Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) has created yet another public policy stir, this time by dropping out of an environmental registry called the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT). EPEAT breaks down electronics products and assigns them a green rating.
Apple hasn't disclosed why it has asked EPEAT to stop rating its products. Apple's move has raised some eyebrows amongst environmental activists and several media outlets are reporting the city of San Francisco will stop purchasing Apple's products because of the move. San Francisco requires products used by city agencies to comply with EPEAT.
Just about anything Apple does -- or doesn't do -- spurs some form of public outcry. The company's partnership with Foxconn Electronics was criticized after Foxconn's mistreatment of its workers came to light. Foxconn has since raised workers' wages.
Environmental experts suggest Apple is dropping out of EPEAT because its newer products won't pass muster. Oddly enough, the EPEAT news came on the heels of Greenpeace's assessment that Apple is doing better in its overall environmental practices.
Its possible Apple's products will drop on the EPEAT scale, but I'd suggest another possibility: maybe one standard -- say, RoHS -- is good enough? The EU's Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) has been in effect in Europe for more than five years and similar measures are being adopted worldwide. Electronics products shipped into the EU must comply with RoHS. There's also a move within the EU that links RoHS compliance to the CE safety standard -- a kind of double assurance that the product is OK. Although RoHS currently does not have a stamp or seal similar to the UL or CE, there's talk within regulatory bodies of adopting a "RoHS-compliant" logo that can be used on all products.
I'm not sure how EPEAT standards measure up to RoHS. EPEAT's criteria are based on the IEEE's 1680 family of environmental assessment standards and within electronics, the IEEE's word is usually good enough. As a consumer, I'm not familiar with EPEAT and I'm not sure I'd buy anything based on EPEAT's word alone.
Apple may think EPEAT is unnecessary. On the other hand, Apple's competitors -- including Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo, Samsung, and Sony -- participate in EPEAT and the measure clearly is used by San Francisco as a gauge of environmental-friendliness. I don't see a downside to Apple's participation in EPEAT unless its products don't pass muster.
Either way, Apple is once again being held up as an industry leader that should set a good example. Foxconn's move suggests public pressure on Apple can change things for the better. If Apple wants to harness this power, the company could choose a single environmental standard and champion its cause. That would help the industry, the consumer, and of course, Apple.
"Certain countries may be out of bounds but often only because of hazardous conditions that cannot be avoided. Regulations typically don't fall into that category."
Yes, I would agree with you and would reconsider my point. Sometimes, regulatory requirements can also be a restrictive factor. For e.g. Company A is not allowed to manufacture product X in a country because product X contains material that are hazardous to the environment and the rectification can only be made at a cost which is unbearable for Company A.
WaqasAltaf, When a company becomes a global enterprise, it loses the ability to be too selective in deciding where it should market its products. Certain countries may be out of bounds but often only because of hazardous conditions that cannot be avoided. Regulations typically don't fall into that category.
Surely it'l take time being an ideal solution. One of the problem is unionization like EU. EU member countries tend to use these environmental restrictive method to ban imports into their countries and also sometimes manufacturing. While these blocks exist, these protective measures will also be kept as an excuse or rather a weapon to protect their own industries.
@WaquasAltaf I'm sure you're right about it not being feasible in the very near future. Down the road, people may see that they all stand to gain if they cooperate with respect to standards, but that will probably take quite a few years, perhaps even decades.
I dont think a single comprehensive global standard can be a practical solution. This is because different countries have different definitions of whats an acceptable level and whats not. Manufacturers, therefore, have to consider before investing in a particular region that whether the compliance to its laws can be made at an acceptable cost or not.
Although Apple should have complied with the EPEAT but overall I think these environmental and regulatory compliances are causing a great deal of overhead and problems for the manufacturers. As far as Apple's power is concerned, I think its sales will not get affected a great deal even in San Fransisco as Apple's products are usually on the 'must have' list and it'l come to consumers through the backdoor channel. Secondly, decent ratings from other agencies will motivate users further to buy the product.
@Barbara, That's debatable about the old Apple. Steve Jobs would probably have declared that the rest of the world didn't know what they were talking about. I don't think the old Apple would have backed down, not unless it would hurt significantly.
@Barbara thanks for the clarificiation; " a single, comprehensive standard that satisfies the requirements of all regions of the world" would be nice to have.
There are several errors in the above post that I'd like to clarify, with thanks to our readers that have a deeper expertise in these matters. First, EPEAT is a broader standard than RoHS and in fact requires RoHS compliance even to qualify for consideration. Experts in compliance, such as DCA's Michael Kirschner, question RoHS' effectiveness as an environmental standard. The elimination of the RoHS materials from electronics products have a negligible impact on the environment (this point was made even before RoHS was adopted by the EU). Thanks to Mike's input I agree--if there are going to be standards, the industry should pick the best, not the lowest common denominator.
On CE and RoHS: The CE logo, as of Jan. 2013, will serve as an indication of RoHS compliance. Any other mark or logo will not qualify and there are no discussions on developing a RoHS-compliance logo.
From the above blog, it may appear that I am pro-RoHS and anti-EPEAT. That's not the case. What I am in favor of is a single, comprehensive standard that satisfies the requirements of all regions of the world. I doubt there will be a standard that satisfies industry, government and consumers. There is always self-interest in any type of change or legislation. However, I think an educated industry and electorate can come to some kind of agreement. The key here is educated--something I continue to aspire to.
A company such as Apple can be a catalyst for change, and kudos to Apple for its reversal on EPEAT.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This