019  –Methods  for  providing  information  relating  to 

  24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
energy-related products44. 

material efficiency aspects of energy-related products45.  

Equipment holding a Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply.  

Equipment holding a Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply. 

Explanatory note: Classification of tools according to EN45554:2020 

According to EN 45554:2020, a part is replaceable by Class A tools if the disassembly is feasible with: 

o 
o 
o 

The use of no tools; 
A tool, or a set of tools supplied with the product or with the spare part; 
Basic tools as listed  in Table A.3 of the standard: Screwdriver for slotted heads, cross recess or for hexalobular recess 
heads  (ISO2380,  ISO8764,  ISO10664);  Hexagon  socket  key  (ISO2936);  Combination  wrench  (ISO7738);  Combination 
pliers  (ISO5746);  Half  round  nose  pliers  (ISO5745);  Diagonal  cutters  (ISO5749);  Multigrip  pliers  (multiple  slip  joint 
pliers)  (ISO8976);  Locking  pliers;  Combination  pliers  for  wire  stripping  and  terminal  crimping;  Prying  lever;  Tweezers; 
Hammer, steel head (ISO15601); Utility knife (cutter) with snap-off blades; Multimeter; Voltage tester; Soldering iron; 
Hot glue gun; Magnifying glass. 

A part is replaceable by a Class B tool if the disassembly is feasible with a product-specific tool that is listed as part of a method to assess 
whether a product can be repaired, upgraded and re-used (in the absence of a method defining product-specific tools, this category is void). 

A part is replaceable by a Class C tool if the disassembly is not feasible by the use of basic or product-specific tools as defined above, but 
can be carried out without the use of any proprietary tools.   

TS5 Functionality for secure data deletion 

Applicable to all the categories of devices except computer displays and refurbished / remanufactured devices 

Functionality for secure data deletion must be made available for the deletion of user data contained in all data storage devices of the 
product (see also explanatory note). Instructions on how to use this functionality, the techniques used and the supported secure data deletion 
standard(s) must be provided in the user manual and/or by a web link to the manufacturer’s webpage. 

Verification:  

The tenderer must provide specifications of the data erasure functionality provided with the product. Relevant reference for compliance can 
be the NIST 800-88 Revision 1 guidelines, for the level of "Clear", or equivalent. 

Equipment holding relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified requirements will be deemed to comply. 

EXPLANATORY NOTE 

A functionality for secure data deletion could be implemented by means of technical solutions such as, but not limited to: 

 

 

 

a functionality implemented in firmware, typically in the Basic Input/Output System (BIOS), 

a functionality implemented in the software included in a self-contained bootable environment provided in a bootable compact disc, 

digital versatile disc or universal serial bus memory storage device included with the product, or in software installable in the supported 
operating systems provided with the product. 

CONTRACT PERFORMANCE CLAUSES 

CPC1 Service Agreement 

To be used in conjunction with the TS1 on provision of extended service agreement. 

The tenderer must provide periodical [monthly / annually] reporting on its compliance with all the metrics, Key Performance Indicators and 
other indicators defined by the Service Level Agreement 

Explanatory note: Examples of Key Performance Indicators  

 

 

Aggregate KPI 1 – Incident solved: number of incidents resolved within the incident resolution time during a month / total number of 
incidents opened during the given month or opened during a previous month and still pending. Monthly target: ≥90%. 

Aggregate KPI 2 – Commitment to repair as first remedy: number of incidents resolved within a product repair or upgrade / number of 

45 According to EN 45559:2019, for end-users, the information to be provided shall be simple, clear and intuitive, easily accessed, visible and readable, and 
shall be provided in the official languages where the product is sold. Where possible, symbols may replace or support the use of long or complex texts. 
The communication method should be assessed (if possible) prior to applying it to end-users, and the findings of any existing studies in this area taken 
into account. 

  25 

 
                                           
 
incidents resolved within a product replacement.  

2.1.1.1 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed criteria 

Provision of an Extended Services Agreement 

A  service  agreement  can  be  beneficial  from  an  environmental  point  of  view  whenever  it  contributes  to 
extending  the  product  lifetime.  A  service  agreement  should  not  be  considered  a  way  to  effectively  replace 
non-functioning products, but instead it should be considered a tool to efficiently manage the ICT fleet in the 
public administration. For this reason, a service agreement should include warranty services. Requirements on 
efficient diagnosis and management of the failures, access to the manufacturer's warranty, maintenance and 
preventive actions should be part of a service agreement covering the expected ICT asset life. 

For the  revision  of  the  GPP  criteria, it  has  to  be  considered  that  in  practice  service  level  requirements  vary 
widely. The criteria have been split into two TS: 

●  One  technical  specification  requiring  the  provision  of  services  reflecting  common  available 
service  models  covering  both  hardware  and  software  support.  Environmental  benefits  can  be 
amplified in the case of "commitment to repair as first remedy", as reported in the Repair Scoring 
System study of the JRC46. 

●  A  second  technical  specification  requiring  the  provision  of  products  with  a  manufacturer's 

warranty.  

A  contract  performance  clause  (CPC1)  is  proposed  to  be  added  in  order  to  lay  down  specific  requirements 
relating to the monitoring and periodic reporting of the quality of the service contract, in particular regarding 
aspects such as the number of incidents solved and percentage of incidents resolved with product repair. 

The  length  of  a  service  agreement  period  should  be  based  on  the  expected  useful  life  /  duration  of  the 
procurement  cycle.  Useful  life  can  be  different  between  product  categories  and  can  also  be  affected  by 
aspects  like  procurement  and  technical  needs  and  budget  availability.  Moreover,  the  length  of  the  service 
agreement  is  not  necessarily  linked  to  the  useful  lifetime  of  the  product  as  a  separate  tender  for  support, 
maintenance and repair could be launched periodically and ensure continuity of the service.    

It  is  proposed  to  keep  2  years  as  the  minimum  duration  for  a  service  agreement  (core  level),  while  the 
duration may be longer based on the specific needs and context.  

Manufacturer’s warranty 

The  manufacturer’s  warranty  has  been  included  in  the  revised  GPP  requirements  but  separated  from  the 
service  criterion.  The  main  reason  for  splitting  these  aspects  is  because  bidders  in  public  procurement 
processes for IT services/products are often service providers and they are not the manufacturers (OEMs) of 
the IT equipment delivered. 

Among  the  ecolabels  analysed,  only  TCO  Certified  applies  requirements  on  warranties  (for  at  least  1  year) 
provided by the manufacturer. This means that current EU GPP criteria are far stricter by requiring at least a 
product  warranty  of  2  years  (core  criteria)  or  3  years  (comprehensive  criteria),  with  the  possibility  to 
acknowledge  extended  warranties  with  additional  points  for  each  additional  year  of  warranty  beyond  the 
minimum technical specification through applying award criteria. Furthermore, the current comprehensive GPP 
award criteria include extra points if rechargeable battery replacement is provided free of charge within the 
first 3 years in the event of capacity loss of more than 50%. However, according to some feedback from the 
stakeholder  consultation,  the  3-year  warranty  was  considered  to  be  very  challenging  whereas  the  2-year 
requirement  was  considered  reasonable  in  the  EU  context.  The  current  EU  GPP  criteria  do  not  specify  the 
coverage of the warranty, i.e. which components should be included (besides battery defects) or may not be 
excluded.  

For  comparison,  the  reparability  scoring  system  study46  proposes  assignment  of  a  score  based  on  the 
availability and duration of a "commercial guarantee" (warranty) for the entire product (i.e. not only specific 
components) offered by the guarantor, and including a "commitment to free repair as first remedy" in case of 
failure  and  a  "commitment  to  upgrade  the  product  periodically".  The  points  are  modulated  proportionally 
between  0  points  if  fulfilling  only  the  minimum  legal  requirements  of  2  years  and  maximum  1  point  for  a 
commercial guarantee covering a period post-sale of at least 10 years. 

46See http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC114337/jrc114337_report_repair_scoring_system_final_report_v3.2_pubsy_clean.pdf  

  26 

 
                                           
Spare parts 

Besides EU GPP, most of the EU Ecolabel schemes analysed have applied criteria for the availability of spare 
parts. EU GPP and Green Product Mark require a duration of at least 3 years availability. Comprehensive EU 
GPP criteria, as well as Blue Angel, even request that the availability of spare parts is guaranteed for at least 
5  years, which  specifically  includes  rechargeable  batteries if  applicable.  However,  they  differ with  regard  to 
the  starting  point:  For  EU  GPP  the  time  counts  from  the  date  of  purchase,  whereas  for  Blue  Angel  it  is 
following the end of production of the labelled product which might result in less or more than 5 years after 
purchasing the product.  

EPEAT, based on the IEEE standard, does not require a minimum time span for the availability of spare parts 
but manufacturers shall declare if spare parts are available at all and, if so, the length of time the spare parts 
are available after the end of production, as well as a list of available spare parts. However, the time span  is 
indirectly addressed in the optional IEEE criteria on ‘product upgradeability and reparability’, where it says that 
for these listed components  ‘the  manufacturer, authorized service  providers or other  service  providers offer 
upgrades, repair or replacement to purchasers for 5 years after the point of sale’. 

There is also a difference in the definition of spare parts: whereas Green Product Mark does not specify spare 
parts at all, Blue Angel provides a rather general definition, delimiting them from ‘other parts which normally 
exceed the life of the product’ that are not to be considered spare parts. EU GPP criteria and TCO provide a 
specific list of components for different product types that fall under the criterion of spare parts availability.  

Only EU GPP criteria and Blue Angel address costs of spare parts. While Blue Angel requirements state that 
spare parts must be offered at reasonable cost without defining this more specifically, EU GPP award criteria 
include  the  provision  of  a  price  list  for  a  defined  set  of  component  parts  including  the  requirement  for 
indicative labour costs for replacements; points could then be awarded for the most cost-competitive offers. 

In comparison, the reparability scoring system proposes a pass/fail requirement for reparability of laptops a 
minimum  period  of  4  years  after placing  the  last  unit  of  the  model  on  the  market,  with  a  dedicated  list  of 
components. Also, the price of spare parts (although not the repair labour costs) has to be disclosed. If spare 
parts availability is extended to 7 years, a better rating class can be achieved. 

Requirements  on  spare  parts  are  included  in  the  adopted  EU  Ecodesign  Regulation  on  electronic  displays 47 
(which applies from March 2021), with a minimum period of 7 years after placing the last unit of the model 
on  the  market,  specifying  a  dedicated  list  of  spare  parts.  It  can  be  expected  that  the  revised  EU  Ecodesign 
Regulation on computers could also include requirements on spare parts.  

For the revision of the GPP criteria, it is proposed to keep criteria on spare parts availability. With regard to the 
requirements on the cost  competitiveness of spare  parts, according to  stakeholder feedback it  seems to be 
very difficult to include the cost of the spare parts in the financial model or criteria besides for example costs 
of  accessories  (e.g.  power  cable,  batteries);  spare  parts  are  often  included  in  the  maintenance  services; 
manufacturers or IT service  providers increasingly offer ‘Device / Hardware / PC as a  Service’  models which 
include  maintenance  and  repairs  (if  necessary)  as  well  and  thus  dedicated  costs  of  spare  parts  are  not 
relevant,  but  rather  the  total  cost  of  ownership.  Against  this  background,  the  provision  of  indicative  labour 
costs for replacements also seems to be debatable. It is thus proposed to remove this award criterion. 

Reparable / replaceable components 

For the revision of the GPP criteria, it is proposed to keep the criterion on design for reparability. Based on the 
comments received and the analyses of other different schemes, the list of parts to be easily accessible and 
replaceable,  as  well  as  the  description  of  tools  to  be  used,  might  be  revised.  For  example,  according  to 
stakeholder  feedback,  the  list  of  critical  parts  for  displays  is  considered  too  strict  as  display  panels  are 
difficult to repair.  It is proposed to apply the  same list of  parts  proposed by TCO Certified for the  different 
product groups.  

The current EU GPP criteria, EPEAT/IEEE and TCO Certified, as well as the EU Ecodesign Regulation on displays, 
have criteria addressing the design for reparability in the sense that certain defined components have to be 
easily  accessible,  repairable  and/or  replaceable.  For  EPEAT/IEEE,  this  criterion  is  optional,  i.e.  optional  points 
can be awarded depending on the number of hardware features from the list that are upgradeable, repairable 

47  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  2019/2021  of  1  October  2019  laying  down  ecodesign  requirements  for  electronic 

displays 

  27 

 
                                           
or replaceable (for example, for desktop computers minimum 7 features; for displays minimum 2 features to 
reach one additional point). 

All the cited schemes specify the tools that may be used for the reparability, however in different ways:  

●  EU  GPP  criteria  require  that  the  components  shall  be  easily  accessible  and  replaceable  ‘by  the 

use of universal tools (i.e. screwdriver, spatula, plier or tweezers)’.  

●  TCO requires in their ‘products and sustainability information’ criteria that information shall  be 
provided  if  the  replacement  of  the  listed  critical  parts  ‘is  possible  without  the  use  of  heat  or 
other  tools  than  those  intended  to  turn,  slotted  (ISO  2380),  cross-recessed  (Philips®  and 
Pozidriv®, ISO 8764), or hexalobular recess heads (Torx®, ISO 10664)’.  

● 

IEEE  criteria  require  ‘without  soldering  or  de-soldering,  using  only  commonly  available  tools’, 
however not further defining these tools.  

●  The  EU  Ecodesign  Regulation  for  electronic  displays  requires  that  ‘the  spare  parts  can  be 
replaced  with  the  use  of  commonly  available  tools  and  without  permanent  damage  to  the 
appliance’.  

●  The study on the Reparability Scoring System provides comprehensive lists of tools for the repair 
of laptops, differentiating between basic and other commercially available tools. Below is the list 
of basic tools for laptops48: 

  Basic tools: Screwdriver for slotted heads, cross recess or for hexalobular recess heads 
(ISO2380,  ISO8764,  ISO10664);  Hexagon  socket  key  (ISO2936);  Combination  wrench 
(ISO7738);  Combination  pliers  (ISO5746);  Half  round  nose  pliers  (ISO5745);  Diagonal 
cutters  (ISO5749);  Multigrip  pliers  (multiple  slip  joint  pliers)  (ISO8976);  Locking  pliers; 
Combination  pliers  for  wire  stripping  &  terminal  crimping;  Prying  lever;  Tweezers; 
Hammer, steel head (ISO15601); Utility knife (cutter) with snap-off blades; Multimeter; 
Voltage  tester;  Soldering  iron;  Hot  glue  gun;  Magnifying  glass;  Additional  basic  tools 
have been selected based on the preliminary results of the study on material efficiency 
of smartphones49 and are  mainly applied for the repair of  tablets and smartphones. It 
includes: 

● 

spudgers: tools that have a wide flat-head screwdriver-like end that extends as a wedge, used to 
separate pressure-fit plastic components without causing damage during separation; 

●  different types of screwdrivers (e.g. Phillips, Flathead, Torx, Torx Security, Pentalobe); 

●  plastic  triangle  opening  tool:  this  type  of  tool  is  triangular  in  shape,  with  each  corner  offering 

prying abilities; 

●  magnifier (or magnifying glass); 

● 

suction cup.  

The schemes analysed also require information to facilitate repair activities:  

●  EU GPP criteria: clear disassembly and repair instructions, e.g. hard or electronic copy, video; to 

be made available via hard copy or via the manufacturer’s webpage.  

●  EPEAT: list of the hardware features that are upgradeable, repairable or replaceable and indicate, 

for each, whether it is upgradeable, repairable and/or replaceable.  

●  TCO Certified: service manual including step-by-step instructions and component descriptions for 
the  disassembly/assembly.  Instructions  on  how  to  replace  the  critical  components  must  be 
available online throughout the whole lifetime of the certificate. 

●  The Ecodesign Regulation for displays has dedicated requirements related to the access to repair 

and maintenance information, however mainly targeted to professional repairers. 

●  The Reparability Scoring System for laptops proposes as pass/fail criteria that, for each priority 
part,  information  about  the  disassembly  sequence  has  to  be  available  to  the  target  group  of 

48 The applicability of this list is considered extendable also to desktop computers and computer displays.  
49 https://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/product-bureau//product-groups/426/documents  

  28 

 
                                           
repairers,  where  a  description  supported  by  illustrations  of  the  steps  needed  to  disassemble 
priority  parts  is  needed.  The  description  has  to  show  that  the  disassembly  is  reversible  by 
including the steps needed for the reassembly of priority parts. 

Ensuring that batteries can be easily changed 

Most  of  the  ecolabel  schemes  analysed  as  well  as  the  EU  GPP  criteria  have  dedicated  requirements  with 
regard to the replacement of the battery. All schemes require information, most of them instructions on how 
to  remove  the  battery  from  the  product;  for  the  required  IEEE  criteria,  however,  the  manufacturer-provided 
instructions  shall  only  guide  customers  to  have  the  battery  replaced  at  a  manufacturer-authorised  service 
centre whereas the optional IEEE criteria shall include the method of attachment to the product, a description 
of how to remove the battery from the product as well as a list of the tools required for removal and, if they 
are not commonly available, how to obtain them. 

Only  EU  GPP  criteria  prescribe  that  batteries  shall  not  be  glued  or  soldered  into  the  products.  Also,  the 
comprehensive EU GPP criteria provide the most detail with regard to the number and kind of tools to be used 
for  replacement.  TCO  only  requires  information  if  the  battery  can  be  replaced  without  tools.  EPEAT/IEEE 
optional criteria require  replacement either without tools or with  commonly available  tools, and without the 
use of external heat sources. Furthermore, EPEAT/IEEE optional criteria prescribe a maximum time (3 minutes) 
for the battery replacement by one person.  

None of the schemes explicitly require that the battery shall be replaceable by the end-user; only Blue Angel 
says  that  replacement  shall  be  possible  without  the  need  for  expert  knowledge.  TCO  criteria  on  battery 
replacement are oriented towards the end-user and/or technician.  

Green  Product  Mark  criteria  are  aligned  to  the  required  EPEAT/IEEE  ‘battery  replacement  and  information’ 
criteria.  Only  the  verification  method  differs  slightly.  Green  Product  Mark  differentiates  between  batteries 
being  user-replaceable, where for example the  disassembly steps might demonstrate that the  batteries are 
replaceable,  and  batteries  that  are  not  user-replaceable,  where  manufacturer-provided  instructions  shall  be 
given guiding consumers to have the battery replaced at a manufacturer-authorised service centre.  

Current EU GPP criteria are strict with regard to prohibiting the gluing or soldering of batteries into portable 
products at all; however, feedback from some stakeholders suggest they are too restrictive as many products 
using  adhesive  can  still  be  replaced  by  a  certified  technician.  Blue  Angel  and  TCO  Certified  go  beyond  GPP 
criteria by also addressing end-users as a potential target group for battery replacements. On the other hand, 
procurement  authorities  often  have  contracts  with  IT  service  providers  so  that  the  battery  replacement  is 
under the responsibility of the tenderer, service provider and/or manufacturers. 

TCO  Certified  criteria  related  to  instructions  on  how  to  replace  the  battery  are  the  most  detailed  and 
ambitious as they must be available for anyone to read, free of charge, online for the whole lifetime of the 
certificate.  

For  this  revision  of  the  proposed  criteria  this  aspect  is  considered  to  be  covered  under  the  "Design  for 
reparability" criterion for critical components.  

Secure data deletion 

Data  deletion  aims  to  facilitate  both  the  reparability/reusability  of  the  whole  product  without  the  risk  of 
transfer  of  any  sensitive  and  personal  data  in  reused  equipment.  As  defined  in  Ecodesign  Commission 
Regulation  (EU)  2019/424,  ‘secure  data  deletion’  means  the  effective  erasure  of  all  traces  of  existing  data 
from a data storage device, overwriting the data completely in such a way that access to the original data, or 
parts of them, becomes infeasible for a given level of effort. 

Different  methods used for  data  deletion are appropriate for  different types of  memories. Data deletion of 
HHD  and  SSD  is  declared  by  some  manufacturers  (e.g.  HP  Secure  Erase)  (HP  2018)  to  be  compliant  with 
specific standards (e.g. Guidelines for Media Sanitization by NIST (2014)). Secure data deletion tools should be 
built-in  (or  as  a  second  option  made  available  on  request)  and  should  permanently  delete  all  user  data 
without compromising the functionality of the device for further use. According to the CEN-CENELEC standard 
on reparability of energy-related products (EN45554:2020), simplified transfer of data from an old to a new 
product should also be made available via installed or downloadable tools such as applications, cloud-based 
services or instructions detailing a manual process.  

  29 

 
Minimum capacity 

EU  GPP  award  criteria  as  well  as  several  ecolabel  schemes  have  rather  different  criteria  on  upgradeability, 
capacity  expansion  or  standardised  interfaces.  The  comprehensive  award  criteria  of  the  current  EU  GPP 
criteria foresee certain requirements for the RAM (minimum capacity or the potential to upgrade it) as well as 
the  potential  to  upgrade  the  mass  storage.  However,  according  to  stakeholder  feedback,  the  criterion  on 
minimum RAM capacity restricts the market, and some Operating Systems require less RAM (only 2 to 4 GB). 

For  the  revision  of  the  GPP  criteria,  it  is  proposed  to  remove  this  criterion.  The  potential  to  replace  and 
upgrade the RAM is already covered by the requirements on design for reparability (TS4). 

2.1.1.2 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed verification 

Provision of an extended manufacturer guarantee and service agreement 

At the tendering stage a written declaration from the tenderer that the products supplied will be covered by a 
warranty  in  conformity  with  the  contract  specifications  and  the  related  service  level  agreement  could  be 
sufficient.  However,  the  implementation  of  this  criterion  should  be  ensured  by  contract  performance 
conditions aiming at the monitoring and achievement of specific KPIs.  

Spare parts 

Also in this case, at the tender stage a declaration that critical components will be available is deemed to  be 
sufficient. As the tenderer is in many cases an IT service provider (and not the manufacturer of the availability 
of spare parts should be ensured  by the use of labelled products covering requirements on the availability of 
spare parts. 

Reparable / replaceable components 

The verification should be based on the provision of product manual/instructions showing how to replace the 
parts. In order to ensure that the repair/replacement can be carried out by an independent repairer (e.g. the 
ICT team in the organisation or a third-party service provider) a service manual should be publicly available. A 
direct link to the document on the manufacturer’s website should be used to prove that repair instructions are 
publicly available. 

Also in this case, as the tenderer is in many cases is an IT service provider (and not the manufacturer of the IT 
equipment),  the  compliance  could  be  ensured  through  the  use  of  labelled  products  (e.g.  TCO  Certified 
Generation 8). 

Data deletion 

It  is  requested  to  provide  information  about  the  software  for  the  data  deletion.  A  relevant  reference  is the 
NIST 800-88 Revision 1 guidelines. 

2.1.1.3  Summary of stakeholder answers from the initial survey 

Warranty and service agreements 

It was highlighted that the mandatory manufacturer guarantee under B2B is 6 months. Some public procurers 
reported  having  applied  36  months  warranty  as a  requirement  and that  suppliers  currently  provide  3  years 
warranty  in  the  Nordic  countries.  According  to  some  respondents,  the  3-year  warranty  is  considered  very 
challenging and not  covered  by 30-50% of the  market. Instead, 2 years is considered  reasonable in the EU 
context.  It  was  remarked  by  some  respondents  that  the  mandatory  warranty  has  to  explicitly  cover  the 
battery. Another stakeholder suggested including helpdesk support that would also include software. 

Maintenance services are reported to be requested for an additional 2, 3 or 4 years including repair and pick-
up.  It is also requested to include clarification on what exactly a  service should include. Moreover, it is also 
highlighted that service agreements and warranties could be offered by a third party and not be dependent on 
manufacturers. 

  30 

 
 
 
According  to  a  stakeholder,  extending  a  warranty  is  considered  something  that  can  be  requested  (technical 
specification) rather than being used as an award criterion. On the other hand, changing to a third party for 
warranty/service after 2/3 years is also considered a valid option. Many SMEs will be able to fulfil this, while 
they probably cannot respond to the initial tender. 

Continued availability of spare parts  

This criterion is reported to be applied in public tenders and fulfilled by written guarantee. Most of the time 
the  tenderer  does  not  correspond  with  the  manufacturer,  as  the  contract  is  carried  out  by  an  IT  service 
provider. In this case, the tenderer is not the organisation in charge of managing the availability of spare parts 
and it is suggested to ensure the availability of spare parts through the use of labelled products. The 3-year 
period  is  deemed  reasonable  by  several  respondents,  although  more  ambitious  examples  are  reported  in 
Finland (5 years). 

Design for reparability 

This criterion has also been applied. The TCO Generation 8 label is reported as a possible verification method, 
ensuring  a  free,  available  manual.  The  list  of  critical  components  for  displays  is  considered  too  strict  as 
display panels are difficult to repair. 

Some trade-offs with warranties and service agreements were also highlighted. Manufacturers do not allow a 
non-technical person to assemble any laptop or device. The repairs should be handled only by certified repair 
centres (during the warranty period) to avoid voiding the manufacturer’s warranty. 

Ease of replacement for rechargeable batteries 

In  this  case  too,  some  stakeholders  suggested  better  separating  the  responsibility  of  the  tenderer,  service 
providers  and  manufacturers.  Some  stakeholders  commented  that  this  was  impossible  to  adopt  as  many 
products  have  the  battery  soldered  and  it  can  only  be  replaced  by  an  authorised  technician.  Others  have 
reported having applied this criterion with success. 

In some cases, tenderers asked for additional batteries but without a repair service or user instructions. It is 
recommended  that  instructions  or  additional  services  for  repairs  and  replacement  are  requested.  Some 
respondents  considered  this  requirement  irrelevant  as  it  disqualifies  some  products  with  highly  durable 
batteries already included. 

Cost competitiveness of spare parts 

It  was  found  very  difficult  to  include  the  cost  of  the  spare  parts  in  the  financial  model  /  criteria.  Costs  of 
accessories (e.g.  power cable, batteries)  are  included  in  some  tenders.  It  has to  be  considered  that  in  some 
procurement  routes  the  purchasing  entities  do  not  repair  the  devices  themselves  /  buy  spare  parts  but 
purchase  maintenance services. Spare parts are included  in the maintenance services and thus their cost is 
not relevant. Some manufacturers suggested removing this criterion as often large companies provide PCs as 
a Service (PCaaS) solutions that offer PC life cycle services including deployment, security, support and asset 
recovery. Total cost of ownership needs to be considered in this case. 

Tablet and all-in-one notebook memory and storage 

Respondents  consider  that  this  criterion  restricts  the  market.  They  also  commented  that  some  Operating 
Systems require less RAM (2-4 GB).  

2.1.1.4  Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation 

Provision of an extended service agreement and manufacturer’s warranty 

The stakeholders provided different opinions on the length of the warranty. Some stakeholders suggest longer 
periods, with a minimum warranty aligned with the B2C market. Others consider that shorter periods should 
be  applied  in  the  B2B  context.  Moreover,  some  stakeholders  requested  that  aspects  related  to  software 
renewal should be better integrated into the service agreement and that priority of repair strategy should be 
more strongly supported. 

In this new revision the criterion on extended service agreement has been modified as follows: 

  31 

 
 
●  The minimum duration of a service agreement (core level) is kept at 2 years. The length of the 
service agreement is kept open. The intention is to indicate that the service agreement duration 
should  be  tailored  to  the  needs  of  the  tenderers  (e.g.  procurers’  needs,  technological  choices, 
budget availability). 

● 

● 

It is clarified that preventive maintenance during the warranty period should include ensuring OS 
and security updates for the duration of the contract. 

It  is  also  proposed  to  add  in  the  explanatory  note  on  possible  services  agreement  a  periodical 
scan for upgrade possibilities.  

Manufacturer's warranty 

Regarding the criterion on manufacturer’s warranty the same approach is proposed, i.e. 2 years as the core 
criterion, and with the option to define a longer period). In principle, if a service for the maintenance and repair 
of  the  product  is  included  in  the  tender  according  to  TS1,  it  is  not  necessary  to  request  also  the 
manufacturer’s warranty according to TS2, as the maintenance and repair of the product is already ensured 
by the tenderer. However, the two criteria are not considered mutually exclusive. 

Continued availability of spare parts 

Some manufacturers suggested referring to the date of the end of production for this criterion; however, this 
is  rejected  as  the  date  of  purchase  must  be  considered  as  the  reference.  This  aspect  is  something  to  be 
regulated  using  a  different  policy  tool  (i.e.  Ecodesign  implementing  measures).  Moreover,  public  authorities 
should request a length of time for spare parts  availability based on their own needs: in the event that the 
replacement  policy  for  computers  is  5  years,  it  would  probably  be  appropriate  to  ask  for  an  availability  of 
spare parts for 4 to 5 years. Moreover, the tenderer (which can be different from the manufacturer) will be 
responsible for ensuring the spare parts availability. 

Design for reparability 

Some manufacturers suggested excluding soldered CPUs from the list of critical components. Moreover, it was 
requested  to  include  additional  components  such  as  ports  and  connectors  that  are  reported  as  a  common 
failure  point  for  tablets.  An  alternative  wording  that  is  considered  applicable  for  a  core  criterion  was 
suggested  for  this  criterion.  As  suggested  by  some  stakeholders,  a  note  is  now  added  on  the  exclusion  of 
soldered  CPUs  from  the  list  of  critical  components.  Based  on  the  different  views  expressed  by  the 
stakeholders,  the  criterion  was  split  between  a  core  (not  referring  to  any  specific  list  of  tools)  and 
comprehensive (referring to basic tools as defined by the EN45554:2020) level. 

Refurbished products  

Deleted  here  and included  as “Criteria  area  5  –  Criteria proposals for  refurbished/remanufactured  products” 
(see Section 2.5). 

Functionality for secure data deletion  

This criterion on functionalities for secure data deletion is fully supported and it is proposed to be included as 
a core criterion.  

2.1.1.5  Further background after the second stakeholder consultation 

Provision of an extended service agreement  

Several  stakeholders  suggested  splitting  this  into  core  and  comprehensive  levels,  pointing  out  that  the 
comprehensive level (longer service agreements) is generally applicable to high-end products. Regarding the 
service level, it is commented that commitment to repair/upgrade should be compatible with costs and time 
(as  for  the  first  criteria  proposal).  A  minimum  2-year  service  length  is  proposed  for  the  core  level  and  a 
minimum  of  3  years  is  proposed  for  the  comprehensive  level.  The  JRC  wants  to  point  out  that  these  are 
considered minimum thresholds to be adapted based on the type of device to be procured and based on the 
needs of the procurer. 

  32 

 
 
Manufacturer's warranty 

For  this  criterion  it  is  also  proposed  to  keep  a  differentiation  between  core  and  comprehensive  levels.  A 
minimum  2-year  warranty  is  proposed  for  the  core  level  and  a  minimum  of  3  years  is  proposed  for  the 
comprehensive level. The JRC wants to point out that these are considered minimum thresholds to be adapted 
based on the type of device to be procured and based on the needs of the procurer. 

Continued availability of spare parts 

It is suggested to distinguish between a core and a comprehensive level and to use, as a reference time, not 
only the date of purchase (from a supplier) but also the date of end of production. The JRC considers that the 
date of end of production, despite being highly relevant in the Ecodesign Directive context, is less relevant in a 
public procurement process, where the service provider (and not the manufacturer) is requested to ensure the 
availability  of  spare  parts  for  the  duration  of  the  service  contract,  independently  from  the  date  of  end  of 
production.  

Another  stakeholder  suggested  aligning  the  criterion,  at  least  for  computer  displays,  with  the  requirements 
under  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  2019/2021  on  availability  of  spare  parts  after  the  end  of  production  (7 
years).  Also,  in  this  case  the  JRC  considers  that  the  criterion  should  ensure  the  availability  of  spare  parts 
during the service contract, which is generally shorter than 7 years, and to adapt this requirement to the type 
of device and to the ICT equipment replacement strategy established in the organisation. 

It  is  also  suggested  to  consider  the  cost  of  spare  parts  in  this  criterion.  The  JRC  amended  the  criterion  to 
propose that the tenderer shall provide a price list for original or compatible spare parts and indicative labour 
costs for their replacement. 

Ecolabels,  such  as  EPEAT,  are  also  suggested  as  a  reference  for  verification.  The  JRC  considers  that 
compliance  of  products  with  Ecolabels  can  ensure  transparency  in  terms  of  available  parts  from  the 
manufacturers.  However,  this  criterion  is  meant  to  be  linked  to  the  service  contract  and  not  to  the  specific 
characteristics of the product.  

Design for reparability 

The expansion of the list of replaceable components for notebooks is suggested, as is the alignment of the 
replacement components for displays with Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2021. Based on the comments 
received, a note has been added to highlight the mandatory criteria included in the new Ecodesign Regulation 
for electronic displays. 

OEM  representatives  consider  that  the  EN45554  list  of  basic  tools  (class  A)  contains  a  very  limited  list  of 
household  tools  and  it  is  not  suitable  for  the  repair  of  high-tech  products  such  as  those  covered  by  this 
specification. The list of acceptable tools for the  comprehensive criterion has been extended to Class B and 
Class C, as defined under EN45554:2020, including all the applicable non-proprietary tools. 

Moreover,  the  list  of  reparable  components  for  computer  monitors  (comprehensive  level)  has  been  aligned 
with the reparability criterion under the EU Ecolabel for Electronic Displays.   

Functionality for secure data deletion  

A  stakeholder suggested clarifying that  secure  data  deletion must be  possible for all sensitive, private data 
only and functionality for secure data deletion must be made available for the deletion of user data contained 
in all data storage devices of the product 

Another  stakeholder  suggested  removing  the  requirement  to  provide  secure  data  deletion  only  in  the  user 
manual and to reword it as follows: "the techniques used and the supported secure data deletion standard(s) 
must be provided in the user manual or manufacturer’s website". 
Member States consider that the possibility of secure data deletion is fundamental to promote reconditioning 
of  IT  products.    On  the  other  hand,  the  need  for  security  for  data  deletion  varies  greatly  on  the  basis  of 
different types of device and different types of tenderers (e.g. governmental agencies vs schools). In order to 
simplify the GPP requirements, it is preferable to move this criterion into the “award criteria” to be included 
only by those tenderers that consider it an added value. 

  33 

 
 
2.1.2  Criterion 1.2 – Rechargeable battery life and endurance 

In  addition  to  the  endurance  requirements  for  batteries,  an  information  criterion  has  been  proposed  on  the 
correct management of the battery and measurement of its state of health, and new software-related criteria 
aiming  to  ensure  the  correct  management  of  the  batteries.  A  wider  technical  specification  on  minimum 
requirements in terms of the electrical performance of the battery has also been proposed. 

The following table compares the existing GPP criteria with the new proposals. 

Table 4. Rechargeable battery life and endurance - current criteria (2016) and TR v3.0 

GPP 2016 

TR v3.0 Proposal 

New! TS6. Rechargeable battery endurance 

New! TS7. Minimum requirements on the electrical performance 

New! TS8. Information on battery state of health 

New! TS9. Battery protection software 

New! TS10. Intelligent charging 

AC5. Rechargeable battery life and endurance 

AC1. Further rechargeable battery endurance 

Summary of the main changes after the first stakeholder consultation 

The  main  focus  of  this  revision  is to  find the  most  appropriate  solution  for  the  selection  of  a  threshold  for 
TS6.  Clarifications  on  definitions  and  the  applicability  of  the  standard  are  also  provided  and  on  the  use  of 
ecolabels  as  proof  of  compliance.  A  more  clear  distinction  between  the  core  and  comprehensive  levels  for 
TS13 is also proposed.  

Summary of the main changes after the second stakeholder consultation 

Only minor changes have been applied. Regarding the use of accredited laboratories for TS10 and TS11, this 
is  considered  an  important  element  of  quality  assurance  and  it  has  been  kept  in  this  final  proposal.  The 
availability  of  accredited  test  laboratories  has  been  confirmed  by  interviews  with  experts  in  the  sector.  A 
minor  change  was  introduced  in  TS13  (core  level):  the  tenderer  must  provide  the  equipment  with  a  pre-
installed  battery  protection  software  but  is  not  requested  to  provide  it  as  the  default  setting.  The 
comprehensive criterion on Battery Protection Software has been turned into a different criterion (Intelligent 
Charging) to better reflect the scope of this criterion. 

The following table shows the criteria as revised after the second stakeholder consultation. 

Third criteria proposal 

Core criteria 

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 

Comprehensive criteria 

TS6 Rechargeable battery endurance  

TS6 Rechargeable battery endurance 

Applicable to portable devices (portable computers, tablets and 
smartphones). 

Applicable to mobile devices (notebooks / tablets and smartphones) 

For refurbished/remanufactured devices, see criteria TS25 and TS26. 

For refurbished/remanufactured devices, see criteria TS25 and TS26.  

  34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The tested State of Health of the battery after 300 cycles must be 
≥80%. 

Tests must be carried out according to the standard IEC EN 61960-
3:2017. See the explanatory note below for the definitions. 

The tested State of Health of the battery must be: 

 

 

≥90% after 300 cycles50 , or  

≥80% after 500 cycles. 

Verification: 

Tenderers must provide test results obtained by accredited 
ISO17025 test bodies according to the IEC EN 61960-3:2017 
standard or equivalent. Products holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel 
fulfilling the specified requirements will be deemed to comply.  

Tests must be carried out according to the standard IEC EN 61960-
3:2017 or equivalent. See the explanatory note below for the 
definitions 

Verification: 

Tenderers must provide test results obtained by accredited 
ISO17025 test bodies according to the IEC EN 61960-3:2017 
standard.  

Products holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply. 

Explanatory note: Definition of State of Health (SoH) 

State of Health: Current full charge capacity (in mAh) expressed as a percentage of the design capacity (rated capacity). 

TS7 Minimum requirements on the electrical performance 

Applicable to mobile devices (notebooks  / tablets and smartphones) 

For refurbished/remanufactured devices, see criterion TS27. 

The battery must be compliant with the electrical test acceptance 
criteria according to the standard IEC EN 61960-3:2017 (see details 
in the Annex I of this document).  

Verification:   

Tenderers must provide test results obtained by accredited 
ISO17025 test bodies according to EC EN 61960-3:2017.  

TS8 Information on battery state of health 

(same for core and comprehensive criteria) 

Applicable to portable devices (portable computers, tablets and smartphones). 

For refurbished/remanufactured devices, see criterion TS26. 

The tenderer must provide the equipment with pre-installed software to determine and monitor the status of the battery/accumulator and 
allow for the reading of the battery or accumulator’s ‘state of health’ and ‘state of charge’, as well as the number of ‘full charge cycles’ 
already performed from the battery/accumulator and to display these data for the user. See the explanatory note below for the definitions. 

The software must also provide tips for users to maximise battery lifespan. 

Verification: 

The tenderer must provide the specifications and version of the software. 

Equipment holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified requirements will be deemed to comply. 

Explanatory note: Definition of charge cycle, State of Charge (SoC) and State of Health (SoH) 

 

 

 

Charge Cycle: One charge cycle is completed when the battery is fully charged from 0% up to 100% and then discharged back down to 
0%. This could be performed by partially charging-discharging the battery multiple times on different SoC levels as long as the total 
amount of charge-discharge percentage is approximately equal to the nominal capacity. 

State of Charge: The remaining battery capacity expressed as a percentage of full charge capacity (SBS-IF, 1998). 

State of Health: Current full charge capacity (in mAh) expressed as a percentage of the design capacity (rated capacity). 

TS9 Battery protection software 

50  Please note that  the testing threshold  of  300  cycles  does  not  represent  the  expected  endurance,  but  is  a  proxy for  much longer  endurance (e.g.  >500 

cycles) 

  35 

 
 
 
                                           
(same for core and comprehensive criteria) 

Applicable to portable computers. 

The  tenderer  must  provide  the  equipment  with  pre-installed  software  to  enable  a  limit  on  the  battery  State  of  Charge  (SoC)  when  the 
computer is used systematically in grid operation (e.g. to a value ≤80% SoC). 

Verification: 

The  tenderer  must  provide  a  written  declaration  that  the  products  supplied  have pre-installed  software  with the  requested  features.  The 
specifications and version of the software must also be provided. 
Equipment holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified requirements will be deemed to comply.  

AWARD CRITERIA 

TS10 Intelligent Charging  

Applicable to tablets and smartphones.  

The  tenderer  must  provide  the  equipment  with  a  pre-installed 
battery  management  system  that  includes  intelligent  charging 
software able to identify the user’s regular charging habits/pattern, 
stop the charging process before it reaches 100% (e.g. at 80%), and 
fully charge the device only when needed by the user. 

Verification: 

The  tenderer  must  provide  a  written  declaration  that  the  products 
supplied  have  pre-installed  software  with  the  requested  features. 
The  specifications  and  version  of  the  software  must  also  be 
provided. 

Equipment holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply.  

AC1 Further rechargeable battery endurance 

Applicable  to  portable  devices  (portable  computers,  tablets  and 
smartphones). 

For refurbished/remanufactured devices, see criterion AC11. 

Additional points will be awarded if the battery endurance is greater 
than  500  cycles  (with  ≥80%  capacity  retention  of  the  initial  rated 
capacity) proportionally to the additional number of cycles ensured. 

Verification: 

Tests must be carried out according to the standard IEC EN 61960-
3:2017. Tenderers must provide test results obtained by accredited 
ISO17025 test bodies. 

2.1.2.1 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed criteria 

Battery life endurance 

One important reason why mobile ICT products are discarded or replaced is the short life of the main batteries 
installed  in  portable  ICT  products.  Even  when  the  batteries  are  replaced  and  the  entire  product  is  not 
discarded,  this  could  generate  environmental  impacts  related  to  the  end-of-life  management  of  worn-out 
batteries  and  additional  operational  costs  for  the  public  administration.  For  this  reason,  the  endurance 
requirement for batteries is kept.  

Different criteria on batteries’ capacity retentions and durability in cycles are applied so far in various ecolabel 
schemes and this revision can be an opportunity to harmonise the EU GPP approach with these labels, to also 
allow the use of the existing ecolabel certification as a verification method.  

Relevant parameters used to define the battery life endurance are: 

  36 

 
 
 
 
 
—  - State of Charge (SoC): Currently available capacity (in mAh) expressed as a percentage of the capacity 

at full charge (full charge capacity); 

—  -  State  of  Health  (SoH): Current  full  charge  capacity  (in  mAh)  expressed  as a  percentage  of  the  design 

capacity (rated capacity). 

In  some  cases,  State  of  Charge  is  also  used  to  indicate  State  of  Health;  however,  State  of  Health  (SoH)  is 
considered the most appropriate term.  

Regarding  applicable  thresholds,  300  cycles  at  80%  SoH  can  be  considered  as  a  possible  minimum 
requirement  for  mobile  IT  equipment.  However,  data  collected  by  TCO  Certified  suggest  that  most  of  the 
certified products have batteries ensuring a SoH higher than 80% after 300 cycles51. Even though 300 cycles 
does not  reflect  the  expected  longevity  of  the  battery,  it  could  still  be  a  practical  way  to  exclude  the  worst 
performing products from tenders, without increasing verification costs for manufacturers.  

For the comprehensive criteria, the following option for the threshold was proposed in the first draft revision: 

●  500 cycles (with ≥80% SoC) respectively (as for the current GPP criteria).  

Moreover,  some  notebooks  and tablets  listed  in  the  EPEAT  database  fulfil  an  optional  criteria  based  on  the 
capacity retention (≥65% SoC) after 1000 cycles. Some manufacturers (e.g. Apple) claim for its notebooks and 
tablets battery charge capacity at 1000 complete charge/discharge cycles. However, the EPEAT criterion does 
not  request  that  tests  on  battery  endurance  are  carried  out  by  ISO  17025  accredited  laboratories.  This  is 
instead requested under ecolabels such as Blue Angel, Nordic Ecolabelling and TCO Certified. 

The  main  technical  reference  for  lithium  battery  endurance  is  the  standard  IEC  EN  61960:3-2017.  This 
standard  requires  testing  the  battery  at  a  specific  current  rate  0.2  It  A52  for  the  number  of  cycles  until  a 
capacity  retention  >  60%  is  reached  or,  as  an  accelerated  test  option,  testing  at  0.5  It  A 53  the  capacity 
retention  at  300  cycles.  However,  in  terms  of  charging  profile,  this  test  method  allows  more  flexibility.  In 
terms of  performance, this standard also covers other electrical tests of batteries/cells including their rated 
capacity, performance  at  low  temperature  and fast  discharge  rate, capacity  retention after storage  and the 
effect of electrostatic discharges. These tests are able to capture other relevant performance aspects of the 
battery and the different degradation mechanisms, compared to the simple charging/discharging cycles of the 
endurance tests.  

Table 5. Electrical tests and acceptance criteria covered by IEC EN 61960:3-2017 

Parameter 

Description 

Battery Acceptance Criteria  

Discharge performance at 20 °C (rated 
capacity) 

This test verifies the rated capacity of the battery. 

100% of the rated capacity (C5 Ah)54 

Discharge performance at –20 °C (rated 
capacity) 

This test determines the capacity of the battery at low 
temperatures. 

30% of the rated capacity (C5 Ah) 

High rate discharge performance at 20 °C 

This test determines the capacity of the battery when 
discharged at a high rate. This test is not required if the 
battery is not designed to be used at this rate (1 ItA). 

60% of the rated capacity (C5 Ah) 

Charge (capacity) retention and recovery  

This test determines firstly the capacity which a battery 
retain after storage for an extended period of time (28 
days) and secondly the capacity that can be recovered by 
a subsequent recharge. 

60% of the rated capacity (C5 Ah) 

Charge (capacity) retention after long-term 
storage 

This test determines the capacity of a battery after 
extended storage (90 days) at 50% state of charge, 
followed by a subsequent charge. 

85% of the rated capacity (C5 Ah) 

51Based on anonymised statistics provided by TCO (mid-2019). 
52 It basically means that the battery is tested with a discharging cycle of around 5 hours.  
53 It corresponds to an accelerated test condition where the discharging cycle takes place in 2 hours. 
54 Amount of electricity declared by the manufacturer that a cell can deliver in a 5-hour period. 

  37 

 
 
                                           
Endurance in cycles 

This test determines the number of charge/discharge 
cycles which a battery can endure before its capacity has 
been significantly depleted. 

60% of the rated capacity (C5 Ah) after 300 
cycles 

Electrostatic discharge 

This test is to evaluate the ability of a battery to withstand 
electrostatic discharge. 

Operational 

Information on battery state of health 

In  support  to  the  endurance  requirement  for  batteries,  it  is  proposed  to  include  a  software-related 
requirement.  This  would  facilitate  the  correct  monitoring  and  implementation  of  the  replacement  policy  for 
the mobile equipment fleet of a public administration.  

Blue  Angel  requires  the  existence  of  software  determining  the  battery/accumulator  status  and  allowing  the 
reading of the battery's/accumulator's "state of health", "state of charge“, as well as the number of full charge 
cycles already performed by the battery/accumulator and to display these data for the user.  

User behaviour is also an important factor in prolonging the battery lifespan. Factors that can be controlled by 
the final user include:  

●  ensuring the computer is well ventilated and does not overheat; 

●  power  management  settings  are  used  when  unplugged  and  partial  charging  systems  are  used 

where available; 

● 

correct storage of the battery during long periods of disuse. 

It is considered important that the tenderer provides guidance to users on how to maximise battery life.  The 
provision of this information on battery health can drive user behaviour toward prolonging battery life and can 
be also relevant in the event of reuse of the device. 

Battery protection software 

The  wearing out of batteries can be limited  by the use of  specific protection software. 'Intelligent  charging' 
was already identified by stakeholders as an important feature in the previous revision.  

The  preparatory  study  on  the  revision  of  the  EU  Ecodesign  Regulation  for  computers  proposes  criteria  with 
regard to a ‘Battery optimisation built-in functionality’: Manufacturers shall provide pre-installed software to 
enable a limit on the battery state of charge (SoC) when the computer is used systematically in grid operation. 
This functionality shall prevent the battery to be loaded at full charge. The manufacturer shall inform the user 
of the existence and the benefits of using such a functionality. 

Furthermore, as included in the Blue Angel criteria, a required Battery/Accumulator Protection Software shall 
be  able  to  limit  the  battery's/accumulator's  charge  to  a  value  smaller  to  the  maximum  amount  of  usable 
electricity (e.g. 80% of full charge capacity) to extend the battery's life. 

In the case of smartphones and tables the overnight charging duration is often unnecessarily long, the battery 
is subjected  to  a  high  average  state  of  charge  (SoC),  which  accelerates battery  aging.  Therefore,  intelligent 
charging systems (also  called smart  charging) over the  duration of the night  can  provide protection against 
aging55,56,57. 

2.1.2.2 

Initial background for the proposed verification 

All  schemes  refer  to  standard  IEC  61960  or  the  related  EN  61960  /  DIN  EN  61960  standards.  IEC  61960-
3:2017  specifies  performance  tests,  designations,  markings,  dimensions  and  other  requirements  for 
secondary lithium single cells and batteries for portable applications. 

55 http://emareg.de/publication/smart2_charger/ 

56https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210512 

57 https://www.huaweicentral.com/smart-charging-mode-emui-feature-march-2020/ 

  38 

 
 
 
                                           
2.1.2.3  Summary of stakeholder answers from the initial survey 

This  criterion  is  adopted  and  adapted  in  tenders  according  to  the  respondents.  Different  thresholds  are 
reported  to  be  applied  by  different  labels.  Simplification  of  the  testing  and  verification  procedure  is  also 
suggested. 

2.1.2.4  Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation 

Rechargeable battery endurance 

The comments received are mainly related to the threshold selection in terms of number of cycles with some 
stakeholders  suggesting  increasing  the  threshold  to  500  or more  cycles  and  other  stakeholders  considering 
that  300-cycle  testing  represents  the  only  available  reliable  data  provided  by  battery  manufacturers.  The 
proposal  of  this  revision  is  to  keep  requiring  the  300-cycle  testing  according  to  EN  61960  as  this  test 
represents  a  standardised  reference  and  is  widely  applied  by  industry.  The  battery  must  ensure  80%  SoH 
after 300  cycles  as  the  core  criterion.  For  the  comprehensive  criterion,  as  an  alternative  to  more  than  500 
cycles with 80% SoH, a threshold of 90% SoH after 300 cycles is proposed.  Some clarifications on definitions 
and the applicability of the  standard are also provided. In particular, the definitions of State of Charge and 
State of Health have been improved/corrected and added in an explanatory note. 

It was also commented that IEC 61960 does not allow for charging that emulates the charging profile of the 
product.  However,  the  JRC  considers  that  this  is  already  allowed  by  the  IEC  standard:  according  to  the  IEC 
61960-3: 2017 (Section 7.2), cells shall be charged, at an ambient temperature of 20±5 °C, using the method 
declared by the manufacturer. 

Also, the reference to ISO 17025 accredited test bodies was questioned. It was also mentioned that requiring 
certified  test  bodies  adds  lead  time  and  cost,  without  real  environmental  gain.  The  JRC  considers  that  the 
involvement of accredited test bodies is beneficial in terms of  quality assurance of the test results and the 
procurement process can benefit from it. 

Minimum requirements on the electrical performance 

Regarding this criterion it was requested to clarify which tests and thresholds are associated with it. The list of 
tests is added in Annex I to this document.  

Information of battery state of health 

According to a manufacturer, the total number of cycle counts is not relevant information for the user. As the 
battery lifespan in terms of total cycles depends on the battery type and appliance, the pure number of cycle 
counts reached does not provide useful information on the remaining lifetime of the battery or the capacity 
retention left. The state of health and state of charge provide better information. The JRC does not agree as 
this information on number of cycles allows procurers to monitor the degradation trends and mechanism of 
batteries used for the ICT fleet.  

Battery protection software 

It is unclear how the "core criteria" is different from the "comprehensive criteria" in this case. Both require pre-
installed  software  that  enables  the  user  to  prevent  the  battery  from  being  fully  charged.  In  this  second 
proposal it is clarified that the criteria are basically the same. The two levels, core and comprehensive, aim to 
highlight  the  difference  in  terms  of  the  relevance  of  the  applicability  of  this  criterion  to  different  product 
groups. The criterion is considered core for notebooks expected to be used as workstations and comprehensive 
for  the  other  mobile  ICT  products  not  intended  to  be  used  plugged  into  the  grid.  Reference  to  intelligent 
charging systems software able to identify use patterns is also suggested. Intelligent charging software that 
identifies  the  user’s  regular  charging  behaviour  could  allow  the  80%  charge  capacity  to  be  exceeded  at 
specific moments of the day/week.  

  39 

 
 
 
 
2.1.2.5  Further background after the second stakeholder consultation 

Rechargeable battery endurance 

According  to  the  comments  and  feedback  received,  it  is  clear  that  manufacturers  are  currently  testing  the 
endurance of their batteries only up to the 300 cycles (minimum endurance target introduced by IEC 61690-
3).  According  to  some  manufacturers,  extending  the  test  to  500  cycles  can  be  very  expensive  and  time-
consuming,  as  the  test  could  last,  in  some  cases,  more  than  4  months.  Test  reports  requested  as  proof  of 
compliance  by  TCO  Certified  also  cover  the  first  300  cycles.  Some  NGOs  consider  this  threshold,  applied  in 
both  the  core  and  comprehensive  criteria,  too  low,  considering  the  development  of  the  market  and  the 
importance of encouraging long-lasting batteries. Based on the comments received, the JRC pointed out that 
the  length  of  the  battery  testing  (300  cycles)  does  not  correspond  to  the  lifetime  expectation/request,  but 
represents a good proxy for a longer endurance.  

OEMs also suggested to delete the provision of accredited test bodies (ISO17025), only keeping the provision 
of performing tests in accordance with international standards. The OEMs consider that the requirement for 
laboratory  accreditation  makes  it  more  difficult  to  provide  a  timely  response  to  tenders.  However,  the  JRC 
considers that the involvement of accredited test bodies is beneficial in terms of quality assurance of the test 
results and the procurement process can benefit from it. Moreover, this requirement is already included in the 
testing requirements of several Ecolabel programmes, including TCO Certified, Blue Angel, and Nordic Swan, 
and applied by several OEMs for labelling. A list of laboratories recognised by the IEC as fully compliant with 
the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 is available at: https://www.iecee.org/dyn/www/f?p=106:57:0::::FSP_STD_ID:29603  

In  terms  of  costs,  tests  from  accredited  laboratories  can  typically  vary,  based  on  the  complexity  and 
comprehensiveness  of  the  test,  in  a  range  between  EUR 5 000  and  EUR 10 000  according  to  information 
provided by an expert. 

Minimum requirements on the electrical performance 

A  stakeholder  considers  that  this  criterion  is  unnecessary  if  compliance  with  the  technical  standard  is 
mandatory in order for manufacturers to market their products. According to the information collected by the 
JRC, this standard is not mandatory at the moment. 

Information of battery state of health 

No further comments received. 

Battery protection software 

According to an OEM, a requirement to stop charging before it reaches 100% could result in a poor customer 
experience,  and  for  this  reason  it  is  not  recommend  as  the  default  setting,  but  it  is  recommended  only  to 
make the option available. Regarding the verification, an OEM considers that the procurer might not be able to 
control  the  specifications  of  the  software.  The  written  declaration  that  the  products  supplied  have  pre-
installed software with the requested features is suggested as verification requirement. 

2.1.3  Criterion 1.3 – Mobile equipment durability testing 

The scope of the criteria is to expand the scope of the criteria included in the EU GPP criteria (2016) to all the 
categories  of  mobile  equipment,  including  laptops,  tablets  and  smartphones.  A  core  technical  specification 
aims to ensure that the product is able to withstand drops. Comprehensive criteria are proposed to cover a 
broader  spectrum  of  stresses.  A  new  criterion  on  ingress  protection  from  dust  and  water is  proposed  to  be 
included,  with  a  special  focus  on  equipment  used  for  outdoor  working  activities  or  other  harsh  usage 
environments  and  conditions.  The  criterion  on  durability  tests  for  SSD  has  been  removed  as  this  aspect  is 
considered to be covered by the durability testing of the entire device. 

The following table compares the existing GPP criteria with the new proposals. 

Table 6. Mobile equipment durability testing - current criteria (2016) and TR v3.0 

GPP 2016 

TR v3.0 Proposal 

  40 

 
 
 
New! TS11. Drop testing 

New! TS12. Temperature stress 

New! TS13. Ingress protection level 

AC7. Notebook computer drives 

AC2. Mobile equipment durability testing 

AC8. Notebook durability testing 

New! AC3. Ingress protection level – Semi-rugged and rugged devices 

Summary of the main changes after the first stakeholder consultation 

Minor changes were made such as adding the reference to an alternative test procedure and to the ecolabels 
that can be used to demonstrate compliance.  

Summary of the main changes after the second stakeholder consultation 

The  criteria  has  been  updated  adding  a  reference  to  the  new  version  of  MIL-STD-810  (version  H)  that  has 
replaced version G. It is proposed to include a transition period and accept MIL-STD-810 version G test results 
until  the  end  of  2021.  Clarifications  on  the  applicability  of  TS13  have  been  introduced:  rugged  and  semi-
rugged  devices  expected  to  be  used  for  outdoor  working  activities  or  other  harsh  usage  environments  and 
conditions 

The following table shows the criteria as revised after the second stakeholder consultation. 

Third criteria proposal  

Core criteria 

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION  

Comprehensive criteria 

  41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
TS11 Drop testing 

same for core and comprehensive criteria) 

Applicable  to  portable  devices  (portable  computers,  tablets  and 
smartphones). 

The equipment must be tested according to the following standards: 

IEC 60068 Part 2-31: Ec (Freefall, procedure 1), or 

 
  MIL-STD-810H - Method 516.8 – Shock (Procedure IV) with a 

drop height of 45 cm.  

Note: Tests carried out according to the corresponding method in the 
previous  version  of  the  Military  Standard  ‘MIL-STD-810G’  can  be 
accepted until the end of 2021 (see Annex II for details). 

Functional  performance  requirements  in  Annex  II  of  this  document 
must be met by the equipment after exposure to the drop test. 

Alternatively, the device must be provided with cover and protection 
cases  tested  for,  or  designed  according  to,  a  robustness  standard 
such as US MIL-STD-810 or equivalent test procedures. 

Verification:  

The tenderer must provide test reports showing that the model has 
been tested and has met the functional performance requirements 
for durability.  

Testing must be carried out by a test facility accredited according to 
ISO 17025. 

Existing tests for the product, carried out to the same or a stricter 
specification, will be accepted without the need to retest.  

Equipment holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply. 

TS12: Temperature Stress 

Applicable  to  portable  devices  (portable  computers,  tablets  and 
smartphones). 

The equipment must be tested according to the following standards: 

 

IEC 60068 Part 2-1: A Cold Part 2-2: B Dry Heat, or 

  MIL-STD-810H  Method  501.7  -  High  temperature  -  Basic  Hot 
(A2) and Method 502.7 - Low temperature - Basic Cold (C1), 

with  the  modified  storage/operational  temperatures  described  in 
Annex II. 

Functional  performance  requirements  in  Annex  II  of  this  document 
must  be  met  by  the  equipment  after  exposure  to  the  temperature 
stress tests. 

Note: Tests carried out according to the corresponding method in the 
previous  version  of  the  Military  Standard  ‘MIL-STD-810G’  can  be 
accepted until the end of 2021 (see Annex II for details).  

Verification:  

The tenderer must provide test reports showing that the model has 
been tested and has met the functional performance requirements 
for temperature stress. Testing must be carried out by a test facility 
accredited  according  to  ISO  17025.  Existing  tests  for  the  product, 
carried out to the same or a stricter specification, will be accepted 
without the need to retest.  

Equipment holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply.   

  42 

 
 
 
TS13  Ingress  protection  level  –  Semi  Rugged  and  Rugged 
Devices 

Applicable  to  portable  devices  (portable  computers,  tablets  and 
smartphones). 

To  be  included  where  the  expected  use  is  for  outdoor  working 
activities or other harsh usage environments and conditions.  

The equipment delivered as part of the contract must have passed 
durability tests carried out according to: 

 

IEC/EN  60529:2013,  Degrees  of  Protection  Provided  by 
Enclosures (IP Code), or 

  MIL-STD-810H  510.7  –  Procedure  I  -  Sand  and  Dust  – 
Blowing  Dust  and  MIL-STD-810H  506.6  –  Procedure  I 
Rain. 

Functional  performance  requirements  in  Annex  II  of  this  document 
must be met by the equipment after exposure to the stress tests. 

The degree of protection provided by enclosures must be classified 
as level IP54 or higher.  

Note: Tests carried out according to the corresponding method in the 
previous  version  of  the  Military  Standard  ‘MIL-STD-810G’  can  be 
accepted until the end of 2021 (see Annex II for details). 

Verification:  

The tenderer must provide test reports showing that the model has 
been tested and has met the functional performance requirements 
for the ingress protection level. Testing must be carried out by a test 
facility accredited according to ISO 17025. 

Existing tests for the product, carried out to the same or a stricter 
specification, will be accepted without the need to retest.  

Equipment holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply. 

Explanatory note: Degree of protection for IEC/EN 60529:2013 

  Degree of protection against solid foreign objects indicated by the first characteristic numeral:  

 

 

IP5x - Ingress of dust is not totally prevented, but dust must not penetrate in such a quantity as to interfere with satisfactory 
operation of the apparatus or to impair safety; 
IP6x - No ingress of dust; complete protection against contact. 

  Degree of protection against water indicated by the second characteristic numeral:  

 
 
 
 

 

IPx4 - Water splashed against the enclosure from any direction must have no harmful effects; 
IPx5 - Water is projected in jets against the enclosure from any direction with no harmful effects; 
IPx6 - Water is projected in powerful jets against the enclosure from any direction with no harmful effects; 
IPx7 - Ingress of water in quantities causing harmful effects must not be possible when the enclosure is temporarily immersed in 
water under standardised conditions of pressure and time; 
IPx8 - Ingress of water in quantities causing harmful effects must not be possible when the enclosure is continuously immersed 
in water under conditions which must be agreed between the manufacturer and user but which are more severe than for numeral 
7. 

  43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
AWARD CRITERIA 

AC2: Mobile equipment durability testing 

(same for core and comprehensive criteria) 

Applicable to portable devices (portable computers, tablets and smartphones). 

The applicable tests must be specified in the tender to reflect the conditions of use defined for the product.  

Points will be awarded for offers including products that have passed durability tests carried out according to IEC 60068, US MIL-810 or 
equivalent.  

A maximum of x points [to be specified] may be awarded for: 

 

 

 

 

 

Accidental drop (x points) 

Resistance to shock (x points)  

Resistance to vibration (x points) 

Screen resilience (x points)  

Temperature stress (x points) 

Functional performance requirements and test specifications are provided in Annex II of the criteria document.  

Verification: 

The tenderer must provide test reports showing that the model has been tested and has met the functional performance requirements for 
durability. 

Testing must be carried out by a test facility accredited according to ISO 17025. 

Existing tests for the product, carried out to the same or a stricter specification, will be accepted without the need to retest.  

Equipment holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified requirements will be deemed to comply. 

AC3: Ingress Protection Level – Semi Rugged and Rugged Devices 

Applicable to mobile devices (portable computers, tablets and smartphones). 

To be included where the expected use is for outdoor working activities or other harsh usage environments and conditions.  

Points  will  be  awarded  if  the  products  demonstrate  that  they  have  reached  the  following  IP  Protection  Level  according  to  IEC/EN 
60529:2013: 

 

 

 

 

IP65 – 0.25 X points 

IP66 – 0.5 X points 

IP67 – 0.75 X points  

IP68 – X points  

Verification: 

The tenderer must provide test reports showing that the model has been tested and has met the functional performance requirements for 
the ingress protection level.  

Testing must be carried out by a test facility accredited according to ISO 17025. 

Existing tests for the product, carried out to the same or a stricter specification, will be accepted without the need to retest.  

Equipment holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified requirements will be deemed to comply. 

  44 

 
 
2.1.3.1 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed criteria 

Options to improve the durability performance of laptops and other mobile equipment may be related to the 
procurement of products that ensure a resistance to drops and other physical stresses such as water contact, 
dust and extreme temperatures. 

According to an IDC study (2016)58 among 800 United States organisations, the mobile equipment failure rate 
is in general very high: for notebooks it is 18% (average of company notebooks requiring repair of some kind, 
during a year). The rate of failure increases each year a device is in use, ranging from 11% failing the first 
year to more than 20% failing by year five. According to this study, among the top ways end-users damage 
devices, by far and away the top reason across categories was simply dropping the device while carrying it, or 
it  falling  from  the  desk.  Other  relevant  reasons  are  water/dust  ingress,  temperature  stress,  vibration  and 
power shock. 

Figure 11. Damage to mobile equipment in organisations reported by the IDC study (2016) 

Risks of physical stress for the equipment are also linked to the work environment, with higher levels of stress 
expected for products used in outdoor environment. 

Drop and temperature stress tests 

Only the current EU GPP award criteria (comprehensive) and TCO Certified include requirements on durability 
tests  for  notebooks  and  tablets,  both  referring  to  test  procedures  as  specified  in  US  MIL-STD-810G  or  IEC 
60068.  

TCO  Certified  Generation  8  requires  a  drop  test  as  well  as  a  temperature  stress  test  (high  and  low 
temperature) for mobile ICT  devices such as notebooks, smartphones and tablets; in addition to a  drop and 
temperature  stress  test,  the  current  EU  GPP  criteria  for  Computers  and  Monitors  (2016)  further  entail 
resistance  to  shock  and  vibration  as well  as  screen  resilience.  Additionally, EU  GPP  has dedicated  durability 
criteria for computer drives.  

The detailed conditions of the drop and temperature tests slightly differ with stricter requirements for EU GPP; 
see Table 7. 

Test  conditions  for  temperature  tests:  according  to  EU  GPP  criteria,  the  notebook  shall  be  subjected  to  a 
minimum of four 24-hour exposure cycles in a test chamber. TCO test cycles are ≥ 48h for storage and ≥ 4h 
for operational temperature.  

58  IDC  (2016)  International  Data  Corporation  - White  Paper  Pay  Now,  Save  Later:  The Business  Case for  Rugged  Devices,  http://info.panasonic.com/rs/400-

JUK127/images/IDC-report_pay-now-save-later_the-business-case-for-rugged-devices.pdf (accessed on 13 September 2018) 

  45 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Table 7. Differences in test conditions of durability tests between EU GPP and TCO  

High temperatura 

Low temperature 

Drop test  

GPP 

EU 
(2016) 

The notebook shall be operational during a dry 
heat cycle at +40°C. 

The notebook shall be operational during a cold 
cycle at -25°C.  

≥ 76 cm drop height onto a non-
yielding surface.  

The notebook shall be  
non-operational during a dry heat cycle between 
+35°C and +60°C. 

The notebook shall be  
non-operational during a cold cycle at -50°C. 

A minimum of one drop shall be 
made on each bottom side and each 
bottom corner. 

TCO 

Operational temperature  
for ≥ 4h: ≥ +40°C. 

Storage temperature  
for ≥ 48h: ≥ +60°C. 

Operational temperature  
for ≥ 4h: ≤ -20°C. 

Storage temperature  
for ≥ 48h: ≤ -30°C. 

≥ 45 cm drop height. 

According  to  stakeholder  feedback,  the  approach  for  the  durability  testing  is  generally  supported.  TCO 
Certified version 8 has set the drop test limit to 45 cm after discussions with the industry. TCO reports that, 
even at this level, there are premium products not able to pass this criterion and therefore that fail to certify 
according to TCO Certified Generation 8.  

Furthermore,  the  analysis  of  voluntary  approaches  of  front-running  companies  revealed  that  only  a  few 
companies  seem  to  apply  US  MIL-STD-810  or  IEC  60068  as  regular  product  durability  tests,  either  to 
appliances for professional use (see examples of HP, LG59, Lenovo60), or especially for ‘rugged’ appliances (see 
examples of Dell61 and Zebra Technologies 62). For the revision of the GPP criteria, it is proposed to harmonise 
test  methods  and  thresholds  introducing  the  TCO  Certified  conditions  for  temperature  and  drop  tests  as 
thresholds for the core criteria, whereas the  more ambitious GPP criteria are proposed to be kept as award 
criteria. In this revision it is also better specified how to determine if a product passes or fails the test. 

Ingress protection 

This proposed criterion focuses on the resistance to water and dust ingress.  

Liquid  spillage  on  a  detached  keyboard  (of  desktops)  results  in  relatively  inexpensive  replacements.  In 
notebooks/laptops the liquids penetrate and damage expensive internal parts, including the motherboard and 
storage controllers: the repair is so expensive that generally the computer is disposed of63.  

Waterproof solutions for computers are possible, with increasing rates of protection of internal components. 
As a minimum, sealing can be implemented, so that just the relatively cheap notebook keyboard  is replaced. 
Standard  IEC  60529  classifies and  rates  the  degree  of  Ingress  Protection  (IP)  provided  against  dust,  water, 
accidental contact, and intrusion through mechanical casings and electrical enclosures. The IP code consists of 
two digits, indicating the solid particle protection class and the liquid ingress protection class.  

On  the  other  hand,  some  manufacturers  at  least  seem  to  use  the  IP  marking  standard  for  dust  and  water 
resistance for their products (more commonly for tablets and smartphones). When the equipment is expected 
to  be  used  in  a  specific  environment  and  activities  where  contact  with  dust  and  water  is  unavoidable,  the 
procurement of at least an IP65-rated tablet or dustproof smartphone design can help protect the device and 
data  against  particle  penetration  and  withstand  the  pressure  of  water jets.  IP67  or  IP68  could  help  protect 
from  more  severe  conditions  and  risks  related  to  water  ingress  and  could  be  beneficial  only  for  devices 
expected to be used under extreme conditions. 

Moreover, stakeholder feedback suggested the use of internationally acknowledged standards (similar to MIL 
standard 810) with regard to the durability requirement for computer drives. 

Finally,  IP  levels  for  dust  and  water  are  proposed  to  be  included  as  further  GPP  criteria  for  tablets  and 
smartphones mainly expected to be used in outdoor activities.  

59 https://www.lg.com/sg/laptops/lg-14Z980-GAA5CA3 
60 https://www.lenovo.com/ww/en/solutions/smb/thinkpad-mil-spec-tested-extreme 
61 https://www.dellemc.com/en-us/rugged/index.htm 
62 https://www.zebra.com/gb/en/products/tablets/l10-series-xbook-xslate-xpad.html  
63 Preparatory study on the Review of Regulation 617/2013 (Lot 3) Computers and Computer Servers 

  46 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
2.1.3.2  Comments from the initial GPP survey 2019 

The  approach  for  the  durability  testing  was  generally  supported.  Durability  tests  were  also  reported  to  be 
introduced  by  ecolabels  such  as  TCO  that  has  set  the  drop  test  limit  to  45 cm  after  discussions  with  the 
industry. 

It was suggested to better specify how to determine if a product passes or fails the test.  

2.1.3.3  Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation 

Some stakeholders highlighted that some of the specifications proposed would only be beneficial for devices 
expected to be used under extreme conditions. Moreover, the requirement for test results from accredited test 
bodies is questioned by industry. The use of covers / protective cases is also suggested for tablets, considering 
the lower availability of products that have passed durability tests. The inclusion of different features in one 
single award criteria is also questioned. In this revision the criterion has been simplified and tests that are not 
linked to international standards (e.g. the screen resistance) have been removed.  

2.1.3.4  Further background after second stakeholder consultation 

Some  stakeholders  suggested  referring  to  the  new  version  of  MIL-STD-810  (version  H  issued  in  2019  and 
substituting version G). The new standard brings a number of changes in ruggedness testing. As an example, 
the  transit  drop  test  that  was described  in  Method  516.6  Procedure  IV  in  MIL-STD-810G  is now  included  in 
Method 516.8 Procedure IV according to the new MIL-STD-810H and the default impact surface is now steel 
plate  over  concrete  and  no  longer  concrete.  The  revised  criteria  refer  to  the  new  version  of  the  Military 
Standard; however, many products on the market have been tested according to MIL-STD-810G and for this 
reason a transition period is proposed, considering the MIL-STD-810G test results acceptable until the end of 
2021. 

Also  for  this  group  of  criteria,  some  OEMs  consider  the  requirements  of  tests  carried  out  by  accredited 
laboratories  (ISO  17025)  unnecessary  and  recommend  to  request  testing  for  Ingress  Protection  only  for 
rugged computers and rugged tablets as standard products may not be subject to such harsh environmental 
conditions. Regarding AC2, a stakeholder supports the reference to international standards but it is suggested 
to include fewer features in the criterion. In terms of costs, these tests are not expensive, with a drop test or 
temperature stress test costing an estimated EUR 1 000 or less, according to an expert consulted. 

2.1.4  Criterion 1.4 (new!) – Interoperability and reusability of components 

New  criteria  are  proposed  based  on  the  use  of  standardised  components  aiming  to  increase  the  ICT 
equipment interoperability and reusability, in particular regarding connection cables and external power supply 
units.  By  using  one  standardised  interface  for  charging  and  data  transfer,  fewer  cables  need  to  be 
manufactured and the reuse of chargers and data cables can increase, with a possible saving of resources by 
decoupling the procurement of chargers from the procurement of the ICT device. 

The following table compares the existing GPP criteria with the new proposals. 

Table 8. Interoperability and reusability of components - current criteria (2016) and TR v3.0 

GPP 2016 

TR v3.0 Proposal 

New! TS14. Standardised port 

New! TS15. Standardised External Power Supply 

New! TS16. External Power Supply: Detachable cables 

New! TS17. Backward compatibility: Adapters 

New! AC4. ICT Equipment without accessories 

  47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Summary of the main changes after the first stakeholder consultation 

Minor changes and clarifications were integrated in the criteria text.  

Summary of the main changes after the second stakeholder consultation 

Regarding criteria TS14 and TS15, in the event that the product does not have a standardised port, then an 
adapter must be available to be ordered at no additional cost (and not accompany the product “by default” as 
in the previous proposal). Based on the comment received about market readiness, it is proposed to transform 
the criterion TS “ICT Equipment without accessories” into an award criterion. 

The following table shows the criteria as revised after the second stakeholder consultation. 

Third criteria proposal 

Core criteria 

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 

TS14 Standardised port 

Comprehensive criteria 

(same for core and comprehensive criteria) 

Applicable to all devices except computer displays and refurbished/remanufactured devices. 

The equipment delivered as part of the contract must carry at least one standardised USB Type-C™ receptacle (port) for data exchange that 
is backward compatible with USB 2.0 according to the standard IEC 62680-1-3:2018. 

If the product does not have a built-in USB Type-C™ receptacle, then an adapter must be available to be ordered at no additional cost. 

Verification:  

The tenderer must provide a product manual for each model provided, which must include an exploded diagram of the device illustrating the 
types of connectors used.  

Equipment holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified requirements will be deemed to comply. 

Explanatory note: Standardised USB Type-C™ 

The USB Type-C™ receptacle is defined according to the standard IEC 62680-1-3:2018 - Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power - 
Part 1-3: Common components - USB Type-C™ Cable and Connector Specification. 

TS15 Standardised External Power Supply 

Applicable to all portable devices with a power supply up to 100 W. 

For refurbished/remanufactured devices, see criterion AC12. 

This is not applicable to products with Qi (wireless) charging capability 
(e.g. for strong resistance to immersion in water or to dust), such as 
industrial computers. 

The equipment delivered as part of the contract must carry a USB 
Type-C™ standardised receptacle (port) for USB Power Delivery (PD) 
according to the standard EN/IEC 63002:2017.  

If the product does not have a built-in USB PD receptacle, then an 
adapter must be available to be ordered at no additional cost. 

Verification:  

The tenderer must provide a product manual for each model 
provided, which must include an exploded diagram of the device 
illustrating the types of receptacles used for power delivery. 

Explanatory note: Standardised external power supply 

Interoperability guidelines for external power supplies are defined according to IEC 63002:2016 - Identification and communication 
interoperability method for external power supplies used with portable computing devices. 

  48 

 
 
 
 
TS16 External Power Supply:  
Detachable Cables 

Applicable  to  all  portable  devices  with  a  power supply  up  to  100  W 
except for refurbished/remanufactured devices.   

For refurbished/remanufactured devices, see criterion AC13. 

The  External  Power  Supply  (EPS)  configuration  must  consist  of  a 
USB EPS with a detachable input cable (or one that is integrated in 
the EPS housing) and a detachable output cable to the ICT device 

Verification:  

The tenderer must provide product documentation for each model 
provided, which must include an exploded diagram of the device 
illustrating the main characteristics of the USB EPS. 

TS17 Backward compatibility: adapters 

Applicable to stationary and portable computers. 

The following adapters [to be selected from the list below] must be 
available to be procured separately: 

 
 
 
 

USB-C to USB Type-A  
USB-C to VGA  
USB-C to HDMI 
USB-C to RJ45 (Ethernet Port) 

Verification:  

The tenderer must provide a product specification and a price list for 
the adapters required. 

AC4 ICT Equipment without accessories 

Applicable to portable computers, tablets and smartphones. 

Additional  points  will  be  awarded  if  the  following  accessories  are 
available to be procured separately:  

 
 

External Power Supply (EPS) 
Headphones  

Verification:  

The  tenderer  must  provide  a  quotation  for  the  model  with  and 
without these accessories and a separate quotation for each one of 
the  accessories.  The  quotation  should  also  outline  the  process  for 
ordering the accessories. 

2.1.4.1 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed criteria 

Standardised interfaces 

A new criterion is proposed on the use of standard interfaces. The proposal is based on the usage of USB-C 
interfaces as they have the advantage of being: 

●  Standardised: USB type-C electric receptacles are specified in IEC 62680-1-3: 

Blue Angel has criteria on interfaces, on the one hand connectivity to external monitors, on the other hand the 
existence of two or more USB 3.0 or later ports. The latest TCO Certified Generation 8 criteria go even further 
and  require  computers  to  carry  at  least  –  built-in  or  delivered  as  a  separate  adapter  –  one  USB  type-C 
connector which is a universal connector with more pins, different design and performance compared to USB 
3.0, which allows both charging and data transfer. According to the TCO criteria document, USB-C is designed 

  49 

 
 
 
 
 
to  be  more  robust  and  future-proof  than  existing  USB  interfaces,  helping  to  prevent  problems  with  failing 
ports and to decrease the need for different cables.  

Standardised external power supply 

A new proposal on the  standardised  USB type-C receptacles is included for External Power Supply (EPS) for 
computing  devices  up  to  100  W.  This  proposal  is  in  line  with  the  new  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan64  that 
foresees regulatory measures on chargers for mobile phones and similar devices, including the introduction of 
a  common  charger,  improving  the  durability  of  charging  cables,  and  incentives to  decouple  the  purchase  of 
chargers from the purchase of new devices (see AC21). 

IEC 63002:20016 defines interoperability guidelines for external power supplies used with portable computing 
devices  that  implement  the  IEC  62680-1-2:  Universal  Serial  Bus  Power  Delivery  Specification  with  the  IEC 
62680-1-3:  Universal  Serial  Bus  Interfaces  for  data  and  power-Common  Components-  Type-C  Cable  and 
Connector Specification. This International Standard is applicable to EPS under 100 W for portable computing 
devices, with a focus on power delivery application for notebook computers, tablets, smartphones and other 
related  multimedia  devices.  A  broad  market  adoption  of  this  International  Standard  is  expected  to  make  a 
significant contribution to the reusability of power supplies by building on the global market ecosystem of IEC 
62680-compliant devices and facilitating interoperability across different product categories. 

According to the ITU recommendations65, the basic configuration of universal power adapter (UPA) solutions 
consists of a UPA with a detachable input cable (captive input can be a mains plug integrated in the adapter 
housing) and a detachable output cable to the ICT device. 

The Green Product Mark requires the use of a standardised power supply to enable easy reuse of used power 
supplies.  

External power supply with detachable cables 

The recommendation ITU-T L.1002 (10/16) sets out technical specification for common EPS, designed for use 
with  portable  ICT  devices,  also  referred  to  in  the  recommendation  as  Universal  Power Adaptors (UPAs).  The 
basic EPS configuration suggested by ITU-T L.1002 consists of an EPS with a detachable input cable66 and a 
detachable output cable to the ICT device67 (see Figure 12). A detachable DC cable is required as the DC cable 
is  generally  the  weakest  point  of  the  portable  power  supply  and  the  main  point  of  failure.  Adapters  which 
have captive cables, in case of failure of the latter, require all the rest of the equipment and in particular its 
active  part  to  be  discarded,  creating  unnecessary  e-waste  and  costs  for  users  that  could  be  a  barrier  for 
repair. Furthermore, the detachable cable enables more reuse and an increased lifetime of the power supply 
unit.  The  recommendation  ITU-T  L.1002  also  suggests  implementing  the  USB  type-C  connector  for  the 
interface of EPS, in order to support broad reusability and interoperability. 

Figure 12. Basic Universal Power Adaptor (UPA) configurations and connection options (Source: ITU-T 2016) 

64 COM(2020) 98 final 
65 Recommendation ITU-T L.1002. External universal power adapter solutions for portable information and communication technology devices 
66 Detachable alternating current (AC) cable: A detachable cable used to connect the power adapter to the AC mains for powering through two connectors, one 
on the universal power adapter side and the other on the AC mains side.  
67 Detachable direct current (DC) cable: A detachable DC cable connects the power adapter to the ICT device for powering through two connectors, one on the 

universal power adapter side and the other on the ICT device side. 

  50 

 
 
                                           
Backward compatibility: adapters 

The  main  aim  of  this  proposal  is  to  ensure  that  the  equipment  is  future-proof  and,  at  the  same  time,  the 
connectivity with older equipment and peripherals.  

Hardware interfaces and connectors  

Product manuals can serve to ensure that the products are compliant with the technical specification for USB-
C  cables  and  connectors.  The  USB-C  connector  is  defined  according  to  the  standard  IEC  62680-1-3:2018  - 
Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power - Part 1-3: Common components - USB Type-C™ Cable and 
Connector  Specification.  Labels  currently  ensuring  the  use  of  at  list  one  USB  Type-C  connector  are,  among 
others, TCO Certified Generation 8 and Blue Angel. 

Avoidance of unnecessary accessories 

The use of standardised interfaces can make the reuse of accessories possible. As public organisations most 
probably  have  already  spare  chargers, cables or  headphones,  there  is no  reason  to  bill  them for  something 
they might not need. 

2.1.4.2 

Initial background for the proposed verification 

The verification is mainly based on the demonstration of compliance with the defined standards, based on the 
technical specifications for the procured products.  

2.1.4.3  Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation 

The  feedback  was  generally  positive.  The  possibility  to  provide  adapters  for  USB  type-C  ports  when  this 
solution is not applied by the device was requested. Manufacturers also consider it complicated to adapt their 
supply chain in order to provide equipment without accessories. The JRC is aware that this measure requires a 
supply chain reorganisation that would need some effort to be implemented by the entire market; however, 
this  is  considered  a  relevant  technical  specification  as  public  offices  are  often  full  of  redundant  chargers, 
cables and other accessories that are not requested during the procurement and that end up as waste without 
ever being used. The environmental and economic benefits of this measure are evident. 

2.1.4.4  Further background after the second stakeholder consultation 

Regarding TS17 (standardised ports), an OEM commented that if an adaptor has to be provided, then it could 
result in a lot of extra (unused) adaptors being shipped with products. If this is a core TS then it will have an 
unexpected  cost  impact  for  procurers  who  look  at  low-end  products.  It  could  also  drive  the  use  of  more 
materials than needed. 

It  was  suggested  to  change  this  criterion  to  comprehensive,  adding  an  explanation  that  this  is  usually  not 
provided with low-end products. It was suggested to allow the inclusion of adaptors to meet the requirement, 
but not to use this as a TS.  

The JRC revised the criterion proposal: If the product does not have a built-in USB type-C receptacle, 
then an adapter must be available to be ordered at no additional cost (instead of being delivered 
with the product). Regarding the TS on the procurement of ICT equipment without accessories, OEMs 
strongly  suggest  using  this  as  an  award  criterion  since  accessories  or  parts  needed  to  get  the 
product  to function (such as EPS)  are often bundled at the production site. In the short term, this 
criterion could result in the majority of products being unboxed in the Member State to remove for 
instance  EPS  and  the  box  closed  again  for  shipment  to  customers.  According  to  some 
manufacturers,  this  criterion  affects  the  supply  chain  and  is  expected  to  take  some  time  to  fully 
implement. It is suggested to change this to an award criterion.  

  51 

 
 
 
 
 
2.1.5  Criterion 1.5 (new!) – Recycled content  

Summary of the main changes after the first stakeholder consultation 

In  the  first  draft  of  this  report  a  new  technical  specification  (TS22)  aiming  to  support  the  use  of  recycled 
plastic was proposed. However, the proposal of this criterion was withdrawn for following reasons: 

  Verification concerns: The new standard EN 45557:202068 introduces horizontal principles for the calculation and 

verification of recycled content (w/w%) in energy-related products. Although some certification schemes have been 

developed for the recycled content certification (e.g. UL ECVP 2809 (3rd edition)69, SCS Services Recycled Content 

Standard V7.070), their compliance with the EN 45557:2020 principles and with the Procurement Directive should be 

further verified.  

 

Possible trade-offs:  The increase in recycled content (w/w%) could, in some cases, come with  some trade-offs, 

such as an increase in the use of plastic to ensure the same performance. The mere measurement of the recycled 

content cannot consider this trade-off. 

 

 

Comparability: The use of this criterion is not appropriate to compare the environmental performance of products 

using plastic with products using alternative materials for casing (e.g. aluminium / magnesium alloy). 

Relevance: The criteria area Design for  Recycling (see Section  2.4.1) already  includes different criteria proposals 

aiming to facilitate the circularity of plastic components from WEEE. Moreover, the life cycle environmental impacts 

of  ICT  products  are  mainly  associated  with  the  manufacturing  of  electronics  (e.g.  PCB  and  ICs)  and  with  the 

extraction  and  processing  of  precious  metals  used  in  these  components71  and  the  environmental  benefits  are 

relatively smaller compared to other measures. 

Finally,  the  necessity  expressed  by  the  stakeholders  to  reduce  the  number  of  criteria  and  thus  prioritise 
criteria with the highest environmental benefits and that are easiest to verify should be considered. 

2.1.5.1 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed criteria 

So  far,  neither  the  EU  Ecodesign  Regulations  nor  the  EU  GPP  criteria  for  computers  and  monitors  include 
requirements  on  recycled  plastic  content.  In  contrast,  EPEAT/IEEE,  Blue  Angel,  Green  Product  Mark  and  TCO 
ecolabel schemes have criteria for the content of recycled and/or bio-based plastics.  

TCO  Certified  version  8  requires  information  about  the  percentage  of  post-consumer  recycled  plastic;  this 
percentage  is  expected  to  be  published  as  one  of  the  sustainability  performance  indicators  of  the  product, 
which  will  also  be  printed  on  the  certificate.  Applicants  for  the  TCO  ecolabel  have  to  fill  out  and  provide  a 
product declaration which inter alia includes as declared sustainability information the ‘percentage of recycled 
plastic  by  weight  of  total  weight  of  plastic  parts’.  Together  with  the  application  and  product  form  to  be 
delivered to TCO Development, a copy of the verification report(s) from a verifier approved by TCO has to be 
submitted.  Other  ecolabels  like  Green  Product  Mark  and  EPEAT  (IEEE  Standard)72  even  require  a  minimum 
post-consumer recycled content (PCC):  

●  Green Product Mark: minimum 10% PCC. 

●  EPEAT  (required):  minimum  2%  of  any  combination  of  post-consumer  recycled  plastic,  IT 
equipment-derived  post-consumer  recycled  plastic  or  bio-based  plastic,  measured  as  a 
percentage of the total amount of plastic (by weight) in the product. Several components might 

68 EN45557:2020 General method for assessing the proportion of recycled material content in energy-related products 
69 https://standardscatalog.ul.com/standards/en/standard_2809 
70 https://www.scsglobalservices.com/services/recycled-content-certification 
71 Andrae A. (2016) Life-Cycle Assessment of Consumer Electronics - A review of methodological approaches. IEEE Consumer Electronic Magazine, Volume: 5, 

Issue 1, 51-60. DOI: 10.1109/MCE.2015.2484639 

72 IEEE Std 1680.1™-2018. IEEE Standard for Environmental and Social Responsibility Assessment of Computers and Displays 

  52 

 
 
                                           
be  excluded  from  the  calculation  of  percentage,  differing  between  normal  and  ‘ruggedised’ 
devices.  

●  EPEAT  optional  criteria  require  or provide  optional  points  for  higher  contents of  post-consumer 
recycled  plastic,  IT  equipment-derived  post-consumer  recycled  plastic  or  bio-based  plastic, 
depending on the product type.  

According to the IEEE standard, verification of the post-consumer recycled plastic content (for the mandatory 
criterion) is based on self-declaration of the supplier only, i.e. by  supplier letter(s)  stating the percentage of 
applicable  content(s)  in  plastic(s)  supplied  to  the  manufacturer  or  to  the  manufacturer's  part  supplier; 
documentation of calculation, including plastic part name(s) or other part identifiers and the total weight of 
their  plastic  content,  as  well  as  the  weight  of  plastic  content  that  is  post-consumer,  IT  equipment-derived 
post-consumer, or bio-based, and, if excluding parts, a list of excluded parts and the reason for exclusion. In 
the  case  of  the  optional  IEEE  criteria,  if  supply  is  temporarily  disrupted,  the  manufacturer  shall  provide 
information  regarding  the  disruption,  including  the  dates  on  which  the  impacted  supply  was  disrupted  and 
reinstated,  the  reason  for  the  disruption,  and  information  or  attestations  from  suppliers,  and  steps  the 
manufacturer is taking to reinstate supply, as relevant. 

The analysis of voluntary approaches of companies presented in the Preliminary Report revealed that many 
ICT manufacturers already make efforts to achieve a certain percentage of post-consumer recycled content in 
their computer and monitor products and ecolabels and certification schemes already include relevant criteria 
on recycled content in plastic components.  

However, based on the discussion above, it was proposed not to include any proposal for a criterion on post-
consumer recycled content.  

2.1.5.2  First criteria proposal: summary of the comments received and rationale for the revision 

Stakeholders requested to better specify the recycled content thresholds based on product types. It was also 
suggested  to  give  priority  to  stationary  devices,  as  for  mobile  devices  the  use  of  recycled  materials  could 
come with trade-offs in terms of reliability. Moreover, it was  requested to increase the level of ambition of 
this criterion.  

The CPC is considered too complicated and it was suggested to remove it. The recycled content claim would 
be  based  on  a  mass  balance  approach  as  the  use  of  recycled  content  could  vary  over  time.  At  least  some 
months  of  production  data  should  be  monitored  to  ensure  that  the  claimed  recycled  content  reflects  long-
term production. JRC can then propose that data collected would refer to the production period(s) prior to the 
procurement. 

Some stakeholders also requested to consider bio-based plastic. However, the JRC considers that the inclusion 
of bio-based plastic would make the assessment at this stage still more complicated. Moreover, currently the 
use of bio-based plastics does not seem to be relevant for this product group. 

One  stakeholder  appreciated  the  inclusion  of  a  criterion  on  recycled  plastic  content,  however  had  concerns 
about the verification, especially if this would rely on companyies’ own declarations only. The real percentage 
will only be an estimation; companies would have to apply a mass balance approach of their own processes. 

2.1.5.3  Further background after the second stakeholder consultation 

Several stakeholders disagree with the removal of this proposal, since they consider that there are sufficiently 
established labels addressing this topic and plastic has been addressed by several initiatives of the EU aiming 
at reducing its use.  

The Commission is currently carrying out several studies and activities to develop more solid methodologies in 
this field. These include developing and assessing measures on recycled content in packaging and green public 
procurement  for  packaging  and  the  development  of  a  general  method  for  the  calculation,  verification  and 
reporting  of  recycled  content  in  plastic.  The  JRC  considers  that  these  studies  could  possibly  bring  more 
methodological clarity. 

  53 

 
 
 
In  the  absence  of  a  common  approach  that  establishes  a  chain  of  custody  from  the  point  at  which  the 
recycled content is known to the point where it becomes integrated in products, any instrument that carries 
value associated with the use of recycled content could potentially be vulnerable to a fraudulent declaration.  

Moreover, there are promising technologies and methodologies, such as blockchain, that are emerging which 
could bring  more transparency by facilitating tracking of  materials through the supply chain from collection 
through to integration into materials and products, and through the point of sale. 

  54 

 
2.2  Criteria area 2 – Energy consumption 

The criteria proposal presented in this section keeps the focus on the energy consumption in the use phase, as 
already included in the current criteria. Several changes in the legal context occurred in the past 3 years and 
an update of the criteria is therefore necessary. The most important changes are:  

● 

● 

the expiration of the EU-US agreement on the Energy Star Programme in February 201873; and 

the adoption in 2019 of new regulations on ecodesign74 and energy labelling75 requirements for 
electronic displays. 

The  EU  Energy  Star  programme  followed  an  Agreement  between  the  European  Community  (EU)  and  the 
Government  of  the  US  to  coordinate  the  energy  labelling  of  office  equipment.  It  was  managed  by  the 
European  Commission  and  played  an  important  role  as  an  ecolabel  for  the  procurement  of  energy-efficient 
products.  The  US  partner  was  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  which  started  the  scheme  in  the  US  in 
1992.  Due  to  the  expiration  of  the  Energy  Star  agreement,  the  technical  specifications  and  award  criteria 
referring to Energy Star need to be modified as it is no longer possible to directly refer to Energy Star as a 
required label (see additional discussion in Section 2.2.2.1).  

Moreover, the proposed criteria on the energy efficiency of computer monitors have been modified according 
to the new Ecodesign and Energy Label legislation applicable to displays. 

This revision includes the following new criteria proposals: 

●  A  technical  specification  for  the  procurement  and  installation  of  highly  efficient  desktop  thin 
client  solutions,  where  ‘Desktop  thin  client’,  according  to  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No 
617/2013,  means  a  computer  that  relies  on  a  connection  to  remote  computing  resources  (e.g. 
computer  server,  remote  workstation)  to  obtain  primary  functionality  and  has  no  rotational 
storage media integral to the product. The main unit of a desktop thin client must be intended 
for use in a permanent location (e.g. on a desk) and not for portability. Desktop thin clients can 
output information to either an external or, where included with the product, internal display. 

The following table compares the existing GPP criteria with the new proposals.  

Table 9. Energy consumption - current criteria (2016) and TR v3.0 

GPP 2016 

TR v3.0 Proposal 

TS1. Minimum Energy Performance of Computers 

TS18. Minimum Energy Performance of Computers 

(based on Energy Star) 

(core and comprehensive) 

(based on the IEC Standard 62623:2012) 

(core and comprehensive) 

TS2. Minimum Energy Performance of Monitors 

TS19. Minimum Energy Performance of Monitors 

(based on Energy Star) 

(core and comprehensive) 

(based on Energy Label) 

(core and comprehensive) 

New! TS20. Thin Client devices in a server-based network 

(comprehensive) 

AC1. Improvement of energy consumption upon the specified Energy Star 
Standard 

(core and comprehensive) 

AC5. Improvement in the energy consumption upon the specified Energy 
Consumption threshold for computers (based on the IEC Standard 
62623:2012) 

AC6. Improvement in the energy consumption upon the specified Energy 
Consumption threshold for monitors (based on Energy Label) 

73 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/energy-star 
74 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/c-2019-2122_1_en_act_part1_v7.pdf  
75https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiative/1948/publication/4145543/attachment/090166e5c2464931_en  

  55 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Summary of the main changes after the first stakeholder consultation 

The energy thresholds for TS1 are aligned to thresholds applied for Energy Star 7.0 / 7.1 rather than still using 
the Energy Star 6.1 level76. Minor changes were applied compared to the first draft proposal such as adding 
clarifications on the use of labels (TS1, TS3, AC1). Moreover, a change in the energy efficiency threshold for 
displays is proposed (from class E to class D as the entry level for the core criteria and from class D to class C 
for  the  comprehensive  criteria).  AC2  has  been  modified  accordingly.  The  explanatory  note  for  thin  client 
computers has been moved into the Annex. Further background is available in Section 2.2.4.  

Summary of the main changes after the second stakeholder consultation 

TS18  and  AC5  on  minimum  energy  performance  of  monitors  (comprehensive  level)  has  been  modified  to 
ensure  consistency  with  the  new  EU  Ecolabel  Criteria  for  Electronic  Displays  (Commission  Decision 
(EU)2020/1804).  

The following table shows the criteria as  revised after the second stakeholder consultation. 

Third criteria proposal 

Core criteria 

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 

TS18 Minimum energy performance for computers  

(same for core and comprehensive criteria) 

Applicable to stationary and mobile computers. 

Comprehensive criteria 

The calculated Typical Energy Consumption (ETEC) for each piece of equipment delivered as part of the contract must be less than or equal to 
the Maximum ETEC requirement, as described in Annex III of this document. 

Verification: 

Tenderers  must  report  the  Typical  Energy  Consumption  (ETEC)  value,  based  on  testing  and  calculations  according  to  the  IEC  standard 
62623:2012. 

Products holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel or a label from another labelling scheme fulfilling the specified requirements will be deemed to 
comply. Alternative test results obtained by accredited ISO17025 test bodies according to the IEC 62623:2012 standard are accepted as 
proof of compliance. 

TS19 Minimum energy performance of monitors 

TS19 Minimum energy performance of monitors 

Applicable to computer displays. 

Applicable to computer displays from 31 March 2021. 

The Energy Efficiency Index for each model delivered as part of the 
contract must be in the range of Energy Classes A-D as set out in 
Annex II of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2019/201377.  

The Energy Efficiency Index for each model delivered as part of the 
contract must be in the range of the following classes [A; D] (to be 
defined  by  the  contracting  authority  according  to  the  methodology 
described in the explanatory note below).  

Verification: 

Verification: 

For  each  model  delivered,  the  tenderer  must  provide  the  valid 
Energy  Label  issued  according  to  the  EU’s  Energy  Labelling 
framework Regulation (2017/1369).  

Products labelled as Class A, B, C or D will be deemed to comply.  

For  each  model  delivered,  tenderers  must  provide  the  valid  Energy 
Label  issued  according  to  the  EU’s  Energy  Labelling  framework 
Regulation (2017/1369). 

Products  holding  a  relevant  Type  I  Ecolabel  fulfilling  the  specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply. 

76 Minor changes were introduced by the 7.1 amendment in comparison to the 7.0 version. Most notably, this amendment enables those products meeting the 

mobile workstation definition to utilise an adder to account for the additional utility and energy consumption of these products. 

77  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU) 2019/2013  of  11  March  2019  supplements  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1369  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of the 
Council  with  regard  to  energy  labelling  of  electronic  displays  and  repeals  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  1062/2010  (Text  with  EEA 
relevance.) 

  56 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Explanatory note: Definition of the requested energy classes 

The  contracting  authority  should  refer  to  the  top  two  EU  energy  classes  available  at  the  time  of  the  tender,  which  include  at  least  25 
registered monitor models under the European Product Database for Energy Labelling (EPREL). 

As of 31 March 2021, computer monitor suppliers will register their devices in the EPREL Database, before selling them on the European 
market.  Contracting  authorities  (and  consumers)  will  be  able  to  search  the  product  database  for  energy  labels  and  product  information 
sheets, including the energy class. 

The availability of devices with the requested performance and characteristics can be verified directly through the EPREL Database. Screen 
diagonal in cm and screen resolution in pixel are examples of the information included in the product information sheet. 

TS20 Thin Client devices in a server-based network  

Applicable to Thin Client computers. 

This technical specification can be generally taken into consideration 
in a server-based working environment. 

The equipment delivered as part of the contract must be classified 
as ‘Thin Client’. The Typical Energy Consumption (ETEC) for each piece 
of  equipment  delivered  must  be  lower  than  the  ETEC_MAX  for  Thin 
Clients as calculated in Annex II.  

Verification: 

Tenderers  must  report  the  Typical  Energy  Consumption  (ETEC)  value 
in  kWh,  based  on  testing  and  calculations  according  to  the  IEC 
Standard  62623:2012  and  demonstrate  compliance  with  the 
ETEC_MAX threshold calculated in Annex II for Thin Clients. 

Products  holding  a  relevant  Type  I  Ecolabel  fulfilling  the  specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply.  

AWARD CRITERIA 

AC5 Improvement in the energy consumption upon the specified Energy Consumption threshold for computers  

(same for core and comprehensive criteria) 

It is recommended to use this criterion in conjunction with criterion TS18 for desktop computers if the products are for graphic-intensive use. 

Points will be awarded if the product is more energy-efficient than the ETEC_MAX value required under criterion TS18. 

A maximum of x points [to be specified] may be awarded. Points must be awarded in proportion to the improvement in energy efficiency as 
follows: 

 

 

 

 

Over 60% lower: x points 

40-59% lower: 0.75x points 

25-39% lower: 0.50x points 

15-24% lower: 0.25x points 

Verification: 

Tenderers  must  report  the  Typical  Energy  Consumption  (ETEC)  value,  based  on  testing  and  calculations  according  to  the  IEC  Standard 
62623:2012. Typical Energy Consumption reported by a valid Energy Star Certificate can be used as proof of compliance.  

AC6  Improvement  in  the  energy  consumption  upon  the 
specified Energy Consumption threshold for monitors  

AC6  Improvement  in  the  energy  consumption  upon  the 
specified Energy Consumption threshold for monitors 

Applicable to computer displays. 

Applicable to computer displays. 

To be used in conjunction with criterion TS19. 

To be used in conjunction with criterion TS19. 

Points will be awarded if the product is in an energy class higher than 
D. 

A maximum of x points [to be specified] may be awarded. Points must 
be  awarded  in  proportion  to  the  improvement  in  energy  efficiency 

Points  will  be  awarded  if  the  equipment  delivered  as  part  of  the 
contract is in the highest Energy Label class for registered models of 
monitors under the product database (EPREL Database) at the time 
of the tender [class X, to be defined by the contracting authority].   

  57 

 
 
 
class as follows: 

Verification: 

Energy efficiency 
class 

Energy Efficiency 
Index  

Points  

For  each  model  delivered,  tenderers must  provide  the  valid  Energy 
Label  issued  according  to  the  EU’s  Energy  Labelling  framework 
Regulation (2017/1369). 

EEI 

EEI < 0.30 

 x point 

0.30 ≤ EEI < 0.40 

0.66x points 

0.40 ≤ EEI < 0.50 

0.33x points 

A 

B 

C 

Verification 

The tenderer must provide for each model delivered the valid Energy 
Label  issued  according  to  the  EU's  Energy  Labelling  framework 
Regulation (2017/1369).  

2.2.1  Background and rationale for the criteria revision  

So far, EU GPP criteria for computers as well as monitors are aligned with the latest Energy Star requirements, referring to the 
exact versions in the GPP criteria document (Energy Star v6.1 for computers and v6.0 for monitors in the current version of the 
criteria).  

However, due to the termination of the US-EU agreement in February 2018, different approaches are proposed for the criteria 
related to energy consumption.  

2.2.1.1  Computer products 

Ideally,  the  GPP  criteria  should  be  aligned  with  the  foreseen  EU  Ecodesign  approach.  For  computers,  the 
revision  of  the  Ecodesign  criteria  (Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  617/2013)  is  ongoing.  The  current 
Ecodesign and Energy Star approach is mainly based on the measurement of the Typical Energy Consumption 
(ETEC)  based  on  a  combination  of  use  profile  under  sleep  and  idle  modes.  IEC/EN  62623:2012  can  be 
considered  the  main  methodological  reference  for  the  measurement  of  the  typical  energy  consumption  of 
desktop  and  notebook  computers.  Thus,  the  proposed  GPP  criteria  refer  directly  to  this standard  in  order  to 
calculate the ‘Annual typical energy consumption (ETEC)’ defined as the electricity consumed by a product over 
specified periods of time across defined power modes and states.  

The  IEC  62623:2012  standard  does  not  set  any  pass/fail  criteria  for  the  ETEC.  Thresholds  for  the  ETEC  are 
instead defined based on the energy performance thresholds defined in the Energy Star programme. 

The current criteria proposal aims to find a balance between energy performance, material efficiency aspects 
(e.g.  durability,  reparability,  recyclability)  and  the  use  of  safer  chemicals.  For  this  reason,  the  simultaneous 
application of this technical specification together with other technical specifications on different aspects has 
to be duly considered in terms of trade-offs and risk of market restriction.  

In the first revision, compliance with the Energy Star 7.0 thresholds was proposed as the comprehensive level 
and Energy Star 6.1 as the core level. At the time of publication of the first draft of the criteria (November 
2019)  there  were  around  1500  computer  models  compliant  with  the  EU  Energy  Star  version  7,  with  850 
models  of  notebooks  and  260  desktop  computers.  In  March  2020,  there  were  already  98  more  certified 
models with a total number of 946 notebooks and 298 desktop computers models compliant with Energy Star 
7.  In  comparison,  the  EU  products  that  were  qualified  under  the  EU-US  Energy  Star  programme  on  the  EU 
market  and  according  to  specification  levels  in  force  until  20  February  2018  (Computers  specification  6.1) 
include  around  5850  models,  (around  2900  desktop  computers).  Based  on  the  increasing  uptake  of  Energy 
Star products on the market, it is finally proposed to use Energy Star thresholds based on Energy Star 7.1 for 
both core and comprehensive levels. 

Moreover,  a  new  Energy  Star  specification,  the  Version  8.0  specification  for  computers,  finalised  on  15 
October  2019  is  effective  from  15  July  15  2020.  Notebooks  and  thin  clients  are  not  impacted  by  this 
specification  revision  as  criteria  for  these  products  were  amended  as  part  of  Version  7.1.  Energy  Star  8.0-
compliant products will be also considered compliant with the proposed criterion.  

  58 

 
 
 
Energy Star versions 7.0, 7.1 and 8.0 for computers, limited to workstations, requires the measurement and 
disclosure  of  energy  consumption  under  active  state  conditions.  In  particular,  the  workstations  must  be 
submitted for certification with the following information disclosed in full: 

i. LINPAC benchmark test results, compiler optimisations, and total energy consumed over the duration of the 
test; and 

ii.  SPECviewperf  benchmark  test  results,  configuration  options,  total  duration  of  the  test,  and  total  energy 
consumed over the duration of the test. 

As  shown  in  Figure  13,  according  to  Mills  and  Mills  (2016)78,  the  active  consumption  for  common  office 
activities (including web browsing and video streaming) is comparable for most of the tasks, including video 
streaming and web browsing. Short idle power seems to be a good proxy for active consumption in an office 
working environment. Only activities that require high-speed performance of powerful graphic cards and CPUs 
(e.g.  gaming)  seem  to  notably  increase  the  level  of  energy  consumption  when  used  at  full  load  (see  figure 
below).  

Figure 13. Measured power and energy use for different modes of operation 

2.2.1.2  Thin client solutions 

Thin  clients  are  simplified  devices  with  fewer  hardware  components  compared  to  traditional  computer 
devices.  In  the  thin  client  paradigm,  most  of  the  computation  tasks  associated  with  applications  can  be 
offloaded to a remote cloud server79.  

In the current GPP criteria the power-saving solutions are mainly based on the principle of procuring devices 
with the highest energy efficiency. On the other hand, power can be saved by assuring that a certain task is 
performed in the location where it will consume the least amount of energy. 

In a systemic and strategic approach (instead of an individual product-level approach) it is worthwhile looking 
into  the  benefits  of  a  thin  client  base  network  connected  to  a  data  centre  /  server  room.  The  strategic 
approach depends on the office’s requirements. 

This option can generally be taken into consideration where a high number of personal workplaces has to be 
reached and where users do not need their computer to work on video, audio or graphic files but for normal 
office applications, databases, internet, etc. which require less computational effort. 

The benefits include the following: 

 

Lower energy consumption: Thin clients generally use far less energy than desktop computers80. However, more 

powerful servers and communications are required that consume additional energy. Real energy savings depend on 

78 Nathaniel Mills & Evan Mills (2016). Taming the energy use of gaming computers. Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:321–338. DOI 10.1007/s12053-015-9371-1 
79  Ghose  T.,  Namboodiri  V.,  Ravi  P.  (2015),  Thin  is  green:  Leveraging  the  thin-client  paradigm  for  sustainable  mobile  computing  Computers  and  Electrical 

Engineering 45, 155–168 

  59 

 
 
 
                                           
the overall network system and have to be assessed case by case. Thin client computers currently registered under 

US Energy Star have an average annual ETEC of 30 kWh81.  

  More  efficient  use  of  computing  resources:  A  typical  desktop  computer  would  be  specified  to  cope  with  the 

maximum load for the user needs, which can be inefficient at times when it is not used. 

 

Lower noise: The removal of fans in thin clients reduces the noise produced by the unit. 

  Higher resource efficiency: Thin client solutions need less hardware and can remain in service longer, resulting in 

a longer life cycle and better Life Cycle Cost (LCC) performance. Unlike PCs and laptops, which commonly have a 3- 

to 4-year replacement cycle, thin clients last an average of 7 years. They slow down technology’s inevitable slide 

into obsolescence because they have fewer points of failure and rarely need upgrades. 

2.2.1.3  Computer monitors 

For  electronic  displays,  covering  computer  monitors,  and  external  power  supplies,  new  EU  Regulations  are 
available  that  shall  enter  into  force  and  apply  from  1  April  2020  (Ecodesign  Regulation  for  External  Power 
Supplies  (EU)  2019/1782)  and  1  March  2021  (Ecodesign  Regulation  for  electronic  displays (EU  2019/2021) 
and Energy label Regulation for electronic displays (EU 2019/2013)). 

According to the consultation prior to the adoption of the EU 2019/2021, most of the displays on the market 
would fall at the entry into force of the rescaled labels in the class range D to F (see Table 10 and Figure 14). 

Based on this, class E was initially proposed as the threshold for the core criteria and class D as the threshold 
for the comprehensive criteria. In the second draft criteria, it is proposed that this be revised in order to make 
the criteria more future-proof with class D proposed as the core criterion and class C as the comprehensive. 
Moreover,  the  core  threshold  proposed  is  in  line  with  the  proposal  for  the  revision  of  the  EU  Ecolabel  for 
displays.  It  is  also  proposed  to  apply  additional  points  for  computer  monitors  with  better  energy  efficiency 
classes as award criteria. 

However, according to the supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  with  regard  to  energy  labelling  of  electronic  displays,  there  are  considerable  uncertainties  in  future 
projections  for  this product  group  because  new  technologies may  result  in  ‘tipping  points’  improving  energy 
efficiency  and new  features  eroding  some  savings.  For this reason,  we  consider that  an  approach  proposed 
based on a technical specification plus award points for better performance is more suitable.  

Table 10. Energy efficiency classes and corresponding Energy Efficiency Index for displays 

Energy efficiency class 

Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

EEI < 0.30 

0.30 ≤ EEI < 0.40 

0.40 ≤ EEI < 0.50 

0.50≤ EEI < 0.60 

0.60 ≤ EEI < 0.75 

0.75 ≤ EEI < 0.90 

0.90 ≤ EEI 

80 Based on the analysis of the EU Energy Star-compliant computers at March 2018, the average TEC for desktop computers is around 108 kWh/year, while 

the average TEC of thin clients is around 36 kWh/year. 

81 https://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-computers/results 

  60 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                    
Figure 14. Energy label class distribution of standard electronic display models available in the EU over the period 2010-
2030 

Note: Actual figures for 2013-2016 and projections for 2017-2030 with proposed Ecodesign and Energy Labelling measures 

Moreover, as indicated in the initial survey by stakeholders, the rewarding of more efficient products can also 
be achieved via an Life Cycle Costing (LCC) approach that includes the energy consumption in the model for 
the total cost of ownership. Parameters such as the Typical Energy Consumption for computers and the Power 
in  On  Mode  (in  Watts)  for  displays  could  be  used  as  a  basis  for  the  estimation  of  the  operating  costs.  As 
shown in Figure 15 below, it has been considered that power consumption is also related to the screen size 
and  that  a  higher  energy  label  class  means  a  lower  energy  consumption  compared  to  a  monitor  with  the 
same screen size. 

Figure 15. Distribution of displays from the 2018 dataset with a projection of expected improvements at the entry into 
force of the rescaled labels 

  61 

 
 
 
 
2.2.1.4  Batteries 

The estimation of how long a battery can last under certain use profiles is possible for computers. Benchmark 
software like BAPCo MobileMark82 and PC Mark8384 allow testing of the battery life by installing their software 
and executing  it.  Including  a  requirement  on  this aspect  could  be  relevant  for ICT  mobile  equipment,  where 
improvements  in  the  energy  efficiency  can  result  in  a  longer  battery  life.  Nevertheless,  it  appears  that  this 
type of benchmark software does not use a standardised worklets / use profile, which could imply different 
ranking of products depending on the software applied. Therefore, it is proposed not to have such a criterion in 
this revision process, although it could be relevant to consider it in future revisions.  

2.2.2 

Initial background and rationale for the criteria verification  

2.2.2.1  Computers 

GPP  criteria,  when  specifying  purchasing  criteria  for  office  equipment,  might  draw  inspiration  from  energy 
performance  criteria  present  in  the  technical  specifications  of  energy  efficiency  standards available  in  third 
countries (including those of the Energy Star programme). 

According to this scenario Energy Star compliance is not requested by TS1; however, Energy Star is considered 
a possible way to prove compliance with the thresholds described in the criteria. 

Also  for  thin  clients,  in  the  absence  of  a  specific  European  threshold  for  energy  efficiency  of  thin  client 
computers, the US Energy Star Version 7.1 is considered the most relevant reference. In the same way, this 
criterion does not require Energy Star compliance; however, Energy Star can still be considered a possible way 
to prove compliance. 

2.2.2.2  Displays  

The entry into force of the new Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Regulation on electronic displays will facilitate 
the verification of criteria on energy efficiency of displays. It shall apply from 1 March 2021. Tenderers could 
be requested to provide model identification and the related Energy Label. Moreover, public procurers (as well 
as consumers)  will  soon  be  able  to  surf  the  "European  product  database  for  energy  labelling"  website 85  for 
additional product information. 

2.2.3  Summary of stakeholder answers from the initial survey 

According to the answers received, the current energy consumption criteria were applied in the past mainly by 
referring to the provision of Energy Star-certified products. While some stakeholders highlighted the need for 
stricter requirements for energy consumption, others are of the opinion that efficiency thresholds introduced 
by the Energy Star version 7.0 for computers are challenging and could be fulfilled by only 30% to 50% of the 
products on the market.  

In  the  case  of  requesting  a  label  as  proof  of  compliance,  it  has  been  highlighted  that  it  is  important  to 
mention  the  exact  version  of  the  label  required  (and  not  generally  the  latest  version).  An  example  was 
provided  by  a  procurer:  "if  one  version  is  released  1  June  and  the  tender  requires  this  for  the  offers  to  be 
submitted by 5 June then the products will not have the label in time and thus it would restrict the market". 

Although as an alternative to the Energy Star certification it is possible to show energy consumption protocols 
/ test results, some service providers highlighted the need to re-establish the relationship with US Energy Star 
and re-establish EU Energy Star.  

Relevant procurers have reported the inclusion of the energy  consumption in the financial model as part  of 
the total cost of ownership calculation. 

82 e.g. https://bapco.com/products/mobilemark-2018/ or PC Mark  
83 https://benchmarks.ul.com/news/pcmark-10-introduces-a-better-way-to-test-battery-life 
84 Please note that these two software tools are provided as examples and the authors do not endorse any specific product. 
85https://ec.europa.eu/info/energy-climate-change-environment/standards-tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-requirements/energy-label-and-

ecodesign/european-product-database-energy-labelling_en (Accessed on October 2019) 

  62 

 
 
 
 
                                           
2.2.4  Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation 

The  JRC  informed  the  AHWG  meeting  that  no  energy  consumption  criteria  are  proposed  for  smartphones. 
Furthermore, as the IEC/EN  62623  standard  does not  cover measurement of  ‘active’  mode  so far, however, 
the  metric  ‘Total  Energy  Consumption  (TEC)‘  which  includes  ‘short  idle’  still  seems  to  be  relatively 
representative  of  normal  use  in  an  office  environment.  With  regard  to  notebooks’  battery-life  duration,  the 
JRC  points  out  that  the  performance  is  a  combination  of  battery  capacity  and  device  efficiency,  i.e.  testing 
only the battery capacity would not be sufficient; however, standardisation is needed on this issue.  

Minimum energy performance for computers  

Several comments suggested to refer to the current Energy Star 7.0/7.1 rather than still use the Energy Star 
6.1 level. Other stakeholders pointed out that there will not be many more efficiency gains in the future and 
efficiency gains may be made at the expense of performance (e.g. due to reduced luminance). A comparison 
of  the  number  of  products  that  were  Energy  Star  7.1-certified  at  the  time  of  writing  the  technical  report 
(November  2019)  and  in  March  2020  showed  an  increase  of  98  certified  models,  with  946  notebooks  and 
298 desktop computers models then. In the future there might be an acceleration due to the dissemination of 
innovations. On the other hand, products can no longer be certified with Energy Star 6.1 since 16 November 
2018. Therefore, certified models are relatively old models. Of course, a product could have met the Energy 
Star 6.1  standard  without  being  certified  but  Energy  Star  could  no  longer be  used  as  verification  for  newer 
models. 

One stakeholder welcomes using the underlying IEC/EN 62623 standard as a reference after termination of 
the  EU-US  Energy  Star  agreement.  With  regard  to  ‘active  state’,  the  stakeholder  recommends  the 
development  of  criteria  only  after  a  standard  is  developed,  as  the  current  IEC  standard  does  not  include  a 
definition  or measurement  procedure  for active  state  so  far.  Another stakeholder  recommends  harmonising 
requirements  globally,  e.g.  to  align  GPP  criteria  also  to  the  revision  of  EU  Ecodesign  for  computers  which 
might not include an active state efficiency metric either. 

Minimum  energy  performance  of  monitors  and  AC2.  Improvement  in  the  energy  consumption  upon  the  specified  energy 
consumption threshold for monitors 

In one  comment it  was asked to include Energy Star as  a possibility to prove  compliance with the criterion. 
Meanwhile, another comment stressed that it is important to put the routes established in the EU before the 
Energy Star. Reply: The criterion refers to the EU Regulation on the energy label to come. The criterion can only 
be  applied  in  the  form  described  once  the  Regulation  has  entered  into  force.  At  that  time  the  Regulation  is 
mandatory.  Therefore,  it  seems  not  to  be  necessary  and  -  in  order  to  keep  complexity  to  a  minimum  -  not 
advisable to include Energy Star here. 

One comment stated that this core and comprehensive criteria as well as the award core and comprehensive 
criterion are not ambitious enough. The development of the energy efficiency of monitors on the market will 
overhaul  the  criteria,  given  that  the  next  revision  of  GPP  criteria  will  be  in  several  years.  The  comment 
suggests therefore  to  delete  the  lowest  energy  efficiency  class  in  the  core  criterion  (i.e.  class E)  and  in  the 
comprehensive  criterion (i.e.  class D). Consequently, the  AC2 core and comprehensive  criteria also has to  be 
adapted.  Points  will  only  be  given  to  monitors  with  energy  efficiency  classes  A  to  C  and.  energy  efficiency 
classes A to B, respectively.  

The  rationale  for  the  comment  is  understandable.  According  to  Figure  14  in  the  Technical  Report,  51%  of 
monitors in 2021will already have an energy efficiency of class E or better and in 2023 this will be the case 
for  85%  of  all  monitor  models.  Against  this  background,  the  level  of  ambition  for  these  core  and 
comprehensive  criteria  was  increased  as  proposed  and  the  award  core  and  comprehensive  criteria  were 
adapted accordingly.  

One stakeholder stated that for the verification of this criterion a list of corresponding type I labels is missing. 
In the revised version the reference to Energy Star Versions 7.0, 7.1 and 8.0 was added. 

Improvement in the energy consumption upon the specified energy consumption threshold for computers 

One  stakeholder  suggested  to  reducing  the  number  of  levels  from  five  to  four  by  grouping  the  two  levels 
above a 60% reduction proposed in the Technical Report in only one level. The same award levels as in award 
criteria  for  displays  at  the  core  level  should  be  used.  It  was  argued  that  further  drastic  changes  in  energy 
efficiency levels would not be expected and additional levels would add to complexity. One stakeholder added 
that this criterion would have a greater impact if a certain score was required. 

  63 

 
The use of this award criterion is recommended in conjunction with a minimum level of efficiency, not for all 
purposes  but  for  desktop  computers  if  the  products  specified  are  for  graphics-intensive  uses.  The  energy 
demand  of  these  products  can  be  relatively  high.  Therefore,  it  seems  to  be  reasonable  to  differentiate  five 
levels in order to reward energy-efficient models. At the same time, five levels does not seem to add much 
complexity for procurers in comparison to four levels.  

New criteria proposed by stakeholders 

One comment suggests including two additional criteria on the "as-shipped" conditions:  

(1) the first concerns the default settings of the power management (the comment refers to Energy Star 7.1, 
3.4.2). "This is an easy and a zero-cost measure for suppliers that would allow to save energy".  

Reply: The right presettings in the "as-shipped" conditions can help to save energy as users tend to leave the 
settings as they are. On the other hand, energy demand, e.g. for Energy Star, is measured in the "as-shipped" 
conditions.  Against  this  background,  the  energy  measurements  already  reflect  the  presettings  in  the  tested 
models - energy-saving presettings as well as energy-wasting presettings. Therefore, it does not seem to add 
significantly  to  include  a  new  criterion  that  asks  suppliers  to  deliver  their  products  with  energy-saving 
presettings. 

(2) The second criterion concerns the commitment of suppliers to refrain from preinstalled software that is 
not necessary for the client (e.g. adware, bloatware). This software can potentially reduce performance, waste 
storage capacity, and present a security risk. 

Reply:  To  ask  suppliers  to  refrain  from  the  installation  of  unnecessary  software  makes  sense  for  several 
reasons: there is possibly less need for storage media (positive from an environmental point of view), a lower 
security  risk,  better  performance.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  overall  there  are  to  be  fewer  rather  than  more 
criteria and given that there is only a limited link to environmental issues, no action is proposed. 

Several comments stressed the relevance of the manufacturing phase. To include the total energy demand of 
the  manufacturing  phase  was  considered  too  difficult  but  one  comment  suggested  the  creation  of  a  new 
criterion on the share of  renewable energy  used in the  manufacturing  phase (e.g. <25%; 25-50%; 50-75%; 
>75%).  

Reply:  As  the  comment  already  stated,  the  total  energy  consumption  of  different  manufacturers  is  not 
comparable.  The  inclusion  of  a  new  criteria  concerning  the  share  of  renewable  energy  in  the  total  energy 
consumption  of  manufacturing  would  add  disproportionally  high  complexity  as  exactly  which  types  of 
renewable  energy  will  be  accepted  has  to  be  defined  (see  EPEAT  9.4.2  for  example).  Not  all  countries 
concerned have the necessary certification schemes at their disposal. In this context, it is not proposed to add 
a new criterion.    

One  comment  suggested  the  introduction  of  a  new  criteria  on  the  climate  /  environmental  impact  of  the 
products. As verification, a third-party analysis was proposed (e.g. EPD, LCA). 

Reply: The effort to provide a third-party-certified LCA or EPD for each model would be disproportionately high 
compared to the benefit or the significance when comparing different products. LCA studies are very helpful 
when it comes to basic evaluation, e.g. for identifying hotspots or leverage points. The conclusions drawn from 
them  can  then  be  translated  into  criteria, if  necessary.  In  contrast,  demanding  LCA  results  at  the  individual 
product level does not bring any significant additional benefit and tends to disadvantage smaller companies 
that  do  not  have  the  same  resources  for  conducting  LCA  studies  as  large  companies.  Even  for  larger 
companies this might be difficult. Lenovo was cited as one company that does Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) 
studies of their products. A check showed that PCF data are not available for all models by any means and 
some of these data are relatively old (e.g. 2015). In EPEAT, LCA and PCF are optional. Against this background, 
it is not proposed to add a new criterion. 

2.2.5  Further background after the second stakeholder consultation 

According to some stakeholders, the energy efficiency of computers has been focused in R&D for years and 
further  drastic  changes  are  not  expected,  with  current  user  patterns.  Many  products  will  fall  in  the  same 
efficiency ‘band’/ level; additional levels just add complexity for procurers and suppliers. A simplification of the 
criteria to include fewer levels was suggested. The suggested modification is applied. 

  64 

 
 
2.3  Criteria area 3 – Hazardous substances 

The European Commission published a chemicals strategy for sustainability on  14 October 202086. This is part of 
the  EU’s  zero  pollution  ambition,  which  is  a  key  commitment  of  the  European  Green  Deal.  Among  the 
objectives  of  this  strategy  are  minimising  the  presence  of  substances  of  concern  in  products  such  as  ICT 
equipment and boosting the investment and innovative capacity for production and use of chemicals that are 
safe  and  sustainable  by  design,  and  throughout  their  life  cycle.  The  proposals  included  in  this  proposal  for 
revision are considered consistent with this objective. 

A range of hazardous substances are used in the manufacturing of ICT equipment which may be present in 
the final product; this criteria area covers these aspects. Compared to the current set of criteria for hazardous 
substances, the proposal includes an amendment of the criterion on plasticisers in external cables as some of 
the former substances are now banned under the RoHS Directive; a proposal for a technical specification for 
the reduction of chlorinated and brominated flame retardants has been included, as well as two award criteria 
proposals, one on the reduction of Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) and another one on the avoidance 
of regrettable substitution.  

It  is  proposed  to  remove  the  award  criterion  on  EoL  emissions  since  the  responses  from  the  questionnaire 
indicated  that  the  fire-tests  required  were  costly  and  difficult.  Meanwhile,  the  presence  of  halogenated 
compounds is now covered with a new TS. 

The following table compares the existing GPP criteria with the new proposals as formulated after the AHWG 
meeting and after the first consultation. 

Table 11. Hazardous substances - current criteria (2016) and TR v3.0 

GPP 2016 

TR v3.0 Proposal 

SC1. Restricted substance controls 

SC1. Restricted Substance controls  

(comprehensive) 

 (comprehensive) 

TS3. Declaration for REACH Candidate List substances  

(core and comprehensive) 

TS4. Plasticisers in external cables 

TS4. Declaration of Substances of Very High 

AC2(a) Hazardous end of life emissions from the main Printed 
Circuit Board (motherboard) 

AC2(b)  Hazardous  end  of  life emissions  from  external  power 
cables 

Concern (REACH Candidate List substances) 

TS21.  Restriction  of  chlorinate  and  brominate  substances  in  plastic 
parts (core) 

of 
Restriction 
AC7. 
(core and comprehensive) 

Substances 

of 

Very  High 

Concern  

New! AC8. Avoidance of regrettable substitution (comprehensive) 

Summary of the main changes after the first stakeholder consultation 

The reference to IPC Standard 1752 on Materials Declaration Data Exchange has been added as an additional 
reference  for  the  selection  criterion  on  Substance  Control.  The  technical  specification  on  the  declaration  for 
REACH  Candidate  List  substances  has  been  deleted  after  the  AHWG  meeting  and  the  first  consultation. 
Regarding  the  TS  on  restriction  of  halogenated  substances,  the  comprehensive  level  proposal  has  been 
removed, and the core level proposal is proposed to be applicable both to the core and comprehensive levels. 
The –award criteria on restriction of Substances of Very High Concern has been limited to the comprehensive 
level.  An explanatory  note  has been added regarding the definition of Candidate List  substances. Regarding 

86 COM(2020) 667 final Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability - Towards a Toxic-Free Environment 

  65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
the  award  criteria  on  avoidance  of  regrettable  substitution,  the  proposal  has  been  modified  to  extend  the 
scope to both plasticisers and flame retardants. The list of tools and methods that are considered applicable 
for the assessment of material substitution has also been revised. Further background is available in Section 
2.3.4. 

Summary of the main changes after the second stakeholder consultation 

The  criterion  SC1  has  been  modified  to  be  better  aligned  with  the  same  selection  criterion  included  in  the 
recently  published  GPP  Criteria  for  Imaging  Equipment  (SWD(2020)  148  final)87  and  moved  to  the 
comprehensive level.  

The scope of criterion TS21 has been clarified: this criterion covers bromine and chlorine composites and not 
the entire group of halogens; the title of the criterion has been modified accordingly. As a concentration up to 
1000 ppm (0.1% by weight) is tolerated, definitions of halogen-free can generate some ambiguities.  For this 
reason, plastic parts (and products) fulfilling this criterion are defined as “low-halogen”.  

The following table shows the criteria proposal revised after the second stakeholder consultation.  

Third criteria proposal 

Core criteria 

SELECTION CRITERIA 

Comprehensive criteria 

SC1 Restricted substance controls 

Applicable  to  all  relevant  product  categories  except  for  refurbished/ 
remanufactured devices.   

The  tenderer  must  demonstrate  use of  a  framework  for  Restricted 
Substance Controls (RSC) along the supply chain for the products to 
be supplied. 

Product  evaluations  according  to  the  RSC  should,  as  a  minimum, 
cover the following areas: 

 
 
 

product planning/design; 
supplier conformity; 
analytical testing. 

The RSC must at least outline the substances restricted under RoHS 
and,  where  relevant,  under  REACH  (Annex  XVII)  and  substances  on 
the  REACH  Candidate  List  (see  the  explanatory  note  below). 
Implementation  should  follow  the  guidelines  in  IEC  62476  or 
equivalent and use the IEC 62474 material declaration database as 
the basis for identifying, tracking and declaring specific information 
about the composition of the products to be supplied. Alternatively, 
IPC1752 can be used to collect declarations from the supply chain. 

Supplier declarations of conformity with the RSCs must be collected 
and kept up to date for relevant materials, parts and sub-assemblies 
of  the  products  to  be  supplied.  These  may  be  supported,  where 
appropriate, by supplier audits and analytical testing.  

The  RSC  procedures  must  ensure  that  product  and  supplier 
compliance is re-evaluated when: 

restricted substance requirements change; 
supplied materials, parts and sub-assemblies change; 

 
 
  manufacturing and assembly operations change. 

Verification: 

The tenderer must provide documentation describing the system and 
its procedures and giving proof of its implementation. 

87 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/pdf/20032020_EU_GPP_criteria_for_imaging_equipment_2020.pdf 

  66 

 
 
 
                                           
Explanatory note: List of substances regulated under RoHS and REACH 

The current list of restricted substances under RoHS is defined in the Annex II of the Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2015/863 of 31 
March  2015  amending  Annex  II  to  Directive  2011/65/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as  regards  the  list  of  restricted 
substances. 

The  Annex  XVII  of  the  Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006  concerning  the  Registration,  Evaluation,  Authorisation  and  Restriction  of  Chemicals 
(REACH Regulation) contains a list of substances that shall not be manufactured, placed on the market or used unless it complies with the 
conditions  of  that  restriction.  The  list  of  restricted  substances  is  published  and  periodically  updated  on  the    ECHA  website: 
https://echa.europa.eu/substances-restricted-under-reach  

The  Candidate  List  of  substances  of  very  high  concern  for  Authorisation  is  published  in  accordance  with  Article  59(10)  of  the  REACH 
Regulation and periodically updated on the ECHA website (https://echa.europa.eu/candidate-list-table). 

For  substances  identified  as  SVHCs  included  in  the  Candidate  List,  a  particular  duty  to  communicate  the  content  of  the  substances  in 
products  applies  under  Article  33  of  the  REACH  Regulation.  This  communication  should  happen  along  the  supply  chain  without  being 
requested. The same information must also be submitted to ECHA by all suppliers along the supply chain under Article 9(1)(i)  of the Waste 
Framework Directive (https://echa.europa.eu/scip). That information will be publicly available in the Substances of Concern in Products (SCIP) 
database. 

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 

TS21 Restriction of chlorinate and brominate substances in plastic parts 

Applicable to all relevant product categories except refurbished/remanufactured devices.   

Equipment delivered as part of the contract can contain only low quantities of halogenated substances in plastic parts that weigh more than 
25 grams (5 grams for smartphones). Each plastic part of the device must contain less than 1000 ppm (0.1% weight by weight) of bromine 
and less than 1000 ppm (0.1% weight by weight) of chlorine. 

Applicable exemptions are: printed circuit boards, electronic components, cables and wiring insulation, fans. 

Verification: 

The tenderer must provide documentation which proves that the requirement has been met by either:  

 

 

Test data showing that the part contains less than 1000 ppm chlorine and less than 1000 ppm bromine (test methods used can 
be IEC 62321-3-1 or IEC 62321-3-2), or 

Documentation  based  on  IEC  62474  or  similar  (e.g.  documents  produced  according  to  the  Substance  Control  system,  such  as 
analytical testing and suppliers’ conformity assessments). 

Where exemptions are used, a declaration by the manufacturer must be provided. 

Products holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified requirements will be deemed to comply. 

AWARD CRITERIA 

AC7 Restriction of Substances of Very High Concern  

Applicable  to  all  relevant  product  categories  except  for  refurbished/ 
remanufactured devices.   

Points  must  be  awarded  when  no  substances  on  the  REACH 
Candidate  List  are  intentionally  added  above  0.1%  (weight  by 
weight) in each of the following sub-assemblies:  

 

 
 
 
 

Populated  motherboard  (including  CPU,  RAM,  graphics 
units); 
Display unit (including backlighting); 
Casings and bezels; 
External keyboard, mouse and/or trackpad; 
External AC and DC power cords (including adapters and 
power packs). 

Compliance  must  be  ensured  with  the  latest  version  of  the  REACH 
Candidate  List  available  at  the  moment  of  tendering  (see  the 
explanatory note below). 

  67 

 
 
 
 
Verification:  

The  tenderer  must  provide  a  declaration  of  compliance  with  this 
criterion.  Documentation  based  on  IEC  62474  or  similar  (e.g. 
documents  produced  according  to  the  Substance  Control  system, 
such  as  analytical  testing  and  suppliers’  conformity  assessments) 
can be used. 

Products  holding  a  relevant  Type  I  Ecolabel  fulfilling  the  specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply. 

Explanatory note: Candidate List of substances of very high concern for Authorisation 

The  Candidate  List  of  substances  of  very  high  concern  for  Authorisation  is  published  in  accordance  with  Article  59(10)  of  the  REACH 
Regulation and periodically updated on the ECHA website (https://echa.europa.eu/candidate-list-table). 

For  substances  identified  as  SVHCs  included  in  the  Candidate  List,  a  particular  duty  to  communicate  the  content  of  the  substances  in 
products  applies  under  Article  33  of  the  REACH  Regulation.  This  communication  should  happen  along  the  supply  chain  without  being 
requested. 

AC8 Avoidance of regrettable substitution 

This criterion is applicable to relevant products containing plasticisers 
and flame retardants, except for refurbished/remanufactured devices.  

Points are awarded if the substitution of plasticisers restricted under 
RoHS  (restriction  of hazardous  substances) and  halogenated flame 
retardants  is  based  on  methods  and  tools  for  comparative  hazard 
assessment  indicated  by  the  European  Chemicals  Agency  or  the 
OECD Substitution and Alternatives Assessment Toolbox. 

This  hazard  assessment  must  apply  (as  a  minimum)  to  the  flame 
retardants  and  plasticisers  used  in  plastic  parts  that  weigh  more 
than 25 grams. 

Verification: 

The  alternative  plasticisers  and  flame  retardants  have  to  be 
indicated by name and CAS or EC number.  

The tenderer must provide evidence that the selected alternative(s) 
have  been  assessed  by  methods  or  tools  for  comparative  hazard 
the  European  Chemicals  Agency  
assessment 
(https://echa.europa.eu/assess-compare-and-select-substitution)  or 
the  OECD  Substitution  and  Alternatives  Assessment  Toolbox 
(http://www.oecdsaatoolbox.org/). 

indicated  by 

Products  holding  a  relevant  Type  I  Ecolabel  fulfilling  the  specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply. 

2.3.1 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed criteria  

Substance controls 

The  proposed  set  of  criteria  for  hazardous  substances  includes  the  selection  criterion  (SC1)  which  requires 
that suppliers have implemented a framework for the operation of substance controls (SCs) along their supply 
chains.  This  criterion  was  already  included  in  the  former  version,  although  with  a  different  title  (Restricted 
Substance Controls). In the new proposal the restriction of phthalate plasticisers (DEHP, BBP, DBP and DIBP) is 
no  longer  included  as  these  phthalates  are  now  banned  under  the  RoHS  Directive  and  therefore  already 
mandatory in the EU. Stakeholders have expressed via the 2019 survey the relevance of such a requirement. 
Examples of control of substances can be found on the website of the OEMs88,89. Scope, substances covered 
and procedures for the control of substances are usually provided in a management document. 

88https://www.samsung.com/us/smg/content/dam/samsung/sg/aboutsamsung/2017/environment/pdf/standard-substances-products-en.pdf 

89https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Regulated_Substances_Specification_Sept2018.pdf 

  68 

 
 
 
                                           
Halogenated substances 

The  restriction  on  halogenated  flame  retardants  is  well  covered  among  the  existing  ecolabelling  schemes 
(EPEAT,  TCO,  TÜV  and  Blue  Angel)  although  the  coverage  varies  from  one  scheme  to  another  as  shown  in 
Table  12;  for  example,  EPEAT  allows  exceedance  of  the  limits  proposed  in  their  requirement  when  the 
compound used has a GreenScreen® Safer Chemicals Benchmark of 2,3,4 or when no alternatives can reach 
that score. An analysis of voluntary approaches from industry (more details in the Preliminary Report, Sections 
4.4.5 and 4.4.6) shows that, in terms of banning halogenated flame retardants, three front-running companies 
ban them for all their products and one for some, with the latter claiming that brominated flame  retardants 
are  phased  out  in  notebooks.  With  such  controls  from  industry  on  the  restriction  of  halogenated  flame 
retardants  and  the  coverage  in  the  existing  ecolabelling  schemes,  a  criterion  to  restrict  halogenated 
substances  has  been  introduced.  The  criterion  covers  all  plastic  parts  of  more  than  25  grams  (5  g  for 
smartphones)  with  exemptions  for  PCBs  and  cable  insulation.  The  criterion  includes  a  maximum  tolerated 
concentration value of 0.1% by weight of the material in homogeneous materials. 

Table 12. Criteria on halogenated flame retardants in different ecolabelling schemes 

Scheme 

Criterion 

Exemptions 

EPEAT 

Each plastic part in the product exceeding 25 g shall not contain 
greater than 1000 ppm chlorine or greater than 1000 ppm bromine at 
the homogeneous level. 

a) When exceeding the limits the manufacturer shall 
demonstrate that the compound used has a GreenScreen 
Safer Chemical Benchmark score of 2, 3, 4 or that no 
alternatives can achieve those scores. 

b) Parts with >25% post-consumer recycled content the 
maximum level is 5000ppm. 

c) PCBs, cables and wiring, fans, and electronic components. 

PCB laminates, electronic components and all kinds of cable 
insulation. 

Parts that weigh more than 25 grams (10 g for headsets and 5 g for 
smartphones) and are made mainly of plastics must not contain flame 
retardants or plasticizers with halogenated substances or intentionally 
added halogens as part of the polymer. 

TCO 8 

Blue Angel 

Halogenated polymers shall not be permitted in housings and housing 
parts. Nor may halogenated organic compounds be added as flame 
retardants. Nor shall any flame retardants be permitted which are 
classified under the CLP Regulation as carcinogenic of Category Carc. 2 
or as hazardous to waters of Category Aquatic Chronic 1. 

a) Fluoro-organic additives (as, for example, anti-dripping 
agents) used to improve the physical properties of plastics, 
provided that they do not exceed 0.5 weight percent. 

b) Plastic parts weighing 25 grams or less. 

TUV 

Covers product materials. 

Cables. 

REACH Candidate List substances 

Of  the  existing  labelling  schemes  only  two,  TÜV  and  Blue  Angel,  have  a  mandatory  ban  of  the  REACH 
Candidate List substances, and at the time of drafting this report Blue Angel has no licensed products besides 
keyboards. EPEAT, on the other hand, includes the ban of these substances as an optional criterion (further 
details on  the  analysis  of  existing  labelling  schemes  can  be  found  in  the  Preliminary  Report, Sections  4.4.3 
and 4.4.4).  

An  analysis90  of  voluntary  approaches,  taken  by  ICT  front-running  companies,  regarding  the  Candidate  List 
substances in REACH shows that one of the companies analysed claims to restrict the SVHC in all materials 
(unless  preapproved  by  the  company),  and  another  one  aimed  to  eliminate  all  SVHC  in  a  concentration  of 
more than 0.1% w/w by 31 December 31 2020. Other companies analysed list the substances on the REACH 
Candidate List for reporting, declaration and/or monitoring purposes. It seems, therefore, that there is certain 
interest  on  the  part  of  industry  to  take  action  on  the  restriction  of  SVHC.  Therefore,  an  award  criterion  is 
proposed (AC3) on the restriction of SVHC as considered useful for the promotion of this type of initiative.  

Companies supplying articles containing Candidate List substances in a concentration above 0.1% weight by 
weight  (w/w)  on  the  EU  market  have  to  submit  information  on  these  articles  to  ECHA,  as  from  5  January 

90 More details on the analysis of voluntary approaches and the list of documents revised can be found in the preliminary report. 

  69 

 
 
 
                                           
2021. The SCIP database91 will ensure that the information on articles containing Candidate List substances is 
available  throughout  the  whole  life  cycle  of  products  and  materials,  including  at  the  waste  stage.  The 
information in the database will be made available to waste operators and consumers. 

Avoidance of regrettable substitution 

The list of restricted substances in Annex II to the RoHS Directive (Directive 2011/65/EU)92 was amended by 
Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2015/863 of 31 March 201593. Accordingly, the four phthalates bis(2-
ethylhexyl)  phthalate  (DEHP),  butyl  benzyl  phthalate  (BBP),  dibutyl  phthalate  (DBP)  and  diisobutyl  phthalate 
(DIBP)  have  been  added  to  Annex  II  and  the  restriction  applies  for  most  product  EEE  (including  computers, 
displays and smartphones) from 22 July  2019 on. Therefore, the  former TS  criterion on plasticisers used  in 
external  cables  has  been  removed  from  this  first  criteria  proposal  and  instead  a  new  award  criterion  is 
proposed.  Initially,  it  was  proposed  to  award  those  offers  that  substitute  these  plasticisers  with  safer 
alternatives.  After  the  AHWG  meeting  and  the  first  consultation,  the  objective  was  revised  and  a  broader 
scope was proposed. Though it might be an unusual criterion, it is forward-looking because it can contribute to 
avoid future restrictions of equally hazardous substances that are used as substitutes.  

2.3.2  Background for the proposed verification 

Manufacturers will be able to demonstrate compliance with the criteria through submission of documentation 
showing that  products have  been tested using the appropriate test  procedures, or equivalent, and  meet the 
hazardous  material  content  requirements  (where  relevant).  This  documentation  could  take  the  form  of  a 
manufacturer’s declaration or proven compliance with an ecolabel fulfilling the respective requirements; these 
are listed for each criterion in the section on verification.  

Regarding  the  avoidance  of  regrettable  substitution,  there  are  methods  and  tools  for  comparative  hazard 
assessment  listed  by  the  European  Chemicals  Agency  ECHA94  and  by  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-
operation and Development (OECD)95. One example there is the GreenScreen® for Safer  Chemicals, which is 
already applied by some ecolabels such as EPEAT or TCO Certified.  

2.3.3  Summary of stakeholder answers from the initial survey 

Some  stakeholders  expressed  the  difficulty  of  applying  the  restricted  substance  control  criterion,  given  the 
lack of expertise in that area of the preparers of the tender (who will have to perform the evaluation of the 
documentation  provided).  The  uncertainty  of  the  market  uptake  for  this  criterion  was  also  mentioned  as  a 
challenge for the application of the substance control criterion. 

The  declaration  of  REACH  Candidate  List  substances  happens  to  be  considered  an  important  criterion  and 
some  stakeholders  confirmed  that  it  has  been  implemented  in  tenders.  The  validity  of  a  declaration  letter 
from the manufacturer/CEO as a verification method was questioned.  

Regarding  the  criterion  on  plasticisers  in  external  cables,  it  has  been  as  applied  well  in  tenders,  although 
stakeholders suggest referring directly to the RoHS directive at product level rather than to certain parts only.  

For hazardous EoL emissions from components, it was suggested to ensure a correct recycling process with 
an EoL criterion for that. A respondent also argued that fire tests are not possible in practice and that there is 
low consensus on those tests, although the ban of halogenated flame retardants in PCBs and cable insulation 
was welcomed by some stakeholders. 

It was suggested that TCO Certified Edge halogen-free display could be reported as a verification method for 
displays, or self-declaration such as The ECO declaration96.  

91 https://echa.europa.eu/scip-database 
92 See the consolidated version and all amendments of the Annexes at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/legis_en.htm  
93 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32015L0863 

94 https://echa.europa.eu/assess-compare-and-select-substitution 

95 http://www.oecdsaatoolbox.org/Home/AAGuides and http://www.oecdsaatoolbox.org/Home/Tools  
96 https://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-370.htm  

  70 

 
 
 
 
                                           
2.3.4  Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation 

There were some overall comments from the AHWG meeting in Seville: to reduce the number of criteria and to 
include all criteria as technical specifications because the adoption of award criteria was questioned. Further 
concern  was raised that it would be too  difficult for procurers to understand the  verification for the criteria 
area in hazardous substances. 

The  comments  submitted  during  the  consultation  were  numerous  and  in  some  cases  showed  contradictory 
positions  to  comments  made  in  the  AHWG  meeting  as  well  as  between  each  other,  e.g.  claiming  too  much 
burden for manufacturers versus affirming that companies are well equipped to handle advanced criteria on 
hazardous substances in products.  

It was suggested in the comments to mention the labels that fulfil the criteria in the verification, which was 
taken up as a proposal.  

Another  comment  suggested  inserting  an  example  on  how  verification  could  look  for  each  criterion.  In  the 
context of the hazardous substances, the suggestion of a database for the different criteria came up because 
stakeholders felt that additional information can easily be made accessible and is only retrieved on demand. 
The  suggestions  in  these  comments  would  need  to  be  completed  in  a  future  task,  it  was  noted  and 
communicated to the JRC.  

Substance control 

One stakeholder highlighted the clear objective of the criterion and the opportunity for additional information. 
Another stakeholder suggested to change it into a core criterion; the comment encouraged the continuation of 
this  criterion  as  IT  companies  are  well  equipped  to  handle  advanced  criteria  on  hazardous  substances  in 
products.  It  was  further  suggested  to  supplement  the  criterion  on  the  comprehensive  level  with  routines on 
the assessment on how to substitute hazardous substances. As methods or tools, the ECHA 5-step model97[ on 
substitution of chemicals for example or methods like GreenScreen were proposed.  

There  was  also  a  contradictory  comment  that  this  criterion  would  be  an  unnecessary  burden  on 
manufacturers  and  too  complex  for  procurers;  instead  the  comment  suggested  providing  publicly  available 
product declarations from manufacturers. 

Another  stakeholder  still  noted  that  the  scope  of  substances  was  unclear  (REACH  Candidate  List  and  IEC 
62474) and how a procurer with limited time for verification should analyse different verification documents.  

Another comment claimed that it should be clarified how the verification could look and what this document 
should contain. 

Based on the stakeholder comments, it was decided to transform the requirement on substance control into a 
core criterion in order to stress it as a focus and prerequisite for restrictions of hazardous substances. 

As for the verification, it was decided to add additional ways to perform substance control, e.g. manufacturers 
can go beyond the IEC 62474 substance declaration list and use full material declarations, e.g. according to 
IPC 1752 to track all substances instead of only tracking those substances listed in the IEC 62474 database.  

It was decided not to implement any demands on assessing and substituting substances in the comprehensive 
criterion as it might be an overburden of the intention behind the criterion. However, instead it was decided to 
take  this  aspect  up  in  the  award  criterion  covering  the  assessment  for  safer  alternatives  to  hazardous 
substances.  

Declaration of Substances of Very High Concern (REACH Candidate List substances) 

At  the  AHWG  meeting,  some  stakeholders  expressed  the  view  that  two  criteria  on  SVHC  are  confusing;  this 
number should be reduced also in view of an excessively high number of criteria in total. 

During  the  consultation  it  was  mentioned  several  times  that  this  criterion  covers  the  already  existing  legal 
obligation according to REACH Article 33 to communicate the content of SVHCs in a product along the supply 
chain.  The  information  is  available  to  the  consumer  upon  request.  An  extra  criterion  was  therefore  seen  to 
provide  little  information  to  procurers,  especially  if  broken  down  per  sub-assembly.  However,  one  comment 
suggested informing procurers about this right to transparency.  

97 https://echa.europa.eu/know-your-substances-and-needs-substitution  

  71 

 
                                           
It was further mentioned that ECHA would provide the “SCIP database”[2] on substances of very high concern in 
materials; however, the operative database was scheduled for January 2021. This EU-wide database also has 
the ambition to extend its scope in the future to substances of concern in materials. 

Several comments recommended deleting the TS and only one suggested making a core criterion out of it. The 
potential benefits raised by the comment was that the listing of the SVHC could help manufacturers to avoid 
a bad choice of chemical; there were also potential future product recall issues mentioned.  

A suggestion made in one comment was that information about the products should be submitted to the JRC 
team instead of to the procurers so that the JRC could compile a list of SVHC substances used for future GPP 
requirements.  

It  is  decided  to  delete  the  criterion  in  order  to  reduce  the  overall  number  of  criteria.  Furthermore,  the 
declaration of SVHC is a legal obligation and should be part of a wider approach by companies to control the 
use of substances. The requirements to communicate the content of substances is covered in a broader scope 
in the criterion on substance controls where SVHC should basically be covered.  

Restriction of halogenated substances in plastic parts 

Though  the  comments  from  the  stakeholders  differ  to  some  extent,  the  feedback  given  indicated  that  the 
criterion as a technical specification and a core criterion was too advanced; instead it was proposed to make it 
an award criterion.  

Furthermore,  it  was  noted  several  times  that  an  exemption  for  PVC  in  cable  insulation  should  be  kept. 
Stakeholders  argued  differently, e.g.  because  of  additional  costs (PVC-free  cables  would  only  be  achievable 
for  about  5-10%  of  the  market)  or due  to  the  beneficial  material  properties (low  ignitability, comparatively 
low heat release, absence of flaming droplets, good recyclability) or reliable durability.  

It was suggested to insert an exemption for the restriction if no reliable alternatives exist or if the hazard of 
the halogenated flame retardant is assessed.  

The  use of alternatives,  more precisely the assessment of the alternatives in order to  guarantee that safer 
alternatives are used, was also suggested by another stakeholder.  

Another  stakeholder  mentioned  that  the  wording  would  not  be  in  line  with  industry  standards,  but  that 
industry would use low-halogen and then refer to bromine and chlorine and not all halogens.  

A further comment suggested excluding the use of HFR in external or accessible parts to avoid exposure of 
final users to the substances while reducing the legacy chemicals burden overall.  

The marking of the plastic parts with the flame retardant used was also mentioned as formulated in the eco-
design requirements for displays.  

It was decided to keep the wording as it is in line with the Ecodesign requirements for displays and is also in 
line with the wording of ecolabels.  

The restriction of halogenated parts is not limited to accessible parts to avoid exposure of final users to the 
substances  because  human  health  is  not  the  reason  for  the  restriction  but  considerations  of  waste  and 
circular economy.  

The suggestion for the marking of the plastic parts is recommended to be taken up in the criterion on the end-
of-life criteria set (e.g. for the comprehensive requirement; see “Other cross-cutting issues” section).  

It was however decided to formulate only one criterion with certain exemptions in order to reduce the overall 
number  of  criteria  and  to  focus  on  the  restriction  (in  the  first  criteria  proposal,  the  core  criterion  listed 
exemptions  and  the  comprehensive  did  not  allow  for  exemptions.)  As  the  criterion  requires  that  the  use  of 
exemptions must be declared, transparency is now provided for this aspect. 

Cross-cutting issue: recycled plastics 

With regards to the restriction of halogenated substances in plastic parts, there were comments with regards 
to  recycled  plastics.  The  comments  pointed  out  that  if  the  plastics  contain  recycled  materials,  they  might 
contain halogenated substances to a higher extent.  

Plastic  containing  brominated  flame  retardants  needs  to  be  sorted  and  removed  according  to  WEEE 
requirements and is sent to incineration in the event that the concentration of brominated flame retardants is 
too high. Therefore, it is estimated that recycled plastics would only contain halogenated flame retardants as 

  72 

 
contaminants (<1000 ppm). Moreover, there is not enough information to set a limit for plastics with recycled 
content regarding the chlorinated content.  

Restriction of Substances of Very High Concern 

Only a few comments were submitted on this award criterion. It was suggested twice to delete this criterion 
as the restriction of Substances of Very High Concern would not be verified with a level of certainty for third-
party products and because substances that are under review could not be covered.  

Another comment questioned whether a core criterion should be formulated here, referring to the definition of 
the GPP website stating that “core criteria are those suitable for use by any contracting authority across the 
Member  States  and  address  the  key  environmental  impacts.  They  are  designed  to  be  used  with  minimum 
additional verification effort or cost increases.”  

It is concluded to keep the criterion only as comprehensive, as an award criterion and which can optionally be 
used  by  procurers.  Moreover,  the  comprehensive  proposal  would  be  more  coherent  with  REACH, referring  to 
the 0.1% w/w in components instead of at the product level. It is a common objective in Europe to promote 
the substitution of substances recognised as SVHC listed on the REACH Candidate List with safer alternatives.  

The  analyses  of  ecolabels  showed  that  they  explicitly  refer  to  an  elimination/ban  of  SHVCs  or  indirectly 
avoiding SVHCs by assessing safer alternatives such as TCO (TCO Certified ASL).  

However,  there  remains  the  risk  that  manufacturers  choose  a  substitute  with  equally  hazardous  chemicals 
that are not on the SVHC list; this is indeed an issue that is a continuous challenge if certain substances are 
restricted. The choice of safer alternatives needs to be generally assessed. It was therefore decided that the 
assessment of alternatives should be integrated into the following award criterion. 

Avoidance of phthalates / Avoidance of regrettable substitution 

Some stakeholders gave the feedback that basically the  approach of using a white list instead of blacklists 
was  welcomed.  One  stakeholder  noted  that  procurers  do  not  have  the  chemical  knowledge  and  that  the 
criteria  on  hazardous  substances  risk  being  resource-intensive;  the  stakeholder  also  stated  that  lists  of 
substances  are  difficult  to  manage.  Another  stakeholder  supported  this  by  suggesting  simplifying  the 
verification as much as possible.  

It was also noted that the heading of the criterion indicates that all phthalates are equally hazardous to those 
restricted under the RoHS Directive and that there might be hazardous plasticisers that are not phthalates.  

It was noted that the GreenScreen was agreed but that other methods should also be suggested. The ECHA 5-
step model on substitution of chemicals was also mentioned by another stakeholder.  

Based on the  comments  collected and further background analysis, in this revision it  is proposed to expand 
the scope of this criterion beyond phthalates and expand the reference to other tools for comparative hazard 
assessment as indicated by the European Chemicals Agency at:   https://echa.europa.eu/assess-compare-and-select-
substitution or the OECD Substitution and Alternatives Assessment Toolbox at  http://www.oecdsaatoolbox.org/.    

The  intention  behind the  criterion  was  that  the  substitution  of  the  restricted  phthalates should  be  assessed 
and that  substitution  with  an  equally  hazardous  plasticiser should  be  avoided.  However,  the  same  could  be 
said for the halogenated flame retardants and all SVHCs.  

As already mentioned above, there were several stakeholder comments at various points for the other criteria 
that substitution should be addressed as an issue and that hazardous substances should not be substituted 
by equally hazardous substances. So, it was decided to reframe this criterion using the wording avoidance of 
regrettable substitution. Though it is still a challenging criterion, it is considered to be future-oriented: it would 
prevent risks of substances recently developed and/or recently recognised as being hazardous. 

Other cross-cutting issue: Marking of plastics 

In the context of restricting halogenated substances in plastic parts, it was remarked by stakeholders that the 
ecodesign  requirements  for  displays  stipulates  that  “(b)  Components  containing  flame  retardants  shall 
additionally be marked with the abbreviated term of the polymer followed by hyphen, then the symbol “FR” 
followed by the code number of the flame retardant in parentheses. The marking on the enclosure and stand 
components shall be clearly  visible and readable.” This comment  was  considered to address a cross-cutting 
issue as it is addressed in the area of the end-of life criteria by adding the reference to ISO 1043-4 Plastics 

  73 

 
—  Symbols  and  abbreviated  terms  —  Part  4:  Flame  retardants.  It  is  proposed  to  address  this 
marking/reporting for the comprehensive criterion for plastics.  

2.3.5  Further background after the second stakeholder consultation 

Substance control 

Some stakeholders expressed the opinion that the criteria proposed in version 2 need to be clarified in terms 
of  scope  and  verification.  The  JRC  included  some  clarifications  and  aligned  this  criterion  with  the  recently 
published  EU  GPP  Criteria  for  imaging  equipment98,  which  include  a  selection  criterion  “SC1  Restricted 
Substance Control”. 

Restriction of halogenated substances in plastic parts 

Some  OEMs  proposed  referencing  the  iNEMI99  Position  Statement  on  the  Definition  of  “Low-Halogen 
Electronics”100. According to this position paper, the definition of low-halogen electronics is based on specific 
thresholds and measurement methods applicable to: 

1)  printed Board and substrate laminates;  

2) 

components other than printed board and substrate laminate.  

It  is  also  proposed  to  change  the  heading  of  the  criterion  to  "brominated  and  chlorinated”  instead  of 
“halogenated” substances, and to make it an award criterion instead of a Technical Specification.  

Representatives of the bromine industry do not agree with the reference to the recent Ecodesign Regulation 
on  electronic  displays  (Commission  Regulation  (EU)  2019/2021),  which  contains  a  ban  on  the  use  of 
halogenated flame retardants in the enclosures and stands of display equipment. The ban comes into effect 
in April 2021 and is being contested in the European Court of Justice. Therefore, it is considered premature to 
cite it as a precedent for general actions on flame retardants, halogenated or otherwise. 

Concerning  that  point,  the  JRC  would  like  to  highlight  that  this  criterion  proposal  is  aligned  with  globally 
recognised  ecolabel  initiatives,  like  TCO  Certified,  EPEAT  and  Blue  Angel.  These  labels  are  established  in  an 
open and transparent procedure in which all relevant stakeholders, including government bodies, consumers, 
social  partners,  manufacturers,  distributors  and  non-governmental  organisations,  may  participate;  similar 
criteria  and  thresholds  for  the  use  of  brominated  and  chlorinated  substances  in  plastic  components  are 
applied  in  these  labels.  The  scope  of  this  criterion  is  wider  than  the  Ecodesign  Regulation  for  Electronic 
Displays, as it is applicable to products such as computers, tablets and smartphones. Moreover, as described 
in  Section  4.4.5  of  the  Preliminary  Report,  several  OEMs  have  already  voluntarily  reduced  the  use  of 
brominated  and  chlorinated  flame  retardants.  This  is  also  confirmed  by  the  products  registered  under  TCO 
Certified101 and EPEAT102 and compliance with the corresponding criteria on restriction of halogenated flame 
retardants.   

The same stakeholder from the Bromine sector pointed out that the Commission is now proposing thresholds 
for  total  bromine  and  chlorine  concentrations  (0.1%)  in  plastics  for  enclosures  of  displays  (as  a  possible 
amendment to the Commission Delegated Regulation  2019/2021 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign 
requirements  for  electronic  displays103.  The  JRC  has  already  proposed  to  apply  these  thresholds  in  the  GPP 
criteria for two main reasons: 

● 

● 

the availability of international standards referring to the same threshold; 

consistency with the thresholds applied by several ecolabels. 

98 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/pdf/20032020_EU_GPP_criteria_for_imaging_equipment_2020.pdf 

99 The International Electronics Manufacturing Initiative (iNEMI) member companies supporting this definition are: Cisco, Dell Inc., Doosan Corporation, HP, Intel 
Corporation, Lenovo, Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Senju Comtek Corp., Sun Microsystems, Inc., Tyco Electronics Ltd. 

100 http://thor.inemi.org/webdownload/projects/ese/HFR-Free/Low-Halogen_Def.pdf 
101 TCO Certified Registry, available at https://tcocertified.com/product-finder/ 
102 EPEAT Registry, available at https://epeat.net/ 
103https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupMeetingDoc&docid=41384 

  74 

 
 
                                           
A  manufacturer  suggested  including  additional  exemptions  such  as  fans  and  electronic  components  and 
introducing  higher  thresholds  (5000  ppm)  for  the  components  with  a  high  content  of  post-recycled  plastic. 
However,  due  to  the  risk  of  containing  persistent  organic  pollutants  banned  under  the  POP  Regulation104, 
plastics containing FRs (heavy fraction of density separation and sorted XRF fraction with BFR > 1000 ppm) 
are normally not recycled and end up being sent for incineration105. 

OEMs consider that the way the criterion is written in this second draft does not allow for the same level of 
differentiation (awarding front runners). It is also requested to allow the fulfilment of the criterion for PVC-
free cords. 

Given all of the above, the JRC revised the draft criterion in order to: 

● 

● 

include a more specific reference to brominated and chlorinated substances in the title of TS5; 

introduce the concept of low-halogen instead of halogen-free; 

●  better specify which components can be exempted from this requirement. 

Restriction of Substances of Very High Concern 

Some industry representatives question the use of this type of criteria where absence of substances that are 
under review is rewarded and suggest deleting this criterion. An OEM considers that restricting REACH SVHC 
will not be feasible for any manufacturers since some SVHC such as lead are used in key applications across 
product  groups. The JRC, based on the  preliminary analysis carried out during this study, considers that the 
inclusion  of  this  criterion  as  an  award  criterion  (comprehensive  level)  is appropriate.  This is  also  applied  by 
EPEAT, as optional criterion 4.1.6.2 and some front runners are already providing devices compliant with this 
criterion  (mainly  monitors,  but  also  some  notebooks  and  desktop  computers).  A  similar  optional  criterion  is 
under EPEAT for smartphones, but there are no devices registered that meet this optional criterion yet.  

A  Member  State  recommended  including  this  criterion  as  a  technical  specification  to  guarantee  consistency 
with  GPP  criteria  of  other  product  groups.  An  environmental  NGO  agrees  with  the  interpretation  of  the 
restriction of SVHCs included in the document, supporting the justification as to why this should be included 
as an award criterion. Moreover, it is suggested to be considered under the core GPP level criteria and not only 
the comprehensive GPP criteria. 

Avoidance of phthalates / Avoidance of regrettable substitution 

According  to  a  manufacturer,  the  current  proposal  is  too  vague  and  the  number  of  substances  are  under 
evaluation should be clarified. The JRC considers that the criterion makes sense if implemented for the entire 
group  of  substances  under  the  scope  (flame  retardants  and  plasticisers).  It  was  also  commented  that 
different labels may not be equivalent in terms of the quality assurance of the hazard assessment.  Although 
some  differences in  the  verification  approaches  can  exist,  the  intention  of  this criterion  is to  encourage  the 
uptake of a “safer substitution” approach to the assessment of hazardous chemicals in products.  

104 REGULATION (EU) 2019/1021 on persistent organic pollutants 
105 Wagner S., Schlummer M., (2020) Legacy additives in a circular economy of plastics: Current dilemma, policy analysis, and emerging countermeasures. 

Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104800 

  75 

 
                                           
2.4  Criteria area 4 – End-of-life management 

2.4.1  Criterion 4.1 – Design for recycling 

Compared  to  the  GPP  criteria  version  2016,  it  is  proposed  to  maintain  the  Technical  Specification  on 
recyclability of plastic casings. The thresholds for plastic parts size for marking of plastic casings, enclosures 
and bezels have been updated. 

A few new proposals were included in the first draft revision: 

●  Criterion on the "plastic composition" used for casings, enclosures and bezels.  

●  Battery marking for the correct identification of the chemistry. 

●  Declaration of Critical Raw Materials. 

These  additional  proposals  were  then  removed  during  the  stakeholder  consultation  process  (see  Table  13). 
The following table compares the existing GPP criteria with the new proposal. 

Table 13. Design for recycling - current criteria (2016) and TR v3.0 

GPP 2016 

TR v3.0 Proposal 

TS8. Marking of plastic casings, enclosures and bezels 

TS22. Marking of plastic casings, enclosures and bezels 

TS7(a). Recyclability of plastic casings, enclosures and bezels 

AC9. Recyclability of plastic casings, enclosures and bezels - separable 
inserts and fasteners 

(Comprehensive level) 

TS7(b). Recyclability of plastic casings, enclosures and bezels 

AC10. Recyclability of plastic casings, enclosures and bezels– paints and 
coatings  

(Comprehensive level) 

New! TS24 Plastic composition recyclability 

New! TS26 Battery packs marking for the correct identification of their 
chemistry 

New! TS27 Declaration of Critical Raw Materials 

Summary of the main changes after the first stakeholder consultation 

Based on the comments received from some stakeholders, the applicability of these criteria was limited to the 
desktop  computers  and  displays,  expected  to  have  larger  plastic  components.  The  criteria  were  slightly 
modified  in  order  to  ensure  coherence  with  Ecolabels  that  include  similar  criteria  on  the  design  for 
recyclability (e.g. EPEAT). Regarding the technical specification on marking of plastic casings, enclosures and 
bezels, this proposal was limited to the comprehensive level and the applicability to plastic parts with a weight 
greater  than  25  grams.  The  criteria  proposals  on  battery  packs  marking  and  declaration  of  Critical  Raw 
Materials were deleted based on the comments received.  

Summary of the main changes after the second stakeholder consultation 

Based on the comments received, the criteria on recyclability of marking casing have been changed to award 
level  criteria  (AC9  and  AC10).  The  criterion  “Plastic  composition  recyclability”  has  been  deleted  due  to  the 
overlap with the two previous criteria and to reduce the overall number of criteria. 

  76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The following table shows the criteria as revised after the second stakeholder consultation. 

Third Criteria Proposal 

Core criteria 

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 

Comprehensive criteria 

TS22 Marking of plastic casings, enclosures and bezels 

Applicable to stationary computers and computer displays. 

External plastic casings, enclosures and bezels with a weight greater 
than 25 grams must be marked in accordance with ISO 11469 and 
ISO 1043 Section 1 and 4. Plastic parts are exempted from marking 
in the circumstances described by the explanatory note below. 

Verification:  

The  tenderer  must  identify  the  plastic  parts  by  their  weight,  their 
polymer composition and their ISO 11469 and ISO 1043 markings. 
The  dimension  and  position  of  the  marking  must  be  illustrated 
visually.  

Equipment holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply. 

Explanatory note: Plastic marking exemptions 

Plastic components are exempt from marking requirements in the following circumstances: 

(i) if the marking is not possible because of the shape or size; 

(ii) if the marking would impact on the performance or functionality of the plastic component; or 

(iii) if the marking is technically not possible because of the moulding method. 

For the following plastic components, no marking is required: 

(i) packaging, tape, labels and stretch wraps; 

(ii) wiring, cables and connectors, rubber parts and wherever there is not enough appropriate surface area for the marking to be of a legible 
size; 

(iii)  PCB  assemblies,  PMMA  boards,  optical  components,  electrostatic  discharge  components,  electromagnetic  interference  components, 
speakers; 

(iv) transparent parts where the marking would obstruct the function of the part in question. 

AWARD CRITERIA 

AC9 Recyclability of plastic casings, enclosures and bezels  - 
separable inserts and fasteners 

Applicable to stationary computers and computer displays. 

Additional  points  will  be  awarded  if  all  discrete  plastic  parts  >25 
grams do not contain a metal insert or fastener that is moulded-in, 
inserted  by  heat  or  ultrasonically,  or  glued-in,  unless  the  metal 
component  is  either  separable  by  breaking  it  off  from  the  plastic 
part  or  is  separable  by  using  commonly  available  tools.  Fan 
impellers are excluded from this requirement. 

Verification: 

The tenderer must provide either: 

1)  documentation  showing  that  the  product  does  not  contain  a 
metal  insert  or  fastener  that  is  moulded-in,  inserted  by  heat  or 
ultrasonically, or glued-in;  

  77 

 
 
 
 
2) where metal inserts or fasteners are moulded, inserted by heat or 
ultrasonically,  or  glued  into  plastic  parts,  documentation  showing 
how it is separable by way of breaking it off from the plastic part or 
by using commonly available tools. 

or 

3)  a  basis  for  exemption(s)  from  safety,  legal  or  technical 
requirements for a metal insert/fastener, if claimed. 

Equipment holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply. 

AC10 Recyclability of plastic casings, enclosures and bezels  

Applicable to stationary computers and computer displays. 

Additional  points  will  be  awarded  if  the  presence  of  paints  and 
coatings in the plastic components of the devices does not have a 
significant  impact  on  the  resilience  of  plastic  recyclate  produced 
from  these  components  upon  recycling  and  when  tested  according 
to ISO 180 or equivalent (see the explanatory note below). 

Discrete  plastic  parts  >25  grams  must  not  have  an  adhesive, 
coating, paint or finish that is incompatible with recycling.  

The following are excluded from this requirement: 

 
 

printed circuit board assemblies and fan impellers; 
wires  and  cables,  connectors,  electronic  components, 
optical 
ESD 
acoustic 
components, 
components and EMI components; 

components, 

  metal  inserts/fasteners  required  for  safety,  legal  or 

technical requirements. 

Verification:  

The compatibility of a surface coating(s) (adhesives, coatings, paints, 
or finishes) with recycling must be demonstrated through either: 

1) test results showing that the surface coating(s) does not lead to 
more than a 25% reduction in the notched Izod or Charpy impact at 
room temperature, as measured using ASTM D256, ASTM E23, ISO 
180, or ISO 179-1; one test result can be representative for multiple 
parts in the event that the same material is used in the parts and 
that the worst-case application is tested;  

or 

2)  a  statement  from  a  minimum  of  three  plastics  recyclers 
individually, or at least one plastics recycler processing plastics from 
electronics  and  working  under  an  independent  entity  (e.g.  not 
contracted/associated  with  the  manufacturer  or  contracted  with  a 
trade  organisation),  confirming  these  surface  coatings  do  not 
negatively impact the recyclability of the plastic;  

or 

3)  test results from an independent laboratory. 

Equipment holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply. 

Explanatory note: Impact on the resilience of plastic recyclate 

For the purposes of this criterion, a significant impact is defined as a >25%  reduction in the notched Izod impact of a recycled resin as 
measured using ISO 180:2019 Plastics - Determination of Izod impact strength. 

  78 

 
 
New! TS24 Plastic composition recyclability 

Applicable to stationary computers and computer displays 

Plastic parts with a mass greater than 25 g must be comprised of a 
single  resin  or  a  blend  of  different  resins  that  is  compatible  for 
recycling. 

The following are excluded from this requirement: 

 

Printed circuit boards, wires and cables, connectors, electronic 
components,  optical  components,  acoustic  components,  ESD 
components, and EMI components 

Verification: 

The tenderer must provide a list of the plastic parts > 25g including 
the resin type used and its compatibility with recycling.  

If the plastic part > 25g is made from a blend of resins, the tenderer 
must provide one of the following:  

1) Test results showing that there is not more than a 25% reduction 
in  the  notched  Izod  or  Charpy  im-pact  at  room  temperature,  as 
measured using ASTM D256, ASTM E23, ISO 180, or ISO 179-1; one 
test result can be representative for multiple parts in the event that 
the  same  material  is  used  in  the  parts  and  that  the  worst-case 
application is tested; or 

2)  A  statement  from  a  minimum  of  three  plastics  recyclers 
individually, or at least one plastics recycler processing plastics from 
electronics  and  working  under  an  independent  entity  (e.g.,  not 
contracted/associated  with  the  manufacturer  or  contracted  with  a 
trade organization), confirming the resin is recyclable. 

Equipment holding a relevant Type I Eco-label fulfilling the specified 
requirements  will  be  deemed  to  comply.  In  particular  holding  the 
following label is considered as proof of compliance:  

2.4.1.1 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed criteria 

Plastic composition / recyclability 

It is proposed to maintain the current EU GPP criteria on material composition of plastic casings, enclosures 
and bezels, in order to eliminate barriers for recycling due to metal inserts, coatings and flame retardants. The 
usage of such materials can impact the quality of the recycled resin obtained in terms of physical/mechanical 
properties. 

In general, high product complexity hinders recycling. While sorting and recycling processes and technologies 
have  improved  in  recent  years,  increasing  product  complexity  continues  to  generate  costs  and  reduce  the 
quality  of  recycled  materials.  Such  complexity  is,  for  example,  expressed  through  the  types  of  materials, 
compounds, adhesives, pigments and other additives used in the product. 

Following the aim of reducing recycling burdens, a new TS has been proposed to limit the type of resins used 
to produce plastic parts heavier than 25 g. The requirement allows only the use of resins that are compatible 
with recycling technologies. Similar requirements are already implemented by type I ecolabels like IEEE, Blue 
Angel  and  Green  Product  Mark,  although  their  restrictions  differ  from  one  label  to  another,  as  for  example 
Blue  Angle  and  Green  Product  Mark  allow  for  a  maximum  of  four  types  of  plastic  in  a  blend  (see  the 
Preliminary Report for further details on the criteria used in other ecolabels).  

Marking of plastics 

As  discussed  in  the  Preliminary  Report  (Section  4.3.3)  of  the  current  EU  GPP  Criteria  for  Computers  and 
Displays, most of the analysed ecolabel schemes as well as the revised EU Ecodesign Regulation on displays 
(which applies from 1 March 2021) have criteria with regard to marking of plastic parts to facilitate recycling 
processes, referring to ISO  11469 and/or ISO 1043 Sections 1-4. However, there are  slight differences with 

  79 

 
 
 
regard  to  the  components covered  or  exempted, the  weight  and  size  of  plastic  parts  to  be  marked  and  the 
specific marking reference (Table 14). 

Table 14. Analysis of EU GPP and ecolabel schemes: Differences in criteria on marking of plastic parts 

Components 

EU GPP 

External plastic casings, enclosures and bezels 

IEEE 

All discrete plastic parts; excluded from the requirement: printed 
circuit boards; wires and cables, connectors, electronic 
components, optical components, acoustic components, ESD 
components, and EMI components. 

Blue Angel  

Plastic parts; Exempted: transparent plastic parts the function of 
which requires transparency (e.g. visible plastic films in displays). 

Green Product 
Mark  

Plastic components.  

Weight / size of plastic parts 
for which the requirements 
apply 

Marking reference  

Core: Weight greater than 100 
grams and a surface area 
greater than 50 cm². 

Core:  
ISO 11469 and  
ISO 1043 Section 1. 

Comprehensive: Weight greater 
than 25 grams for tablet and 
portable all-in-one notebooks 
and 100 grams for computers 
and monitors and in all cases a 
surface area greater than 50 
cm². 

Comprehensive:  
ISO 11469 and  
ISO 1043,  
Sections 1-4. 

Weight greater than 25 grams. 

ISO 11469/1043, excluding 
optical parts. 

Mass greater than 25 grams 
each and an even surface of 
more than 200 mm². 

ISO 11469  
with due regard to  
ISO 1043, Parts 1-4. 

Weight greater than 25 grams. 

ISO 11469. 

TCO 

Parts made mainly of plastics; exempted are printed wiring board 
laminates as well as plastic parts containing other materials in 
any significant amounts. 

Weight greater than 25 grams. 

ISO 11469 and  
ISO 1043,  
Sections 1-4. 

Ecodesign 
Regulation on 
Displays 

Plastic components;  

Weight heavier than 50 grams. 

Plastic components are exempt from marking requirements in the 
following circumstances: (i) 
 The marking is not possible 
because of the shape or size; (ii) The marking would impact on the 
performance or functionality of the plastic component; and (iii)  
Marking is technically not possible because of the molding 
method. 

‘Appropriate standard 
symbols or abbreviated terms 
set between the punctuation 
marks ‘>’ and ‘<’ as specified 
in available standards.  

 Packaging, tape, labels and 

 Wiring, cables and connectors, rubber 

Marking is not required for: (i) 
stretch wraps; (ii) 
parts and anywhere not enough appropriate surface area is 
available for the marking to be of a legible size; (iii) 
PCB assemblies, PMMA boards, optical components, electrostatic 
discharge components, electromagnetic interference components, 
speakers; (iv) 
would obstruct the function of the part in question.  

 Transparent parts where the marking 

Components containing flame retardants shall additionally be 
marked with the abbreviated term of the polymer followed by 
hyphen, then the symbol “FR” followed by the code number of the 
flame retardant in parentheses. The marking on the enclosure and 
stand components shall be clearly visible and readable. 

In order to be aligned with the revised Ecodesign requirement for displays and the existing ecolabel schemes, 
it is proposed to update the current EU GPP criterion on plastic marking to parts heavier than 50 g for the core 
criterion and parts heavier than 25 g for the comprehensive. 

Marking of plastic parts is implemented by some manufacturers that have their own initiatives for closed loop 
recycling.  

  80 

 
 
 
 
 
Battery marking for recycling 

The  increased  demand  for  portable  electronics  such  as  notebook  computers,  tablets  and  smartphones  has 
stimulated the market of battery recycling. According to the preparatory study for Ecodesign requirements on 
computers, batteries collected at the end of life mostly appear as mixtures and are subject to manual sorting 
according  to  their  chemistries.  However,  when  the  batteries  reach  the  recycling  facility,  the  logos  are 
sometimes missing, making identification and sorting difficult.  

To address such issues, it was initially proposed in this revision to include a TS on battery marking following 
IEC 62902:2019. The proposal also includes the indication of the metals present in the battery cell, or pack, 
with  a  weight  percentage  higher  than  1.  This  would  allow  the  improvement  of  batteries'  recyclability  with 
further  information  on  the  composition.  This  proposal  was  removed  after  the  first  stakeholder  consultation 
(see details in Section 2.4.1.3.  

Declaration of Critical Raw Materials 

CRMs are the raw materials that combine a high economic importance to the EU with a high risk associated 
with  their  supply.  The  criticality  of  these  materials  is  also  associated  with  low  substitutability  and  low 
recycling  rates.  Including  a  requirement  on  declaration  of  the  CRM  contained  in  the  products  has  been 
identified as a relevant measure to reduce risks associated with CRM supply.  

The  new  set  of  Ecodesign  requirements  for  servers  and  data  storage  products  (EU2019/424)  includes  the 
following criterion: 

●  From  1  March  2020,  the  following  product  information  on  servers  and  online  data  storage 
products shall be made available from the time a product model is placed on the market until at 
least 8 years after the placing on the market of the last product of a certain product model free 
of  charge  by  manufacturers,  their  authorised  representatives  and  importers  to  third  parties 
dealing  with  maintenance,  repair,  reuse,  recycling  and  upgrading  of  servers  (including  brokers, 
spare  parts  repairers,  spare  parts  providers,  recyclers  and  third  party  maintenance)  upon 
registration by the interested third party on a website provided:  

- indicative weight range (less than 5 g, between 5 g and 25 g, above 25 g) at component level, of the 
following critical raw materials:  

(a) cobalt in the batteries;  

(b) neodymium in the HDDs. 

For  the  products  under  the  scope  of  this  EU  GPP  criteria  revision  (desktop  computers,  monitors,  laptops, 
tablets  and smartphones),  a  list  of  parts  containing  CRM  has  been  identified  (Table  15).  Initially, a  criterion 
requesting  the  tenderers  to  provide  a  document  declaring  the  indicative  weight  range  of  the  CRM  that  are 
present  in  the  parts  listed  in  Table  15  that  apply  to  their  product  has  been  proposed.  This  proposal  was 
removed after the first stakeholder consultation (see details in Section 2.4.1.3). 

Table 15. List of CRM present in the products under the scope 

Part 

Battery (portable devices) 

HDD (all types of devices) 

Display panels 

Vibration module 

PCBs 

CRM 

Cobalt 

Neodymium and other rare earth 
elements 

Indium 

Tungsten 

Palladium 

  81 

 
 
 
2.4.1.2  Comments from the initial GPP survey 2019 

Recyclability of plastic casings, enclosures and bezels 

No applications of the criterion have been reported. A respondent considers this as not fully targeting the real 
issues: as most recycling facilities now and in the future are going to be automated, meaning that the product 
is shredded and separated by chemical or mechanical processes, it is considered that the verification process 
of  TS7b  may  be  challenging  and  costly,  especially  if  verification  is  needed  for  all  plastic  parts  before  a 
certificate can be issued. The study team considers that contamination of waste streams is still an issue in the 
recycling of plastics and this type of requirements can help in the transition to more circular products.  

For the TS about marking of plastic casings, enclosures and bezels, the same stakeholder highlighted that it is 
much  more  important  to  reduce  the  contamination  of  the  plastic  by  reducing  hazardous  chemicals  than 
marking them. 

2.4.1.3  Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation 

Recyclability of plastic casings, enclosures and bezels - separable inserts and fasteners  

One  stakeholder  pointed  out  that  this  criterion  only  has  a  low  sustainability  value  for  small  products  like 
notebooks as they are grinded and not separated. Additionally, the stakeholder stated that metal inserts can 
prolong  the  lifetime  of  ICT  products  with,  at  the  same  time,  a  probably  limited  negative  impact.  Another 
comment  suggested  aligning  the  criterion  with  EPEAT  in  order  to  widen  the  options  for  purchasers.  One 
comment  proposed  to  change  TS23(a)  from  a  comprehensive  criterion  to  an  award  criterion  as  it  is  a  new 
criterion. 

Reply:  The  metal  inserts  addressed  by  the  criterion  disturb the  recycling  process  and  alternatives exist  (e.g. 
metal foils).  An alignment of TS23(a) with EPEAT would  mean that EPEAT  can  be used  for verification. It is 
assumed that this would facilitate the purchasing process for procurers even though some adaptations have 
to be done (e.g. restriction of the criterion to discrete plastic parts > 25g). Against this background, the revised 
criterion has been aligned to EPEAT as relevant Type I Ecolabel for verification. TS23(a) is not a core criterion 
but  a  comprehensive  one  and  limited  to  desktop  computers  and  displays.  The  fact  that  TS23(a)  is  a  new 
criterion does not seem to be a convincing argument to change it to an award criterion. 

Recyclability of plastic casings, enclosures and bezels - paints and coatings  

Two comments asked for an alignment with EPEAT in order to make it easier for purchasers  to use the GPP 
criteria. Two comments asked for an exemption for  parts that contain >25% recycled content, as these still 
have / might have such paints and coatings. One  comment suggested exempting refurbished products  from 
this criterion.  

Reply: The alignment of the criterion with EPEAT has the advantage that EPEAT can be used for verification. It 
is assumed that this would facilitate the purchase process for procurers in comparison to the current criterion 
where there is no Type-I label that can be used for verification.  In EPEAT an exemption is already included for 
parts with >25% recycled  content.  Against this background, the  revised criterion has been aligned to  EPEAT 
and EPEAT as relevant Type I Ecolabel for verification. The treatment of refurbished products within GPP is a 
horizontal  issue.  Therefore,  it  is  defined  in  a  separate  chapter  of  the  TR  which  GPP  criteria  will  apply  for 
refurbished products and which will not apply. 

New! Plastic composition recyclability  

One stakeholder asked for the alignment of this criterion with EPEAT in order to give procurers more options.  

Reply: With the same arguments as for the alignment of the previous criteria to EPEAT, this revised criterion 
has been aligned with EPEAT. 

Marking of plastic casings, enclosures and bezels  

Two stakeholders asked to  remove the 5  g threshold for smartphones as it is currently not required by ISO 
11469 and ISO 1043, it is difficult to achieve as the pieces are small, and it is not clear why the 5 g threshold 
should  only  apply  to  smartphones.  In  contrast,  one  comment  suggested  including  the  5  g  threshold  for 
smartphones  not  only  as  a  comprehensive  criterion  but  also  in  a  core  criterion  (TS25).  This  comment 

  82 

 
 
additionally suggested asking for the marking of flame retardants in plastics as it is included in the Ecodesign 
requirements for displays (Commission Regulation 2019/2021). 

Reply: After weighing  up the expected effort and  potential benefits of the 5 g threshold for  smartphones, it 
was deleted in the revised criterion. The marking of flame retardants is also included by the reference to ISO 
1043-4:1998 Plastics — Symbols and abbreviated terms — Part 4: Flame retardants. 

Battery packs marking for the correct identification of their chemistry 

Three stakeholders asked to delete the criterion as is would not help recyclers or procurers. They stated that 
the Battery Association of Japan (BAJ) had used a similar mark but then gave it up and asked to check this for 
the revision of the criterion. 

Reply: To demand an indication of all metals would bring transparency to the market, which would also help 
recyclers. Mainly, cobalt is economically interesting for recyclers, but if an indication is demanded this should 
not be restricted to cobalt. In principle, a strong instrument (like Ecodesign) would be needed that obliges an 
indication on all batteries. GPP could prepare for such a strong instrument but would for itself not be able to 
push  battery  producers to  indicate  the  metals in  all  batteries.  Concerning  the  hint  on  BAJ, no  evidence  was 
found that in Japan there had been a label on the market that indicated the content of specific metals as a 
explained:  
weight 
http://www.baj.or.jp/e/recycle/recycle11.html. The label indicates the metal with the highest weight percentage but it 
does not indicate the exact percentage, either in terms of the metal with the highest share or of other metals 
contained in the battery. Additionally, it has to be indicated in the event that the "Tin (Sn)" content in a single 
cell is more than 1.0 wt-% per single cell weight and in the event that the "Phosphorus (P)" content in a single 
cell is more than 0.5 wt-% per single cell weight. Both would hinder the recycling. TS26 was deleted for the 
revised version of the criteria.  

the  website 

percentage. 

labelling 

revised 

BAJ 

the 

On 

of 

is 

Declaration of Critical Raw Materials 

One stakeholder fears that the data necessary for verification are only available to the manufacturers. Two 
stakeholders  strongly  suggested  deleting  this  criterion  for  several  reasons:  the  information  on  CRM  content 
might  be  interesting  for  researchers  and  recyclers  but  data  are  not  available  for  single  products  to 
manufacturers  but  only  representative  products  and  only  with  considerable  effort.  Additionally,  the 
information on CRM is difficult for procurers to assess.  

Reply: As for batteries, it is in principle a good idea to have more market transparency concerning the CRM. 
Still  there  are  several  difficulties:  Manufacturers  do  not  have  the  information  on  CRM  at  the  moment.  It  is 
questionable if GPP is strong enough to push the declaration of CRM on ICT products. Against the background 
of the comments, criterion TS27 was deleted from the revised version of the criteria. 

2.4.1.4  Further background after the second stakeholder consultation 

Recyclability of plastic casings, enclosures and bezels - separable inserts and fasteners 

A stakeholder expressed doubts about the environmental benefits of this criterion, as in some cases the use 
of metal inserts is considered beneficial for the durability of the product (e.g. metal insert to open and close 
the  product).  Another  stakeholder  suggested  changing  these  two  criteria  on  recyclability  to  award  criteria, 
since they are new and the environmental impact is not well understood.  

Based  on  the  comments  received,  the  JRC  changed  this  criterion  to  an  award  criterion.  Moreover,  the  JRC 
wants  to  clarify  that  use  of  metal  inserts  (e.g.  to  facilitate  screwing)  is  still  allowed  as  long  the  insert  is 
separable at the end of life. 

Recyclability of plastic casings, enclosures and bezels - paints and coatings 

A  stakeholder  considers  that  a  verification  based  on  suppliers’  letters  is  not  trustworthy  and  should  be 
replaced with a written statement from an independent expert on the matter of mixtures of resins from an 
independent verification organisation. In this way, the buyer can better trust the fulfilment of the criterion. In 
the second revision, the criterion was proposed that as not applicable to plastic components < 100 g and if 
the  recycled  content  is >25%.  According  to  a  stakeholder,  it  could  be  too  easy  to  pass  with  exceptions  and 
thus make it extremely hard for the purchaser to actually know if the manufacturer did do something extra or 
only passed on technicalities. The revised proposal is aligned with the EU Ecolabel proposal for displays, which 

  83 

 
 
means  that  is  applicable  to  plastic  components  >  25 g.  The  criterion  is  proposed  as  an  award  type, 
comprehensive level.  

Plastic composition recyclability  

As pointed out by a stakeholder, the ECMA-341 reference is outdated and has to be removed. Based on the 
general comments received about reducing the number of criteria, it was decided to remove this criterion. Due 
to  the  partial  overlap  with  the  recyclability  criteria  already  available  and  in  order  to  reduce  the  number  of 
applicable criteria, it is proposed to withdraw this new criterion proposal. 

Marking of plastic casings, enclosures and bezels 

According to a stakeholder comment, small ICTs, at the end of life, are almost always just sent to a shredder 
For  large  plastic  casings,  it  could  potentially  be  used  since  some  are  manually  disassembled  but,  from 
experience and observations of visiting recycling facilities, no one is using these markings; instead, they use 
XRF scanners to determine if the plastics contains any RoHS substances. It is therefore suggested that the JRC 
removes this criterion to decrease the number of criteria in the document to make the more important ones 
stand out. 

Battery packs marking for the correct identification of their chemistry 

No further comments received. 

Declaration of Critical Raw Materials 

A stakeholder does not agree with the deletion of this criterion. Improving the availability and transparency of 
environmental  product  data  is  considered  an  essential  step  towards  creating  secondary  markets  for  raw 
materials. 

2.4.2  Criterion 4.2 – Design for dismantling 

The  AC  product  dismantling  potential  is  not  supported  by  respondents  from  industry  in  the  absence  of 
standardised methods. It is proposed to remove the criterion AC10 on this topic of the current EU GPP criteria. 

Results  from the study ‘Analysis and  development of a scoring system  for repair and  upgrade of products’, 
where the disassembly time is listed as one of the key parameters, concludes that this type of requirement 
should  not  be  applied  to  the  product  groups  analysed  (one  of  them  being  notebooks).  The  reasoning  for 
laptops  is  that,  although  this  parameter  can  be  relevant  since  the  repair  duration  affects  repair  costs, 
disassembly  time  is  also  covered  indirectly  by  other  parameters  (e.g.  disassembly  depth,  fasteners,  tools, 
availability  of  repair  information).  The  study  also  concludes  that  methodological  developments  are  still 
needed before such a parameter can be measured in a standardised and not-too-burdensome way. The same 
arguments are also valid for the disassembly time for recycling operations. 

  84 

 
 
2.4.3  Criterion 4.3 – End-of-life management  

As  a  result  of  the  initial  survey,  minor  changes  were  applied  to  the  technical  specification  and  the  CPC 
criterion.  Meanwhile,  the  award  criteria  have  been  removed  as  they  are  already  covered  in  the  technical 
specification or they were considered too complex for their implementation by tenderers. 

The following table compares the existing GPP criteria with the new proposals. 

Table 16. End-of-life management - current criteria (2016) and TR v3.0 

GPP 2016 

TR v3.0 Proposal 

TS1. Secure computer collection, sanitisation, re-use and recycling 

TS23. Secure computer collection, sanitisation, re-use and recycling 

AC1. Inventory tracking system 

AC2. Dismantling to facilitate recycling 

CPC1. Reporting on equipment status 

CPC3. Reporting on the end-destination of ICT equipment 

CPC2. Operation of reuse and recycling facilities 

Summary of the main changes after the first stakeholder consultation 

This criterion proposal was kept almost identical. 

Summary of the main changes after the second stakeholder consultation 

No substantial changes were made.  

The following table shows the criteria that were revised after the second stakeholder consultation. 

Third criteria proposal 

Core criteria 

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 

Comprehensive criteria 

TS23 Secure computer collection, sanitisation, re-use and recycling 

(same for core and comprehensive criteria) 

Procurement of end-of-life management services for all ICT devices. 

Tenderers  must  provide  a  service  for  the  re-use  and  recycling  of  the  whole  product  or  of  components  requiring  selective  treatment  in 
accordance with Annex VII of the WEEE Directive for equipment that has reached the end of its service life. The service must comprise the 
following activities: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

collection (take back system); 

confidential handling and secure data erasure (unless carried out in-house);  

functional testing, servicing, repair and upgrading to prepare products for re-use;  

the remarketing of products for re-use; 

dismantling for component re-use, recycling and/or disposal. 

In providing the service, they must report on the proportion of equipment prepared or remarketed for re-use and the proportion of equipment 

  85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
prepared for recycling.  

Preparation  for  re-use,  recycling  and  disposal  operations  must  be  carried  out  in  full  compliance  with  the  requirements  in  Article  8  and 
Annexes VII and VIII of the (recast) WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU and with reference to the list of components for selective treatment [see the 
explanatory note below].  

Verification:  

The  tenderer  must  provide  details  of  the  arrangements  for  collection,  data  security,  preparation  for  re-use,  remarketing  for  re-use  and 
recycling/disposal. This must include, during the contract, valid proof of compliance by the WEEE handling facilities to be used. 

Explanatory note: Component requiring selective WEEE treatment 

The following are components requiring selective treatment in accordance with Annex VII of the WEEE Directive: 

  mercury containing components;  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

batteries;  
printed circuit boards greater than 10 cm2;  
plastic containing brominated flame retardants;  
chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) or hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), hydrocarbons (HC);  
external electric cables;  
polychlorinated biphenyls containing capacitors;  
components containing refractory ceramic fibres;  
electrolyte capacitors containing substances of concern;  
equipment containing gases that are ozone depleting or have a global warming potential (GWP) above 15; 
ozone-depleting gases, which must be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009. 

CONTRACT PERFORMANCE CLAUSES 

CPC2 Reporting on the end-destination of ICT equipment 

(same for core and comprehensive criteria) 

To be used in conjunction with criterion TS23. 

The  contractor  must  provide  a  report  on  the  status  of  the  equipment  in  the  inventory  once  all  items  have  been  processed  for  re-use, 
recycling or disposal. The report must identify the proportion of items re-used or recycled, and whether they remained in the EU or were 
exported. 

For equipment and components recycled in the EU, the following means of proof for the handling facilities must be accepted: 

 
 

a permit issued by the national competent authority in accordance with Article 23 of Directive 2008/98/EC, or  
third-party certification of compliance with the technical requirements of EN 50625-1 or an equivalent compliance scheme. 

Where  equipment  and  components  are  exported  for  re-use  or  recycling,  contractors  must  provide  the  following  shipment  and  treatment 
information:  

 

shipping information for equipment intended for re-use, in accordance with Annex VI of WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU.  

WEEE that is exported to be treated outside the EU requires third-party certification of compliance with the minimum WEEE requirements 
laid down in the criterion, or with the technical requirements of EN 50625-1 or an equivalent compliance scheme106. Where equipment and 
components are exported for re-use or recycling, contractors must provide the following shipment and treatment information:  

 

shipping information for equipment intended for re-use, in accordance with Annex VI of WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU.  

For WEEE exported to be treated outside the EU, a third-party certification of compliance with the minimum WEEE requirements laid down in 
the criterion, or with the technical requirements of EN 50625-1 or an equivalent compliance scheme. 

106 The following compliance schemes are considered, at the time of writing, to meet these requirements: WEEELABEX:2011 requirement on 'Treatment of 
WEEE'; 'Responsible Recycling' (R2:2013) standard for electronics recyclers; e-Stewards standard 2.0 for Responsible Recycling and Reuse of Electronic 
Equipment; Australian/New Zealand standard AS/NZS 5377:2013 on 'Collection, storage, transport and treatment of end-of-life electrical and electronic 
equipment'. 

  86 

 
 
 
                                           
2.4.3.1  Background and rationale for the proposed criteria 

EU GPP, IEEE and TCO have dedicated requirements on take-back schemes. It has to be noted, however, that 
in Europe the  collection and  recycling is regulatory covered by the WEEE legislation  with extended  producer 
responsibility  for  the  participation  and/or  financing  of  collection  and  recycling  processes.  Therefore,  the 
proposed  TS28  is  formulated  in  a  way  that  goes  beyond  WEEE  to  further  enhance  recycling  and  reuse 
processes, e.g. requiring reporting on the status of on the proportion of equipment prepared or remarketed for 
reuse  and  the  proportion  of  equipment  prepared  for  recycling.  Traceability  and  reporting  on  the  reuse  and 
recycling  of  the  refurbished  devices  during  the  contract  performance  (CPC3)  can  be  triggered  by  blockchain 
systems (see as an example http://www.usody.com/?page_id=1055).Comments from the GPP survey 2019). 

Secure computer sanitisation, reuse and recycling 

Some public administrations cover recycling through different framework contracts and are not included in the 
contracts covering the product purchase. Respondents reported to have applied this TS in some tenders and 
suggested adding a sentence clearly requesting that data have to be securely erased before the equipment 
reuse. Also, some stakeholders suggested referring to standards for Asset Disposal services (e.g. ADISA).  

Dismantling to facilitate recycling  

The respondents offered different opinions, with some considering it challenging and others considering that 
this should be standard. 

Reporting on equipment status 

It  was  mentioned  that  a  product  can  be  stripped  for  parts.  This  will  result  in  some  parts  being  reused  and 
some being discarded as waste. Therefore, it is requested that a third category to be added.  

Operation of reuse and recycling facilities 

It was requested to specify which certificates are needed. It was also stated that no certificate is needed for 
reuse.  

2.4.3.2  Further background after the AHWG meeting and first stakeholder consultation 

Secure computer collection, sanitisation, reuse and recycling 

One  stakeholder  pointed  out  that  providing  a  service  for  reuse  “and”  recycling  should  instead  be  an  “or” 
criterion.  It  was  suggested  later  on  to  refer  only  to  the  WEEE  Directive  instead  of  including  a  list  in  the 
explanatory  note.  A  second  comment  refers  to  a  comment  on  the  GPP  criteria  on  data  centres  and  server 
rooms and suggest using an IT Asset Disposal specialist over manufacturers due to higher reuse rates. 

Reply: The proposed criterion aims to go beyond the legal compliance; for this reason, the proposal aims to 
ensure that the reuse option is provided by the tenderer. Concerning the use of an asset disposal specialist, 
the criterion proposal goes in this direction because it allows a separate procurement service for end-of-life 
services. 

Reporting on the end-destination of ICT equipment 

comment 

One 
on 
including 
https://sustainableelectronics.org/r2-standard) and deleting the reference to T30. 

suggests 

standard 

the 

R2 

responsible 

recycling 

(see 

Reply: Tenderers as well as purchasers may  use a certain flexibility and refer to existing reporting  schemes 
when reporting on reuse and recycling if the key points mentioned in the criterion are respected. GPP criteria 
explicitly address environmental issues and do not include social criteria as included in the R2 standard. The 
correct reference has been included (T28 and not T30). 

New criterion proposed on packaging material 

One  stakeholder  suggested  a  new  criterion  on  packaging  material  including  requirements  on  hazardous 
substances and the content of recycled material in packaging. It therefore refers to TCO Certified Generation 
8, Nordic Label and 2013’s Italian Minimum Environmental Criteria. 

  87 

 
 
Reply: In comparison to the ICT products, the packaging is less important in terms of its environmental impact. 
Against  this  background  and  with  the  aim  to  keep  criteria  feasible  and  to  those  strictly  necessary,  no  new 
criterion on packaging was added in the revised version of the GPP criteria. 

  88 

 
 
2.5  Criteria  area  5  –  Criteria  proposals  for  “refurbished/remanufactured 

products” (separate procurement route)  

2.5.1 

Initial background and rationale for the proposed criteria 

In criteria area 3, several requirements are listed which public procurement authorities can set as criteria for 
new  IT  products  to  ensure  that  their  product  lifetime  is  extended  as  much  as  possible  (e.g.  design  for 
reparability,  reusability  and  upgradability,  quality  of  the  battery,  or  design  for  durability).  However,  another 
the  procurement  and  use  of 
relevant  option  of 
refurbished/remanufactured IT equipment.  

lifetime  extension” 

facilitating 

“product 

is 

A second use of IT products can be ensured through: 

●  a refurbishment / reconditioning process; 

●  a remanufacturing process; 

●  preparation  for  reuse  (in  the  specific  case  the  product  has  been  discarded  and  is  managed 

according to the WEEE legislation).  

As introduced in Section 1.5, in this study “refurbishment” is defined, according to IEEE 1680.1-2018107 as the 
“process by which a used electronic product or component is restored to a defined condition in function and 
form that is comparable to, or better than, a new unit, while not significantly changing the unit’s composition 
of 
and 
refurbishment/reconditioning, as process that aims to returns a product to a satisfactory working condition.  

standard  BS8887-2:2009108 

definition 

provides 

design”. 

similar 

also 

The 

a 

Remanufacture  aims  to  return  a  used  product  to  “at  least”  its  original  performance  (Cordella  et  al.,  2019; 
BS8887-2:2009) and, from a customer viewpoint, the remanufactured products can be considered to be the 
same as the new products. It means that any subsequent warranty is generally at least equal to that of new 
products. 

According to the standard EN45553 “General method for assessing the ability of an energy-related product to 
be remanufactured”, remanufacturing is an industrial process which produces a product from used products or 
used parts where at least one change is made which influences the safety, original performance, purpose or 
type  of  the  product.  A  note  specifies  that  a  products  created  by  the  remanufacturing  process  may  be 
considered  a  new  product  when  placed  on  the  market,  according  to  the  EU  Blue  Guide  for  additional 
information109.  According  to  Directive  2008/98/EC,  preparation  for  reuse  is  defined  as “checking, cleaning  or 
repairing  recovery  operations,  by  which  products  or  components  of  products  that  have  become  waste  are 
prepared so that they can be re-used without any other pre-processing”. 

According  to  the  initial  stakeholder  feedback,  second-hand  IT  equipment  could  be  a  procurement  option  in 
some scenarios (e.g. education). The analysis of voluntary approaches of manufacturers revealed that some 
manufacturers  offer  their  own  refurbished  products;  see  for  example  Apple’s  ‘Certified  Refurbished 
products’110 which are based on full testing to meet the same functional standards as new products and have 
a 1-year guarantee. This is also the case of Fairphone, which offers ‘Refurbished Products’ (Fairphone 2: New 
Life Edition)111. According to Fairphone, a factory-refurbished product has undergone factory restoration and 
passed rigorous quality testing at Fairphone production facilities to ensure performance like new. Although the 
refurbished product might have minor physical marks, such as scratches or blemishes, it is guaranteed that 
the  quality  and  performance  will  not  be  compromised;  the  refurbished  product  is  also  covered  by  a  2-year 
warranty.  Samsung  offers  ‘Certified  Pre-Owned’112  smartphones:  Samsung  engineers  take  the  old  devices 
apart,  inspect  them,  replace  damaged  parts,  reassemble  them  and  update  the  software.  Each  device  must 
pass more than 400 rigorous tests to make sure it has been returned to its original condition; each Samsung 
Certified Pre-Owned phone comes with a 12-month warranty, just like Samsung’s new devices. The appliances 
are  packaged  with  a  new  charger  and  headphones.  Regarding  the  software,  Microsoft  has  launched  the 
Microsoft Authorised Refurbisher (MAR) programme, a programme tailored to the needs of large refurbishers’ 
minimum  average  threshold  of  1 000  PCs  shipped  per  month.  Microsoft  offers  specially  priced  Microsoft 

107 1680.1-2018 - IEEE Standard for Environmental and Social Responsibility Assessment of Computers and Displays 
108BS8887-2:2009 Design for manufacture, assembly, disassembly and end‑of‑life processing (MADE) Part 2: Terms and definitions 
109 2016/C 272/01;“Blue Guide”, 2016. 
110 https://www.apple.com/shop/refurbished 
111 https://www.fairphone.com/nl/2019/04/16/refurbished-phones-give-valuable-resources-a-new-life/ 
112 https://www.samsung.com/us/explore/certified-pre-owned-phones/s/Device/ 

  89 

 
 
                                           
licences  for  refurbished  computers  with  a  previous  Windows  operating  system  Certificate  of  Authenticity 
(COA) or a Genuine Microsoft label affixed to the equipment113. 

Furthermore, social enterprises are active in the refurbishment of ICT products. They already tend to source 
their products from public or private bodies. However, it is very rarely the other way around. According to the 
experience of RREUSE members, it  has been  found that only two social enterprises (Promise IT 114 in Ireland 
and  Atelier  du  Bocage115  in  France)  have  provide  refurbished  ICT  equipment  to  schools,  but  in  the  form  of 
donations.  Atelier du  Bocage’s equipment  is  sold  with  a  minimum  warranty  of  6  months  and  provided  with 
after-sales service. They also offer troubleshooting and computer assistance services in order to facilitate the 
use of digital tools for everyone. They provide customised and optimised solutions for all uses: associations, 
schools, individuals, VSEs and SMEs. The expert technicians configure the equipment according to the target 
groups, and install and maintain it. Their activities are certified according to ISO 14001. Promise IT (a project 
implemented by Rehab Recycle in Ireland) also provide a 6-month warranty. They securely wipe all the data 
from the hard drives, rebuild the equipment using a Microsoft Operating System, clean it and polish it. Their 
activities are certified according to ISO 14001. 

In  cities and  regions  where  such  organisations  exist,  procuring  from  them  or  with  manufacturers that  have 
developed  partnerships  with  social  enterprises  could  be  a  way  to  have  a  positive  impact  in  both  an 
environmental and social terms. Indeed, these structures provide jobs and training programmes to people at 
risk of socio-economic exclusion.  

The  initial  criteria  proposal  (TS8  Refurbished  Products,  which  was  not  included  in  the  existing  2016  GPP 
criteria for computers and monitors) requires that a certain percentage of the equipment provided as part of 
the  contract  has  to  be  refurbished  products,  and  that  minimum  requirements  in  terms  of  the  quality  for 
refurbished products be set. As for verification, it was proposed to ask for details of the refurbished products, 
including confirmation of compliance with a minimum technical performance level for acceptance specified in 
the tender specifications. The verification of this criterion might benefit from labelling schemes on the quality 
of refurbished products.  

Table 17. Initial criteria proposal TS8 Refurbished Products (GPP Technical Report Draft V1 November 2019) 

113http://download.microsoft.com/download/F/5/C/F5CCA956-A993-4ED6-B7B1-8BDBDAB3423F/MAR_Fact_Sheet_FY14Q3.pdf  
114 http://www.promiseit.ie/ 
115 http://ateliers-du-bocage.fr/ 

  90 

 
 
 
                                           
2.5.2  Further feedback and background after the  AHWG meeting and first stakeholder 

consultation 

Several  stakeholders  generally  supported  the  inclusion  of  this  criterion,  as  the  potential  for  refurbished 
products  is  very  high  and  very  promising  in  terms  of  resource  savings  and  product  lifetime  extension. 
However, several challenges are highlighted:  

1)  Whether or not a refurbished/remanufactured product should fulfil all the same criteria (including the GPP criteria) 

as a new product.  

2)  How to ensure/verify that a minimum level of performance is achieved and the durability of the product.  

3)  Whether or not the procurement of a refurbished/remanufactured product should be covered under a separate call 

for tender. 

Regarding point 1), the proposal of the JRC is to delete criterion TS8 from the initial list of GPP criteria, which 
are  mainly  targeted  at  the  procurement  of  new  equipment,  and  to  include  a  separate  route  for  the 
procurement of refurbished or remanufactured ICT products, describing which GPP criteria would be applicable 
for refurbished products and which regulation(s) apply.  

On point 2) above, according to some stakeholders, the  provision of a  warranty is enough to guarantee the 
functionality  of  the  product.  The  request  of  additional  certifications  could  represent  an  unnecessary  burden 
that  will  prevent  the  expansion  of  this  market.  On  the  other  hand,  some  remanufacturers consider that  the 
quality of the process should be ensured by the application and compliance with standards such as BS 8887-
220:2010.  

Regarding  point  3),  it  is  proposed  that  the  procurement  of  refurbished  products  should  usually  be  covered 
under a specific tender not associated with the procurement of new  products. In this way, small  companies 
which specialise in refurbished products and do not have new products in their portfolio can also take part. 

Finally,  stakeholders  pointed  out  that  refurbished  products  could  be  provided  by  social  enterprises,  with 
further social benefits. This aspect is now described above; however, social aspects are not in the scope of the 
EU  GPP  criteria  and  the  proposed  criteria  on  refurbished  products  are  based  only  on  the  environmental 
benefits.  

2.5.3  Revised  criteria  proposal  for  the  procurement  of  refurbished/remanufactured 

products  

It was questioned whether refurbished ICT equipment could or should also fulfil all the GPP criteria listed in 
the areas above.  

For  the  requirements  in  the  criteria  area  on  Energy  Consumption  (Section  2.2),  for  example,  one 
stakeholder  highlighted  that  Regulation  2017/1369  setting  a  framework  on  energy  labelling  explicitly  says 
that  “products  that  are  made  available  on  the  Union  market  for  a  second  or  additional  time  should  not  be 
included [under the scope of the Regulation]”. Furthermore, the energy consumption in the use phase of ICT 
equipment  is  relatively  dependent  on  the  design  of  the  initially  new  products,  which  is  rarely  improvable 
without  changing  major  components;  however,  doing  so  would  mean  additional  resource  consumption  for 
integrating  new  components  for  improving  the  appliances’  energy  efficiency.  As  life  cycle  assessments  of 
computers show, the impact of the resource consumption due to manufacturing of computer components is 
higher  than  the  impact  of  the  energy  consumption  during  the  use  phase.  Finally,  as  the  main  target  of 
procuring refurbished products is the extension of the lifetime of the products, the GPP criteria for refurbished 
products will not target their energy consumption.   

For the requirements in the criteria area on Hazardous Substances (Section 2.3), it has to be noted that 
for  refurbished/remanufactured  products,  generally  the  legal  provisions  apply  such  as  the  RoHS  Directive 
requirements and the duty to communicate on the content of SVHC according to REACH Article 33. 

If refurbished products contain the RoHS restricted substances beyond existing exemptions, then they require 
their own exemption and it has to be requested. This has been done for medical devices for example (RoHS 
Directive Annex IV, exemption 31a). 

  91 

 
 
As  for  GPP  criteria  going  beyond  the  legal  provisions,  at  the  moment  the  GPP  criteria  for  hazardous 
substances as described above should not apply to refurbished products. This is meant to support/promote the 
placing  on  the  market  of  refurbished  products.  However,  for  the  next  revision  of  GPP  criteria,  it  must  be 
reassessed whether the criteria on hazardous substances should apply then. 

For  the  requirements  in  the  criteria  area  on  Product  Lifetime  Extension,  the  following  criteria  initially 
proposed for the procurement of new ICT equipment are, with slight adaptions, also applicable to refurbished 
ICT equipment:  

●  TS1. Provision of an extended services agreement.  

●  CPC1. Service Agreement (to be used in conjunction with TS1 on a services agreement). 

●  TS3. Manufacturer's warranty (in this case refurbisher’s/remanufacturer’s warranty). 

●  AC21. ICT Equipment without accessories.  

The  following  criteria,  being  Technical  Specifications  for  the  procurement  of  new  ICT  equipment,  could  be 
applicable as award criteria for refurbished products, as for example some of the most recently refurbished 
products are also available  with a standardised external power supply or detachable cables. In order to not 
generally  favour  these  most  recent  products  in  the  procurement  of  refurbished  ICT,  it  is  recommended  to 
change the following Technical Specifications into award criteria:  

●  TS15. Standardised External Power Supply.  

●  TS16. External Power Supply: Detachable Cables. 

Finally,  the  requirements  on  the  quality  of  the  battery  of  mobile  ICT  equipment  are  also  relevant  for 
refurbished ICT products:  

●  TS6. Rechargeable battery endurance. 

●  TS7. Minimum requirements on the electrical performance.  

●  AC5. Further rechargeable battery endurance. 

However,  one  stakeholder  does  not  support  the  proposal  in  the  initial  Explanatory  Note  that  batteries  and 
accessories should always be new. These parts should only be replaced if non-functional or where they do not 
meet the criteria laid out here. The revised proposal takes this argument into consideration by differentiating 
between refurbished products equipped with a new battery, where the above criteria should also apply, and 
those with the old battery. If the refurbished products still include the second-hand battery, the above quality 
criteria  should  not  apply;  however,  in  these  cases,  information  about  the  quality  of  the  battery  should  be 
given.  

Core criteria 

Comprehensive criteria 

SC2 Quality of Refurbishment / Remanufacture Process 

(same for core and comprehensive criteria) 

Applicable to the procurement of refurbished/remanufactured products. To be included in a separate procurement route from the one used for 
brand new products. 

The tenderer must implement quality assurance/quality control procedures to ensure minimum quality of the equipment delivered as part of 
the contract (see the explanatory note below). Quality assurance and control procedures must cover, as a minimum, the following steps: 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Inspection 
Reprocessing (e.g. repair, replace or upgrade) if needed 
Cleaning  
Testing 
Storage 
Packaging and Transport 

  92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Verification:  

The tenderer must provide details of the quality assurance/quality control procedures established to ensure the quality of the equipment 
delivered as part of the contract. 

Third-party certified management systems for refurbishment/remanufacturing according to the following standards (or equivalent) can be 
accepted as proof of compliance: 

 

 

 

Quality  and  environmental  management  systems  according  to 
assurance/quality control procedures for the steps mentioned above.  
BS  8887-220:2010  -  Design  for  manufacture,  assembly,  disassembly  and  end-of-life  processing  (MADE).  The  process  of 
remanufacture. Speciﬁcation (applicable to remanufacture processes). 
BS8887-240:2011  -  Design  for  manufacture,  assembly,  disassembly  and  end-of-life  processing  (MADE).  Reconditioning 
(applicable to refurbished/reconditioned equipment). 

ISO  14001/EMAS,  including  quality 

ISO  9001  and 

EN50614:2020 in case the equipment was previously  discarded as  WEEE, which has been prepared for re-use for the same purpose for 
which it was conceived. 

Explanatory note: Quality assurance levels 

The procurer should establish minimum quality requirements as per the examples below: 

 
 
 
 

Aesthetic grade: no sign of aesthetic damage should be visible to more than 20 cm. 
Original factory settings: the products must be restored to their original factory settings and must be fully unlocked for use. 
Products must be upgradeable to the latest firmware supported by the OEM (where applicable and technically feasible). 
An instruction manual must be provided. In the absence of physical instruction manuals, a link or reference to the manufacturer’s 
instruction manual should be included, when possible.  

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 

TS24 Refurbished / remanufactured product warranty 

TS24 Refurbished / remanufactured product warranty 

Applicable to the procurement of refurbished/remanufactured 
products. To be included in a separate procurement route from the 
one used for brand new products. 

to 

the  procurement  of 

Applicable 
refurbished/remanufactured 
products.  To  be  included  in  a  separate  procurement  route  from  the 
one used for brand new products 

The tenderer must provide products covered by X years [at least 1 
year] warranty.  

The tenderer must provide products covered by X years [at least 2 
years] warranty. 

Verification:  

Verification:  

The tenderer must provide written evidence of the warranty. 

The tenderer must provide written evidence of the warranty. 

TS25 Rechargeable battery endurance 

TS25 Rechargeable battery endurance 

Applicable  to  refurbished  mobile  equipment  (laptops,  tablets  and 
smartphones) equipped with a new battery.  

Applicable  to  refurbished  mobile  equipment  (laptops,  tablets  and 
smartphones) equipped with a new battery. 

The  battery  endurance  must  be  greater  than  300  battery  cycles 
(with SoH ≥80%).  

Tests  must  be  carried  out  according  to  standard  IEC  EN  61960-
3:2017 or equivalent.  

 

 

The battery endurance must be: greater than 500 cycles 
(with SoH ≥80%), or 
The battery endurance must be: greater than 300 cycles 
(with SoH ≥90%). 

Verification: 

Tenderers  must  provide  test  results  obtained  by  accredited 
ISO17025  test  bodies  according  to  the  IEC  EN  61960-3:2017 
standard. 

Products holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply.  

Tests  must  be  carried  out  according  to  standard  IEC  EN  61960-
3:2017 or equivalent.  

Verification: 

Tenderers  must  provide  test  results  obtained  by  accredited 
ISO17025  test  bodies  according  to  the  IEC  EN  61960-3:2017 
standard.  

Products holding a relevant Type I Ecolabel fulfilling the specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply.  

TS26 Information on the rechargeable battery endurance  

Applicable to refurbished mobile equipment (laptops, tablets and smartphones) equipped with a second-hand battery.  

The tenderer must indicate minimum levels of the second-hand battery’s State of Health (SoH) in the tender (e.g. SoH > 80%).  

  93 

 
Verification: 

Tenderers must provide information on the battery SoH for the mobile equipment shipped as part of the contract. 

TS27 Minimum requirements on the electrical performance 

Applicable to refurbished mobile equipment (laptops, tablets and 
smartphones) equipped with a new battery. 

The battery must comply with the electrical test criteria according to 
the standard IEC EN 61960-3:2017. 

Verification:   

Tenderers must provide test results obtained by accredited ISO17025 
test bodies. 

Products  holding  a  relevant  Type  I  Ecolabel  fulfilling  the  specified 
requirements will be deemed to comply. 

TS28 Provision of an extended services agreement 

The tenderer must provide a minimum of X years [to be defined] 
services as detailed in the Service Level Requirements document 
(see explanatory note below).  

Verification:  

The tenderer must provide a written declaration that the products 
supplied will be warrantied in conformity with the contract 
specifications and the related service level agreement.  

Explanatory note: Examples of service level requirements  

A Service Level Requirements document describes how the service should be delivered to the customer. Examples of possible service level 
requirements are listed below:  

 

 

Access  to  the  refurbisher/remanufacturer’s  warranty:  register  the    warranty;  manage  any  documentation  or  proof  required  to 
invoke  the  warranty;  invoke  the  warranty  on  behalf  of  the  public  administration  (during  the  warranty);  follow  up  with  the 
refurbisher to ensure that the terms of the refurbisher’s warranty are met.  
Pick-up and return: pick up the product(s) from a specified location on the public administration’s premises and return it/them to a 
specific  location  on  the  public  administration’s  premises.  Alternative  options  for  convenient  return  of  products  can  also  be 
requested. 

 

 

 

 

  Management of failures: provide an efficient single point of contact for technical issues and escalations of problems, a person 
responsible  for  following  the  progress  of  the  case,  reports  on  progress,  transparent  access  to  a  warranty  database  (whoever 
manages this warranty data) to verify warranty status, and incident status for open incidents.  
Access to diagnostic and repair tools: access to all technical tools necessary to perform hardware diagnostics and corrections; 
access to any technical training required to become a certified repair technician; possibility, through non-exclusivity, to become a 
certified technical partner (perform warranty repairs). 
Battery coverage: the service explicitly covers battery defects for applicable products with rechargeable batteries, such as failure 
to charge or a faulty battery connection. A progressive drop in battery capacity due to usage must not be considered a defect 
unless it is covered by the battery replacement policy in the bullet below. 
Battery  replacement  policy:  the  service  covers  the  replacement  of  batteries  that  do  not  fulfil  the  minimum  performance 
conditions related to endurance in terms of number of cycles (see criteria TS25 and TS26 on rechargeable battery endurance).  
Provision  of  failure  statistics:  provision  of  high-level,  aggregated,  anonymous  and  non-traceable  statistics  on  incident  types 
(nature and quantity), problems and diagnostics concerning the products within the scope of the contract. 
Incident  management/problem  management/preventive  maintenance:  this  service  includes  all  the  operations  necessary  to 
maintain the ICT products in perfect working order, or to restore a defective product or one of its components to perfect working 
order,  including  incident  management,  problem  management  and  preventive  maintenance.  Preventive  maintenance  during  the 
warranty period includes ensuring OS and security updates for the duration of the contract. 
Upgrading: a scan for upgrading possibilities can take place after a certain period (e.g. 3 years) and cover performance aspects 
like CPU/Memory/Disk.  
Repair/replacement activities: repair or replace any products which become damaged or defective in the course of normal use 
during  the  extended  warranty  period  with  products  which  have  identical  or  better  performance  characteristics.  Breakdowns 
related to firmware are also covered. If part of an item is replaced, the replacement part must be covered by the same level and 
duration of extended warranty as the part that has been replaced. The extended warranty applies to both hardware and software, 
unless explicitly agreed otherwise. 
Commitment to repair/upgrade as first remedy: in the event of failures and, whenever technically feasible, the service provider 
commits to provide the option of repairing/upgrading the equipment instead of substituting it. 

 

 

 

 

  94 

 
 
 
AWARD CRITERIA 

AC11. Further rechargeable battery endurance 

Applicable  to  refurbished  mobile  equipment  (laptops,  tablets  and 
smartphones) equipped with a new battery. 

Additional points will be awarded if the battery endurance is greater 
than  500  cycles  (with  ≥80%  capacity  retention  of  the  initial  rated 
capacity) proportionally to the additional number of cycles ensured. 

Verification: 

Tests must be carried out according to the standard IEC EN 61960-
3:2017. Tenderers must provide test results obtained by accredited 
ISO17025 test bodies. 

AC12 Standardised External Power Supply 

Applicable to portable computing devices with power supplies up to 
100 W. 

 This is not applicable to products with only Qi charging capability (e.g. 
for strong resistance to immersion into water or to dust, such as 
industrial computers). 

Additional points will be awarded if the equipment delivered as part 
of  the  contract  carries  a  USB  Type  C  standardised  receptacle  for 
power delivery (PD) according to the standard EN/IEC 63002:2017.  

If the product does not have a built-in USB PD receptacle, then an 
adapter must be available to be ordered at no additional costs. 

 Verification:  

The  tenderer  must  provide  a  product  manual  for  each  model 
provided,  which  must  include  an  exploded  diagram  of  the  device 
illustrating the types of receptacle used for power delivery. 

EXPLANATORY NOTE: Standardised External Power Supply 

Interoperability guidelines for external power supplies are defined according to the IEC 63002:2016 - Identification and communication 
interoperability method for external power supplies used with portable computing devices. 

CONTRACT PERFORMANCE CLAUSE 

AC13 External Power Supply:  
Detachable Cables 

Additional points will be awarded if the External Power Supply (EPS) 
configuration consists of an EPS with a detachable input cable (or 
integrated in the EPS housing) and a detachable output cable to the 
ICT device 

Verification:  

The tenderer must provide a product manual for each model 
provided, which must include an exploded diagram of the device 
illustrating the types of EPS used. 

CPC3 Service Agreement 

Applies  to  the  procurement  of  refurbished/remanufactured  products. 
To be included in a separate procurement route from the one used for 
brand new products. 

To  be  used  in  conjunction  with  criterion  TS28  on  provision  of  an 
extended service agreement.  

  95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The tenderer must provide periodic [frequency to be agreed between 
the procurer and supplier] reporting on their compliance with all the 
metrics, Key Performance Indicators and other indicators defined by 
the service level agreement. 

Explanatory note: Examples of Key Performance Indicators  

Aggregate  KPI  1  –  Incident  solved:  number  of  incidents  resolved  within  the  incident  resolution  time  during  a  month  /  total  number  of 
incidents opened during the given month or opened during a previous month and still pending. Monthly target: ≥90%. 

Aggregate KPI 2 – Commitment to repair as first remedy: number of incidents resolved within a product repair or upgrade / number of 
incidents resolved within a product replacement. 

2.5.4  Further feedback and background after the second stakeholder consultation 

As  a  general  comment,  social  aspects  in  the  supply  chain  for  refurbished/remanufactured  products  are 
considered  to  a  relevant  topic  by  all  the  stakeholders.  Also,  in  this  case  it  is  suggested  to  take  into 
consideration social aspects when setting procurement criteria.  

OEMs  suggest  building  the  definition  of  refurbished  and  remanufactured  on  an  international  standard. 
Moreover,  it  is  suggested  to  make  reference  to  IEEE  Std  1680.1  for  the  definition  of  refurbishment  “as  the 
process  by  which  a  used  electronic  product or  component is restored  to  a  defined  condition  in  function  and 
form that is comparable to, or better than, a new unit, while not significantly changing the unit’s composition 
and design”. 

A  Member  State  representative  considers  that  a  minimum  share  of  refurbished  products  should  be 
maintained,  as  a  TS  or  CPC,  in  tenders  for  new  products  for  the  following  reasons:  it  is  very  unusual  for  a 
tenderer  to  issue  a  specific  tender  to  buy  only  refurbished  products;  the  demand  for  refurbished  products 
must  be  increased  in  order  to  stimulate  the  offer.  The  JRC  considers  that  separate  tenders  allow  small 
companies that are specialised in refurbished products and that do not have new products in their portfolio to 
take part in the procurement process. 

Regarding fully unlocking products for reuse, it is commented that this might not be possible for all products 
since some customers (first-time users) add software ID tags with software from a vendor that does not have 
in place collaborations with the service providers at the time of retiring the products.  

It is suggested to create a separate award criterion for refurbished products, or at least delete the provision of 
firmware  upgradeability.  A  stakeholder  suggested  adding  the  wording  “where  technically  feasible”  and  this 
suggestion is accepted. 

Regarding warranty, it was suggested to set a core and a comprehensive level. A stakeholder  recommended 
specifying  6  months  instead  of  1  year  because  it  is  considered  difficult  for  refurbishers  to  provide  longer 
warranties:  computers  and  smartphones  might  not  work  anymore  because  of  updates  that  cannot  be 
implemented  and  the  refurbishers  do  not  have  control  over these  aspects.  The  same  stakeholder  considers 
that once ecodesign  measures on the  upgradeability of ICT products are  developed, this minimum warranty 
could be revised to 1 year. The JRC is of the opinion that a very short lifetime of refurbished products would 
reduce the environmental benefits and increase the costs for the procurers. Moreover, in several EU countries 
a  1-year legal  guarantee  is  mandatory  for second-hand  products116.  Therefore  this  should  be  the  minimum 
applicable warranty. Similar comments for new products were provided for the battery endurance. 

116 An overview of notifications received by the Commission regarding provisions going beyond Article 5(1) to (3) and Article 7(1) of Directive 1999/44/EC (the 

Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive) is available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/article-8a-consumer-sales-and-guarantees-directive_en 

  96 

 
 
 
 
                                           
3  GUIDANCE: CRITERIA APPLICABILITY AND PRIORITIES FOR THE DIFFERENT 

PRODUCT GROUPS IN THE SCOPE 

Some  stakeholders  providing  feedback  at  the  AHWG  meeting  and  the  following  stakeholder  consultation 
asked the JRC to provide better guidance and orientation for procurers on the most  relevant criteria among 
the long list of GPP criteria in the four areas on energy consumption, hazardous substances, product lifetime 
extension, and end-of-life management.  

Following  this  proposal,  in  a  first  step,  the  long  list  of  GPP  criteria  has  been  filtered  to  show  which  of  the 
criteria are applicable to the respective subgroups of the ICT devices within the scope.  

3.1  Applicability of criteria for the different product groups in the scope 

3.1.1  Stationary ICT devices (computers, computer displays) 

3.1.1.1  Stationary computers 

Table  18  shows  the  GPP  criteria  applicable  to  stationary  computers,  i.e.  desktop  computers,  all-in-one 
computers or integrated desktop computers, desktop thin clients and desktop workstations. The criteria focus 
on  all  four  of  the  areas  identified:  product  lifetime  extension,  energy  efficiency,  hazardous  substances  and 
end-of-life management.  

Table 18. GPP criteria applicable to stationary computers  

  97 

Criteria Level: CoreCriteria Level: ComprehensiveType of GPP criteriaTS1 Provision of an extended services Technical SpecificationTS2 Continued availability of spare parts Technical SpecificationTS3 Manufacturer's warrantyTechnical SpecificationTS4 Design for reparabilityTS4. Design for reparabilityTechnical SpecificationTechnical SpecificationContract Performance ClauseTechnical Specification---TS16 External Power Supply: Detachable CablesTechnical Specification---TS17 Backward compatibility: adaptersTechnical SpecificationTS18 Minimum Energy performance for computersTS18 Minimum Energy performance for computersTechnical Specification---TS20 Thin Client devices in a server based environmentTechnical SpecificationAC5 Improvement in the energy consumption upon the specified Energy consumption threshold for computers AC5 Improvement in the energy consumption upon the specified Energy consumption threshold for computers Award Criterion---SC1. Substance controls Selection CriterionTechnical Specification---AC3. Restriction of Substances of Very High ConcernAward Criterion---AC4. Avoidance of regrettable substitutionAward Criterion---TS22 Marking of plastic casings, enclosures and bezelsTechnical Specification---AC10 Recyclability of plastics casings, enclosures and bezels – paints and coatingsAward CriterionTechnical SpecificationContract Performance ClauseTS23 Secure computer collection, sanitisation, re-use and recyclingCPC2 Reporting on the end-destination of ICT equipmentTS21 Restriction of halogenated substances in plastic partsTS5 Functionality for secure data deletionCPC1 Service Agreement (to be used in conjunction with the TS1)TS14 Standardized port 
 
 
 
  
 
3.1.1.2  Computer displays 

Table 19 shows the GPP criteria applicable to computer displays. Similarly to desktop computers, the focus is 
relatively balanced across the four criteria areas identified. 

Table 19. GPP criteria applicable to computer displays  

3.1.2  Mobile ICT devices 

3.1.2.1  Portable computers (notebooks, two-in-one notebooks, mobile thin clients) 

Table  20  shows  the  GPP  criteria  applicable  to  mobile  computers,  i.e.  notebooks,  two-in-one  notebooks  and 
mobile thin  clients. In order to increase the overall  product lifetime of portable computers, the focus of the 
criteria  covers  battery  endurance  and  stress  resistance.    Also,  the  extended  services  agreement  and/or 
manufacturer’s  warranty,  design  for  reparability  and  continued  availability  of  spare  parts  as  well  as 
interoperability and reusability of components (standardised ports, detachable cables, adapters) apply.  

  98 

Criteria Level: CoreCriteria Level: ComprehensiveType of GPP criteriaTS1 Provision of an extended services Technical SpecificationTS2 Continued availability of spare parts Technical SpecificationTS3 Manufacturer's warrantyTechnical SpecificationTS4 Design for reparabilityTS4. Design for reparabilityTechnical SpecificationContract Performance ClauseTS19 Minimum Energy performance of monitorsTS19 Minimum Energy performance of monitorsTechnical SpecificationAC6 Improvement in the energy consumption upon the specified Energy consumption threshold for monitors AC6 Improvement in the energy consumption upon the specified Energy consumption threshold for monitors Award Criterion---SC1. Substance controls Selection CriterionTechnical Specification---AC3. Restriction of Substances of Very High ConcernAward Criterion---AC4. Avoidance of regrettable substitutionAward Criterion---TS22 Marking of plastic casings, enclosures and bezelsTechnical Specification---AC10 Recyclability of plastics casings, enclosures and bezels – paints and coatingsAward CriterionTechnical SpecificationContract Performance ClauseTS23 Secure computer collection, sanitisation, re-use and recyclingCPC2 Reporting on the end-destination of ICT equipmentTS21 Restriction of halogenated substances in plastic partsCPC1 Service Agreement (to be used in conjunction with the TS1) 
 
  
 
Table 20. GPP criteria applicable to portable computers  

3.1.2.2  Tablet computers and smartphones  

Table  21  shows  the  GPP  criteria  applicable  to  tablet  computers  and  smartphones.  In  general,  they  are  the 
same  as  for  mobile  computers  (notebooks,  two-in-one  notebooks  and  mobile  thin  clients),  with  a  focus  on 
increasing the overall product lifetime through several quality requirements for the rechargeable battery and 
the  battery’s  state  of  health  as  well  as  durability  testing.  Also,  the  extended  services  agreement  and/or 
manufacturer’s  warranty,  design  for  reparability  and  continued  availability  of  spare  parts  as  well  as 
interoperability  and  reusability  of  components  (standardised  ports,  detachable  cables,  adapters)  apply.  For 
portable computers, facilitating the end-of-life management through improved recyclability of the appliances 
is also possible. For tablet computers and smartphones, GPP criteria on energy consumption / efficiency are 
not applied as the efficiency of these  devices is considered less relevant in terms of  life cycle impacts and 
already optimised by the manufacturers.  

  99 

Criteria Level: CoreCriteria Level: ComprehensiveType of GPP criteriaTS1 Provision of an extended services Technical SpecificationTS2 Continued availability of spare parts Technical SpecificationTS3 Manufacturer's warrantyTechnical SpecificationTS4 Design for reparabilityTS4. Design for reparabilityTechnical SpecificationTechnical SpecificationContract Performance ClauseTS6 Rechargeable battery enduranceTS6. Rechargeable battery enduranceTechnical Specification---TS7. Minimum requirements on the electrical performance Technical SpecificationTechnical SpecificationTS10 Battery protection softwareTechnical Specification---AC1 Further rechargeable battery endurance Award CriterionTechnical Specification---TS12 Temperature stressTechnical Specification---TS13 Ingress protection level – Semi Rugged and Rugged DevicesTechnical SpecificationAward CriterionAward CriterionTechnical Specification---TS15 Standardized External Power Supply Technical Specification---TS16 External Power Supply: Detachable CablesTechnical Specification---TS17 Backward compatibility: adaptersTechnical Specification---AC4 ICT Equipment without accessoriesAward CriterionTS18 Minimum Energy performance for computersTS18 Minimum Energy performance for computersTechnical Specification---TS20 Thin Client devices in a server based environmentTechnical SpecificationAC5 Improvement in the energy consumption upon the specified Energy consumption threshold for computers AC5 Improvement in the energy consumption upon the specified Energy consumption threshold for computers Award Criterion---SC1. Substance controls Selection CriterionTechnical Specification---AC3. Restriction of Substances of Very High ConcernAward Criterion---AC4. Avoidance of regrettable substitutionAward CriterionTechnical SpecificationContract Performance ClauseTS23 Secure computer collection, sanitisation, re-use and recyclingCPC2 Reporting on the end-destination of ICT equipmentTS21 Restriction of halogenated substances in plastic partsTS5 Functionality for secure data deletionCPC1 Service Agreement (to be used in conjunction with the TS1)TS8 Information on battery state of healthTS11 Drop testing AC2 Mobile equipment durability testing AC3 Ingress protection level - Semi rugged / rugged devicesTS14 Standardized port 
  
 
Table 21. GPP criteria applicable to tablet computers and smartphones 

 100 

Criteria Level: CoreCriteria Level: ComprehensiveType of GPP criteriaTS1 Provision of an extended services Technical SpecificationTS2 Continued availability of spare parts Technical SpecificationTS3 Manufacturer's warrantyTechnical SpecificationTS4 Design for reparabilityTS4. Design for reparabilityTechnical SpecificationTechnical SpecificationContract Performance ClauseTS6 Rechargeable battery enduranceTS6. Rechargeable battery enduranceTechnical Specification---TS7. Minimum requirements on the electrical performance Technical SpecificationTechnical SpecificationTS10 Battery protection softwareTechnical Specification---AC1 Further rechargeable battery endurance Award CriterionTechnical Specification---TS12 Temperature stressTechnical Specification---TS13 Ingress protection level – Semi Rugged and Rugged DevicesTechnical SpecificationAward CriterionAward CriterionTechnical Specification---TS15 Standardized External Power Supply Technical Specification---TS16 External Power Supply: Detachable CablesTechnical Specification---AC4 ICT Equipment without accessoriesAward Criterion---SC1. Substance controls Selection CriterionTechnical Specification---AC3. Restriction of Substances of Very High ConcernAward Criterion---AC4. Avoidance of regrettable substitutionAward CriterionTechnical SpecificationContract Performance ClauseTS23 Secure computer collection, sanitisation, re-use and recyclingCPC2 Reporting on the end-destination of ICT equipmentTS21 Restriction of halogenated substances in plastic partsTS5 Functionality for secure data deletionCPC1 Service Agreement (to be used in conjunction with the TS1)TS8 Information on battery state of healthTS11 Drop testing AC2 Mobile equipment durability testing AC3 Ingress protection level - Semi rugged / rugged devicesTS14 Standardized port 
 
3.2  Use of labels as means of proof 

According  to  Article  43  of  the  Procurement  Directive117,  where  contracting  authorities  intend  to  purchase 
works,  supplies  or  services  with  specific  environmental,  social  or  other  characteristics,  they  may  require  a 
specific  label  as  means  of  proof  that  the  works,  services  or  supplies  correspond  to  the  required 
characteristics.  These  labels  must  fulfil  the  conditions  (a-e)  of  Article  43.  It  is  important  to  note  that 
contracting authorities requiring a specific label shall accept all labels that confirm that the works, supplies or 
services meet equivalent label requirements to those specified in Article 43. 

Table 22, Table 23, Table 24and Table 25 include a non-exhaustive list of labels applicable as means of proof 
for  the  EU  GPP  criteria.  Ideally,  the  use  of  these  labels  as  means  of  proof  should  reduce  the  verification 
burdens for public authorities. This table is based on the analysis of labels performed as part of the Preliminary 
Report to this study. Where labels able to ensure the fulfilment of the criteria are not identified, test reports or 
other documents can still be used as proof of compliance as described in the text of the proposed criteria.   

It should be noted that at the time of the drafting this report (June 2020), only Energy Star, TCO Certified and 
EPEAT  have  a  relevant  number  of  products  labelled/registered,  with  a  relatively  limited  number  of  labelled 
products under the categories “Tablets” and “Smartphones”. Moreover, the new  EU Ecolabel for Displays can be 
used in the future as a means of proof for some of the criteria applicable to displays.  

The availability of labelled products can be verified directly through the product finder tools available at the 
following websites: 

●  EU Ecolabel: http://ec.europa.eu/ecat/   

●  Energy Star: https://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/  

●  TCO Certified: https://tcocertified.com/product-finder 

●  EPEAT https://epeat.net/ 

●  BLUE Angel https://www.blauer-engel.de/en/products/electric-devices/computers-and-keyboards 

●  Nordic Swan: https://www.svanen.se/en/search-for-ecolabelled-products-and-services/?productgroup=030 

This applicability analysis is limited to the current version of the labels at the time of drafting of this report, 
as specified in the verification requirements of each criterion and in particular: 

●  TCO Certified Generation 8; 

●  EPEAT Computers and Displays Category  criteria [based on IEEE 1680.1™  – 2018 Standard for 
Environmental and Social Responsibility Assessment of Computers and Displays]118 and following 
Amendment 1: Editorial and Technical Corrections and Clarifications [IEEE 1680.1a™ – 2020]; 

●  EPEAT  Mobile  Phones  [based  on  the  UL  110  Standard  for  Sustainability  for  Mobile  Phones 
(Second Edition, Dated March 24, 2017 (including revisions through September 28, 2018))63]; 

●  Blue Angel Computer and Keyboards (DE-UZ 78);  

●  Blue Angel for Mobile Phones (DE-UZ 106); 

●  Nordic Swan Ecolabel for rechargeable batteries and portable chargers, Version 5.0. 

117 Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement 
118 An amendment for Editorial and Technical Corrections and Clarifications was published in 2020:  EPEAT Computers and Displays Category criteria [based 
on  1680.1a-2020  –  IEEE  Standard  for  Environmental  and  Social  Responsibility  Assessment  of  Computers  and  Displays–Amendment  1:  Editorial  and 
Technical Corrections and Clarifications]. 

 101 

 
 
                                           
Table 22. Applicability of labels as means of proof for the Product Lifetime Extension Criteria 

 102 

CoreComprehenisiveCoreComprehenisiveCoreComprehenisiveCoreComprehenisiveTS1ProvisionofanextendedservicesagreementTS2 Continued availability of spare partsCPC1 Service AgreementTS3 Manufacturer's warrantyT4 Design for reparabilityNoteService / repair manualNoteService / repair manualNoteService / repair manualTS5FunctionalityforsecuredatadeletionTS6 Rechargeable battery enduranceNot applicableNote1Note2Note 6Note 7TS7 Minimum requirements on the electrical performanceTS8  Information on battery state of health Not applicableSoftware specificationsTS9 Battery protection softwareNot applicableSoftware specificationsTS10 Intelligent ChargingAC1 Further rechargeable battery enduranceTS11 Drop testingTS12 Temperature StressTS13IngressprotectionlevelIngressprotectionlevel–SemiRuggedandRugged DevicesAC2 Mobile equipment durability testingAC3IngressProtectionLevel–SemiRugged and Rugged DevicesTS13 Standardized portTS15StandardizedExternalPowerSupplyNot applicableEN/IEC 63002:2017Not applicableProduct SpecificationsTS16ExternalPowerSupply:Detachable CablesNot applicableProduct SpecificationsNot applicableProduct SpecificationsTS17 Backward compatibility: adaptersNot applicableNot applicableProduct SpecificationsNot applicableProduct SpecificationsAC4 ICT Equipment without accessoriesNot applicableNot applicableProduct SpecificationsNot applicableProduct SpecificationsNote1: EPEAT for Computers and Displays is acceptable as proof of compliance if the device fulfill the optional criteria 4.4.2.5 (Product upgradeability and reparability) and  4.4.2.2 (Publicly available service information)  in the area or Member StateService ContractManufacturer WarrantyNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableIEC 61960-3 Test ReportIEC 61960-3 Test ReportNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableService ContractService ContractPRODUCT LIFETIME EXTENSIONDesktop ComputerComputer MonitorsNotebook ComputersNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicable• IEC/EN 60529:2013, Degrees of Protection Provided by Enclosures (IP Code), or• MIL-STD-810H 510.7 – Procedure I - Sand and Dust – Blowing Dust and MIL-STD-810H 506.6 – , Procedure I RainIEC 60068, US MIL810HIEC/EN 60529:2013Note 3:  TCO Certified Generation 8 is acceptable if the certificate shows compliance with 90% SoH retentionTablets and SmartphonesNote 2:  TCO Certified Generation 8 is acceptable if the certificate shows compliance with 80% SoH retentionNot applicable 
 
Table 23. Applicability of labels as means of proof for the Energy Efficiency Criteria 

 103 

CoreComprehenisiveCoreComprehenisiveCoreComprehenisiveCoreComprehenisiveTS20 Thin Client devices in a server based environmentNot Applicable               AC5 Improvement in the energy consumption upon the specified Energy consumption threshold for computers Not ApplicableAC6  Improvement in the energy consumption upon the specified Energy Consumption threshold for monitors CLASS A-CCLASS A-CNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableTS18 Minimum Energy performance for computers Desktop ComputerNotebook ComputersTablets and SmartphonesComputer MonitorsNot applicableTS19  Minimum Energy Performance of MonitorsNot ApplicableCLASS A-D 
 
 
Table 24. Applicability of labels as means of proof for the Hazardous Substances Criteria 

 104 

CriterionCoreCompCoreCompCoreCompCoreCompSC1 Restricted Substance controlsTS5. Restriction of halogenated substances in plastic partsAC3 Restriction of Substances of Very High Concern  Not ApplicableNote 4AC4  Avoidance of Regrattable SubstitutionsNot ApplicableNote 5Note 4Note 5:  in case of using EPEAT the device must fulfill the optional criterion 4.1.8.1Note 3IEC 62476 /  IEC 62474 or IPC1752  Desktop ComputerComputer MonitorsNotebook ComputersSmartphones and TabletsNote 4:    in case of using EPEAT the device must fulfill the optional criterion  4.1.6.2  HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCESNote 3:    in case in using EPEAT for smartphones the optional criterion 9.2.3 Restriction of Bromine must be fulfilled 
 
 
 
Table 25. Applicability of labels as means of proof for the End-of-Life Criteria 

 105 

CriterionCoreCompCoreCompeCoreCompCoreCompEND OF LIFETS22 Marking of plastic casings, enclosures and bezelsNot applicable Not applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableAC9 Recyclability of plastics casings, enclosures and bezels - separable inserts and fastenersNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableAC10 Recyclability of plastics casings, enclosures and bezels - paints and coatingsNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableTS23 Secure computer collection, sanitisation, re-use and recyclingCP2 Reporting on the end-destination of ICT equipmentService ContractDesktop ComputersSmartphones and TabletsComputer MonitorsNotebook ComputersService Contract 
 
Annexes 

Annex 1: Battery testing according to IEC EN 61960-3:2017 

Parameter 

Description 

Battery Acceptance Criteria  

Discharge performance at 20 °C 
(Rated Capacity) 

This test verifies the rated capacity of the battery. 

100% of the rated capacity (C5 Ah)119 

Discharge performance at –20 °C 
(Rated Capacity) 

This test determines the capacity of the battery at low 
temperatures 

30% of the rated capacity (C5 Ah) 

High rate discharge performance at 
20 °C 

This test determines the capacity of the battery when 
discharged at high rate. This test is not required if the 
battery is not designed to be used at this rate (1 ItA) 

60% of the rated capacity (C5 Ah) 

Charge (capacity) retention and 
recovery  

This test determines firstly the capacity which a battery 
retain after a storage for an extended period of time (28 
days) and secondly the capacity that can be recovered by 
a subsequent recharge. 

60% of the rated capacity (C5 Ah) 

Charge (capacity) retention after long 
term storage 

This test determines the capacity of a battery after 
extended storage (90 days) at 50% state of charge, 
followed by a subsequent charge 

85% of the rated capacity (C5 Ah) 

Endurance in cycles 

This test determines the number of charge/discharge 
cycles which a battery can endure before its capacity has 
been significantly depleted. 

60% of the rated capacity (C5 Ah) after 300 
cycles 

Electrostatic discharge 

This test is to evaluate the ability of a battery to with 
stand electrostatic discharge. 

Operational 

119 Amount of electricity declared by the manufacturer that a cell can deliver in a 5-hour period. 

 106 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Annex 2: Durability tests for mobile equipment 

Test  

Test method 

Minimum thresholds 

Functional performance requirements 

Accidental drop 

IEC 60068 Part 2-31 (Freefall, procedure 1) 

CORE CRITERIA  

AWARD CRITERIA  

OR  

MIL-STD-810G w/CHANGE 1 

Drop test: Method 516.7 - Shock (procedure IV) 

OR 

MIL-STD-810H 

Method 516.8 – Shock (Procedure IV) 

The notebook or tablet must be dropped from: a 
minimum of 45 cm (modified drop test height) 
of height onto a non-yielding surface. A 
minimum of one drop must be made on each 
bottom side and each bottom corner.  

The notebook or tablet must be dropped from: a minimum 
of 76 cm (30 inches120) of height onto a non-yielding 
surface. A minimum of one drop must be made on each 
bottom side and each bottom corner.  

Temperature stress 

IEC 60068  

Part 2-1: A Cold  

Part 2-2: B Dry Heat 

OR  

MIL-STD-810G w/CHANGE 1 

The mobile equipment must be subjected to test cycles of a minimum of 48 hours exposure for storage 
temperature at:  

 

 

High temperature Storage ≥ 60 ° C 

Low temperature Storage ≤ -30 ° C 

The mobile equipment must be subjected to test cycles of a minimum of 4 hours for operational temperature at: 

High temperature: Method 501.6 - Basic Hot (A2) 

Low temperature: Method 502.6 - Basic Cold 
(C1) 

 

 

Operational temperature ≥ 40 ° C 

Operational temperature ≤ -20 ° C 

After exposure to any of the specified stress tests, 
the product should be able to: 

1. Boot up and operate normally: 

● Boot or resume should not exceed 50% greater 
time increase as a result of the test. 

● No noticeable operational faults when using 
standard software applications.  

● No major damage to the product that does not 
allow for standard usage. 

2. Not create hazards to end user. 

● No case or display cracking or other sharp points 
created from failures that could injure a user. 

● No electrical component failures or access that 
could result in a user safety issue. 

OR 

MIL-STD-810H 

Method 501.7 - High temperature - Basic Hot 
(A2) 

Method 502.7 -Low temperature - - Basic Cold 
(C1) 

Screen resilience 

The test equipment and setup used must be 
confirmed by the tenderer. 

Applicable test standards include:   

ISO 1518-1:2019 Paints and varnishes — 
Determination of scratch resistance — Part 1: 

120 US Department of Defence standard MIL-STD-810G Method 516.6 Procedure IV ‘Transit drop test’  

With the product placed on a flat surface two loading tests 
must be carried out:  

A minimum load of 50kg must be evenly applied to the 
screen lid (for notebooks) or screen (for tablets).  

A minimum load of 25kg must be applied to a point at the 

 107 

 
 
 
                                           
Test  

Test method 

Minimum thresholds 

Functional performance requirements 

Constant-loading method. 

ISO 1518-2:2019 Paints and varnishes — 
Determination of scratch resistance — Part 2: 
Variable-loading method. 

ASTM C1895 – 19 using a hardness test pencil 
equipped with a spiral spring and a carbide ball 
tip of 1 mm diameter (in accordance with ISO 
1518). 

Resistance to shock 

IEC 60068  

Resistance to 
vibration 

Part 2-27: Test Ea and guidance: Shock. 

Part 2-47: Test - Mounting of specimens for 
vibration, impact and similar dynamic tests. 

IEC 60068  

Part 2-6: Test Fc: Vibration (sinusoidal).  

Part 2-47: Test - Mounting of specimens for 
vibration, impact and similar dynamic tests. 

Dust ingress 
protection  

IEC 60529, Degree of Protection provided by 
Enclosures  

or 

MIL-STD-810G Method 510.5, Procedure I Sand 
and dust - Blowing dust 

or  

MIL-STD-810H 510.7 – Procedure I - Sand and 
Dust – Blowing Dust. 

centre of screen with a diameter of approximately 3cm.  

A minimum of a 40G peak half-sine wave pulse must be 
applied three times for a duration of a minimum of 6 ms to 
the top, bottom, right, left, front and rear side of the 
product.  

Minimum specification:  

Randomised sinusoidal vibrations in the frequency range 
5Hz up to a minimum of 250Hz must be applied for a 
minimum of 1 sweep cycle to the end of each axis of the 
top, bottom, right, left, front and back of the product.  

IP-6x - No ingress of dust; complete protection against 
contact. 

Water ingress 
protection  

IEC 60529, Degree of Protection provided by 
Enclosures  

IP-x5 - Water is projected in jets against the enclosure from 
any direction with no harmful effects. 

or 

MIL-STD-810G, Method 506.5 Procedure I Rain 
and blowing rain  

Or 

MIL-STD-810H 506.6  Procedure I Rain. 

 108 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3: Minimum energy performance for computers (based on Energy Star for Computers, 
Specification 7.1)  

Calculated Typical Energy Consumption (ETEC) for Desktop, Integrated Desktop, and Notebook Computers shall 
be less than or equal to the maximum TEC (ETEC_MAX) as calculated below: 

(ETEC_MAX) per Equation below: 

ETEC_MAX  =  (1+ALLOWANCEPSU)  ×  (TECBASE  +  TECMEMORY  +  TECGRAPHICS  +  TECSTORAGE  +  TECINT_DISPLAY  +  TECSWITCHABLE  +  TECEEE  + 
TECMOBILEWORKSTATIONS) 

Where: 

●  ALLOWANCEPSU is an allowance provided to power supplies that meet the optional more stringent 
efficiency levels specified in Table 26; power supplies that do not meet the requirements receive 
an allowance of 0; 

●  TECBASE is the Base allowance specified in Table 27; and 

●  TECGRAPHICS  is  the  discrete  graphics  allowance  as  specified  in  Table  27,  with  the  exception  of 
systems with integrated graphics, which do not receive an allowance, or Desktops and Integrated 
Desktops  with  switchable  graphics  enabled  by  default,  which  receive  an  allowance  through 
TECSWITCHABLE; and 

●  TECMEMORY, TECSTORAGE, TECINT_DISPLAY, TECSWITCHABLE, TECEEE and TECMOBILEWORKSTATIONS are adder allowances 

as specified in Table 28. 

Table 26. Power Supply Efficiency Allowance  

Power 
Type 

Supply 

Computer Type 

Minimum  Efficiency  at  Specified  Proportion  of  Rated 
Output Current 

AllowancePSU 

Minimum 
Average 
Efficiency 

10% 

20% 

50% 

100% 

IPS 

Desktop 

0.86 

0.90 

Integrated Desktop 

0.86 

0.90 

0.90 

0.92 

0.90 

0.92 

0.92 

0.94 

0.92 

0.94 

0.89 

0.90 

0.89 

0.90 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0.015 

0.03 

0.015 

0.04 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 27. Base TEC (TECBASE) Allowances for Desktops or Integrated Desktops and Notebooks 

Category Name 

Graphic Capability 

Desktop or Integrated Desktop 

Performance Score, P 

Base Allowance 

0 

I1 

I2 

I3 

D1 

D2 

Category Name 

0 

I1 

I2 

I3 

Any Graphics 
dGfx≤G7 

Integrated or 
Switchable Graphics 

Discrete Graphics 
dGfx≤G7 

P≤3 

3<P≤6 

6<P≤7 

P>7 

3<P≤9 

P>9 

69.0 

112.0 

120.0 

135.0 

115.0 

135.0 

Notebooks 

Performance 
Score, P 

P≤2 

2<P≤5.2 

5.2<P≤8 

P>8 

Base Allowance 

6.5 

22.0 

8.0 

14.0 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 28. Functional Adder Allowances for Desktop, Integrated Desktop, and Notebook Computers 

Function 

TECMEMORY (kWh) vi 

TECGRAPHICS (kWh) vii 

G1 

(FB_BW ≤ 16) 

G2 

(16< FB_BW ≤ 32) 

G3 

(32 < FB_BW ≤ 64) 

G4 

(64 < FB_BW ≤ 96) 

G5 

(96 < FB_BW ≤ 128) 

G6 

i
i
i

V
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C
s
c
i
h
p
a
r
G

(FB_BW > 128; Frame Buffer 
Data Width < 192 bits) 

G7 

(FB_BW > 128; Frame Buffer 
Data Width ≥ 192 bits 

Desktop 

Integrated Desktop 

Notebook 

2.4 + (0.294 x GB) 

29.3 x tanh (0.0038 x 
FB_BW – 0.137) + 13.4 

0.8 

36 

51 

64 

83 

105 

115 

130 

TECSWITCHABLE (kWh) 

TECEEE (kWh) x 

TECSTORAGE (kWh) xi 

TECINT_DISPLAY (kWh) xii 

TECMOBILEWORKSTATION (kWh) xii 

0.5 x G1 

N/A 

8.76 x 0.2 x (0.15 + 0.35) 

8.76 x 0.2 x (0.10 + 0.30) 

26 

N/A 

N/A 

2.6 

8.76 x 0.35 x (1+EP) x 
(4xr +0.05 x A) 

8.76 x 0.30 x (1+EP) x (2 x r 
+0.02 x A) 

4.0 

Equation 1. Calculation of Allowance for Enhanced-performance Integrated Displays 

0 No Enhanced Power Displays 

EP = 

0.3 Enhanced Performance Display d < 27 

0.75 Enhanced Performance Display d ≥ 27 

Where:  

vi  

vii  

viii  

ix  

TECMEMORY Adder: Applies per GB installed in the system.  

TECGRAPHICS Adder: Applies to only the first dGfx installed in the system, but not Switchable Graphics.  

FB_BW:  Is  the  display  frame  buffer  bandwidth  in  gigabytes  per  second  (GB/s).  This  is  a  manufacturer  declared 
parameter and should be calculated as follows: (Data Rate [Mhz] × Frame Buffer Data Width [bits]) / ( 8 × 1000 ).  

TECSWITCHABLE  Incentive:  Applies  to  automated  switching  that  is  enabled  by  default  in  Desktops  and  Integrated 
Desktops.  

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
x  

xi  

xii  

TECEEE: Applies per IEEE 802.3az-compliant (Energy Efficient Ethernet) Gigabit Ethernet port.  

TECSTORAGE Adder: Applies once if system has more than one Additional Internal Storage element.  

TECINT_DISPLAY  Adder:  EP  is  the  Enhanced  Performance  Display  allowance  calculated  per  Table  28;  r  is  the  Screen 
resolution in megapixels; and A is viewable screen area in square inches.  

Calculation of ETEC_MAX for Thin Clients 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ETEC_MAX = TECBASE + TECGRAPHICS + TECWOL+ TECINT_DISPLAY + TECEEE 

Where: 
TECBASE is the Base Allowance specified in Table 29; 

TECGRAPHICS is the Discrete Graphics allowance specified in Table 29, if applicable; 

TECWOL is the Wake-on-LAN allowance specified in Table 29, if applicable; 

TECINT_DISPLAY is the Integrated Display allowance for Integrated Desktops specified in Table 28, if applicable; and 

TECEEE is the Energy Efficiency Ethernet incentive for Desktops specified in Table 28, if applicable, per IEEE 802.3az-

compliant (Energy Efficient Ethernet) Gigabit Ethernet port. 

Table 29. Adder Allowances for Thin Clients 

Adder 

Allowance (kWh) 

TECBASE 

TECGRAPHICS 

TECWOL 

31 

36 

2 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre 
nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 

- by electronic mail via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

 
 
 
 
 
K
J
-
N
A
-
3
0
7
2
2
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2760/124337  

ISBN 978-92-76-38086-3