By Diana Radovan, IPC sustainability policy director

IPC is closely monitoring the global sustainability policy landscape and setting policy priorities in close dialogue with the electronics industry. Last week, I attended and actively engaged in three days packed with presentations and panel discussions in Brussels. Sponsored by Chemical Watch news & events by Enhesa, the two consecutive events (two days focusing on key EU and one on global [non-EU] topics) were an opportunity for industry representatives and policymakers to get together and discuss existing and emerging chemical regulations, as well as practical aspects and challenges of their implementation, from different and at times conflicting perspectives. 

Key European Regulatory Updates Europe needs a regulatory framework that allows multiple industries, including the electronics industry, to be and remain competitive, while also protecting human health and the environment. How to strike the right balance in the context of geopolitical and regulatory uncertainty was the focus of the Key Regulatory Updates Europe 2024 (and beyond) event. Among the hottest topics of the opening session, which included European Parliament and European Commission representatives, were the upcoming revision of the EC’s REACH regime and the need for a clearer definition of essential vs. non-essential uses of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)substances.

Other topics included: UNEP‘s New Global Framework on Chemicals (CFG); one substance-one assessment (OSOA); the Essential Use Concept (EUC); substitution challenges and opportunities; the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), including the Ecodesign Forum; the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD); the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR); the proposed Green Claims Directive (GCD); the revision of the Classification, Labelling, and Packaging (CLP) Regulation; and the potential of AI for chemicals identification.

A number of key challenges remain: not all government representatives seem aware of the impact of regulations designed for the chemical industry per se on related industries that use chemicals; there is still a gray zone regarding essential vs. non-essential uses (in particular for PFAS substances); a disconnect between the timing and time needed for policies to evolve in relation to technology advancement; limited knowledge of policies across sectors, with the implication that policy makers may at times miss out on opportunities to better streamline and learn from successful policies and their implementation, e.g. success stories from the EU MDR [Medical Device Regulation]); some regulatory frameworks are currently still “empty” (e.g. ESPR), with delegated acts coming in later.

Global Regulatory Updates This session included regulatory updates from three main regions: Asia (China, Japan, South Korea, India, and Turkey), South/Latin America (Peru, Columbia, Chile, and Brazil), and North America (US and Canada). Many Asian and Latin American countries have EU REACH-like regulations in place that require the registration of new and hazardous chemicals, however, with more simplified data sets, i.e. a full technical dossier is not required. For the U.S., the focus was on TSCA requirements and the history of the PFAS reporting rule. For Canada, the Chemicals Management Cycle under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was presented.

Overall, in particular in Europe, there is a need for policy simplification (e.g. REACH), cohesion (between different policies), and clarification, as well as for more regulatory predictability to foster innovation and investment. At the same time, EU REACH-like policies in other parts of the world are still maturing. To conclude, IPC believes that for a successful European green transition that also supports innovation, industry needs more predictability in the regulatory framework, as well as closer dialogue between the EC, Member States, and companies, including SMEs. IPC is continuing to support the electronics industry in dealing with the complex European and global sustainability policy landscape, and we welcome your questions and suggestions.

For more information on global sustainability policies, contact me at DianaRadovan@ipc.org. 

Day 1 (left to right): Leigh Stringer, Managing Editor, Europe, Chemical Watch News & Insight, Enhesa Product Intelligence; Martin Hojsík, Vice-president, European Parliament; Dunja Drmač, Senior Chemicals Legislation Manager, Cefic; Paul Speight, Head of the Safe and Sustainable Chemicals Unit in DG Environment, European Commission

Day 2 (left to right): Marko Sušnik, Advisor to the Secretary General on Chemicals Policy, SMEunited, and Senior Advisor Chemical Policy, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber (WKÖ), SMEunited / WKÖ; Jake Grace, Head of High Throughput Experimentation, Clariant Innovation Centre; Niraj Deo, Founder and CEO, Viridium AI; Emil Damgaard-Møller, PFAS Consultant, Danish Technological Institute

Day 3 (left to right): Junho Lee, Director, CIRS Group Korea, South Korea; Sok-Han Ng, Expert Service & Solution (ESS) Manager, Japan, Enhesa Product Intelligence; Hui Wang-Hauenstein, Project Manager Chemicals & Product Safety, knoell Germany GmbH; Kimberley de Miguel, Managing Analyst EMEA

Congressional staff continue to work behind the scenes in preparation for the post-election final legislative push of 2024. 

Along with the cool weather this week, staffers were greeted by a bracing message from electronics executives on the state of the U.S. national security supply chain. This week, two letters signed by 10 industry CEOs based in California and Connecticut were delivered to their U.S. representatives, urging them to support Senate language directing $45 million into the FY25 Defense Production Act Purchases account for investments in domestic printed circuit board (PCB) manufacturing. 

These CEOs are leading the way for our industry, using their voices to educate Congress on the importance of PCB manufacturing and the need for tangible results. 

Now, you can lend your voice to this important issue today.   

Together with IPC, the electronics industry successfully pressed the White House to issue the 2023 Presidential Determination that PCB manufacturing is a critical industrial base shortfall, qualified for Defense Production Act (DPA) investment. Then the priority became persuading Congress to appropriate the funds to make those investments – which is no easy task when Congress is wrangling over a tight budget.

However, IPC’s persistent advocacy has led to modest but real investments in the PCB industry over the last 12 months. Most recently, the Department of Defense Office of Manufacturing Capability Expansion and Investment Prioritization (MCEIP), announced a $30 million investment in TTM Technologies Inc., to develop uHDI PCB manufacturing. This is the fourth PCB project funded through the Defense Production Act program in the last 12 months. 

Earlier this year, IPC noticed that President Biden’s budget request for FY25 failed to allocate any additional DPA funding for PCBs. Mere hours after the budget was released, IPC was on the phone with policymakers, making the case that this was a serious mistake for U.S. national security. Our team sprang into action, meeting with key Members of Congress and Senators and bringing the voice of industry to the Hill, including a joint letter with the PCBAA, signed by 49 industry executives. We hosted a Washington Impact Day, during which CEOs met with 14 congressional offices, including six with seats on the Appropriations or Armed Services committees. 

In July we learned that the House of Representatives did not include our recommendations in its their version of the FY25 appropriations bill. This was not surprising, as House leadership had to navigate a more difficult political situation with a greater desire for strict budget caps. A few weeks later, however, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed its version of the bill with $45 million specifically allocated to PCBs, and additional IPC-backed language urging prioritization of these investments and further funding in future years.

In the past year, we’ve seen more than $100 million in manufacturing investment awarded to the PCB industry through the Defense Production Act. But this trend will stop unless Congress continues to fund the program in FY25 and ensure it moves it forward.

IPC is one voice, constantly advocating for you. But we need the entire industry to speak up to those who represent them. When they hear from you, meet you, and learn about what you do policymakers can better understand the importance of the industry to their districts. 

Just last week, Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI) led a letter signed by six Members of Congress addressed to the House Appropriations Committee, asking them to support the $45 million PCB funding. Rep. Van Orden has met with IPC members, toured their sites, and developed a deep understanding of the industry. Not surprisingly, he has become a champion of our causes in Congress. The other Members on last week’s letter, including Reps. Blake Moore (R-UT), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Brandon Williams (R-NY), and Ro Khanna (D-CA) have done the same, and they continue to be leading champions for PCB issues in Congress. 

If you’ve never engaged with Congress before, now is a great time to start. IPC makes it easy for you. Please take a minute now to visit our Action Alert Center, where you can email your Member of Congress with just a few clicks and less than 5 minutes of your time. If you’d like to do more, IPC can help you invite your Member of Congress or Senator to visit your facility to learn more about the industry and our challenges. 

Thank you to everyone who is rallying to support the industry. To date, our action alert has reached Members of Congress from eight states. But we need everyone to understand that failure to invest in PCB manufacturing will lead to unacceptable risk for the national security and critical infrastructure of all 50 states. 

Lend your voice to this important issue today.  

by Nyron Rouse, Director of Government Grants and Strategic Funding

As we enter the final quarter of 2024, IPC is proud to reflect on a year of significant progress and strategic advancement in our government grants and funding initiatives. Since the program’s launch in July 2023, we’ve explored major funding opportunities, forged key partnerships across the electronics sector, and laid a strong foundation for long-term success. Our efforts this past year are setting the stage for impactful results and future growth.

In just over a year, IPC has applied for over $37.4 million in grants, collaborating with industry leaders and positioning ourselves as a competitive player in critical projects. While we await responses on several proposals, our ongoing efforts are yielding valuable partnerships and increasing IPC’s visibility as an organization committed to driving optimization and strategic growth. We are optimistic about the remainder of 2024 as we continue to cultivate these opportunities and build on the momentum we’ve generated.

A significant part of our progress stems from our focus on change management, which has allowed us to streamline internal processes and strengthen our ability to compete for funding. For example, we are adopting a centralized grants management system to improve tracking and compliance, and we are aligning our submission protocols with industry standards, ensuring our proposals are more competitive and easier to manage across the organization. These steps result in more efficient workflows and a stronger overall positioning for upcoming funding opportunities.

Looking ahead to 2025, we are preparing to launch new training programs aimed at equipping our team and members with the tools to navigate the complexities of grants management and maximize future opportunities. These programs will cover essential skills such as budget preparation, compliance with 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance), effective reporting, and proposal writing strategies, ensuring that IPC remains competitive in an increasingly complex grants landscape. Our commitment to ongoing professional development will help us seize future opportunities while maintaining the highest standards of compliance and effectiveness.

As we continue to build and refine our strategy, IPC is dedicated to securing the funding that drives impactful projects across the electronics industry. We are excited about what lies ahead and look forward to keeping our members and stakeholders informed and engaged as we move forward into a new phase of growth and opportunity.

Stay tuned for the launch of our grants landing page, where you’ll be able to track our progress, discover new opportunities, and follow the evolution of IPC’s grants program.

For additional information on IPC's government grants and funding initiatives, please reach out to me at NyronRouse@ipc.org.

By Diana Radovan, IPC Sustainability Policy Director

On October 3, I gave a talk on the pressing need to establish, refine, and redefine sustainability policy priorities and advocacy activities in close dialogue with the electronics industry in order for this industry to remain competitive in Europe. This was the key take-away of my presentation at the IPC Day Italy event held at the Convention Center of the Ferrari Museum in Maranello, in partnership with Phoenix Contact and GESTLabs. 

The event, conducted mostly in Italian and moderated by Luca Agostoni from GESTLabs, gave automative industry players the opportunity to learn about the latest advances in the design and production of electronic assemblies.

The electronics industry is currently facing the challenge of addressing the requirements of a broad range of largely EU-driven emerging sustainability policies, not all electronics-specific. Sustainability policies are no longer limited to environmental issues alone, including in the Italian automotive industry. IPC remains a trusted partner and a consolidated voice for the industry when it comes to advocating on sustainability policy matters. Determining which of these policies require prioritizing for the electronics industry specifically, on the background of a changing geopolitical landscape, including the formation of a new European Commission, is essential, and this can only be achieved in close and active dialogue with the industry. 

Last but not least, I also invited the audience to our upcoming October 30 webinar on Ecodesign and Digital Product Passports, in which we will dive into the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) and Digital Product Passports (DPPs) and provide a clear explanation of what they are and how they work. 

In addition to enjoying the great content and high quality of the presentations, the IPC team and several participants had an amazing authentic Italian dining experience at a local trattoria. We all enjoyed visiting the Ferrari Museum and learning about the legendary company’s innovative approach and technological progress from its early days until now.

To learn more about IPC’s sustainability policy priorities and ways to get involved in our related advocacy work, contact me at DianaRadovan@ipc.org. 

By Kate Koger, IPC public affairs coordinator and Chris Mitchell, IPC vice president, global government relations

Amid the “chip war” tensions between the U.S. and China, Europe has found itself in a surprising transformative era in electronics manufacturing. The recent groundbreaking of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.'s (TSMC) €10 billion plant in eastern Germany is a critical development in this effort. With Germany leading the charge, the European Union (EU) aims to position itself as a major player in the global electronics industry by addressing vulnerabilities and creating a robust electronics manufacturing ecosystem. 

This momentum aligns with the findings of IPC's recent white paper, "Securing the European Union's Electronics Ecosystem," highlighting the importance of strengthening Europe’s electronics supply chain across all levels, from silicon to systems. As Europe works to build a self-reliant and sustainable ecosystem, the TSMC investment is only the beginning of what could be a wave of industrial advancements.

The TSMC plant in Germany marks the company’s first European site, a milestone for TSMC and the EU. The timing is no coincidence. In a world reshaped by COVID-19, the global chip shortage exposed the fragility of supply chains. Semiconductor production became a top priority for governments as industries worldwide faced major disruptions. The global geopolitical climate, characterized by pressure between the United States and China, further highlighted Europe’s vulnerabilities in relying on external suppliers for critical technologies. The establishment of TSMC's German plant is a signal to other global players that Europe is serious about becoming a semiconductor hub. German carmakers such as Volkswagen AG and Porsche AG have expressed interest in boosting domestic chip production. This could lead to further investment from other tech giants and automotive leaders, accelerating Europe's path toward becoming a semiconductor powerhouse.

Europe has set its sights on a lofty target: by 2030, the EU aims to produce 20 percent of the world’s semiconductors. Achieving this will require significant investments and policy support. The strategic focus on semiconductors is part of a broader push to strengthen Europe's electronics manufacturing ecosystem across the entire value chain. As outlined in IPC's white paper, Europe’s share of global printed circuit board (PCB) production has dwindled in the last two decades, and the region risks falling behind in other critical areas of electronics manufacturing. Since 2000, global PCB production has more than doubled. However, during this time, Europe's share of global PCB manufacturing has plummeted from 13.8 percent to just 2.2 percent. This decline threatens the competitiveness of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), original design manufacturers (ODMs), and electronics manufacturing services (EMS) companies, all of which are key drivers of innovation and economic growth.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz emphasized that semiconductors are essential for Europe’s future technologies, but the region cannot remain dependent on other parts of the world for these vital components. His government has committed €20 billion to strengthen the country’s semiconductor industry, including a €5 billion subsidy for the TSMC fab in Dresden and €10 billion in aid for Intel's planned plant in Magdeburg. While semiconductors are critical, focusing solely on them neglects other key areas of the electronics ecosystem, like PCB production, EMS, and advanced packaging. Strengthening these industry segments is essential for building a resilient European electronics industry beyond just the manufacturing of chips.

For TSMC and other companies to be successful with European operations, the region needs to adopt a "silicon to systems" perspective that covers the entire lifecycle of electronics manufacturing beyond just the chip.  At the moment, many European manufacturers lack the resources to modernize their facilities to meet the increasing complexity of semiconductor packages and electronic assembly. The EU's commitment to the semiconductor industry, supported by national governments and private sector investments, is a promising start. However, there is still much work to be done to ensure Europe’s electronics manufacturing ecosystem remains competitive and resilient in the face of global challenges.

• Read more about TSMC’s new plant here.
• Find IPC’s EU Electronics Ecosystem white paper here.
• Join our call to action.

By Kelly Scanlon, IPC lead sustainability strategist

On September 25, Anthesis Group, EarthShift Global, and IPC co-hosted a discussion with systems engineers and life cycle assessors on data challenges for circularizing electronics. We met at the annual American Center for Life Cycle Assessment (ACLCA) conference. The 90-minute session “There’s No End to a Circle…” covered several perspectives on electronics circularity challenges that stem from the lack of reliable, current, and secure industry data.

Since May 2024, IPC has engaged with stakeholders, including many electronics manufacturing industry members, on circularity for electronics. We held a webinar, “Enhancing Circularity: Opportunities for IC and Other Component Reuse,” in May with EarthShift Global, a four-hour workshop in June on circularity at the Electronics Goes Green conference in Berlin with iNEMI, webinars in July and August with several partners including iNEMI, imec, and ACLCA, and we are planning another in-person event at the eSummit in Austin at the end of October.

Collectively, IPC, Anthesis, EarthShift Global, and iNEMI have engaged with hundreds of industry stakeholders during these recent events regarding circularity challenges and issues for the electronics industry. We understand the greatest of these challenges include the lack of data, the lack of a clear definition or description of what circularity means for the electronics manufacturing value chain, the lack of economic incentives to circularize, and the lack of workforce awareness about circularity topics and related policy and technology drivers.

We hear from electronics industry members that the lack of data needed for disclosures, reporting obligations, and data exchange with suppliers and customers is of considerable concern. This lack stems from the complex electronics products manufactured using various processes by multiple tiers of suppliers and customers across many geographic regions operating with business-sensitive or proprietary information. The complexity of final products includes assembled printed circuit boards, the electronic components within them, the integrated circuits (ICs) mounted on the boards, and the materials essential for the ICs.

Electronics companies may be interested in life cycle assessment, circularity, and measuring product carbon footprint. Still, they must rely on suppliers to provide useable manufacturing data, operating data, and information about end-of-life options.

To address these data challenges, we want to understand the types of data needed by diverse electronics industry stakeholders, the availability of existing solutions to address these data needs, and ideas for new solutions that can address barriers to data generation and data gathering applicable to the circularization of electronics. During the 90-minute session at ACLCA, we hosted three break-out groups of approximately 10 participants each. We asked them to help identify existing solutions and ideas for new ones, and this is what they said is needed.

• Standards for products data sheets that support digital product passports and reporting disclosure obligations.
• Increased visibility into the mass or materials in a given product.
• Emissions data shared between users of a product to enhance allocation of emissions and incentivize reuse.
• Improved data security assurances or make it easier to delete or erase data to address a major barrier to returning electronics.
• Address software and security update cadence to ensure they do not thwart the electronics’ life.
• Design for circularity and shift practice of design for obsolescence to design with end in mind (or reuse, repair, refurbishment) in mind.
• Refurbishing centers to resell products and devices, establish a marketplace to find recoverers, and buy and sell recovered electronics (e.g., chips, boards).
• Incorporate the variations in business models for the global north and south (e.g., more costly to refurbish and reuse in the north versus south).
• Utilize software to optimize energy efficiency; software dictates to the ICs what is needed and therefore can be used to capture information about use.
• Use telemetry to collect and transmit data to a repository to analyze and monitor operations.
• Describe and document uncertainty in the industry data available for use in models, and identify the difference between data for coarse versus detailed models.

We welcome other industry members and stakeholders to participate in this ongoing conversation about solutions that help us clear the hurdles to circularity for electronics. This is a big topic that has many aspects, but we can work to define a specific problem and right-sized solution, whether as a new tool, database, industry standard, workforce education and training, or advocacy with policymakers.

What challenges do you see related to electronics' circularity? We want to hear your ideas. We are convening working groups and welcome your participation in identifying solutions and helping to create and implement them.

Contact Kelly Scanlon, IPC’s lead sustainability strategist to get involved.

Special thanks to Callan Glover and Caroline Gaudreault, life cycle assessment experts from Anthesis Group, and Lise Laurin, CEO of EarthShift Global for their collaboration and support of the session at ACLCA and continued partnership on advancing circularity for electronics industry members.