Apple's withdrawal from the EPEAT green electronics registry late last week came as a shock not only because the move was unexplained, but also because Apple helped craft the very system it has now left.
When pulling out of the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool registry that rates laptops, desktops and monitors based on their energy use, toxics and recyclability, Apple took 39 products off the table for companies, governments and schools that follow environmental procurement policies.
"They were already registered. They meet the standard," said Sarah O’Brien, EPEAT's director of outreach and communications, on Tuesday. "From the purchaser standpoint, it's a little bit problematic when they were already buying those products."
How much Apple's departure from the registry cuts into its sales is yet to be seen. While most -- if not all -- environmental purchasing polices for electronics cite EPEAT, many also allow some leeway. The federal government, for example, allows 5 percent of its electronics purchases to be non-EPEAT.
Health care IT provider McKesson also allows a tiny sliver - less than 1 percent - of its electronics purchases to be non-EPEAT. But because the company currently buys fewer than 100 Apple products a year, Apple's removal from EPEAT won't affect McKesson at all, said Debbie Vaughan, the company's IT sourcing manager.
Others don't have that leeway or are deciding not to use it. The city of San Francisco's Department of the Environment has already told city agencies they can no longer buy Apple products.
The products Apple took off the registry aren't being changed, as far as the public knows. They will just no longer carry the EPEAT label.
Speculation over why Apple left EPEAT has centered on the new MacBook Pros, which have batteries that are glued in place, preventing easy disassembly and recycling, a cornerstone of EPEAT's policies.
"I've had some conversations, and Apple has said that their design direction is not compatible with EPEAT standards," EPEAT's CEO, Robert Frisbee, told the San Jose Mercury News.
Apple was reluctant in the past to make design changes that would benefit the environment, such as removing certain chemicals from wires or screens, or even talk about the environmental aspects of its products, but now it boasts of the energy efficiency of its goods, the heightened recyclability of its aluminum-body products and how many toxics it has taken out of its products.
The company’s reasons for gluing batteries into its new MacBook Pro computer have not been made clear, but again speculation says it’s to prevent consumers or competitors from dismantling and fiddling with its products.
Photo of Apple store logo in New York City provided by Songquan Deng via Shutterstock
Next page: What's a purchaser to do?
In San Francisco, Apple’s
In San Francisco, Apple’s products make up about $45,000 of the city’s total $200 million information technology budget, Walton said.
Girls games
This is incredibly
This is incredibly disappointing move by Apple.
EPEAT, while not perfect, is very good; it is in fact the only good independent third-party system around for estimating environmental impact of computers and peripherals. If Apple has a problem with it, they should work on making it better, not dropping it.
Labeling systems like EPEAT are crucial for purchasers (individual as well as institutional) to have any clue about the environmental impacts of what they are buying. Consumers will never be able to drive markets towards sustainability without credible certification systems like EPEAT.
I guess Apple didn't watch
I guess Apple didn't watch the "Design for Disassembly and Recycling" video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQY1VdpHF4c
Typical of total-control
Typical of total-control ideology of Apple that resonates with so many of their buyers
This is a somewhat poorly
This is a somewhat poorly researched article that just states shallow conventional wisdom that has been reported in the popular press.
1) Apple likely still leads the pack in terms of its environmental footprint, especially over the life cycle. The fact that a battery is glued on -- one that a $2 screwdriver could pry apart, perhaps faster than screws could be removed -- is a red herring. Why don't you tell us how footprints actually compare (battery included or not), with real data for Apple and its competitors? If you can't do that, isn't this all idle speculation?
2) Apple specifically pointed out that EPEAT standards have not evolved to account for design or product category changes. A lot of such 'standards' (this happens in many other areas -- e.g., carbon footprinting -- where things get set in stone based on older materials, process efficiencies, sourcing strategies, etc) are very slow to change. Governments/NGOs are not as responsive as they should be. This is a problem especially in such fast-moving industries as those that Apple is in. For example, EPEAT doesn't even bother to cover smartphones and tablets. Those two product categories alone now make up close to three-quarters of Apple sales. (Computers are now only about 15% of Apple sales).
3) Apple is insignificant in enterprise/government markets, and there are no plans, as far as one knows, for it to change its strategy to make itself more enterprise-friendly. If corporate IT departments can't ask and answer questions such as those posed above, it's: (i) symptomatic of the way they make decisions; (ii) it's possibly their problem, not really Apple's.
4) Apple takes back and fully recycles -- for free -- anything at all you take to their store, or send back to them. Sometimes they even send you a check for the product you send back. Why you don't point that out?
This is, overall, a very disappointing article. I expect more of Greenbiz!
What's really poor is your
What's really poor is your Apple apologist fanboy thinking...
"If corporate IT departments can't ask and answer questions such as those posed above, it's: (i) symptomatic of the way they make decisions; (ii) it's possibly their problem, not really Apple's."
Really, you just proved with that one sentence that you have little meaningful experience with procurement at an enterprise level. If you think an enterprise purchaser has the time or ability to shake down every manufacturer for *independently verified* life cycle assessments of every computer model (not possible) so the purchaser can make "perfect information" comparisons in order to decide what employees can purchase, you are nuts. That's the whole point of EPEAT. EPEAT takes care of shaking down manufacturers for *verifiable* impact data, making that data publicly available and assessing that data into a score that can be efficiently used for comparison and decision-making in procurement.
Could you please cite your
Could you please cite your sources, especially concerning point 1)"Apple likely still leads the pack in terms of its environmental footprint, especially over the life cycle"?
It's interesting to have other points of view.
Thanks.
so, so long as shareholder
so, so long as shareholder value holds up, who cares are toxics and metals accumulating in the environment. all about ROI baby!
If not for shareholders there
If not for shareholders there would be no Apple. Apple is not getting government loans backed by the taxpayer. If you and other consumers care about the consequences of Apple's decision on their products DO NOT BUY the product. If enough people feel like you Apple WILL change. We do not always need big brother decidng what is good for us.
I don't think anyone
I don't think anyone suggested that the government should make a "big brother" move and step in to force Apple back into EPEAT.
Let the market dictate if
Let the market dictate if Apple's decision is the right one. I am an Apple Shareholder and if this decision effects sales and share price I believe Apple management will reconsider. If it does not then let them do what they want.
The arrogance of this move is
The arrogance of this move is what should surprise me the least, and yet somehow still astounds me the most.
Am I going to regret giving
Am I going to regret giving Apple the benefit of the doubt by chosing their products over alternatives? Unless they come up with a proper / better alternatives to what they're abandoning, this will likely have been the last time I've purchased any of their products.
Apple's withdrawal from EPEAT
Apple's withdrawal from EPEAT and decision to stop publically disclosing carbon emissions through the CDP is worrisome and irresponsible. I expect better and have higher standards for such a highly regarded company. Sincerely, disappointed.