苹果树大招风，重归绿色认证机制引猜测

苹果公司(Apple Inc.)再次制造了另一个公共政策话题──这一次是由于决定重返先前退出的“电子产品环境影响评估机制“(EPEAT)，未来，苹果产品将重新接受 EPEAT 的认证分级制度。 EPEAT 是一个为电子产品进行分类与评定绿色产品等级的组织。 苹果公司并未透露为什么先前要求 EPEAT 停止为自家产品进行评等。苹果上个月的这项决定引起了一些环保团体的关注，几家媒体也报导了旧金山市将因此停止购买苹果的产品。旧金山市要求该市政单位采买的产品都必须符合 EPEAT 认证。 似乎只要是苹果公司所做的任何事──或没做的事──都会引发舆论喧哗。在富士康电子公司(Foxconn Electronics)不人道的工作环境被揭发后，苹果公司与富士康的合作伙伴也受到批评。富士康公司因而提高了工人的工资。 环保专家指出，苹果公司先前退出EPEAT评等机制的决定是因为该公司最新的产品无法通过审核。 苹果公司的产品可能无法通过 EPEAT 的标准，但我在思考另一种可能性──也许一项标准就够了？例如 RoHS 。欧盟(EU)的有害物质限制指令(RoHS)已在欧洲执行有些年头了，类似的衡量标准也已广受全世界使用。出货至欧洲的电子产品都必须合 RoHS 认证。欧盟的另一项措施－连结RoHS兼容性与CE安全标准，更为产品品质带来双重保障。尽管 RoHS 目前并没有类似UL或CE的验讫戳记或卷标，但采用一种可用于所有产品的RoHS兼容标章现正研议中。 我其实并不确定 EPEAT 标准是否符合 RoHS 。 EPEAT 的评断标准是根据 IEEE 1680 中的环境评估标准；而在电子产品范围内， IEEE 标准通常已经相当健全足够了。作为一个消费者，我并不熟悉 EPEAT ，也不确定是否会买只有 EPEAT 认证的产品。 苹果公司先前可能认为 EPEAT 没多大的必要。另一方面，苹果的竞争对手──包括戴尔(Dell)、惠普(HP)、联想(Lenovo)、三星(Samsung)和Sony──都参与了 EPEAT 产品分级制度，但显然是由于考量到旧金山以其作为衡量环境友善指针的措施。除非苹果的产品无法通过审核，否则我实在不明白参与 EPEAT 有何缺点可言。 无论是哪一种情况，苹果公司再次被拿出来讨论──作为一家业界领导厂商应该树立好榜样。从富士康公司所作的 改变显示，只要对于苹果公司施加公众压力，就可能使一些事情变得更美好。如果苹果希望利用这股力量，当然可以选择一种单一环境标准，并积极支持与捍卫。这将有助于业界、消费者，当然还有苹果公本身。 编译：Susan Hong 本文授权编译自EBN Online，版权所有，谢绝转载 本文下一页：参考英文原文：How Apple Can Use Its Power，by Barbara Jorgensen

相关阅读：
• 苹果供应链管理——简约而不简单
• 无视苹果威压，中国山寨平板争得台湾市场一成
• 亚洲手机市场：诺基亚强撑，苹果遭蚕食C1sesmc

{pagination} How Apple Can Use Its Power Barbara Jorgensen 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.