蘋果公司(Apple Inc.)再次制造了另一個公共政策話題──這一次是由于決定重返先前退出的“電子產(chǎn)品環(huán)境影響評估機制“(EPEAT)，未來，蘋果產(chǎn)品將重新接受 EPEAT 的認(rèn)證分級制度。 EPEAT 是一個為電子產(chǎn)品進行分類與評定綠色產(chǎn)品等級的組織。 蘋果公司并未透露為什么先前要求 EPEAT 停止為自家產(chǎn)品進行評等。蘋果上個月的這項決定引起了一些環(huán)保團體的關(guān)注，幾家媒體也報導(dǎo)了舊金山市將因此停止購買蘋果的產(chǎn)品。舊金山市要求該市政單位采買的產(chǎn)品都必須符合 EPEAT 認(rèn)證。 似乎只要是蘋果公司所做的任何事──或沒做的事──都會引發(fā)輿論喧嘩。在富士康電子公司(Foxconn Electronics)不人道的工作環(huán)境被揭發(fā)后，蘋果公司與富士康的合作伙伴也受到批評。富士康公司因而提高了工人的工資。 環(huán)保專家指出，蘋果公司先前退出EPEAT評等機制的決定是因為該公司最新的產(chǎn)品無法通過審核。 蘋果公司的產(chǎn)品可能無法通過 EPEAT 的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，但我在思考另一種可能性──也許一項標(biāo)準(zhǔn)就夠了？例如 RoHS 。歐盟(EU)的有害物質(zhì)限制指令(RoHS)已在歐洲執(zhí)行有些年頭了，類似的衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)也已廣受全世界使用。出貨至歐洲的電子產(chǎn)品都必須合 RoHS 認(rèn)證。歐盟的另一項措施－連結(jié)RoHS兼容性與CE安全標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，更為產(chǎn)品品質(zhì)帶來雙重保障。盡管 RoHS 目前并沒有類似UL或CE的驗訖戳記或卷標(biāo)，但采用一種可用于所有產(chǎn)品的RoHS兼容標(biāo)章現(xiàn)正研議中。 我其實并不確定 EPEAT 標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是否符合 RoHS 。 EPEAT 的評斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是根據(jù) IEEE 1680 中的環(huán)境評估標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；而在電子產(chǎn)品范圍內(nèi)， IEEE 標(biāo)準(zhǔn)通常已經(jīng)相當(dāng)健全足夠了。作為一個消費者，我并不熟悉 EPEAT ，也不確定是否會買只有 EPEAT 認(rèn)證的產(chǎn)品。 蘋果公司先前可能認(rèn)為 EPEAT 沒多大的必要。另一方面，蘋果的競爭對手──包括戴爾(Dell)、惠普(HP)、聯(lián)想(Lenovo)、三星(Samsung)和Sony──都參與了 EPEAT 產(chǎn)品分級制度，但顯然是由于考量到舊金山以其作為衡量環(huán)境友善指針的措施。除非蘋果的產(chǎn)品無法通過審核，否則我實在不明白參與 EPEAT 有何缺點可言。 無論是哪一種情況，蘋果公司再次被拿出來討論──作為一家業(yè)界領(lǐng)導(dǎo)廠商應(yīng)該樹立好榜樣。從富士康公司所作的 改變顯示，只要對于蘋果公司施加公眾壓力，就可能使一些事情變得更美好。如果蘋果希望利用這股力量，當(dāng)然可以選擇一種單一環(huán)境標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，并積極支持與捍衛(wèi)。這將有助于業(yè)界、消費者，當(dāng)然還有蘋果公本身。 編譯：Susan Hong 本文授權(quán)編譯自EBN Online，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 本文下一頁：參考英文原文：How Apple Can Use Its Power，by Barbara Jorgensen

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 蘋果供應(yīng)鏈管理——簡約而不簡單
• 無視蘋果威壓，中國山寨平板爭得臺灣市場一成
• 亞洲手機市場：諾基亞強撐，蘋果遭蠶食YIlesmc

{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.