Date code restrictions were originally intended to establish ‘sell-by’ dates to ensure traceability and quality control for electronic components. No one wants defective parts in their electronic devices, especially in critical industries like medical, military, and aerospace. Typically, the most conservative restrictions are implemented, just to ‘be safe’ and then are applied to every component category for process simplicity. For EMS customers especially, systematically implementing longer date codes for multiple OEM customers and thousands of components is an onerous task. It’s just not something at the top of their priority list, even if it might save them some time and money.
Last year, the ECIA launched an initiative to dispel the myths surrounding date codes to convince component customers to rethink this issue, based on the latest research. The goal was to reduce the amount of e-waste and improve efficiency. Through meticulous testing and engineering, the argument was made that components that have been handled and stored according to manufacturer specifications function perfectly well far beyond the manufacturers’ current date codes.
“Despite the growing consensus that restrictions based on date codes lack a factual foundation, some Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and Contract Manufacturers continue to express concerns about soldering aged material onto printed circuit boards,” explained Dan Deisz, Vice President of Design Technology at Rochester Electronics. “This is a position that is simply not supported by the science.”
Date code restrictions are overdue for industry reform. With case studies and technical performance data in the public record, it’s time for our industry to act.
As silicon fabrication technology advances, older fab processes are being phased out. At the same time, package obsolescence is accelerating, which creates sourcing challenges for legacy and long-lifecycle systems.
Obsolete components can disrupt supply chains, which in turn affects production schedules and complicates the process of sourcing fully authorised replacements.
According to the World Health Organization, electronic waste is one of the fastest growing streams of garbage flooding landfills across the globe. An estimated 62 million tonnes were generated in 2022, and only 22% of that was recycled in any meaningful way. E-waste is harmful to the environment, impacting poor children especially, as they are known to hold old PCBs over open flames to reclaim and resell the valuable components and precious metals. Controlling what components get thrown away is an important part of sustainable supply chain management.
Beyond the e-waste issue, there are other ways date code restrictions cost money. Pete Shopp, Senior Vice President of Operations at Mouser Electronics explains: “As a high service distributor, Mouser Electronics carries a broad line of inventory. This broad inventory is of great value to our customers, but it is challenging to manage, especially with the supply chain disruptions that have become so commonplace.
“These date codes add considerable cost and delay to efficiently shipping a customer order,” Shopp continued. “When a Bill of Material (BOM) is processed and we are out of stock of a particular component within the requested date code range, that order is held up while we contact the customer to let them know. 95% of the time, that customer will waive the restriction. They know we are an authorised distributor and comply with all the best practices for storage and handling, making it perfectly safe to use.”
Who can be the driver of change in the component supply chain? Contract manufacturers are bound by their customer specifications. Is it up to the component manufacturers to assure the product designer that it is safe to use older components assuming they are purchased through the authorised channel, and handled and stored correctly? Should component manufacturers extend their warranties beyond current date codes?
Different component categories have different shelf lives. While much of the discussion centers around semiconductors, components like tantalum capacitors have no known shelf life. According to Vishay FAQs, the position of the EIA/ECA P-2.5 Engineering Committee for Tantalum Capacitors is: solid tantalum capacitors have no known wear-out mechanism or shelf-life limitations. However, solderability and cover-tape peel strength may be affected by storage conditions.
Having a shorter shelf life makes traceability easier. If traceability is the issue, how can customers address that without requiring meaningless date codes?
ECIA’s Global Industry Practices Committee (GIPC) is leading the industry to address this important challenge. Working across the industry with other key players, including the Global Electronics Association and JEDEC, ECIA has convened a committee of experts to drive the consensus needed to bring about change. ECIA recommends an end to routine requirements for date code restrictions in OEM BOMs. Buying through the authorised channel is the best way to ensure that components are genuine, traceable, and defect-free.
About the author:
This article featured in the March/April ’26 issue of Procurement Pro
