Scoping Report on Governance, Charter, Resources ... · Scoping Report on Governance, Charter, Resources, Communications, ... Charter, Resources, Communications, and Recommendations

Scoping Report on Governance, Charter, Resources,

Communications, and Recommendations

Prepared by: RESOLVE

1255 23rd Street, NW Suite 875

Washington, DC 20037 www.resolv.org

Contents

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

II. Process and Approach ............................................................................................................ 1

III. Description and Context ......................................................................................................... 3

Electronics Recycling Overview .............................................................................................. 3

Policy and Legal Context ......................................................................................................... 5

Stewardship Programs ............................................................................................................ 6

R2 Standard ............................................................................................................................. 6

IV. Summary of Assessment Discussions ..................................................................................... 7

Overview ................................................................................................................................. 7

Issues and Challenges ............................................................................................................. 7

Outreach and Participation ................................................................................................... 10

Governance Structure ........................................................................................................... 12

V. Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 13

Leadership and Governance Options.................................................................................... 13

Resource Possibilities ............................................................................................................ 21

Charters and Ground Rules ................................................................................................... 21

Outreach and Public Input .................................................................................................... 22

VI. Other Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 22

Design and Implement an Independent Grievance and Conflict Resolution Mechanism ... 23

Independent, External Advisory Group ................................................................................ 23

Joint Fact Finding .................................................................................................................. 23

Policy Harmonization and Development .............................................................................. 24

VII. Suggested Next Steps......................................................................................................... 25

Appendices: Appendix A – RESOLVE Programs and Services Appendix B – Scoping Interview Questions Appendix C – Scoping Interview Contacts Appendix D – Scoping Assessment Outreach

R2 Assessment Report and Recommendations |1

Scoping Report on Governance, Charter, Resources, Communications, and Recommendations I. Introduction In June 2009, the R2 Housing Committee issued an RFP to organizations that could potentially house the Responsible Recycling standard (R2) developed to address responsible recycling and refurbishment of electronics. RESOLVE developed a proposal to “house” the standard in a transitional phase as it moved from standards development to active certification. In conversation with the Housing Committee, Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), TechTurn, Dell, and other stakeholders, RESOLVE learned that although the standard was adopted by participants in R2, there were questions about the appropriate governance structure, concerns about how to financially support the administrative structure, and questions regarding public outreach and stakeholder participation. To better understand these issues, RESOLVE proposed an interim step of a scoping assessment. The R2 Housing Committee accepted RESOLVE’s proposal although it resulted in delaying the decision regarding housing. RESOLVE designed the scoping assessment to solicit wide input into the options and recommendations for a R2 governance structure, stakeholder representation, public outreach, and resource development plan. RESOLVE has years of experience interviewing stakeholders and analyzing documents to understand concerns and synthesize diverse suggestions to develop recommendations and next steps. This report reviews current conditions, perspectives, and views, and focuses on recommendations for governance structures, outreach and participation, resources, and next steps to address ongoing controversy. II. Process and Approach A collaborative assessment provides the opportunity for a group to gather information, learn about each other’s interests, better understand varying perspectives on critical issues and concerns, test assumptions about barriers or challenges, and begin to develop a range of ideas and suggestions for addressing the identified issues and concerns. In January, RESOLVE designed an approach and began the assessment. Juliana Birkhoff, Vice President of Programs and Practice for RESOLVE, spoke to Chris Cleet, Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) to determine expectations for the scoping process, identify expected topics to cover during interviews, and to receive input to develop a list of individuals to interview. Dr. Birkhoff also reviewed the standards development process with John Lingelbach, of Decisions and Agreements, a consultant hired by EPA to facilitate the previous R2 discussions to develop the standard. Mr. Lingelbach also provided RESOLVE with some contacts from the standards development process. In February, RESOLVE convened a conversation with a small group of individuals who had continued to meet since the standard was adopted and were working together to launch and house the standards. RESOLVE titled this group as the “R2 Housing Committee.” This group


included Chris Cleet, ITI, John Cross, EPA, Mike Watson, Dell, Eric Harris, ISRI and Jake Player, TechTurn. During the call, RESOLVE and the R2 Housing Committee reviewed the history of the standard, the goals of the assessment, draft interview questions, and next steps. On February 12, RESOLVE sent a memo to the list of people who had participated in the standards development process—this included some people who were no longer participating in the R2 process. The memo explained the goals of the assessment, how to contact RESOLVE, the role of the “R2 Housing Committee”, and the role of the facilitator during the standards development process, John Lingelbach, during the assessment. The memo asked people to contact RESOLVE if they wanted to be interviewed. RESOLVE began scheduling interviews the week of February 22. RESOLVE completed a first round of telephone interviews of the most closely involved stakeholders by the middle of March. RESOLVE reviewed preliminary findings with the R2 Housing Committee on March 19. We reviewed who we had talked with and who we had not been able to interview. Based on this guidance, we scheduled the next set of interviews to fill in missing perspectives and solicit a wider range of opinions. RESOLVE used the same set of questions to guide our conversations, but also followed up with each person with what they thought was most important to discuss. We were especially interested in identifying any similarities or differences of opinions on options. We looked for areas of commonality and convergence as well as divergent or polarized opinions. During each conversation, we learned about people’s perspectives, the depth of their commitments to health, safety, and electronics recycling, as well as their understandings of challenges and complexity. We particularly focused on getting suggestions on effective and legitimate governance models, ideas for increased participation, and resource strategies for R2. Interviewees prepared for the conversation, and were forthright, engaged, and constructive in the comments and suggestions. During each interview, we asked people to suggest anyone else we should interview. Based on the suggestions from people on the initial list and from the R2 Housing Committee, we talked to many additional people. However, in our view, the interview list is missing information from several key stakeholder groups. We talked to several different kinds of electronics refurbishers and recyclers, including those who repair, manually refurbish, and mechanically shred electronics. We talked to recyclers who shipped processed materials and non-processed materials including equipment for repairs, refurbishment, and processed grade commodities. We also learned more about the industry from interviews with ISRI and a review of related websites. The recycling industry is very dynamic and regional, size differences may have led to more insights and recommendations. We were only able to schedule interviews with three environmental NGO’s. We were also unable to schedule any interviews with international brokers and buyers, however we were able to talk to organizations representing companies that reuse and repair products internationally.


While we gathered significant information, we do believe our research has some shortcomings. The recycling industry is very dynamic and diverse, with significant regional and size differences and many other market/business variables. We certainly could have conducted additional interviews; however, given the timeline, we believe we learned the most important information, allowing us to make useful recommendations to R2 and stakeholders. The NGO sector is also diverse with many different interests and perspectives on electronics recycling. Despite our best efforts, we were only able to schedule and complete interviews with three environmental NGOs. All of the NGOs contacted had some involvement in the R2 standard development process. Lack of response from the environmental NGOs leads us to make some assumptions and recommendations based on our best professional judgment instead of representative input. Because of the history of controversy on specific electronics recycling industry issues, many of the interviews lasted much longer than anticipated. Dr. Birkhoff conducted 23 interviews lasting one to two hours. The amount and content of information and in particular the difficulty scheduling conference calls and interviews extended the assessment beyond its original timeline. To understand the relationship of the R2 Standard to other standards and electronic recycling and reuse initiatives, RESOLVE also collected and reviewed many documents and websites. Overall, the assessment process produced a significant amount of information to synthesize, thoughtful suggestions, and diverse insights. This assessment report provides a summary and highlights from our interviews. No confidential information has been included in this report, nor are any names attributed to statements expressed during the interview process. The report also includes RESOLVE’s proposed recommendations based on our summary and analysis. Our recommendations are for consideration for those making decisions about R2 and for all stakeholders concerned about the environment, human health and safety, and efficient and effective electronic recycling. RESOLVE is distributing this report to the individuals listed in Appendix A to share this information widely, to receive any feedback on recommendations, and to provide an opportunity to correct any errors. III. Description and Context Electronics Recycling Overview With the fast pace of technological innovation in the electronics sectors and the growing use of technology in developing countries, consumers and institutions buy new equipment, and often discard old equipment, at a rapid rate. Recycling industry experts expect that used and end-of-life consumer electronic equipment levels will increase to 400 million units annually over the rest of the decade, including 100 million units of computer equipment. Estimates, reached by combining consumer, commercial, industrial, and government equipment, project that there could be more than 2 billion discarded electronic products available over the next five years.


Today there are millions of tons of computers, computer monitors, laptops, cell phones, printers, televisions, and VCRs in garages, closets, landfills, and incinerators. According to the U.S. EPA, more than 4.6 million tons of electronic products ended up in U.S. landfills in 2000. The U.S. EPA also estimates that only 15-20% of used electronics are recycled. The increased use of electronic items, faster rates of discard, and concerns over how used and end-of-life electronics is recycled have led to more interest and scrutiny in electronics refurbishment and recycling. Electronics recyclers collect and transport material, provide data security, and take apart and alter materials to produce commodities from the electronic products. Electronics recyclers scrub and resell hard drives, test and then resell cell phones, monitors, and CPUs that are in good working order. They also shred or process electronics to extract commodities from the electronic equipment including steel, aluminum, gold, silver, titanium, copper, nickel, plastic and glass. Manufacturers use the commodities as material to manufacture new products. Most reuse markets are outside of the U.S. Many of the markets for processed raw materials derived from electronics equipment are also outside of the U.S. There are no smelters for copper and precious metals recovery from circuit boards in the U.S. There are no CRT glass furnaces in North America and less than 20 worldwide. Most of the markets for processed plastics derived from used and end-of-life electronics equipment are also outside of the U.S. In the marketplace today, global patterns shape the dynamics for U.S. recyclers – to recover all of the processed material derived from electronic products they ship overseas. More than 500 companies in the U.S. recycle electronics. ISRI calculates that most electronic recycling companies are relatively small, new businesses. However, several large recyclers process a large proportion of discarded equipment. In addition to recycling companies, some manufacturers, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and not-for-profit organizations recycle electronics. The industry includes businesses and organizations that repair and refurbish electronics, those that take apart computers to recover usable materials, and those that shred, grind, smelt, and pelletize electronics to recover primary materials. Public concerns over the environmental and health impact of electronics began to surface in the 1980’s with greater scrutiny of possible risks associated with the manufacturing of computer components such as computer processors and chips. While this concern was not recycling, it was the first time that most people heard that there was any risk at all from computers. For end-of-life issues, the volume of used and end-of-life electronics equipment exported for repair, reuse and recycling increased throughout the 1980’s. There were several widely publicized accounts of illegal or irresponsible recycling practices in developing nations where hazardous materials removed during repair, refurbishment and recycling were illegally or inappropriately managed, which resulted in health and environmental problems for local communities. While the initial concerns were primarily based on the legality of the shipmentsl, the greater concern is the direct impact to the local population and its environment if hazardous materials potentially removed during reuse, refurbishment or


recycling, (such as lead, cadmium, beryllium, mercury, and brominated flame-retardants) are not properly managed in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Policy and Legal Context As with many issues, the policy and legal context is complex. There are international, federal, and state laws that regulate electronics disposal, reuse, refurbishment, and recycling. However, international, U.S. Federal, and state laws do not necessarily define recycled electronics and material from recycled products similarly or regulate their transport in the same way. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal is an international agreement that regulates export and import of hazardous waste for disposal. The goal of the Basel Convention is to protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects resulting from the generation, management, transboundary movement, and disposal of hazardous and other wastes. The Convention's controls and trade bans only apply to international cross-border shipments of used or end-of-life consumer electronics if such equipment is classified as both "waste" and as "hazardous" under the Basel Convention classification scheme. Provisions under the Convention pertaining to post-consumer electronics are unclear. Governments party to the Convention are currently developing guidance to clarify the waste classification of consumer electronics. The Convention, which entered into force in 1992, currently has one hundred seventy-three (173) parties. The U.S. government has not ratified the Basel Convention. However, recycling industries are subject to U.S. export laws, regulations, and the import requirements of foreign countries. There is no U.S. federal mandate to recycle electronics or to govern how electronics should be recycled. However, electronics recyclers must comply with U.S. federal environmental and safety regulations, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. U.S. law does not define all electronic materials and material from recycled electronics as solid or hazardous waste. Federal law does not define the following materials as hazardous waste: electronic equipment for reuse; processed scrap metal; shredded circuit boards for recycling; processed CRT glass for glass recovery; intact CRT glass for recycling; and partially processed CRTs for recycling. Moreover, U.S. federal laws exempt any electronics from households; scrap metal for recycling; whole circuit boards for recycling; and precious metals for recycling as hazardous wastes. Twenty-four states have laws regulating electronic waste. In some cases, these laws are different or more stringent than federal environmental, occupational safety, and health laws. Some states characterize electronics equipment as universal or hazardous waste. The regulations have address recycling and waste with various provisions, including: municipalities must provide recycling options, prohibitions of certain materials from landfills, fees to recycle materials, and specifications of responsibilities of consumer and retailers. Most state programs also detail how material must be recycled and if it can be reused. Some state regulations provide funding from fees or fines to municipalities to develop and operate local recycling programs. However, with increased amount of discarded materials some municipalities have trouble handling the increased volume.


Currently OEMs and retailers must develop country-by-country and state-by-state systems to comply with these and other regulations. Many argue that the lack of harmonization and standardization creates inefficiencies and may hinder recycling industries from developing and sharing best practices. Stewardship Programs Internationally, there are several partnerships and programs working on quantifying, characterizing, or solving e-waste problems. These programs include the Electronic Industry Sustainability Coalition (EICC), Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI), and Solving the e-Waste Problem (StEP). There are also provincial, state, and NGO led stewardship programs. The U.S. EPA developed several programs to promote better management of used electronics. The National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI), which ran 2001-2004, explored approaches to fund used electronic take backs. Starting in 2003, the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) established product standards for institutional purchasers of electronics equipment. Begun in 2004, the Federal Electronics Challenge promotes environmentally sound purchasing, operation, and end of life management of electronics. Plug-In to eCycling is a partnership formed in 2003 with electronics equipment manufacturers to promote recycling of electronics. In March 2005, EPA convened a stakeholder meeting on end of life electronics. It was reported to us, that in this meeting, many participants encouraged EPA to take steps to advance certification of electronics recyclers. In response, the EPA sponsored, funded, and participated in what was designed as a collaborative process to develop the R2 voluntary standard. R2 Standard The EPA convened a multi party stakeholder group in 2006 to develop a voluntary electronics recycling standard. The goal was to develop a consensus standard to protect public health and the environment, improve worker safety practices, and reduce potential hazardous exposures. Participants in the original group included electronic recycling companies, electronic reuse, and refurbishment companies, ISRI – the industry recycling associations, computer OEMs, ITI-the industry association for the information technology industry, state and local governments, and public interest groups (or non-governmental organizations—NGOs). John Lingelbach, a facilitator under EPA contract organized and facilitated meetings. The group met by conference call and in person at electronics and recycling meetings. The group developed draft language to address different aspects of electronics recycling. However, the group could not agree on several issues. As the group was deciding to field-test the draft standard, several public interest groups withdrew from the process because the draft standard would allow some export, some disposal of some materials in landfills, and prison labor.


The EPA, public interest groups, reuse companies, repair and refurbishers, recyclers, OEMs and trade associations continued to support the process as the standard was field tested, revised, and finalized in October 2008. The group that continued to work on the standard then secured the participation of ANAB (ANSI-National Accreditation Board). ANAB’s role is to evaluate the competency of certifying bodies to assess compliance to management systems and standards. It accredits certifying bodies. ANAB began accrediting certifying bodies to use the standard in 2009. As of 2010 ANAB has accredited two R2 certifying bodies. As of August 1, 2010, 12 recycling companies and 16 facilities are now certified to the R2 standard. Meanwhile, the Basel Action Network, one of the organizations that left the R2 process initiated the e-Stewards standard in 2008, with endorsement and support form a number of other public interest groups and companies. They finished the standard in 2010. ANAB accredited three e-Stewarts certifying bodies and three recyclers are certified to the standard. IV. Summary of Assessment Discussions Overview People expressed a wide range of opinion and perspectives during our conversations. Some overarching themes wove their way into our conversations. We summarize those themes here to provide a context for the focused perspectives in later sections of the assessment report. Everyone we talked to mentioned the following goals for a standard:

Protect the environment from potentially harmful materials;

Improve public health and protect people from exposures to toxic materials;

Protect workers from risky materials and methods;

Encourage more electronic users to recycle electronics;

Provide an even playing field between recyclers who follow human and environmentally safe practices (which may incur more costs) and recyclers who do not follow those practices (and thus may make more money).

Many people we talked to were in favor of an electronics-recycling standard. Interviewees explained that a widely accepted standard and widespread certification to the standard would accomplish environment, health, and safety goals. However, people we interviewed disagreed on whether a standard and certification program was the only or the best way to accomplish those goals. Some people thought there were other or better ways to accomplish the goals. Some thought that a regulatory initiative would more effectively accomplish the above goals. Individuals from municipalities or states wondered if an EPA program with delegated authority to the states could accomplish the goals better. Others thought that a standard and voluntary system was the only effective way to accomplish the goals. Issues and Challenges Several people we talked to wanted more clarity from Congress, the Executive Branch, and Federal agencies about:


possible, future regulations or programs;

harmonization with international electronics recycling efforts;

international trade issues; and

definitions of terms and interpretations of international treaties. Some of the people we interviewed explained that in the absence of clear policy statements and interpretations, there could continue to be environmental, health, and safety problems from exported materials. Manufacturers explained that they spent a lot of time in the U.S. and international forums trying to address the same environmental, health, and safety issues in different ways, which creates inefficiencies. Recyclers, especially those that operate in more than one place, explained that it was expensive and time consuming to keep up with the different initiatives, policies, and regulations in municipalities, states, and internationally, as well as with voluntary standards. In interviews, people expressed a great deal of frustration with the multiplicity of different municipal and state legal regimes. These people noted that lack of clarity led to a confusing and inefficient array of initiatives, laws, and programs. They worried those different requirements created inefficient or problematic enforcement, which may cause economic inefficiencies and/ or environmental health problems. They also said that lack of clarity might contribute to the significant differences between stakeholders. People explained that between the Basel Convention, U.S. EPA, states, and municipal policies and laws, there is no agreement or consistent treatment as to under what conditions electronic materials 1) are to be treated as hazardous waste, 2) are to be repaired or reused, or 3) are sources of raw materials. People noted that different interest groups align with different positions on a range of these definitions and conditions. This lack of clarity leads to inefficiency and differences due to multiple systems and definitions, policy confusion, and parties attributing negative intentions to other parties. The recyclers we talked to explained that fluctuations in demand and prices for materials, expanding costs, very narrow profit margins, and searching for markets for outputs from recycling creates a very challenging business situation. They explained that used electronics are all very different and processing different items takes more or less labor and different processes. To address business challenges, some recycler’s ship used electronics to countries with cheaper labor and with higher demand for used electronics or materials. Other people we talked to worried that exporting discarded electronics or electronic materials to countries without strong environmental laws and vigorous enforcement could cause environmental and human health effects. Everyone we talked to is very frustrated with the time it is taking to create credible, transparent, and fully functioning electronics recycling standard/certification schemes. Several people had experience with other standard and certification efforts. They explained that this standard is taking the same amount of time as others, but they had hoped that a recycling standard could happen faster because organizers could benefit from the learnings of other


standard development processes. Other people noted that it is very complex to move from the standards development phase to an operational certification system and this will take time. Some noted that the effort lost momentum during the complex steps of field-testing and implementation. Many people suggested that EPA could have played a stronger and more consistent leadership role over the last years, to help speed up the development of a certification system. Several people mentioned that in early 2009, EPA staff changed and the messages about voluntary recycling standards were not as clear or consistent. They perceived that EPA messages were more ambivalent about voluntary standards as an effective policy choice to achieve environmental goals in the electronics-recycling sector. Several people suggested that this transition had created a leadership vacuum within which differences could escalate. Most people we talked to were very disappointed that the two and half year collaborative effort to create one standard did not result in one standard. Because of the tensions that developed during the process, several of the participants continue to hold negative opinions of some of the participants in that collaborative process. Several other people expressed concerns about stakeholders’ behavior over the last two years to advance the two standards and certification systems. In particular, we heard symptoms of conflict escalation including:

people were no longer expressing what the ultimate goal is, but the position they advocate;

more suspicion of each other’s behaviors and communication;

more unilateral action to advance their interests without consultation;

less empathy for the interests or needs of the other;

recruiting allies for individual campaigns and positions;

negatively characterizing other’s interests and character;

pressure on ambivalent parties and interest groups to choose one side or the other;

increased pressure to conform to group position;

development of strategies and tactics to advance one’s own interest AND defeat the others position.

Several of the participants we talked to do not feel that there is any value in taking new steps to try to develop one standard. They expressed doubt that significant differences could be overcome. However, most of the people we talked to said there would be more efficiency, improved health, safety and environmental outcomes, and an increase in recycling practices if there was one standard. A few people said that as auditors work with diverse recycling industry companies to interpret and implement the certification schemes, there might be further opportunities for policy and standard harmonization. Finally, while we did not ask people about their views on the substantive issues, people did share ideas about prison labor, and export/import issues. People continue to hold very strong beliefs and values about these two issues


Outreach and Participation We asked who should be involved in recycling standards decisions or policies. Everyone emphasized that active, balanced, and diverse involvement was very important. They stressed that including all key stakeholders who are materially affected or interested ensures legitimacy. Including all key stakeholders also ensures that the administrating body will manage the standard and certification process openly and fairly. Everyone we talked to stressed that a recycling standard and certification process needed to have opportunities for regular input from the public. Finally, everyone agreed that the administering body needed to reach out to educate the public. Everyone mentioned the need for active involvement from the following interests in any discussions, decisions, or governance of an electronics-recycling standard/certification program:

OEMs;

Retailers;

Institutional electronics users (large companies, universities, or hospitals);

Recyclers;

Government including states and the EPA;

Public interest groups. However, people disagreed on how to represent these interests in governance or input. For example, some people thought it was important to not include individual OEM’s or recyclers in a governance role because there were conflicts of interest. Some people suggested that associations or overarching interest groups should be the decision makers for an electronics-recycling standard. Other people thought it was important to only involve companies, recyclers, and other directly involved groups in governance and not involve associations or large membership groups. Some people said that membership groups and associations had to represent such diverse interests that they ended up representing the most extreme position or the lowest common denominator. Even given this diversity of opinion, many people did suggest a common group of people for a governance or decision-making body for a recycling standard or certification program. Many people suggest that the following interests should be included: a. Recyclers, including:

Small and large recyclers

“Crushing” and shredding recyclers

Dismantling recyclers and refurbishers

Recyclers who recycle a wide range of material and recyclers who focus on electronics b. A wide range of OEMs, including:

Television

Cell phone

Printers


Computers c. Large institutional recyclers, including:

Federal government

States

Universities, hospitals, or large companies d. The EPA e. Non-governmental organizations, including:

Environmental

Public health

Some people suggested that any recycling standard discussion, decision, or governance needed to include the following interests; others specifically did not want the following interests to be involved: a. Groups with competing standards b. Industry associations such as ITI or ISRI c. Auditors or certifying bodies

Several people also suggested a wider group of interests should be represented in decision-making or governance. Most suggested the following groups for outreach or input into an electronic recycling certification program:

a. Other NGOs including;

National environmental groups

Climate change groups

General worker safety groups

Consumer interest groups b. International environmental groups

Friends of the Earth

Greenpeace

WWF c. National electronics recycling initiatives

Green Electronics Council

CHWMEG, Inc.

Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)

Design for the Environment d. International electronics recycling initiatives such as:

ROHS

WEEE e. Large electronics retailers

Best Buy

Staples

Office Depot

Wal-Mart


f. Standards development and certification bodies

ISO

ANSI

ANAB g. International recyclers or refurbishers h. Brokers or international purchasers of discarded electronics i. Academic and recycling research institutes Governance Structure We asked people to describe how a recycling standard certification program should be governed. Some people had very specific ideas or models, most people had general principles for a governance body.

Everyone we talked to stressed that the governance structure was critical for ensuring credibility and legitimacy. Everyone said the governance structure should have very clear and balanced decision-making structures. Most people discussed the need for a governance structure that was effective, efficient, and responsive to input, opportunities, and needs. Several people stressed that the governance structure needed to be accountable to the public and the industry. Everyone discussed the importance of public transparency about kinds of decisions, rules for decisions, timeline for decisions, and how public input was considered in decision-making.

Many explained that the recycling industry, international, health, and environmental issues were complex. Therefore, the governance body should be structured so it could base its decisions on sound science and industry knowledge.

People had different ideas on how the governing structure should make decisions but most suggested striving for unanimity with a way to make decisions if the group could not agree in a timely manner. Some people suggested consensus building with fall back to voting. Others suggested proportional voting or supermajority voting, and others suggested a strictly balanced representative group so that majority minority voting would work.

Although we did not ask interviewees, several suggested clear preferences for where an electronics recycling standard should be “housed”. Several people suggested that a recycling standard should be an EPA program, with a state, industry, and public interest group advisory panel. Others suggested that a standard and certification program should be housed in a broad based NGO, with a board or advisory panel. These people suggested the model that WWF and others followed to launch and then spin off the Forest Stewardship Council. Finally, several people suggested that a standard and certification body should be housed in an industry association. Many people said there would be disadvantages for a standard that was not “housed” in a broad based organization with wide acceptability.

No one model for governance emerged from conversations. Roughly, one quarter of the interviewees recommended a small, industry-led governing structure, with technical advice on environmental health and safety, international trade, auditing and certification. Another one


quarter recommended a small governing structure made up of industry associations, state and environmental governments, and broad based organizations to govern the standard and certification. This group argued that no one should be on the governing structure that directly benefited from the standard. Another one quarter recommended a medium sized governing organization with representatives from the life cycle of electronics, state and federal environmental agencies, and environmental groups. Finally, one quarter recommended a small decision-making group that would meet frequently with a larger decision-making group that would meet less frequently.

V. Recommendations It is clear that no single recommendation emerged from our interviews. At the same time, we see the potential for a series of measures and next steps, and a structure that has the potential to build confidence among many stakeholders. Following are recommendations drawn from an analysis of our learnings from our interviews, a review of other standards organizations, our experience with similar structures, and our expertise in effective collaborative and multi-sector processes. RESOLVE also used guidance from the ISEAL Alliance Emerging Initiatives Models of Governance to develop these recommendations. The ISEAL Alliance recommends that a governance system address diversity of membership, Board election and representation, income generation, standard setting, risk management, dispute resolution, and conformity assessment. ISEAL recommends that the design and choice of a governance model should be based on a balance of administrative efficiency, cost effectiveness, and legitimacy. We provide recommendations for ownership, leadership and governance, and funding options, charters and ground rules, outreach and participation. To be clear, we are not in a position to make a recommendation that represents an agreement among stakeholders. However, we do believe that the options described below should be tested with stakeholders for their potential to build interest and support. Leadership and Governance Options Any leadership and governance option will require a policy board, an executive staff, decision-making and board election or appointment policies, and systems to implement decisions and allocate resources. In particular, a leadership and governance system must have clear ways to make decisions with clear rules, responsibilities, and fall back mechanisms. For example, for many issues there could be a wide range of opinions and consensus may be impossible. It is important that a wide range of stakeholders have meaningful input into the decision and that their input is documented. However, if the decision making body has tried to reach consensus, stakeholders need to know what the rule is for making a decision and at what point in the decision making, the body will use the fall back mechanism. In looking at models that enhance credibility it will also be important to consider separating the functions of building R2 and promoting the standard and system, from the functions related to the standard itself and potential revisions.


Any of the following models should include mechanisms to ensure that any criteria for ground rules and decisions are open and broadcast to the public. Option 1—Industry Governed Model The first option is to develop an organization modeled after Electronics Product Stewardship Canada. Electronics Products Stewardship Canada is an industry led organization with a Recycling Vendor Qualification program Governance and Structure: In this model, there would be a new organization with an elected board of directors made up of companies and associations. For example, the board could include:

a. two recycling industry companies; b. ISRI; c. ITI; d. Consumer Electronics Association; e. two OEMs.

The Board would set broad policy, define roles and responsibilities, resolve grievances, and develop strategic plans. The center of governance would exist at the board and executive level allowing for quick and efficient decision-making. This model could include a strong executive director with authority to promote efficient decision-making and respond to problems. The Board would make decisions by consensus with a fall back to supermajority voting (2/3rds). The organization would also include members. Members could come from interested recycling companies, OEMs, electronics retailers, and relevant associations. The members would be organized by type (e.g. OEM, recycler, etc.) to vote for board members. Members would elect the Board, bring certification, compliance, and auditing issues to the Board, and identify new challenges and opportunities. Members could meet once a year to review policy changes, review any requests for changes to the standard, certification, or auditing procedures, learn from experiences to create better performance, and discuss harmonization with other electronics recycling activities. Staff would include an executive director, public outreach coordinator, and auditing and certification coordinator. Staff would carry out publicity, interpretation, certification planning, and other activities. In this model, a member association would house the R2 standard. Housing the standard within a member association could proceed relatively quickly, which would address concerns that it is taking too long to implement an electronics-recycling standard. The downside could be a perception that the association owns the R2 standard. This might limit opportunities for growth and inhibit future efforts to include other sectors. Another option could be to use the services of a firm that manages industry associations. While the recycling standard would have an independent public presence and governance capacity, a firm that supports small associations


would administer and provide operations for the standard. Typically, this arrangement is organized with a management contract. Advantages: This organization would be relatively easy to set up and could begin working immediately. This would allow the R2 standard to increase implementation activities. It would ensure that the operations and finances were handled professionally and could create confidence with corporate and association members. Under this model, the R2 standard could focus its outreach and activities to build support from recycling industries. Professional administration might be able to reach out and recruit recycling industries. If more recycling industries participated in seeking certification, there might be more environmental improvements. In this model, the organization could quickly respond to concerns in the industry. Standards that follow this model earn legitimacy and recognition by results. If the standard can show evidence of environmental and business benefits then OEMs, retailers, government, and other interested parties may grant it legitimacy. If the standard leads to less waste and more refurbishment and recycling, then more stakeholders may support it. If the organization can quantify benefits and focuses on improving results then it might win support over time. Disadvantages: This option would not address interviewees’ criteria that any standard should have significant and active representation from the range of affected interests. Even if operated transparently, with a focus on achieving results, our interviewees noted that an industry or environmental organizational based structure might not be able to establish legitimacy with other stakeholders if it does not include a broader representation from federal and state agencies and from other stakeholders. However, some industry led or environmental led and social improvement efforts organize themselves to recruit broader participation and input. For example, the Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC) is comprised exclusively of companies. It conducts dialogues with key stakeholder groups and partners with civil society to conduct collaborative research and develop programs. It appears to be judged largely by results as well as how effectively it interacts with stakeholders. Of note, EICC is not claiming to represent multiple-stakeholders or govern or own a certification system, instead it works with others to promote this type of action for suppliers. Resources: In this model, R2 members would provide administration and operations resources. Typically, programs with this model use several different funding strategies. One approach is to impose a fee on members in the organization or association. The organization or association can impose a flat fee per member. They can impose a sliding scale fee based upon size, turnover, or other variables. Another funding source could be a fee levied on those who benefit from certification.


In other certification systems, the entities seeking the certification and/or those using the certification label provide the resources. Another approach could be to establish a member fee to fund the R2 secretariat and a smaller certification fee that covers the cost of certification—paid by the entity being certified. It is unlikely that foundations would have interest in this model. Government agencies might have interest in seed funding to launch the organization. Option 2—Association Model An association model would address interviewees’ preferences to move in the direction of a standard and system that is broadly based and includes different perspectives. It would also address some concerns about conflicts of interest because individual industries or organizations would not be in the governance structure. There are two slightly different models outlined below-- one that is small and one that is larger and organized to solicit new governance participation. Option 2a This governance option would include associations or organizations with broad constituencies interested in environmental standards, recycling, and fair trade in general as well as electronics and recycling industry associations. The following list is an example.

A large environmental organization interested in environmental standards, such as WWF, EDF, or NRDC

WEEE

StEP

ITI

ISRI

CEA

EPA

Two state and local government representatives---WGA, Council of Mayors, or League of Cities

One representative from UNEP with knowledge and interest in recycling

Northeast Recycling Coalition

National Recycling Coalition

One interested state recycling association

One campus recycling organization

One fair trade and recycling NGO or association such as wr3a The associations or organizations would provide the name of each Individual to represent their organization or association. At its first meeting, the board would elect officers. The Board would set broad policy, define roles and responsibilities, resolve grievances, and develop strategic plans. The Board would make decisions by consensus with a fall back to super majority (2/3rds). The Board would set up a system to learn and improve the standard and the certification system. Annual board meetings could include an open conference with education, publicity for


the standard, and presentations and discussions to explore new issues and opportunities to inform governing board decisions and strategic plans. Under this model, the organization could begin with selection of board members to represent each organization and over time could have members who pay membership dues and could elect board members from the membership. In this variation, the board composition would designate how many seats to represent balanced interests. Staff would include an executive director, public outreach coordinator, and an auditing and certification coordinator. Staff would carry out publicity, interpretation, certification planning, and other activities. In this model, the organization could be housed at any non-profit or association management organization. Advantages: In this model, the organization could represent more interests because each association or organization would represent the interests of its members, and these interests include the wider recycling community in OEM’s, recyclers, the states, on campuses, and in institutions. Wider participation from recycling sectors could increase legitimacy. This new organization might be able to address efficiencies and harmonization because of the representation and information from a broad constituency. The model could build on current interests and representation to expand to other recycling interests. It might not take much time or be too difficult to recruit associations and organizations interested in voluntary environmental standards and/or recycling. Some of the interests would require information on the specific issues for electronics recycling but that may not be difficult. Board members could be selected by organizations so the standard organization does not have to set up a membership structure and run elections. Since Board membership does not require an election, the board could begin working quickly. The board would be relatively small, easy to manage, and therefore not too expensive. This model could expand on the interest of the board in the future. Disadvantages: It may be very hard to get participation from a large environmental organization because of the polarization around the two standards. The simple association model would not address the concerns from some stakeholders that an electronic standards organization includes all the affected interests in its governance and management. While this model includes more perspectives, it does not include all perspectives. There may also be criticism of board self-selection instead of membership election. Therefore, it may be difficult to establish legitimacy. However, similar to the previous model, the standard could gain legitimacy over time if it demonstrates environmental and safety improvements.


Resources: Model 2a would probably require additional resources. This model could likely begin with funding from the recycling and electronics industry companies with a possibility of funding from foundations to solicit wider participation. The organization could bring in new resources from the new associations and organizations. Resources could be solicited from foundations, industry, and perhaps the federal government to expand representation and participation. The effort to bring in other recycling constituencies may increase the possibility of securing start-up resources from government and/or OEMs. The organization could impose a fee on organizations or associations from the electronics or recycling industry. Another funding source could be a fee levied on those who benefit from certification. In other certification systems, the entities seeking the certification and/or those using the certification label provide the resources. Option 2b—Association with Observers Option 2b includes industry, electronics recycling, recycling in general, recycling and trade, city, state, federal, and international governments, and associations in governing the standard. It also invites others to participate as observers. In model 2b, governance would begin more narrowly but over time expand to include more observers. To achieve this, the governing board would include one seat each for the following organizations or constituencies. The following list is an example.

WEEE

StEP

ITI

ISRI

CEA

ISRI

EPA

Two state and local government representatives---WGA, Council of Mayors, or League of Cities

A representative from UNEP and/or the UN with an interest in recycling

Northeast Recycling Coalition

National Recycling Coalition

One interested state recycling association

One campus recycling organization

A fair trade electronics recycling association such as wr3a

Civil Society observers Each organization on the board would choose representatives to serve on the governing board. The governing board would invite several other stakeholders to participate as observers. These could include environmental organizations such as BAN, WWF, EDF, EARTHWORKS, and NRDC; and consumer/environmental organizations such as the PIRGS/Environment America. The


governing board could calculate the number of invited stakeholders to provide input and balance without making the governing board and observers too large or hard to manage. In this model, the observers do not vote, but observer status acknowledges the need for broader input, openness, and transparency. The governing board can review and revise charters and ground rules with the invited observers to ensure that observer status can provide meaningful input. The board could make decisions by consensus with fall back to supermajority vote. In this option, observers could provide input and suggest improvements to the R2 standard and certification process without having to endorse the policies or decisions. Each policy or decision document could describe how the governing group solicited input and the input suggested from observer organizations. Observer status would be established with ground rules so that observers could participate actively and make recommendations but they would not have a vote. Observer organizations could monitor the development of the R2 system and could directly observe its governance approach. Observers would be in a position to judge for themselves whether R2 was responding effectively to observer input and concerns. This model could evolve over time into voting status for environmental, public health, and consumer organizations, if all groups agreed. This would allow these organizations, many of whom are skeptics today, to understand and assess potential participation in the future, without endorsing R2 today. Other features of this model are similar to model 1. However, with a larger board, there may need to be an executive committee to facilitate decision-making. Staff would include an executive director, public outreach coordinator, and an auditing and certification coordinator. The Board would set broad policy, define roles and responsibilities, resolve grievances, and develop strategic plans. A board executive committee would work with staff to implement policy and management decisions of the board and executive committee. Members would elect the Board, bring certification, compliance, auditing issues to the Board, and identify new challenges and opportunities. Staff would carry out publicity, interpretation, certification planning, and other activities. Advantages: The stakeholder participation in model 2b is more inclusive and the governing board would take proactive steps to include a broader representation from stakeholders. Broader participation through observer status may increase transparency, learning, and legitimacy.


Disadvantages: In model 2b, there is no certainty that NGO stakeholders would have interest. Outreach to new organizations and associations may slow down implementation and decision-making. With more participation from a broader recycling group, there may be more time to bring new board members up to speed on recycling and refurbishment issues. Board meetings might need to be professionally facilitated by an external facilitator because of the participation dynamics and to demonstrate a fair process. Resources: Model 2b would certainly require additional resources. In addition to the resources suggested in 2a, it might be possible to approach donors to specifically fund NGO observer participation. Option Three—Multi-Sector Certification System Another option is to develop a new organization modeled after the Forest Stewardship Council or the Fair Trade Labeling Organization. This model includes an assembly, board of directors, and staff.

In this model, the new organization would have three levels of leadership and decision-making. The General Assembly would include anyone interested in electronic recycling. The General Assembly would revise the Statutes, Principles, and Criteria, admit and unseat members, elect the Board and would be the final dispute resolution authority. Members could be individuals or organizations and pay a membership fee. The General Assembly would operate through proportional voting to ensure strict balance between industry- environmental interests, and OECD–Non–OECD interests.

The Board of Directors would be accountable to the General Assembly members. There would be nine Board members elected from the General Assembly and representing the same balance of interests. The Board would be responsible for an annual budget, revise by-laws, supervise the Executive Director, administer the dispute resolution system, establish annual fees, hold the final authority to seat, or unseat members, and other legal obligations for the organization. The Executive Director and staff would run the organization day-to-day including implementing policy and standards, network and stakeholder relations, communication, finance and administration, global development, and accreditation. Advantages: This option has the most participation and representation from all materially affected and interested parties. Proportional voting and a balanced board ensure that all decisions represent all interests without any one interest being able to filibuster or block activity. The new organization could learn from FLO, MSC, FSC, and others what works and does not work. It would be able to tackle international harmonization issues as well as international health and safety issues.


Disadvantages: This option would take the longest to develop. However, perhaps a multi sector Board of Directors could begin immediately and hire a staff to begin implementing standard and certification activities while the larger organization is developed. Resources: It is possible that foundations, government, and corporations could fund the start-up of this system. FSC and FLO are funded through memberships as well as the costs to become certified. Resource Possibilities Any funding arrangement should be based on shared responsibility between OEM’s, institutional recyclers, recycling organizations, and governments. There may be temporary funds from foundations to set up the system and develop strong outreach and public participation. It is likely that R2 will need to self-fund its activities, through member fees and a fee to those being certified, if it pursues option 1, and perhaps option 2a. If R2 pursues option 2b, it is possible that donations could be secured for NGO participation and some start-up activities. Some certification systems find that this funding takes some of the initial pressure off member and certification fees in the early phase of the program. If R2 pursues option 3 then it is more likely to be in a position to secure start-up funds from foundations and government. RESOLVE did not interview potential donors. Charters and Ground Rules To ensure legitimacy and clear decision-making the standard will need to have clear operating procedures and ground rules. These are normally captured in a charter and operating procedures document. The charter should address substantive, organizational, procedural, and behavioral issues. Substantive The new organization must include the scope and purpose of the organization in the charter. This would include a mission statement and the goals for the organization. Organizational The charter must address the issues outlined above in each of the models. It should include details on the structure for participation, representation, and or elections. It should also describe if board meetings will be open or not to observation from chosen observers or the public. The charter also defines roles of board members and staff and corresponding responsibilities. The charter describes over what issues the board and staff have authority.


Procedural The charter or organizational document must include details on all the process issues especially decision-making. If decisions are made by consensus then the definition of consensus and the method to achieve it must be clearly defined. The board must have a fallback decision making method such as super majority. The charter should specify how much time board members have to review decision-making items, how long the board has to discuss an agenda item or how many meetings will include consensus building, before the group can resort to another decision-making method. The charter should also include guidelines for discussions and whether the meetings will be moderated or chaired by board members or professionally facilitated. It should include details on how notes or recordings will be used, and whether there will be meeting summaries, board minutes. The charter should also specify how documents used or produced by the process would be disseminated to participants and others. The charter should include clear behavioral guidelines for behavior during meetings and away from board meetings, when discussing board issues or representing the organization. There must be guidelines for interaction with the media by board members and staff. These define the mutual obligations on the part of participants. Outreach and Public Input For the standard and certification process to gain legitimacy and continue to improve, it must provide information to electronics recycling industries and certifying bodies about the standard and the certification process. It must reach out to recycling industries to recruit new members. It must provide information to retailers, states, large recyclers, and consumers. It also must engage in dialogue and shared learning with opponents and skeptics. Each audience may require separate outreach and input strategies. Most standards organizations have a strategic combination of information on a website, webinars, presentations at conferences and training. We recommend also cultivating public input on the standard, its progress, and benefits through internet outreach and input. We also recommend that the organization reach out proactively to environmental and international trade groups. This dialogue must be open and respectful based on goals of improving the industry and the reaching environmental and safety goals.

VI. Other Recommendations The report suggests several ideas to build broader participation. However, these steps may not be sufficient to engage enough potential participants so that they will participate in R2 as observer or full “voting” members. We would like to suggest some additional options for you to consider. These are not mutually exclusive; you could implement one or more of these recommendations.


Design and Implement an Independent Grievance and Conflict Resolution Mechanism The premise is that implementation of the R2 certification system will create questions, challenges, and, potentially, disagreements with interested stakeholders—this is natural in any system. For stakeholders to participate, even as observers, they are likely to want assurances that these issues and concerns will be addressed in some effective, constructive fashion. An accessible grievance structure could be created to allow stakeholders to raise questions and concerns. For many issues, information sharing and fact-finding will be sufficient to answer a question or concern. Some may be more complex and require research and investigation. This will help identify areas where revisions and fixes might be necessary in the future, as the R2 system evolves. An institutional grievance mechanism will regularize these interactions and create a constructive orientation. Creating a structure that has independence will send a strong signal that R2 is serious about concerns, wants to learn, and will treat stakeholders with respect. It also increases the chances that the system will be used effectively. Independent, External Advisory Group R2 is currently comprised of non-NGO members, despite R2’s interest in maintaining NGO participation. Most of the NGOs who have been approached remain unlikely to join or support R2—at least at this stage. Acknowledging this and at the same time seeking to build a bridge, R2 could ask a number of NGOs, academics, and experts to form an external advisory group. The group would not be asked to support R2. It would be asked to observe R2 over 12 to 18 months and then prepare a report to R2 on its findings. The report might be a consensus document or it could have some consensus views and some consenting views. R2 would then be in a position to respond to, accept, or reject the input and findings. The group would be “protected” in a sense because R2 would agree that their report would be public. Some may be concerned that this will only serve as a forum for criticism—and much of it could be. However, the criticism will take place anyway. This approach has risks but it allows R2 to proceed quickly to establish itself, positions R2 as an open, engaged organization, willing to talk with and respond to critics and supporters constructively. Moreover, it creates an opportunity to begin to re-establish relationships and potentially build new relationships. If R2 chooses this option, the advisory group must be carefully planned and managed, including external support for design and facilitation. Joint Fact Finding There are a set of substantive issues that underlie the disputes and tensions between R2 and a core group of NGOs. There are some areas where disagreements are clear and agreements may not be possible. However, in some areas disputed facts, science, costs, benefits, and impacts underlie these disagreements. For example, there are several studies underway to quantify the amount of hazardous waste from discarded electronics and to characterize fate and transport. Without scientific understanding of how much hazardous waste is generated now, which countries are generating which waste, where the waste ends up, and whether and how the hazards affect air, water, soil or dermal exposure it is impossible to design systems to address the waste. Further, without scientific understanding of the amount of risk, public fears can arise. Joint fact-finding (JFF) can be a useful way to unpack and understand these disputes.


The UN has been looking at these questions and commissioned research as well. R2 could participate in this effort, launch a parallel process, or work in a complementary manner. A joint fact finding process can build on those inquiries to jointly define the questions that need to be answered, what kind of information would answer those questions to the satisfaction of all the stakeholders, which researchers or team of researchers have the credibility to assess or put together the analysis, and what process will be credible and transparent to answer the questions. Joint fact-finding is extraordinarily useful in disputes with a complex mix of science, risk, values, and politics. Stakeholders can learn what is known, what is not known, and can decide how, and whether, to make decisions in the light of uncertain science. Stakeholders can also make contingent decisions based on current knowledge and agree to gather more information for future issues. Environmental decisions with emerging or uncertain risks and benefits are also about values, so joint fact finding makes it much easier to clarify the uncertainties so that values can be discussed. Stakeholders can focus on the procedures to reduce or mitigate risks and allocate benefits. Finally, joint fact-finding can model good collaborative process and build relationships. Some stakeholders who would not joint R2 might be willing to participate in a JFF process. Policy Harmonization and Development The people we interviewed stressed that different state, federal, and international regulations, guidelines, and policies created inefficiencies and barriers for recycling industries, OEM’s, and municipalities. Many actors are working on different policies and programs. As mentioned above states, international organizations, and governments are developing regulations and policies. Without clear direction from the U.S. government, states will continue to develop their own policies. This leads to a maze of programs and policies for OEM’s, retailers, and recyclers. Lack of direction from the U.S. government also creates incentives for the recycling industry and the environmental organizations to pursue their differences instead of working together to continuously improve. We recommend policy harmonization and development as the first priority to reduce conflict and inefficiencies, and provide clear direction, incentives, and processes to improve worker safety, protect the environment and human health. We recommend that EPA convene a policy dialogue to review, develop, or harmonize electronics recycling policies and regulations. Participants would include representatives from the UN, international environmental organizations, U.S. federal government agencies including the Commerce and State Departments and states. It would also include representatives from civil society, businesses, foundations, and academia. The policy dialogue would review national and international efforts such as EPEAT, StEP, and WEEE and international, national, and state policies such as RoHS and the Basel Convention. The dialogue members would review standards and policies to develop clear understanding of the different approaches and trends. Dialogue members would commission joint fact-finding studies to assess if different systems are actually having any impact on human health, environmental protection, and worker safety. At the conclusion of joint fact-finding research, the dialogue would convene to review findings.


The findings would inform a consensus seeking discussion focused on agreeing on easy policy harmonization activities, moderately hard activities, and policy differences that could not be harmonized. EPA should convene the policy dialogue but a policy dialogue of this stature would need executive direction and leadership to make sure that all the state department and federal agencies participate. EPA leaders would also have to agree on a clear direction for environmental regulation of electronics recycling, refurbishment, and export of materials. VII. Suggested Next Steps 1. Publicize this document and use the document to solicit input on the options from the

previous participants and the broader public. This should be done on the web using a document-sharing site that allows people to comment on and make suggestions to the document. These tools also use content analysis software to facilitate content analysis.

2. Using the feedback and analysis from the public outreach, develop an agenda for a face-

to-face meeting of as many of the original participants in developing the standard as possible. The goal of the meeting will be to choose a model. The group members should use consensus to decide but use supermajority vote if they cannot reach consensus.

3. After the group chooses a model, the R2 Housing Committee should choose a housing organization for that model.

4. Work with EPA and interested environmental groups to discuss a policy dialogue idea and how to develop and support it.

5. Convene the first board meeting to write the executive director job description and

organizational documents.

Responsible Recycling Practices for Electronics Recyclers

Assessment Report and Recommendations

Appendix a: RESOLVE Programs and Services

1255 23rd Street, NW, Suite 875 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: 202-944-2300 Fax: 202-338-1264 www.resolv.org

PPRROOGGRRAAMMSS && SSEERRVVIICCEESS

RESOLVE is an independent leader in collaborative problem solving with over thirty‐years of

success tackling the toughest, most complex challenges. RESOLVE pioneered the use of

collaboration and consensus building to improve public decision making and solve

environmental and public health issues. We help our partners build capacity to work effectively

with communities, interest groups, corporate and civil society leaders, and policy makers and

regulators.

MMIISSSSIIOONN RESOLVE builds strong, enduring solutions to environmental, social, and health challenges. We

help community, business, government, and NGO leaders get results and create lasting

relationships through collaboration. RESOLVE is an independent, non‐profit organization with a

thirty‐year track record of success.

PPRROOGGRRAAMMSS

We focus our programs and activities in these areas: healthy people and communities, clean air and water, resilient ecosystems, smart energy, sustainable development and natural resource conflicts.

SSEERRVVIICCEESS RESOLVE professionals are leaders in collaborative problem solving, with expertise and

experience in stakeholder engagement, coalition and network design, collaboration and

consensus building, and conflict resolution. Our methods are tested and we adapt our

processes to the unique needs of our partners and their context.

Conflict and Situation Assessments To help parties understand the issues and situations they face; to evaluate whether and how collaborative processes might be used to solve problems

Convening and Collaborative Process Design Design strategies, enroll appropriate stakeholders, build trust, and develop collaborative techniques to strategically and efficiently reach outcomes given different contexts.

Meeting Design and Logistics To support workshops, collaborative fact‐finding processes, public‐private partnerships, training, organizational development, policy dialogues and

other needs

Facilitation Lead groups in retreats, meetings, workshops, and public input activities to ensure full participation, manage group decision making, and reach clear outcomes.

Mediation Lead groups to develop consensus and or reach written agreements on standards, regulations, plans, projects, and programs affecting many parties, controversial issues, and public concerns.

Training Including negotiation, stakeholder engagement, and conflict resolution.

Coaching and Mentoring Coaching is custom designed to improve the knowledge, skills and abilities of individuals in organizations, governments, and corporations.

Collaborative Systems Design To increase the ability of institutions to manage decision‐making, build partnerships, and advance collaborative projects.

Multi‐Stakeholder Research RESOLVE led research to help stakeholders assess issues in a collaboratively and work together to seek solutions.

Joint Fact Finding Multi‐party research designed to address conflicts involving complex science and technical information.

Research and Publications Research to support and promote learning in the field.

Outreach and Education Briefings, tools and systems designed to disseminate information about the effective use of collaboration.

RREESSOOLLVVEE’’SS SSOOLLUUTTIIOONNSS NNEETTWWOORRKK RESOLVE’s Solutions Network mobilizes leaders in business and civil society to incubate and test

ideas and turn them into self sustaining environmental, social, and health solutions. The

Network is powered by our team of collaborative experts and technical, policy, and scientific

partners.

This innovative program is designed to create a safe space for stakeholders to work together on

trials, case studies and other joint activities. The Solutions Network program is focused in the

areas of food safety (from farm to table); extractive sector conflicts and issues (from source to

product); and renewable energy (with a focus on conflicts between habitat and renewables).

PPAARRTTNNEERRSS We work with governments, agencies, corporations, NGO’s, and other civil society leaders. Our

programs and services support our partners on a range of issues and challenges. Our

experience demonstrates that successful partnerships and environmental solutions are based

on effective stakeholder engagement and collaboration.

Our partners include WWF, Tiffany & Co., Motorola, the World Bank, Alaska Conservation Foundation, Packard Foundation, Mars, the Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition, Partnership Africa Canada, SeaWeb, the Arsenault Family Foundation, Kinross, Picton Mahoney, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Nature Conservancy, and others. You can get more information about RESOLVE by contacting Jennifer Peyser at [email protected] or 202.965.6215.



Appendix b: Scoping Interview Questions

1255 23rd Street, NW, Suite 875 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: 202-944-2300 | Fax: 202-338-1264 www.resolv.org

R2 Housing Assessment

-Scoping Interview Questions- Issues & Challenges

• If you think of all the outcomes that can come from a recycling/refurbishing standard-what is most important to you?

• Why are those outcomes most important to you?

• What are the biggest obstacles or challenges that stand in the way of those outcomes?

Outreach and Participation

• Who is already involved in setting standards?

• What are their roles in development of the standard or the implementation of the certification system?

• Who are the key players?

• Is there anyone else who should be involved in order to be successful?

• How should they be approached or included? Why are they not participating now and what do you think they will need to participate?

Governance Structure

• What is most important to you for the governance structure?

• What challenges do we have to overcome to create an effective and credible governance structure?

• Who needs to be included in the governance structure? Types of organizations or companies? Specific organizations? Specific individuals?



Appendix c: Scoping Interview Contacts

This data is displayed five different ways;

by Name by Organization

by Region by Interview Status

by Type of Actor



Appendix d: Scoping Assessment Outreach

This data is displayed three different ways;

by Organization by Region

by Type of Actor

Organization

General Contact

Email Address

General Contact

Phone Number

Second Contact

Email address

Second Contact

Phone Number Website Type of Actor

Country/Re

gionAmerican

Academy of

Environmental

Engineers

Joseph S.

Cavarretta,JCava@aa

ee.net

J. Sammi Olmo,

[email protected]

http://www.aaee.net/

Enviromental

Engineer

Association nationwide

5 R Processors

Ltd., Clinton

Karen Birkenstock,

Kbirkenstock@5proces

sors.com 865-457-1621

http://www.5rproces

sors.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler nationwide

A & B Recycling

Inc.

Lamar Bearden,

[email protected] 800-557-0726

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler GA

Altech Houston

Bryan Frazar,

[email protected] 713-680-9325 www.altechco.com

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

As You Sow

Foundation, USA

asyousow@asyousow.

org 415- 391-3212

http://www.asyouso

w.org/about/contact

us.shtml NGO CABasel Action

Network [email protected] 206-652-5555 www.ban.org NGO WA

Best Buy

NewsCenter@bestbuy.

com 612-292-6397 888-237-8289

http://www.bestbuy.

com/site/null/Recycli

ng-

Electronics/pcmcat1

49900050025.c?id=

pcmcat1499000500

25&DCMP=rdr0001

422 E Products seller nationwideBoard of

Environmental,

Health & Safety

Auditor

Certifications [email protected]

407-831-7727

http://www.beac.org/

Enviroment

auditors FL

Breast Cancer

Fund

info@breastcancerfund

.org

415-346-8223;toll-

free 866- 760-8223

fax 415-346-2975

Campaign:info@saf

ecosmetics.org;

Press:scoughlin@br

eastcancerfund.org

www.breastcancerfu

nd.org NGO nationwide

C & H Metals &

Salvage

Stan Martin,

[email protected]

m 336-578-4994

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NCCalifornia

Communities

Against Toxics,

USA [email protected] 661- 510-3412

http://www.stoptoxic

s.org/ NGO CA

Capitol Area

Corporate

Recycling Council [email protected] 225-379-3577 www.cacrc.com

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler LACenter For

Environmental

Health

Charles Margulis,

Communications

Director, 510-655-3900

x305 510- 655-3900 www.ceh.org NGO CACenter for Health,

Environment and

Justice

[email protected] 703- 237-2249

Safe Campaign:

[email protected]

518- 732-4538

www.chej.org

NGO NY

Center for Public

Environmental

Oversight [email protected] 650-961-8918

Lenny Siegel,

Executive Director,

[email protected]

Phone 650- 961-

8918 or 969-1545

Fax 650- 961-8918

www.cpeo.org NGO CA

Center on Race,

Poverty & the

Environment

tel 661- 720-9140

fax 661- 720-9483

Second office:

tel 415- 346-4179

fax 415- 436-8723 www.crpe-ej.org/

NGO NY

City Industries

Incorporated

John Loncar, VP

Operations,

[email protected] 214-421-5406 [email protected]

http://www.cityindus

tries.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

Clean New York

clean-ny.org

Bobbi Chase Wilding,

Organizing Director,

[email protected]

m

Phone: 518-708-

3875

Fax: 518-234-8421

Kathy Curtis,

Policy Director,

clean.kathy@

gmail.com

Phone: 518-708-

3922

Fax: 518-355-6202 http://clean-ny.org/ NGO NY

Clean Production

Action

Alexandra McPherson,

Management Director

and Partner,

alexandra@cleanprodu

ction.org

Alexandra

McPherson,716-805-

1056

Beverley Thorpe,

Communications

Director and

Partner,

bev@cleanproductio

n.org

Beverley Thorpe,

647-341-6688 www.cleanproductio

n.org NGO

Canada &

US

Clean Water

Action

[email protected]

g;

[email protected]

410-235-8808

202-895-0420

www.cleanwateracti

on.org.ma

NGO nationwide

Coastal Electronic

Recycling Services

Scott Mcleod,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MSCommunication

Workers of

America

202- 434-1100 www.cwa-union.org Union USConnecticut

Coalition for

Environmental

Justice, USA

ccej@environmental-

justice.or 860-548-1133

Dawn Simonsen,

dawn.simonsen@en

vironmental-

justice.org-

www.environmental-

justice.org NGO CT

Cox & Associates

Mark Cox,


info@cox-

associates.com 303-388-1778

http://www.cox-

associates.com/cont

act.htm

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler KY

Creative Recycling

Systems Inc.

Joseph Yob,

creative@crselecrecycl

in.com 800-797-2061

http://www.crserecy

cling.com

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FL

Creative Recycling

Systems,LLC 813-621-2319 800-797-2061 http://www.crserecy

cling.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler nationwide

CRT Processing

Corporation

Leslie Amundson,

lamundson@crtproces

sing.com 608-754-3400

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler

Datex Storage

Solutions

[email protected]

om

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler WA

Earthworks

[email protected] p: 970-259-3353

f: 970-259-7514

jennifergoldman@o

gap.org

p: 406-587-4473

f: 406-587-3385

www.earthworksacti

on.org NGO MT

ECOFLO Inc

John Canoy,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NCEcology Center

[email protected] 510-548-2220 x233

recycling@ecologyc

enter.org 510-527-5555

www.ecologycenter.

org NGO CA

ECS Refining

Steven Burns,

[email protected] 336-851-1113 408- 988-4386

www.ecsrefining.co

m

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

EEnd 240-529-1010

http://eendusa.com/i

ndex.php

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler nationwideElectronic

Environmental

Solutions 859-252-0321

www.electronicrecyc

ling.net

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler KYElectronic

Recyclers

International

info@ElectronicRecycl

ers.com 800-884-8466

http://electronicrecy

clers.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler USElectronic

Recycling and

Trading, Inc.

Pat Enyart,


http://www.ertinc.net

/contacts.html

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TXElectronic

Takeback

Coalition, USA [email protected] 415-206-9595

http://www.compute

rtakeback.com/ NGO CA

Electronics

Collection Center 601-394-9925

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MS

Energy Star

Cara Clusen,

cara.clusen@cadmusg

roup.com 888-782-7937 703-247-6129

http://www.energyst

ar.gov/

Certification

Program nationwide

Envirocycle

Patty Bonavita,

[email protected]

om

570-879-2862, Ext.

308

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler PAEnvironmental

Law and Policy

Center [email protected] 312-673-6500

North Dakota Office:

701-952-0020 www.elpc.org NGO nationwide

EPEAT

Wayne Rifer, EPEAT

Operations

Manager,wayne.rifer@

greenelectronicscouncil

.org

503-644-0294

sarah.obrien@green

electronicscouncil.or

g

Sarah O'Brien,PEAT

Outreach

Director,802-479-

0317 http://www.epeat.net

/

Certification

Program nationwide

E-Recyclers Plus

Amy Erwin,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler LA

Friends of the

Earth, U.S. P 202-783-7400

F 202-783-0444

Sara Schedler,

Clean Cars Program

San Francisco

office:

P 415-544-0790

F 415-544-0796 www.foe.org NGO DC & CA

Global Exchange

denisse@globalexchan

ge.org 415- 255-7296

Network

Administrator:steve

@globalexchange.or

g 415- 255-7296 x333

www.globalexchang

e.org NGO CA

Global Investment

Recovery Inc.

David Ritter,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FL

Goldsmith Group,

Inc.

Eric Goldsmith,

[email protected]

om 317-545-4747

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler IN

GrassRoots

Recycling Network

Rick Anthony

GRRN Board President

[email protected]

Linda Christopher,

Executive Director,

707-321-7883 www.grrn.org NGO CA

Green Science

Policy Institute,

USA

Dr. Arlene Blum,

Executive Director

http://www.greensci

encepolicy.org/ NGO

Greenpeace

Toxics Campaign supporter.services.int

@greenpeace.org 310-20 7182000

http://www.greenpea

ce.org/international/

campaigns/toxics NGO

Netherland

and

worldwide

Greenpeace USA

Lisa Finaldi, National

Campaign Director NGO

HAZ-M.E.R.T Inc.

Bobby Fanning,

[email protected]

m 479-621-9707

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler AR

Health Care

Without Harm

Colleen Funkhouser

[email protected]

g

ph: 703-860-9790

fax: 703-860-9795

USA and Canada

Press contact

Eileen Secrest,


www.noharm.org

NGO worldwide

HOBI International

Inc.

Craig Boswell,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

IBS Environmental

Services Inc.

David Haynes,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

Image

Microsystems

Butch Watson,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

INFORM [email protected] 646-695-5080

Yon Lam

Communications

Associate

[email protected] www.informinc.org NGO VAIntechra Group.

LLC [email protected]

601-863-0615

sstevens@intechra.

com

601-863-0618

http://www.intechra.

com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler OI

Intercon Solutions

Travis Griggs,

travis@interconrecyclin

g.com 708-756-9838

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler IL

International

Association of

Electronic

Recyclers http://www.iaer.org/

Association

search engine

Jack's Recycling &

Salvage Company

Jack Jones,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FLKing County Solid

Waste Division,

USA 206-296-4466

http://your.kingcount

y.gov/solidwaste/ind

ex.asp NGO WALifeSpan

Technology

Recycling

Dag Adamson,

info@lifespanrecycling.

com 888-720-0900

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MA

MBA Polymers Inc

Darren Arola,

darola@mbapolymers.

com 510-231-9031

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler CA

Medi-Com EygptMercury Policy

Project [email protected]

g 802-223-9000

Jane Williams

Executive Director

805-256-0968

www.mercurypolicy.

org NGO VT

MOLAM

International

Steve Wilson,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler GA

Monitex [email protected] 817- 701-1200 www.monitexllc.com

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler

USA-

Thailand

Natural Resources

Council of Maine

[email protected]

phone: 207- 622-

3101

toll-free: 800- 287-

2345

fax: 207- 622-4343

Matt Prindiville,

Toxics Project

Director, 207- 430-

0144 www.nrcm.org NGO MA

Natural Resources

Defense Council

[email protected]

Telephone: 212-

727-2700

Fax: 212- 727-1773

Dr. Allen

Hershkowitz, Senior

Scientist

Washington

office:202-289-6868 www.nrdc.org NGO

nationwide

and

worldwide

NetPeripheral Inc

[email protected]

om 60-4-501-2168

http://www.netperiph

eral.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MalaysiaNewmarket

Trading Group

LTD

wlong@computerresal

e.com 512-997-7974

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

O C Stafford

Electronic Service

and Development

Ozzie Stafford,

[email protected]

.net 336-274-9917

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NCOcala Recycling,

LLCMichelle Alcathie-

White,malcathie@tmre

cycling.com 813-226-0088

http://www.tmrecycli

ng.com/home.aspx

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FL

Onyx Electronics

Recycling

Harry Mays,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FL

PC Point

USA &

Senegal

Pesticide Action

Network


Heather Pilatic,

Communications

Director,

[email protected]

www.panna.org NGO US

Phoenix Trading

International

headquarters@phoenix-

c-g.com

Syria: + 96311 –

612 10 01

http://www.phoenix-

c-

g.com/text/contactu

s.htm

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler worldwidePhysicians for

Social

Responsibility -

Bay Area Marj Plumb,

Consulting Director,


Lena Brook, Senior

Program Associate,

[email protected] 415-601-0504 www.sfbaypsr.org NGO CA

Planning &

Conservation

League

[email protected]

Phone

916.444.8726

Fax 916.448.1789

Traci

Sheehan,Executive

Director,


www.pcl.org

NGO CA

Plataforma RELAC

Investigation assistant,

Daniel Garces,

danielgarces@sitiosur.

cl

Researcher, Uca

Silva,ucasilva@sitio

sur.cl

http://www.residuos

electronicos.net/inde

x.php NGO

Latin

America and

the

Caribbean

Pollution Control

Industries

David Linder,

dlinder@pollutioncontr

ol.com 901-353-5291

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TNPortfolio 21

Investments, USA

welcome@portfolio21.

com 503-224-7828 206-340-1055

Investment

company WA

Raeford Salvage

Company Inc.

Stephen J. Smith,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

Reclamere Inc.

Joseph P. Harford,

[email protected]

m 814-684-5505

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler PA

Recycla Chile [email protected]

http://www.recycla.c

l/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler Chile

Recycle America

Alliance, eCycling

Services

Cathy Smith,

Accountant,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

Recycle.net

http://www.recycle.n

et/ website Canada

Recycling Today

magazine 330- 523-5400

Brian Taylor,

[email protected]

330- 523-5324

http://www.recycling

today.com/ Magazine

Resource

Concepts Inc.

Jim Glenn,

[email protected]

m 972-245-8340

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

Retroworks De

Mexico [email protected] 802-382-8500

http://www.retrowork

s.net/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler Mexico-VTRobert Brooke

Zevin Associates

Inc., USA [email protected] 617- 742-6666 http://www.rbza.org/

investment

company MASecure

Environmental

Electronic

Recycling SEER-

Max Zalkin, Ben

Ashby,

bashby@seerrecycling.

com 813-621-8870

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FL

Sierra Club, USA

information@sierraclub

.org 415-977-5500

DC Legislative

office:202-547-1141

http://www.sierraclu

b.org/contact/ NGO nationwideSilicon Valley

Toxics Coalition


lauren

Ornelas,Campaign

Director, x 303 www.svtc.org NGO WI

South African E-

waste Recycler [email protected] 031-575-8119

http://www.e-

waste.org.za/home

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler South AfricaSoutheast

Recycling

Technologies Inc.

Beverly Mooney,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TNSouthern Waste

Information

eXchange

Ray Moreau,

[email protected] 850-386-6280 http://swix.ws/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FL

Staples 800-378-2753

http://www.staples.c

om/sbd/content/abo

ut/soul/environment.

html

Products

producer nationwide

Starkville

Multimedia

Joseph Powell,


www.starkvillerecycl

ing.com

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MS

Starkville

Recycling

info@starkvillerecyclin

g.com 662-324-0930

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MS

Tech Soup

Glenn Hirsch,

Communications

Associate

[email protected]

415- 633-9403 www.techsoup.org Tech company

for NGOs nationwide

Technology for

Success Inc.

Bill Leonard,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TN

TechTurn [email protected]

m 512-532-3255

Jeff.Zeigler@TechT

urn.com 512-532-3252

http://www.techturn.

com/Home/tabid/60/

Default.aspx

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TXTexas Campaign

for the

Environment

214- 599-7840 512-

326-5655 713- 337-

4192

www.texasenvironm

ent NGO TX

The Alaska

Permanent Fund 907-796-1500

Laura Achee, 907-

796-1522

http://www.apfc.org/

home/Content/home

/index.cfm

Resource leasing

governance

model AL

The Doe Run

Company,

Resource

Recycling Division

Shad Becker,


Lou Magdits,

[email protected]

om

http://www.doerun.c

om/WHATWEDO/R

ECYCLING/tabid/74

/language/en-

US/Default.aspx

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MO

The Surplus

Exchange

Rick Goring,


http://www.surpluse

xchange.org/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MOTrans-Pacific

Environmental

Action Network,

USA Dr. Jeff Hou, President

Triangle Recycling

Service

John Howe,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

United Recycling

Industries Inc.

Amanda Hale,

ahale@unitedrecycling.

com 630-231-6060

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler IL

VADICO, LLC

Neer Vadish,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

Vermont PIRG [email protected]

v. 802- 223-5221 f.

802- 223-6855

Charity Carbine,

Environmental

Health Advocate,

802- 223-8421 www.vpirg.org NGO nationwideWashington

Citizens for

Resource

Conservation

info@wastenotwashing

ton.org 206-441-1790

Suellen Mele,

Program Director

suellen@wastenotw

ashington.org 206-441-1790

www.wastenotwashi

ngton.org NGO WAWaste

Management

Recycle America

Joe Aho,


http://www.recyclea

merica.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

Wells Fargo

stephanie.rico@wellsfa

rgo.com

Stephanie Rico, 415-

396-5804

https://www.wellsfar

go.com

Investment

Company nationwideWesbell Asset

Recovery Center

Inc.

Lisa Shpitz,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

Worksafe!

Sophie Noero,

Program Administrator

[email protected]

510-302-1027

Gail

Bateson,Worksafe's

Executive Director,

gbateson@worksafe

.org 510- 302-1011 www.worksafe.org NGO CA

World Computer

Exchange

Tom

Graham,TGraham@W

orldComputerExchang

e.org 410-997-3395

http://www.worldco

mputerexchange.org

/ NGO worldwide

World Reuse,

Repair and

Recycling

Association WR3A- [email protected]

http://www.wr3a.org

/ NGO worldwide

Zentech [email protected] 404-876-0163

http://www.zentech.

org/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler GAZero Mercury

Working Group,

USA

[email protected]

rg

Phone:+32 2

2891301

http://www.zeromerc

ury.org/index.html NGO

Europe &

US

Organization

General Contact

Email Address

General Contact

Phone Number

Second Contact

Email address

Second Contact


Country/Re

gion

The Alaska


Laura Achee, 907-

796-1522


home/Content/home

/index.cfm

Resource leasing

governance

model AL

HAZ-M.E.R.T Inc.

Bobby Fanning,

[email protected]

m 479-621-9707

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler AR

MBA Polymers Inc

Darren Arola,

darola@mbapolymers.

com 510-231-9031

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler CA

As You Sow

Foundation, USA

asyousow@asyousow.

org 415- 391-3212

http://www.asyouso

w.org/about/contact

us.shtml NGO CACalifornia

Communities

Against Toxics,



s.org/ NGO CACenter For

Environmental

Health

Charles Margulis,

Communications

Director, 510-655-3900

x305 510- 655-3900 www.ceh.org NGO CA

Center for Public

Environmental


Lenny Siegel,

Executive Director,

[email protected]

Phone 650- 961-

8918 or 969-1545

Fax 650- 961-8918

www.cpeo.org NGO CAEcology Center


recycling@ecologyc

enter.org 510-527-5555

www.ecologycenter.

org NGO CAElectronic

Takeback


http://www.compute

rtakeback.com/ NGO CA

Global Exchange


ge.org 415- 255-7296

Network

Administrator:steve

@globalexchange.or

g 415- 255-7296 x333

www.globalexchang

e.org NGO CA

GrassRoots

Recycling Network

Rick Anthony


[email protected]

Linda Christopher,

Executive Director,

707-321-7883 www.grrn.org NGO CAPhysicians for

Social

Responsibility -




Lena Brook, Senior

Program Associate,


Planning &

Conservation

League

[email protected]

Phone

916.444.8726

Fax 916.448.1789

Traci

Sheehan,Executive

Director,


www.pcl.org

NGO CA

Worksafe!

Sophie Noero,


[email protected]

510-302-1027

Gail

Bateson,Worksafe's

Executive Director,

gbateson@worksafe


Recycle.net


et/ website Canada

Clean Production

Action


Management Director

and Partner,


ction.org

Alexandra

McPherson,716-805-

1056

Beverley Thorpe,

Communications

Director and

Partner,

bev@cleanproductio

n.org

Beverley Thorpe,


n.org NGO

Canada &

US



l/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler ChileConnecticut

Coalition for

Environmental

Justice, USA

ccej@environmental-

justice.or 860-548-1133

Dawn Simonsen,

dawn.simonsen@en

vironmental-

justice.org-

www.environmental-

justice.org NGO CT

Friends of the

Earth, U.S. P 202-783-7400

F 202-783-0444

Sara Schedler,

Clean Cars Program

San Francisco

office:

P 415-544-0790

F 415-544-0796 www.foe.org NGO DC & CAZero Mercury

Working Group,

USA

[email protected]

rg

Phone:+32 2

2891301

http://www.zeromerc


Europe &

US

Medi-Com Eygpt

Creative Recycling

Systems Inc.

Joseph Yob,


in.com 800-797-2061

http://www.crserecy

cling.com

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FL

Global Investment

Recovery Inc.

David Ritter,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FL

Jack's Recycling &

Salvage Company

Jack Jones,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FLOcala Recycling,





ng.com/home.aspx

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FL

Onyx Electronics

Recycling

Harry Mays,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FLSecure

Environmental

Electronic

Recycling SEER-

Max Zalkin, Ben

Ashby,


com 813-621-8870

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FLSouthern Waste

Information

eXchange

Ray Moreau,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FLBoard of

Environmental,

Health & Safety

Auditor


407-831-7727


Enviroment

auditors FL

A & B Recycling

Inc.

Lamar Bearden,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler GA

MOLAM

International

Steve Wilson,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler GA


http://www.zentech.

org/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler GA

Intercon Solutions

Travis Griggs,


g.com 708-756-9838

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler IL

United Recycling

Industries Inc.

Amanda Hale,


com 630-231-6060

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler IL

Goldsmith Group,

Inc.

Eric Goldsmith,

[email protected]

om 317-545-4747

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler IN

Cox & Associates

Mark Cox,


info@cox-


http://www.cox-

associates.com/cont

act.htm

Electronic

Equipment


Environmental


www.electronicrecyc

ling.net

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler KY

Capitol Area

Corporate


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler LA

E-Recyclers Plus

Amy Erwin,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler LA

Plataforma RELAC


Daniel Garces,


cl

Researcher, Uca


sur.cl

http://www.residuos


x.php NGO

Latin

America and

the

Caribbean

LifeSpan

Technology

Recycling

Dag Adamson,


com 888-720-0900

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MARobert Brooke

Zevin Associates


investment

company MA

Natural Resources

Council of Maine

[email protected]

phone: 207- 622-

3101


2345

fax: 207- 622-4343

Matt Prindiville,

Toxics Project

Director, 207- 430-


NetPeripheral Inc

[email protected]

om 60-4-501-2168


eral.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler Malaysia

Retroworks De



s.net/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler Mexico-VT

The Doe Run

Company,

Resource

Recycling Division

Shad Becker,


Lou Magdits,

[email protected]

om

http://www.doerun.c

om/WHATWEDO/R

ECYCLING/tabid/74

/language/en-

US/Default.aspx

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MO

The Surplus

Exchange

Rick Goring,


http://www.surpluse

xchange.org/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MO

Coastal Electronic

Recycling Services

Scott Mcleod,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MS

Electronics


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MS

Starkville

Multimedia

Joseph Powell,



ing.com

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MS

Starkville

Recycling


g.com 662-324-0930

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MS

Earthworks


f: 970-259-7514

jennifergoldman@o

gap.org

p: 406-587-4473

f: 406-587-3385

www.earthworksacti

on.org NGO MT

Energy Star

Cara Clusen,

cara.clusen@cadmusg

roup.com 888-782-7937 703-247-6129

http://www.energyst

ar.gov/

Certification

Program nationwide

EPEAT

Wayne Rifer, EPEAT

Operations



.org

503-644-0294

sarah.obrien@green


g

Sarah O'Brien,PEAT

Outreach

Director,802-479-


/

Certification

Program nationwide

Best Buy

NewsCenter@bestbuy.

com 612-292-6397 888-237-8289

http://www.bestbuy.


ng-

Electronics/pcmcat1

49900050025.c?id=

pcmcat1499000500

25&DCMP=rdr0001

422 E Products seller nationwide

5 R Processors

Ltd., Clinton

Karen Birkenstock,


sors.com 865-457-1621

http://www.5rproces

sors.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler nationwide

Creative Recycling


cling.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler nationwide

EEnd 240-529-1010


ndex.php

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler nationwide

American

Academy of

Environmental

Engineers

Joseph S.

Cavarretta,JCava@aa

ee.net

J. Sammi Olmo,

[email protected]


Enviromental

Engineer

Association nationwide

Wells Fargo


rgo.com


396-5804


go.com

Investment

Company nationwide

Breast Cancer

Fund


.org

415-346-8223;toll-

free 866- 760-8223

fax 415-346-2975

Campaign:info@saf

ecosmetics.org;

Press:scoughlin@br

eastcancerfund.org

www.breastcancerfu

nd.org NGO nationwide

Clean Water

Action

[email protected]

g;

[email protected]

410-235-8808

202-895-0420

www.cleanwateracti

on.org.ma

NGO nationwideEnvironmental

Law and Policy




Sierra Club, USA


.org 415-977-5500

DC Legislative

office:202-547-1141


b.org/contact/ NGO nationwide


v. 802- 223-5221 f.

802- 223-6855

Charity Carbine,

Environmental

Health Advocate,

802- 223-8421 www.vpirg.org NGO nationwide

Staples 800-378-2753


om/sbd/content/abo


html

Products

producer nationwide

Tech Soup

Glenn Hirsch,

Communications

Associate

[email protected]


for NGOs nationwide

Natural Resources

Defense Council

[email protected]

Telephone: 212-

727-2700

Fax: 212- 727-1773

Dr. Allen

Hershkowitz, Senior

Scientist

Washington


nationwide

and

worldwide

C & H Metals &

Salvage

Stan Martin,

[email protected]

m 336-578-4994

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

ECOFLO Inc

John Canoy,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

ECS Refining

Steven Burns,

[email protected] 336-851-1113 408- 988-4386

www.ecsrefining.co

m

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

IBS Environmental

Services Inc.

David Haynes,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

O C Stafford

Electronic Service

and Development

Ozzie Stafford,

[email protected]

.net 336-274-9917

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

Raeford Salvage

Company Inc.

Stephen J. Smith,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

Recycle America

Alliance, eCycling

Services

Cathy Smith,

Accountant,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

Triangle Recycling

Service

John Howe,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NCWesbell Asset

Recovery Center

Inc.

Lisa Shpitz,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

Greenpeace



http://www.greenpea



Netherland

and

worldwideCenter for Health,

Environment and

Justice


Safe Campaign:

[email protected]

518- 732-4538

www.chej.org

NGO NY

Center on Race,

Poverty & the

Environment

tel 661- 720-9140

fax 661- 720-9483

Second office:

tel 415- 346-4179


NGO NY

Clean New York

clean-ny.org



[email protected]

m

Phone: 518-708-

3875

Fax: 518-234-8421

Kathy Curtis,

Policy Director,

clean.kathy@

gmail.com

Phone: 518-708-

3922

Fax: 518-355-6202 http://clean-ny.org/ NGO NYIntechra Group.


601-863-0615

sstevens@intechra.

com

601-863-0618


com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler OI

Envirocycle

Patty Bonavita,

[email protected]

om

570-879-2862, Ext.

308

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler PA

Reclamere Inc.

Joseph P. Harford,

[email protected]

m 814-684-5505

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler PA

South African E-


http://www.e-

waste.org.za/home

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler South Africa

Pollution Control

Industries

David Linder,


ol.com 901-353-5291

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TNSoutheast

Recycling

Technologies Inc.

Beverly Mooney,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TN

Technology for

Success Inc.

Bill Leonard,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TN

Altech Houston

Bryan Frazar,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

City Industries

Incorporated

John Loncar, VP

Operations,



tries.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

Electronic

Recycling and

Trading, Inc.

Pat Enyart,



/contacts.html

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

HOBI International

Inc.

Craig Boswell,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

Image

Microsystems

Butch Watson,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TXNewmarket

Trading Group

LTD

wlong@computerresal

e.com 512-997-7974

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

Resource

Concepts Inc.

Jim Glenn,

[email protected]

m 972-245-8340

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX


m 512-532-3255

Jeff.Zeigler@TechT

urn.com 512-532-3252


com/Home/tabid/60/

Default.aspx

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

VADICO, LLC

Neer Vadish,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TXWaste

Management

Recycle America

Joe Aho,


http://www.recyclea

merica.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TXTexas Campaign

for the

Environment

214- 599-7840 512-

326-5655 713- 337-

4192

www.texasenvironm

ent NGO TX Electronic

Recyclers

International


ers.com 800-884-8466


clers.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler US

Pesticide Action

Network


Heather Pilatic,

Communications

Director,

[email protected]


Communication

Workers of

America

202- 434-1100 www.cwa-union.org Union US

PC Point

USA &

Senegal


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler

USA-

Thailand


Yon Lam

Communications

Associate

[email protected] www.informinc.org NGO VAMercury Policy


g 802-223-9000

Jane Williams

Executive Director

805-256-0968

www.mercurypolicy.

org NGO VT

Datex Storage

Solutions

[email protected]

om

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler WAPortfolio 21

Investments, USA


com 503-224-7828 206-340-1055

Investment

company WABasel Action

Network [email protected] 206-652-5555 www.ban.org NGO WAKing County Solid

Waste Division,

USA 206-296-4466



ex.asp NGO WAWashington

Citizens for

Resource

Conservation


ton.org 206-441-1790

Suellen Mele,

Program Director

suellen@wastenotw


www.wastenotwashi

ngton.org NGO WASilicon Valley

Toxics Coalition


lauren

Ornelas,Campaign

Director, x 303 www.svtc.org NGO WI

Phoenix Trading

International


c-g.com

Syria: + 96311 –

612 10 01

http://www.phoenix-

c-

g.com/text/contactu

s.htm

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler worldwide

Health Care

Without Harm

Colleen Funkhouser

[email protected]

g

ph: 703-860-9790

fax: 703-860-9795

USA and Canada

Press contact

Eileen Secrest,


www.noharm.org

NGO worldwide

World Computer

Exchange

Tom

Graham,TGraham@W

orldComputerExchang

e.org 410-997-3395

http://www.worldco

mputerexchange.org

/ NGO worldwide

World Reuse,

Repair and

Recycling


http://www.wr3a.org

/ NGO worldwideInternational

Association of

Electronic


Association

search engine

CRT Processing

Corporation

Leslie Amundson,

lamundson@crtproces

sing.com 608-754-3400

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler

Recycling Today

magazine 330- 523-5400

Brian Taylor,

[email protected]

330- 523-5324


today.com/ MagazineGreen Science

Policy Institute,

USA

Dr. Arlene Blum,

Executive Director

http://www.greensci

encepolicy.org/ NGO

Greenpeace USA



Trans-Pacific

Environmental

Action Network,


Organization

General Contact

Email Address

General Contact

Phone Number

Second Contact

Email address

Second Contact


Country/Re

gionInternational

Association of

Electronic


Association

search engine

Energy Star

Cara Clusen,

cara.clusen@cadmusg

roup.com 888-782-7937 703-247-6129

http://www.energyst

ar.gov/

Certification

Program nationwide

EPEAT

Wayne Rifer, EPEAT

Operations



.org

503-644-0294

sarah.obrien@green


g

Sarah O'Brien,PEAT

Outreach

Director,802-479-


/

Certification

Program nationwide

Best Buy

NewsCenter@bestbuy.

com 612-292-6397 888-237-8289

http://www.bestbuy.


ng-

Electronics/pcmcat1

49900050025.c?id=

pcmcat1499000500

25&DCMP=rdr0001

422 E Products seller nationwide

5 R Processors

Ltd., Clinton

Karen Birkenstock,


sors.com 865-457-1621

http://www.5rproces

sors.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler nationwide

A & B Recycling

Inc.

Lamar Bearden,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler GA

Altech Houston

Bryan Frazar,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

C & H Metals &

Salvage

Stan Martin,

[email protected]

m 336-578-4994

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

Capitol Area

Corporate


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler LA

City Industries

Incorporated

John Loncar, VP

Operations,



tries.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

Coastal Electronic

Recycling Services

Scott Mcleod,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MS

Cox & Associates

Mark Cox,


info@cox-


http://www.cox-

associates.com/cont

act.htm

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler KY

Creative Recycling

Systems Inc.

Joseph Yob,


in.com 800-797-2061

http://www.crserecy

cling.com

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FL

Creative Recycling


cling.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler nationwide

CRT Processing

Corporation

Leslie Amundson,

lamundson@crtproces

sing.com 608-754-3400

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler

Datex Storage

Solutions

[email protected]

om

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler WA

ECOFLO Inc

John Canoy,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

ECS Refining

Steven Burns,

[email protected] 336-851-1113 408- 988-4386

www.ecsrefining.co

m

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

EEnd 240-529-1010


ndex.php

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler nationwide

Electronic

Environmental


www.electronicrecyc

ling.net

Electronic

Equipment


Recyclers

International


ers.com 800-884-8466


clers.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler USElectronic

Recycling and

Trading, Inc.

Pat Enyart,



/contacts.html

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

Electronics


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MS

Envirocycle

Patty Bonavita,

[email protected]

om

570-879-2862, Ext.

308

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler PA

E-Recyclers Plus

Amy Erwin,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler LA

Global Investment

Recovery Inc.

David Ritter,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FL

Goldsmith Group,

Inc.

Eric Goldsmith,

[email protected]

om 317-545-4747

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler IN

HAZ-M.E.R.T Inc.

Bobby Fanning,

[email protected]

m 479-621-9707

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler AR

HOBI International

Inc.

Craig Boswell,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

IBS Environmental

Services Inc.

David Haynes,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

Image

Microsystems

Butch Watson,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

Intechra Group.


601-863-0615

sstevens@intechra.

com

601-863-0618


com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler OI

Intercon Solutions

Travis Griggs,


g.com 708-756-9838

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler IL

Jack's Recycling &

Salvage Company

Jack Jones,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FLLifeSpan

Technology

Recycling

Dag Adamson,


com 888-720-0900

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MA

MBA Polymers Inc

Darren Arola,

darola@mbapolymers.

com 510-231-9031

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler CA

MOLAM

International

Steve Wilson,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler GA


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler

USA-

Thailand

NetPeripheral Inc

[email protected]

om 60-4-501-2168


eral.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MalaysiaNewmarket

Trading Group

LTD

wlong@computerresal

e.com 512-997-7974

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

O C Stafford

Electronic Service

and Development

Ozzie Stafford,

[email protected]

.net 336-274-9917

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NCOcala Recycling,





ng.com/home.aspx

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FL

Onyx Electronics

Recycling

Harry Mays,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FL

Phoenix Trading

International


c-g.com

Syria: + 96311 –

612 10 01

http://www.phoenix-

c-

g.com/text/contactu

s.htm

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler worldwide

Pollution Control

Industries

David Linder,


ol.com 901-353-5291

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TN

Raeford Salvage

Company Inc.

Stephen J. Smith,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

Reclamere Inc.

Joseph P. Harford,

[email protected]

m 814-684-5505

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler PA



l/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler Chile

Recycle America

Alliance, eCycling

Services

Cathy Smith,

Accountant,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

Resource

Concepts Inc.

Jim Glenn,

[email protected]

m 972-245-8340

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

Retroworks De



s.net/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler Mexico-VTSecure

Environmental

Electronic

Recycling SEER-

Max Zalkin, Ben

Ashby,


com 813-621-8870

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FL

South African E-


http://www.e-

waste.org.za/home

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler South Africa

Southeast

Recycling

Technologies Inc.

Beverly Mooney,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TNSouthern Waste

Information

eXchange

Ray Moreau,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler FL

Starkville

Multimedia

Joseph Powell,



ing.com

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MS

Starkville

Recycling


g.com 662-324-0930

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MS

Technology for

Success Inc.

Bill Leonard,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TN


m 512-532-3255

Jeff.Zeigler@TechT

urn.com 512-532-3252


com/Home/tabid/60/

Default.aspx

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

The Doe Run

Company,

Resource

Recycling Division

Shad Becker,


Lou Magdits,

[email protected]

om

http://www.doerun.c

om/WHATWEDO/R

ECYCLING/tabid/74

/language/en-

US/Default.aspx

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MO

The Surplus

Exchange

Rick Goring,


http://www.surpluse

xchange.org/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler MO

Triangle Recycling

Service

John Howe,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC

United Recycling

Industries Inc.

Amanda Hale,


com 630-231-6060

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler IL

VADICO, LLC

Neer Vadish,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TX

Waste

Management

Recycle America

Joe Aho,


http://www.recyclea

merica.com/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler TXWesbell Asset

Recovery Center

Inc.

Lisa Shpitz,


Electronic

Equipment

Recycler NC


http://www.zentech.

org/

Electronic

Equipment

Recycler GABoard of

Environmental,

Health & Safety

Auditor


407-831-7727


Enviroment

auditors FLAmerican

Academy of

Environmental

Engineers

Joseph S.

Cavarretta,JCava@aa

ee.net

J. Sammi Olmo,

[email protected]


Enviromental

Engineer

Association nationwidePortfolio 21

Investments, USA


com 503-224-7828 206-340-1055

Investment

company WARobert Brooke

Zevin Associates


investment

company MA

Wells Fargo


rgo.com


396-5804


go.com

Investment

Company nationwide

Recycling Today

magazine 330- 523-5400

Brian Taylor,

[email protected]

330- 523-5324


today.com/ Magazine

As You Sow

Foundation, USA

asyousow@asyousow.

org 415- 391-3212

http://www.asyouso

w.org/about/contact

us.shtml NGO CABasel Action

Network [email protected] 206-652-5555 www.ban.org NGO WA

Breast Cancer

Fund


.org

415-346-8223;toll-

free 866- 760-8223

fax 415-346-2975

Campaign:info@saf

ecosmetics.org;

Press:scoughlin@br

eastcancerfund.org

www.breastcancerfu

nd.org NGO nationwideCalifornia

Communities

Against Toxics,



s.org/ NGO CACenter For

Environmental

Health

Charles Margulis,

Communications

Director, 510-655-3900

x305 510- 655-3900 www.ceh.org NGO CACenter for Health,

Environment and

Justice


Safe Campaign:

[email protected]

518- 732-4538

www.chej.org

NGO NY

Center for Public

Environmental


Lenny Siegel,

Executive Director,

[email protected]

Phone 650- 961-

8918 or 969-1545

Fax 650- 961-8918

www.cpeo.org NGO CA

Center on Race,

Poverty & the

Environment

tel 661- 720-9140

fax 661- 720-9483

Second office:

tel 415- 346-4179


NGO NY

Clean New York

clean-ny.org



[email protected]

m

Phone: 518-708-

3875

Fax: 518-234-8421

Kathy Curtis,

Policy Director,

clean.kathy@

gmail.com

Phone: 518-708-

3922

Fax: 518-355-6202 http://clean-ny.org/ NGO NY

Clean Production

Action


Management Director

and Partner,


ction.org

Alexandra

McPherson,716-805-

1056

Beverley Thorpe,

Communications

Director and

Partner,

bev@cleanproductio

n.org

Beverley Thorpe,


n.org NGO

Canada &

US

Clean Water

Action

[email protected]

g;

[email protected]

410-235-8808

202-895-0420

www.cleanwateracti

on.org.ma

NGO nationwideConnecticut

Coalition for

Environmental

Justice, USA

ccej@environmental-

justice.or 860-548-1133

Dawn Simonsen,

dawn.simonsen@en

vironmental-

justice.org-

www.environmental-

justice.org NGO CT

Earthworks


f: 970-259-7514

jennifergoldman@o

gap.org

p: 406-587-4473

f: 406-587-3385

www.earthworksacti

on.org NGO MTEcology Center


recycling@ecologyc

enter.org 510-527-5555

www.ecologycenter.

org NGO CAElectronic

Takeback


http://www.compute

rtakeback.com/ NGO CAEnvironmental

Law and Policy




Friends of the

Earth, U.S. P 202-783-7400

F 202-783-0444

Sara Schedler,

Clean Cars Program

San Francisco

office:

P 415-544-0790

F 415-544-0796 www.foe.org NGO DC & CA

Global Exchange


ge.org 415- 255-7296

Network

Administrator:steve

@globalexchange.or

g 415- 255-7296 x333

www.globalexchang

e.org NGO CA

GrassRoots

Recycling Network

Rick Anthony


[email protected]

Linda Christopher,

Executive Director,

707-321-7883 www.grrn.org NGO CAGreen Science

Policy Institute,

USA

Dr. Arlene Blum,

Executive Director

http://www.greensci

encepolicy.org/ NGO

Greenpeace



http://www.greenpea



Netherland

and

worldwide

Greenpeace USA



Health Care

Without Harm

Colleen Funkhouser

[email protected]

g

ph: 703-860-9790

fax: 703-860-9795

USA and Canada

Press contact

Eileen Secrest,


www.noharm.org

NGO worldwide


Yon Lam

Communications

Associate

[email protected] www.informinc.org NGO VAKing County Solid

Waste Division,

USA 206-296-4466



ex.asp NGO WAMercury Policy


g 802-223-9000

Jane Williams

Executive Director

805-256-0968

www.mercurypolicy.

org NGO VT

Natural Resources

Council of Maine

[email protected]

phone: 207- 622-

3101


2345

fax: 207- 622-4343

Matt Prindiville,

Toxics Project

Director, 207- 430-


Natural Resources

Defense Council

[email protected]

Telephone: 212-

727-2700

Fax: 212- 727-1773

Dr. Allen

Hershkowitz, Senior

Scientist

Washington


nationwide

and

worldwide

Pesticide Action

Network


Heather Pilatic,

Communications

Director,

[email protected]


Physicians for

Social

Responsibility -




Lena Brook, Senior

Program Associate,


Planning &

Conservation

League

[email protected]

Phone

916.444.8726

Fax 916.448.1789

Traci

Sheehan,Executive

Director,


www.pcl.org

NGO CA

Plataforma RELAC


Daniel Garces,


cl

Researcher, Uca


sur.cl

http://www.residuos


x.php NGO

Latin

America and

the

Caribbean

Sierra Club, USA


.org 415-977-5500

DC Legislative

office:202-547-1141


b.org/contact/ NGO nationwideSilicon Valley

Toxics Coalition


lauren

Ornelas,Campaign

Director, x 303 www.svtc.org NGO WITexas Campaign

for the

Environment

214- 599-7840 512-

326-5655 713- 337-

4192

www.texasenvironm

ent NGO TX


v. 802- 223-5221 f.

802- 223-6855

Charity Carbine,

Environmental

Health Advocate,

802- 223-8421 www.vpirg.org NGO nationwideWashington

Citizens for

Resource

Conservation


ton.org 206-441-1790

Suellen Mele,

Program Director

suellen@wastenotw


www.wastenotwashi

ngton.org NGO WA

Worksafe!

Sophie Noero,


[email protected]

510-302-1027

Gail

Bateson,Worksafe's

Executive Director,

gbateson@worksafe


World Computer

Exchange

Tom

Graham,TGraham@W

orldComputerExchang

e.org 410-997-3395

http://www.worldco

mputerexchange.org

/ NGO worldwide

World Reuse,

Repair and

Recycling


http://www.wr3a.org

/ NGO worldwideZero Mercury

Working Group,

USA

[email protected]

rg

Phone:+32 2

2891301

http://www.zeromerc


Europe &

US

Staples 800-378-2753


om/sbd/content/abo


html

Products

producer nationwide

The Alaska


Laura Achee, 907-

796-1522


home/Content/home

/index.cfm

Resource leasing

governance

model AL

Tech Soup

Glenn Hirsch,

Communications

Associate

[email protected]


for NGOs nationwideCommunication

Workers of

America

202- 434-1100 www.cwa-union.org Union US

Recycle.net


et/ website Canada

Medi-Com Eygpt

PC Point

USA &

SenegalTrans-Pacific

Environmental

Action Network,


Documents

Scoping Report on Governance, Charter, Resources ... · Scoping Report on Governance, Charter, Resources, Communications, ... Charter, Resources, Communications, and Recommendations