Apple Products Decertified as Environmentally Sound

[Craig Seeman]

This is because the new MBPr can not be easily disassembled for recycling. It would seem Apple may be heading this way with other products (next iMac?).

My guess is that Apple believes that most people will chose the new form for certain conveniences. For example, imagine the business traveler who feels the smaller lighter MBPr will help keep weight under baggage overweight charges or the general convenience of having to carry less weight.

One can only hope recycling technology improves to the point where Apple’s new designs can be broken down when the time comes.

[Al Ellis]

‘One can only hope recycling technology improves to the point where Apple’s new designs can be broken down when the time comes’
..Er, so lets get this right, the world has to find a solution to apple’s recycling problems? this takes the whole fanboy thing to a new pathological level.
we all remember apple as ‘the little company that could’ inevitably they’ve become ‘the big company that could’nt give a shit’. just the same as every other faceless corporation. No doubt apple will choose to rubbish the EPEAT, their methodology and their relevance rather than deal with their own pollution.

[Jeremy Garchow]

The Retina doesn’t fit the guidelines. Admittedly, I think it’s very weird. The iPhone and iPad don’t either, but the rest aren’t decertified. The products that were certified did not suddenly lose their status.

In fact: “Apple pulls products from green electronics registry”

Also, they actually do take back their products. https://www.apple.com/environment/#recycling

They might even give you money for it. https://www.apple.com/recycling/

While I agree, the retina mbp is impracticality designed for tinkering and ‘easy recycling’, Apple seems to be a responsible company as far as a multi-billion multinational.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Jeremy Garchow] “The products that were certified did not suddenly lose their status.”

From the article:

But Apple is removing all of its products from EPEAT’s registry, even older desktops that had once been certified.

If the products are not registered and checked as conforming to established EPEAT standards, then they are not “certified” – you can choose other words if you like, “de-listed” means the same thing practically. It does have an impact on their “status” (contrary to your claim).

If an institution only buys EPEAT certified equipment, they will not be able to buy Apple.

[Jeremy Garchow] “Apple seems to be a responsible company as far as a multi-billion multinational.”

Maybe. Maybe not. They certainly claim to be. What resources to do you have to check those claims? Or do you just take their word for it?

Also I thought it amusing that from your links they base their figures on a 7 year life-cycle for products (at the suggestion of Dell).

Franz.

[Jeremy Garchow]

What else do I have to go on but their word? I can call them and send them my old computers, even the devices that aren’t EPEAT certified. Should I do that, or simply throw them in the trash?

Your subject seems like they were hit with a decertified sticker, when they voluntarily removed the products themselves.

The ones that were never submitted were never certified, so they can’t be decertified.

You can get fired or retire. Big difference.

I’m not saying what they are doing is “right”. They still follow the rohs and other environmental rules, and they take back their own products or have deals with recycling companies. Beyond that, I have no knowledge. Just as I drop off products at a local recycler here who claims they are responsible, do I need to install a tracker to find out? At some point I believe them or not. Other PC companies have similar methods in place, do you believe them? Some don’t have any in place at all. What’s better, making an effort or doing nothing?

If Apple loses business from companies that won’t buy from them because they aren’t certified, it’s their loss. Huge companies do weird things. I wish auto manufacturers would take back their components. When a company takes back their own waste, it forces them to use higher quality materials, at least in theory as they logistically have to deal with the results of their product life cycle.

I don’t know what you are inferring about the 7 year cycle, but Apple will accept products (even products that aren’t their own) that are of any vintage.

[Craig Seeman]

[al ellis] “.Er, so lets get this right, the world has to find a solution to apple’s recycling problems? this takes the whole fanboy thing to a new pathological level.”

Very short sited thinking. Yes actually the world does have to radically improve its ability to recycle. This is especially so when it comes to certain plastics and certain goods being manufactured. The problem regarding Apple products is not based on chemical content but simply that there’s no easy way to dissemble. As miniaturization continues across the board recycling will have to advance in its disassembly to rescue and recycle the content.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Some more detail at iFixit:

https://ifixit.org/2884/apple-ditches-green-standard-cuts-off-federal-agencies-from-apple-products/

and WSJ:

https://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2012/07/06/apple-removes-green-electronics-certification-from-products/

including this:

Many corporations like Ford, HSBC, and Kaiser Permanente require their CIOs to purchase computers from sources that are EPEAT certified, said Sarah O’Brien director of outreach for EPEAT. And the U.S. government requires that 95% of the electronics it purchases be EPEAT certified. In 2010, … 222 out of the 300 American universities with the largest endowments asked their IT departments to give preference to EPEAT certified computers. Around 70 of the schools required EPEAT certification for electronics purchases

Franz.

[Marcus Moore]

Don’t forget ifixit has a vested stake in consumer repairable products. It’s their business!

I’m not saying their points are completely without merit, but they’re not unbiased either.

The Retina MPB is absolutely a less user-serviceable device. Whether that’s problematic for a majority of consumers is another thing entirely…

[Patrick Murphy]

“The problem regarding Apple products is not based on chemical content but simply that there’s no easy way to dissemble. As miniaturization continues across the board recycling will have to advance in its disassembly to rescue and recycle the content.”

As one of the world’s most innovative electronics companies, and a company making record profits, one might expect that Apple can rightfully claim to be an industry leader in many areas. Yet their record, in employee treatment, environmental issues, both manufacturing and recovery, and insourcing to badly needed American tech manufacturing is generally poor. Regrettably they seem to have adopted a posture that is pretty much parallel to late 19th century industrial titans, who only addressed worker and social problems by reacting to government or outside pressure.

If it ever really existed, Apple’s commitment to being socially responsible has evaporated as they have morphed into a consumer electronic and media producer. As a leader, and a example of corporate excellence, what Apple does reverberates widely to other companies, and Apple’s behavior sets a standard which is unacceptably low. Given their stock price and profit margin, it’s tragic that this should be so.

The technological challenges you mention are real, but this is not a question of technological complexity, it’s a question of will, and corporate culture.

As a corporation, Apple is remarkably insular in relation to it’s customers and it’s community, remarkably devoted to legal conflict with competitors, and apparently unconcerned with the social implications of it’s corporate policies.

One may argue that these are legitimate preoccupations of a modern profit driven corporation. I’m not sure I could reasonably dispute this proposition. Yet at the same time, as a citizen of a nation facing real challenges in all these areas I would submit that Apple’s responses are utterly inadequate and unacceptable. If social responsibility is beyond the reasonable expectations for Apple, then the rational person is justified in looking elsewhere.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Patrick Murphy] “If social responsibility is beyond the reasonable expectations for Apple, then the rational person is justified in looking elsewhere.”

I totally agree. If Apple’s policy of “we’ll take it back” isn’t enough, looking around is definitely de rigueur.

Where do you look? Despite Apple’s strange design choices, it does not mean the components aren’t recyclable, or that cheap parts are used for assembly. Apple seems to handle recycling pretty well, even sending you a shipping label. Who offers that or better? I am generally curious as I have no idea.

Again, this is straight from the horses mouth, but do you think Apple lies about all of this?: https://www.apple.com/environment/

I wonder how much say Apple has with their recycling partner Sims?

https://oem.srsapp.com/ApplePoweredBysims/default.aspx

I agree that Apple is far from perfect, they are a giant corporation and they operate as such with profits being a large driver of their policy. But when it comes to electronics, where do you turn for a “more responsibly” manufactured product?

Jeremy