Zack Seaverns
POL 328
Professor Bullock
Trust in the EPEAT/Apple Controversy
Apple, at the time the most valuable company in the world (Kelly 2012), decided to pull all 39 of
its computer product lines from the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT),
allegedly because they suspected that their newest flagship product, the MacBook Pro with Retina,
would not be certified (Chan 2012). The MacBook Pro with Retina was criticized for being difficult to
disassemble and for having its screen glued to the casing. In response to widespread criticism, Apple
decided to put all of its products back into the EPEAT certification system. EPEAT then proceeded to
certify the MacBook Pro with Retina while simultaneously interpreting its standards in a way that
weakened its criteria resulting in heavy criticism of EPEAT. Using theoretical frameworks of multicriteria decision analysis and trust, this paper argues that trust in EPEAT has diminished as a result of
criteria dilution following the Apple controversy.
To fully analyze the situation between Apple and EPEAT and the resulting outcomes on trust, this
paper will first outline the events and stakeholders that were involved in this process. Then it will
explore the criteria used by EPEAT and the criteria’s subsequent dilution. The criteria dilution, or
clarification, by EPEAT is analyzed by utilizing theory from Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis
in Environmental Decision Making by Kiker, Bridges, Varghese, Seager and Linkov as well as from Can
Using Decision Analysis and Dispute Resolution Techniques to Solve Environmental Problems Help
Promote Equity? by Maguire and Sondak. After discussing the criteria, this paper transitions to analyzing
the possible effects that the aforementioned changes in criteria could have on trust by using theory
from both The Role of Trust in Information Science and Technology by Marsh and Dibben and The Drivers
of Greenwashing by Delmas and Burbano. Finally this paper will conclude by tying all of the theories of
assessment and trust together to support the original thesis that trust in EPEAT has decreased as a result
of the criteria dilution.
2. The Situation
On June 29th 2012, EPEAT representatives wrote a blog post describing Apple’s decision to
remove all of its products from the EPEAT registry (Murphy 2012). Their decision sparked criticism by
many groups including, most publicly, the city of San Francisco. In response to Apple’s withdrawal from
EPEAT, the City of San Francisco told the Wall Street Journal that none of the 50 San Francisco municipal
agencies would purchase Apple computer products unless they were put back on the EPEAT registry
(Shah 2012). The backlash prompted Apple to put its products back into the EPEAT registry less than
two weeks after it decided to pull out of the registry. In an open letter, Bob Mansfield, Apple’s Senior
Vice President of Hardware Engineering, touted Apple’s environmental practices and mildly called for
some stricter standards for EPEAT to adopt (Mansfield 2012).
On October 12th 2012, EPEAT certified a number of ultralight laptops. Among the included
ultralight laptops were the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro with Retina display (Claburn 2012). Many
industry observers decried this decision by EPEAT, arguing that the MacBook Pro with Retina display
should not have been certified Gold, EPEAT’s highest level of certification, because it is not easy to
disassemble, some parts were glued in place, and because the laptop is not easily upgradeable. Among
the chief critics of this certification was Kyle Wiens, cofounder of iFixit.com, a free repair manual, who
condemned EPEAT for greenwashing because, according to him, the computer was the “the least
repairable, least recyclable computer I have encountered”(Wiens 2012a). Greenpeace also criticized
1
EPEAT, mentioning in a statement that “computers with difficult-to-replace batteries in its green
electronics registry will result in less recycling and more e-waste” (Cheeseman 2012). EPEAT responded
to these assertions by noting that their criteria are determined by a stakeholder process and by
encouraging those who criticized EPEAT’s criteria to participate in the process to update its criteria
(O’Brien 2012b). Critics of EPEAT contend that it weakened the interpretation of its criteria in its
decisions regarding ultralight notebooks. Their concern stems from an October 12th 2012 blog post by
EPEAT clarifying the inquiries into their own certification process (EPEAT 2012c). These clarifications
were necessary in order to conduct a certification process of the ultralight notebooks. This research
paper tries to understand the potential fallout of these clarifications on the trust that people place in
EPEAT.
3. Multicriteria Decision Analysis
During the ultralight notebook certification process, EPEAT decided to interpret its standards in a
way that diluted their criteria. The EPEAT certification system uses criteria to compare how well
different products perform environmentally. By applying the criteria to the different products,
assessment programs are able to discern which products are “better” according to the theory behind
the assessment program (Kiker et al. 2005). The criteria themselves as well as the weightings of the
criteria should reflect the relative importance of different attributes within a certification scheme. By
clarifying its criteria in a way that dilutes them, EPEAT risks losing stakeholder trust.
The process through which EPEAT creates its criteria can be viewed through the lens of
Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). MCDA is used in multi-objective situations where there are more
than one factor relevant to the desired outcome. According to Lynn Maguire, decision analysis can be
broken down into two broad categories: modeling values and modeling potential outcomes (Maguire
and Sondak 1998). This paper will explore the steps that are used to model values and how EPEAT
utilizes these steps to create an assessment program that benefits from MCDA.
Maguire argues that developing a set of goals is the first step to modeling values in a decision
analysis process (Maguire and Sondak 1998). Later steps include deciding the measurable attributes, in
EPEAT’s case measurable criteria, to gauge whether the goals are being met. Following this, the
organization should decide its preferences for varying levels of achievement among the criteria and
further determine which goals are relatively more important. EPEAT incorporates these steps into its
assessment program by using criteria over a variety of categories or goals. The distribution of criteria
and the process of formulating the final rating satisfy the third and fourth steps by weighting criteria to
be either required or optional and by allocating criteria, and thus overall leverage of the rating system,
to some goals more than others. So, both the criteria and the categories are weighted by importance to
the theory underlying EPEAT.
As noted above, EPEAT has two types of criteria: required criteria and optional criteria. The
criteria span across 8 different environmental goals or categories. Each category breaks down into both
required and optional criteria. In all, EPEAT uses 51 criteria to evaluate computers, including laptops, of
which 23 are required criteria and 28 are optional criteria. To become EPEAT certified at any level, a
product must meet 23 the required criteria. A bronze level certification by EPEAT, the lowest
certification level, indicates that a product has met all of the required criteria. The higher certification
levels of silver and gold require the product to meet all required criteria in addition to 50% and 75% of
the optional criteria respectively. Optional criteria tend to be harder to obtain than required criteria and
reflect a higher commitment to environmental standards.
EPEAT’s criteria include both qualitative and quantitative standards. A quantitative criterion may
be “minimum 65% reusable/recyclable”(EPEAT 2012a). Qualitative criteria are often short statements
such as “Upgradeable with common tools” which often necessitate clarification to supplement these
2
criteria (EPEAT 2012a). In the case of this particular criterion, the word “common” can be problematic
in its definition. Ambiguous language pervades many of EPEAT’s criteria. EPEAT uses an iterative
process to update its standards, in which stakeholders can adopt subtle nuances to each criterion to
account for this problem (Kiker et al. 2005). This is an important point because it means that if an
assessment organization has lax criteria which displease stakeholders then stakeholders have recourse
to change or strengthen the criteria to better reflect their values and goals. EPEAT appealed to the
stakeholder process when it came under heavy criticism for supposedly greenwashing their criteria to
certify the MacBook Pro with Retina (O’Brien 2012b). The stakeholder process is a powerful tool
because if all stakeholders have a chance to contribute to the certification process then the organization
can argue, like EPEAT did, that any current faults in the assessment system are due to decisions made
during that process. Although trust, in the short term, may diminish from diluted standards, people will
be more trusting of the organization if there is a transparent stakeholder process that decides the
criteria.
Ultimately, EPEAT did not do a good job of identifying relevant criteria during the MCDA process.
The level of achievement of the criteria identified by EPEAT does not reflect the values of many of their
stakeholders. The majority of the criticism directed at EPEAT was centered on the standard that EPEAT’s
criteria are held to. In a Wired.com article, Kyle Wiens argues that EPEAT’s standard was “gutted”
because of the clarifications for key phrases within its criteria (Wiens 2012b). These criteria
clarifications were posted on EPEAT’s website under the title “Doing Our Job” following the reaction to
EPEAT’s certification of multiple ultralight notebooks (O’Brien 2012a). The post clarified two criteria
that many took issue with following the ultralight notebook certification: upgrade compatibility and
disassembly. EPEAT goes on to mention that the “criteria (EPEAT) contains are the result of stakeholder
consensus” (O’Brien 2012a). EPEAT flaunts its stakeholder involvement process to argue that those who
criticize it should become involved in upgrading its standards during the standards development
process.
The view of EPEAT in the controversy is that its job is to rigorously enforce the requirements that
are decided in the stakeholder process. To this end, EPEAT must interpret the sometimes ambiguous
wording of its criteria. One major point of EPEAT’s criticism is regarding the stringency of its upgrade
compatibility or modular design criterion. This criterion is optional and specifies that the computer be
able to be upgraded (EPEAT 2012a). EPEAT says that this criterion can be satisfied by a USB port on the
computer and that it “has no authority to ‘flunk’ products if they meet the explicit terms of the
standard” (O’Brien 2012a). While EPEAT has a fair point about its role, this criterion does not help to
differentiate products, as most every computer on the market includes a USB port. The modular design
criterion, while flawed, clearly specifies that a USB port is sufficient to satisfy it, while other criteria are
not as clearly defined.
It has been suggested by those who criticize EPEAT that Apple decided to remove its products
from the EPEAT registry because it thought that it would fail one or more required criteria. The
supposed area of concern for Apple was EPEAT’s goal for Design of End of Life for its MacBook Pro with
Retina. Critics complain that when EPEAT certified ultralight notebooks, it weakened its criteria by its
interpretation of the phrases “commonly available” and “easy and safe” (Wiens 2012b). These phrases
are important because they fit into the required criterion that a product’s external enclosure is easy to
disassemble. EPEAT decided to define a total of three phrases following the certification of the
ultralight laptops (EPEAT 2012b). It is clear that EPEAT did not precisely define “easy and safe”
disassembly which weakened the standard because it does not provide manufacturers with a clear
directive to follow. In its definition of “commonly available tools” EPEAT noted that any tool which can
be purchased on the open market can qualify as “commonly available.” This clarification is crucial for
Apple because the “pentalobe” screw design is being implemented by Apple. This type of screw design
was first implemented on the Mid-2009 MacBook Pro and it is not as commonly available as a Phillips or
3
flat head screw (Wiens 2011). With these adjustments to its standards, EPEAT was then able to certify
the MacBook Pro with Retina as EPEAT Gold Certified, its highest level of certification.
The definitions given by EPEAT for “commonly available tools,” “external enclosure,” and “easily
removable” as well as the lack of specification for the phrase “easy and safe” disassembly serve to
weaken EPEAT’s standard and thus weaken trust in EPEAT certified products.
4. Trust
By weakening its criteria, EPEAT may potentially lose the situational trust of its users. If EPEAT
continues to lose situational trust, organizations may develop learned trust against EPEAT, which would
be catastrophic for EPEAT’s goals. As a credence good, EPEAT needs to foster trust in order to
effectively operate. Otherwise, people will not use EPEAT as a factor to discriminate among different
electronic products. Because people take the quality of information as a situational cue, a poor
perception of the quality of information due to criteria dilution will have a negative effect on the
situational trust that people place in an organization (Marsh and Dibben 2003).
Marsh and Dibben describe and define three general “layers” of trust: dispositional trust, learned
trust, and situational trust. They argue that understanding situational trust is most important because
learned trust is based off of situational trust experiences (Marsh and Dibben 2003). Situational trust is
further broken down into different situational trust types. These include: trust as despair, trust as social
conformity, trust as innocence, trust as impulsiveness, trust as virtue, trust as masochism, trust as faith,
trust as risk taking, and trust as confidence (Marsh and Dibben 2003). Of these types of situational trust,
trust as despair and trust as confidence are most relevant to analyzing trust in the context of EPEAT.
Trust as despair is relevant because EPEAT does not have any large competitors in electronics
certification that focus on specific products. This leaves the trusting parties with no viable alternative to
trusting EPEAT. Thus even if the trusting parties do not necessarily have strong trust in EPEAT, they do
not have a better alternative. Trust as confidence is relevant because the trusting parties should feel
optimistic that they are purchasing something that reflects their environmental values. If people begin
to lose trust in EPEAT, they may lose the trust as confidence aspect of situational trust. EPEAT has to be
cognizant of the situational trust that trusting parties have for it because a pattern of situational trust
outcomes influences learned trust. Learned trust has long term effects for EPEAT.
The relationship between the trusting party, or parties, and the trusted party is important in
analyzing trust. In this situation, EPEAT is the trusted party. The trusting parties in this situation are not
as clearly defined. EPEAT caters mostly to procurers, but some consumers also utilize the EPEAT
standard in their electronics purchasing process (IISD 2012). Amazon has its own page that explains the
EPEAT label so that consumers can make more informed electronics purchasing decisions (Amazon
2013). This suggests that the trusting parties in the EPEAT situation are both procurers and average
consumers. Marsh and Dibben, in their paper, identify two “trusting questions” that can mostly
determine if information will be trusted by the trusting party. These questions are “whether to trust
what the information says or who recommended it” and “whether the information comes from whom it
is supposed to” (Marsh and Dibben 2003). As EPEAT is the provider of the information in this situation,
the second question would only be an issue if manufacturers used fake EPEAT labels. There is nothing in
the literature that discusses a prevalence of fake EPEAT labels. Thus in the case of EPEAT, the question
of importance to the trusting party, or parties, has two parts: whether to trust the information itself and
whether to trust the person who recommended that information. Because EPEAT is a multi-stakeholder
process, it can be argued that the “person” recommending the information is trusted by the trusting
party. This narrows the relevant question for the trusting party to whether to trust the information
itself. If the trusting party finds that the information is not trustworthy itself, it will not matter what
4
their perception of EPEAT is as an organization. If there is a perception because of alleged greenwashing
that the information is not trustworthy then the trusting party will not continue the trust relationship.
Some of the criticism directed at EPEAT following the certification of the MacBook Pro with
Retina referred to the decision as “greenwashing”(Ogg 2012). This is a serious allegation against an
environmental assessment organization. Greenwashing is defined by Delmas and Burbano as “the
intersection of two firm behaviors: poor environmental performance and positive communication about
environmental performance” (Delmas and Burbano 2011). While EPEAT is not a firm per se, enforcing
lax standards while advertising the virtues of using EPEAT products amounts to greenwashing. Lax
standards are similar to poor environmental performance because the outcome of the EPEAT
certification will be poorer environmental performance outcomes. The Terrachoice Group has identified
seven distinct sins of greenwashing (Delmas and Burbano 2011). These sins include: the sins of the
hidden tradeoff, fibbing, no proof, vagueness, irrelevance, lesser of two evils, and worshiping false
labels. EPEAT’s clarification of its criteria served to replace its former sin of vagueness with its current
sin of irrelevance. By weakening its standards EPEAT has committed the sin of irrelevance in its
certification process. This is unacceptable for an assessment program such as EPEAT because if its
criteria are irrelevant then people will not trust that an EPEAT label signifies anything meaningful and
thus will not use EPEAT to distinguish among products.
If the trusting parties begin to believe that EPEAT is greenwashing its product certifications they
will decide to not trust EPEAT. Although this is only one situation of greenwashing, learned trust uses
multiple iterations of situational trust to determine whether to trust something or not. Due to the
criteria dilution engaged in by EPEAT, it is greenwashing the products it certifies which will cause the
trusting parties to lose situational trust in EPEAT. If EPEAT has loses situational trust in multiple
instances, then its trusting parties will develop learned trust that EPEAT is not a reliable source of
information.
5. Conclusion
EPEAT’s dilution of its criteria through clarification served to endanger the trust relationships
that the assessment organization has with its trusted parties. As discussed in the context of MCDA,
EPEAT failed to correctly identify relevant criteria in its standard setting process. If a USB port is the
criterion by which to judge upgradability, that criterion is poorly chosen because it does not
differentiate between notebook computers, as USB ports are almost ubiquitous. One of EPEAT’s higher
weighted, required, criteria, easy disassembly of external enclosure, is diluted by definitions of the
criterion that let in large segments of the market. Lax environmental standards on the part of EPEAT
and its label’s use as proof of environmental performance would be classified as greenwashing by
Delmas and Berbano. The criteria dilution by EPEAT contributes towards violating the Terrachoice
greenwashing sin of irrelevance. If others find that EPEAT is greenwashing they may begin to question
the quality of information, which will negatively affect the situational trust put in the label. This could
have long term negative effects for the efficacy of the EPEAT label because if people build up a learned
reaction that EPEAT greenwashes, then it will not be used to differentiate products. EPEAT’s criteria
dilution following the Apple controversy weakened trust in EPEAT because the clarification of the
criteria exposed the quality of information represented by EPEAT. If the purchasers of EPEAT products,
the trusting parties, perceive a lower quality of information then they are more likely to have lower
situational trust in EPEAT. This example of criteria dilution can serve as a warning to other
environmental assessment programs that consider criteria dilution.
5
Works Cited
Amazon. 2013. “What Is EPEAT®?” http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000405461.
Chan, Casey. 2012. “None of Apple’s Computers Are Environmentally Friendly Anymore (Update).” Gizmodo.
http://gizmodo.kinja.com/5924431/none-of-apples-computers-are-environmentally-friendlyanymore?nosso=1.
Cheeseman, Gina-Marie. 2012. “Greenpeace, iFixit Criticize EPEAT For Verifying Ultra-Thin Notebooks.” Triple
Pundit: People, Planet, Profit. http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/10/greepeace-ifixit-criticize-epeatverifying-ultrathin-notebooks/.
Claburn, Thomas. 2012. “Apple, Other Ultrathin Notebooks Get Green Grade -- InformationWeek.”
Informationweek. http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/desktop/apple-other-ultrathinnotebooks-get-gree/240009011.
Delmas, Magali A., and Vanessa Cuerel Burbano. 2011. “The Drivers of Greenwashing.” California
Management Review 54 (1): 64–87.
EPEAT. 2012a. “Computer Display Criteria.” http://www.epeat.net/resources/criteria-discussion/pc-displaycriteria/.
———. 2012b. “Verification Clairification.” http://www.epeat.net/verification-clarifications/.
———. 2012c. “EPEAT Announcese Findings In Ultrathin Notebook Investigations.”
http://www.epeat.net/2012/10/news/ultrathin-investigation-findings/.
IISD. 2012. Procurement, Innovation and Green Growth: The Story so Far... International Institute for
Sustainiable Development.
Kelly, Meghan. 2012. “Apple Hits $600B Market Cap, Still the World’s Most Valuable Company.” Reuters, April
10. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/10/idUS83271455720120410.
Kiker, Gregory A, Todd S Bridges, Arun Varghese, P Thomas P Seager, and Igor Linkov. 2005. “Application of
multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making.” Integrated environmental assessment
and management 1 (2) (April): 95–108.
Maguire, Lynn, and Harris Sondak. 1998. “Can Using Decision Analysis and Dispute Resolution Techniques to
Solve Environmental Problems Help Promote Equity?” In Statistics in Ecology and Environmental
Monitoring 2: Risk Assessment and Decision Making in Biology, 97–120. Otago University Press.
Mansfield, BobOpen Letter. 2012. “Letter from Bob Mansfield”. Open Letter.
http://www.apple.com/environment/letter-to-customers/.
Marsh, Stephen, and Mark R. Dibben. 2003. “The Role of Trust in Information Science and Technology.”
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 37 (1): 465–498. doi:10.1002/aris.1440370111.
Murphy, David. 2012. “Apple Removes Green EPEAT Certification From All Products.” Pcmag.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406823,00.asp.
O’Brien, Sarah. 2012a. “Doing Our Job.” http://www.epeat.net/2012/10/blog/doing-our-job/.
———. 2012b. “EPEAT Responds to Critiques of Apple Ratings.” Triple Pundit: People, Planet, Profit.
http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/10/epeat-apple/.
Ogg, Erica. 2012. “iFixit Joins Greenpeace in Bashing EPEAT’s Recyclability Standards.” GigaOM.
http://gigaom.com/2012/10/16/ifixit-joins-greenpeace-in-bashing-epeats-recyclability-standards/.
Shah, Agam. 2012. “Apple’s EPEAT Withdrawal Raises Recycling, Disassembly Concerns | PCWorld.” PCWorld.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/259043/apples_epeat_withdrawal_raises_recycling_disassembly_conc
erns.html.
Wiens, Kyle. 2011. “Apple’s Diabolical Plan to Screw Your iPhone.”
http://www.ifixit.com/blog/2011/01/20/apples-diabolical-plan-to-screw-your-iphone/.
———. 2012a. “Greenwashing the Retina MacBook Pro | Wired Opinion | Wired.com.” Wired Opinion.
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/10/apple-and-epeat-greenwashing/.
6
———. 2012b. “The Retina MacBook Pro Was ’Verified‘ EPEAT Gold, But It’s Not Green’.” iFixit.
http://ifixit.org/3525/the-retina-macbook-pro-was-verified-epeat-gold-but-its-not-green/.
7