中国制造，还是中国组装？

过去一段时间以来，“中国制造”这个卷标引起了广大争论。我的同事Bolaji Ojo在他的部落格发表的一篇文章《中国制造的真相》(The Real Truth About 'Made in China)，揭开了亲华和反 华派的争论序幕。全球在经历许多重大事件后，都将矛头指向了中国，从全球金融危机到美国制造业工作机会流失都包括在内。然而，目前争论最热烈的部份，集中在消费性电子领域。 从每天阅读的科技新闻中，我发现一个趋势，即消费者对于其所购买产品内部究竟使用了哪些零件的关注程度，可能已经超乎我们的想象。根据最近一份Underwriters Laboratories (UL)的消费者研究显示：消费者已经意识到这个日益复杂的全球供应链，而且对于产品及产品配件的可追溯性也愈来愈感兴趣。这或许是为何有69%的制造商都同意消费者意识正在觉醒，且大多对产品有着更深刻的了解。 这对整个供应链来说是个好消息。尽管亚洲是主要的半导体和其它组件消费地，不过，这些半导体和零组件大多是在其它地区设计和制造。IHS iSuppli的调查资料也支持此一观点(请参考： Is Design Dominance Good Enough?)。 UL的研究还不至于建议消费者将终端产品内部采用何种零件作为选购产品的依据，然而，这份报告也提出一些有趣的可能性。若更多芯片制造商都开始仿效 “Intel Inside”这类型的品牌宣传手法呢？或是富士康及其员工之间一度紧张的关系真的引发了抵制行动？又或者为电子产品贴上了类似食品的卷标呢？若这些假设 成真，将带来什么样的改变？ 类似的事件，过去都曾经发生过。当美国汽车业陷入谷底时，美国消费者对日系车避之唯恐不及；过去 几十年来，电子通路产业都维持着一个不同时贩售美国与日本芯片的潜规则。而今天，有关油漆内含铅的报告，让中国制造的儿童玩具蒙尘。Exxon公司则在阿拉斯加漏油事件后失去其市占率。这类型的例子太多了。 我不会建议广大的消费群众陷入仇外情结。不过，电子产品有其独特之处，即所谓的可追溯性问题。电子产品经销商和OEM业者们已经开始针对消费者为何不想购买某项产品而去追踪该品中组件的来源。这也意味着在电子供应链之中，可追溯性将能转化为极大的竞争优势。 但一篇纽约时报的文章也认为，这将非常困难： 该报告并未确实展现美国如何看待UL所声称的“可追溯性”已成为影响消费者购买决策的因素之一。这个名词所蕴含的意义可能更加复杂。该报告也指出，平均每一家制造商都透过35家来自全球各地的合约供货商所提供的零件，来制造一款单一产品。若是智能手机或笔电，则这个数字会更高。或许，未来有可能会出现一种专门分类用的供应链卷标，就像是微型彩色编码地图，向人们展示一项商品中的零组件来自何方？ 这个世界仍不断上演着各类对电子供应链产生深远影响的事件，从天灾到政治事件都包含在内。日本地震╱海啸引发了全球零件短缺危机、全球各地陆续兴起的人权运动，以及美国金融改革法案(Dodd-Frank Act)，这一切都在提高消费者对供应链的认识程度。 或许，我们会看到印着“中国组装”卷标的产品。 编译： Joy Teng 本文授权编译自EBN Online，版权所有，谢绝转载 参考英文原文： Offsetting the 'Made in China' Label，by Barbara Jorgensen, EBN Community Editor

相关阅读：
• 春节提前，导致PC产业链提前爆用工荒
• IPC WorksAsia2011活动圆满结束
• 2011供应链盛会，共话当前采购挑战与策略9K4esmc

{pagination} Offsetting the 'Made in China' Label Barbara Jorgensen, EBN Community Editor Nothing sets off a debate like the "Made in China" label. My colleague Bolaji Ojo's blog, The Real Truth About 'Made in China', kicked off a stream of comments from both pro- and anti-China factions. China has been made a target for most of the world's ills, including the global debt crisis and the loss of US manufacturing jobs. Nowhere is the debate more evident than in the consumer electronics field. In my daily browsing of high-tech coverage, I found evidence that consumers might be paying more attention than we think about what's inside the products they buy. According to a recent Underwriters Laboratories consumer study: "Consumers are aware of an increasingly complex, global supply chain and have a growing interest in the traceability of products and product parts. This may be why 69 percent of manufacturers agree consumers are becoming more aware and better educated about products in general." This is good news for the supply chain. Although the vast majority of semiconductors and other components are consumed in the Far East, they are designed and manufactured elsewhere. Data from companies such as IHS iSuppli supports this. (See: Is Design Dominance Good Enough?.) The UL study stops short of suggesting that consumers are purchasing goods based on what's inside the end-product, but it raises some interesting possibilities. What if more chipmakers adopted an "Intel Inside"-type branding campaign? What if Foxconn's alleged abuses of workers' rights really cause a boycott? What if electronics goods carried content labels similar to food products? Would it make a difference? It has in the past. US consumers shunned Japanese cars when the US auto industry faltered. For decades, the electronics distribution industry maintained an unspoken practice of not selling US and Japanese chips side-by-side. Reports of lead in paint caused a massive disruption of children's toys manufactured in China. Exxon lost share after its Alaska oil spill. The list goes on. I'm not suggesting the buying public should lapse into xenophobia. There's an aspect to this that's unique to electronics. It's called the traceability issue. Electronics distributors and electronics OEMs already track the origin and consumption of electronics components for a number of reasons I won't go into here. Turning traceability into a competitive advantage would be huge in the electronics supply chain. A New York Times article on the report acknowledges this would be very difficult: The report doesn't really say how that information -- "traceability," U.L. calls it -- would actually affect consumer buying decisions. It could be complicated. Manufacturing companies on average, the report says, rely on more than 35 contract suppliers around the world to create a single product. That number would be higher for a smartphone or laptop. But maybe some sort of supply-chain labeling, like a tiny color-coded map of the world, showing where parts come from in a product? Sillier things have happened. I also think the visibility of the earthquake/tsunami in Japan, human rights abuses, and measures like the Dodd-Frank Act have all heightened consumers' awareness of the supply chain. Maybe that can be put to work. Or maybe we'll see labels that say "Assembled in China."