Personal repercussions for those who actively ignore review requests?
It seems this editor has a problem with their workflow of inviting reviewers, a very common problem:


The editor is recruiting reviewers via "opt-out" when "opt-in" would be more appropriate.


If the reviewers were asked to indicate willingness to perform a review prior to actually doing the review, then the editor could detect "ignores" of both types and find willing reviewers much more quickly.  Consequences for agreeing to perform a review and then not submitting a timely report would be appropriate.

But there is nothing unethical about ignoring a review request.  The potential reviewer is under no obligation to take any action at the behest of the editor -- it is fully reasonable to treat unsolicited requests as spam.  And it would be unethical for the editor to take any negative action against the unresponsive potential reviewer who has never accepted the task in the first place.

Of course, the story is different for reviewers who have agreed in advance to performing a certain number of reviews.  But the workflow should still be based on positive acknowledgement that the materials for review are received.  The only difference is the editor's action subsequent to not hearing back -- in case the reviewer has previously committed to accepting a certain number of review tasks per year, then the editor can try a different contact method instead of assigning a different reviewer.

The bottom line is that opt-out sucks.