過去一段時間以來，“中國制造”這個卷標(biāo)引起了廣大爭論。我的同事Bolaji Ojo在他的部落格發(fā)表的一篇文章《中國制造的真相》(The Real Truth About 'Made in China)，揭開了親華和反 華派的爭論序幕。全球在經(jīng)歷許多重大事件后，都將矛頭指向了中國，從全球金融危機到美國制造業(yè)工作機會流失都包括在內(nèi)。然而，目前爭論最熱烈的部份，集中在消費性電子領(lǐng)域。 從每天閱讀的科技新聞中，我發(fā)現(xiàn)一個趨勢，即消費者對于其所購買產(chǎn)品內(nèi)部究竟使用了哪些零件的關(guān)注程度，可能已經(jīng)超乎我們的想象。根據(jù)最近一份Underwriters Laboratories (UL)的消費者研究顯示：消費者已經(jīng)意識到這個日益復(fù)雜的全球供應(yīng)鏈，而且對于產(chǎn)品及產(chǎn)品配件的可追溯性也愈來愈感興趣。這或許是為何有69%的制造商都同意消費者意識正在覺醒，且大多對產(chǎn)品有著更深刻的了解。 這對整個供應(yīng)鏈來說是個好消息。盡管亞洲是主要的半導(dǎo)體和其它組件消費地，不過，這些半導(dǎo)體和零組件大多是在其它地區(qū)設(shè)計和制造。IHS iSuppli的調(diào)查資料也支持此一觀點(請參考： Is Design Dominance Good Enough?)。 UL的研究還不至于建議消費者將終端產(chǎn)品內(nèi)部采用何種零件作為選購產(chǎn)品的依據(jù)，然而，這份報告也提出一些有趣的可能性。若更多芯片制造商都開始仿效 “Intel Inside”這類型的品牌宣傳手法呢？或是富士康及其員工之間一度緊張的關(guān)系真的引發(fā)了抵制行動？又或者為電子產(chǎn)品貼上了類似食品的卷標(biāo)呢？若這些假設(shè) 成真，將帶來什么樣的改變？ 類似的事件，過去都曾經(jīng)發(fā)生過。當(dāng)美國汽車業(yè)陷入谷底時，美國消費者對日系車避之唯恐不及；過去 幾十年來，電子通路產(chǎn)業(yè)都維持著一個不同時販?zhǔn)勖绹c日本芯片的潛規(guī)則。而今天，有關(guān)油漆內(nèi)含鉛的報告，讓中國制造的兒童玩具蒙塵。Exxon公司則在阿拉斯加漏油事件后失去其市占率。這類型的例子太多了。 我不會建議廣大的消費群眾陷入仇外情結(jié)。不過，電子產(chǎn)品有其獨特之處，即所謂的可追溯性問題。電子產(chǎn)品經(jīng)銷商和OEM業(yè)者們已經(jīng)開始針對消費者為何不想購買某項產(chǎn)品而去追蹤該品中組件的來源。這也意味著在電子供應(yīng)鏈之中，可追溯性將能轉(zhuǎn)化為極大的競爭優(yōu)勢。 但一篇紐約時報的文章也認(rèn)為，這將非常困難： 該報告并未確實展現(xiàn)美國如何看待UL所聲稱的“可追溯性”已成為影響消費者購買決策的因素之一。這個名詞所蘊含的意義可能更加復(fù)雜。該報告也指出，平均每一家制造商都透過35家來自全球各地的合約供貨商所提供的零件，來制造一款單一產(chǎn)品。若是智能手機或筆電，則這個數(shù)字會更高。或許，未來有可能會出現(xiàn)一種專門分類用的供應(yīng)鏈卷標(biāo)，就像是微型彩色編碼地圖，向人們展示一項商品中的零組件來自何方？ 這個世界仍不斷上演著各類對電子供應(yīng)鏈產(chǎn)生深遠(yuǎn)影響的事件，從天災(zāi)到政治事件都包含在內(nèi)。日本地震╱海嘯引發(fā)了全球零件短缺危機、全球各地陸續(xù)興起的人權(quán)運動，以及美國金融改革法案(Dodd-Frank Act)，這一切都在提高消費者對供應(yīng)鏈的認(rèn)識程度。 或許，我們會看到印著“中國組裝”卷標(biāo)的產(chǎn)品。 編譯： Joy Teng 本文授權(quán)編譯自EBN Online，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 參考英文原文： Offsetting the 'Made in China' Label，by Barbara Jorgensen, EBN Community Editor

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 春節(jié)提前，導(dǎo)致PC產(chǎn)業(yè)鏈提前爆用工荒
• IPC WorksAsia2011活動圓滿結(jié)束
• 2011供應(yīng)鏈?zhǔn)?，共話?dāng)前采購挑戰(zhàn)與策略QTgesmc

{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."