But the rating is less surprising if you consider how EPEAT ratings are awarded. Manufacturers voluntarily register their products with EPEAT, listing which of the required and optional criteria the devices meet. EPEAT then reviews the registration, and can have the rating reduced or removed at its discretion. According to Kyle, EPEAT hasn't yet reviewed Apple's registration for the Retina MacBook Pro...EPEAT CEO Robert Frisbee said last week that "flexibility within specified parameters" is one way the group could "reward innovations that are not yet envisioned with standards."
Yes, but there's a difference between innovations in the technical field and innovations in the recyclable field. If Apple has some major innovation that makes industrial glue easier to recycle than screws, EPEAT should force them to prove it before allowing their grade.
It really sounds like EPEAT is looking to bow to Apple in every way possible.
I'm not sure that it comes down to whether or not Apple has innovated to make glue easier to recycle than screws, but rather if the use of the glue violates any required criteria of the ratings standard:
>How products qualify for EPEAT
>Products are measured against both required and optional criteria. A product must meet all of the required criteria in its category to be added to the registry. It is then rated Bronze, Silver or Gold depending on how many of the optional criteria it meets. http://www.epeat.net/resources/criteria-discussion/
I think you would have to have access to the list of required, non-optional criteria and assess those in order to make a determination. I personally have no idea as I don't know what the specifics of the criteria are (there are optional ones as well), but it is pretty clear what Apple's strategy is, and it certainly seems like EPEAT's CEO was signaling flexibility. Especially when you consider that fact that the EPEAT ratings have not been updated for a while, and that Apple helped create some of the criteria the ratings are based on in 2006, I have to imagine that Apple is either not actually in violation by some reading of the standards, or will end up being the recipient of the signaled 'flexibility' the CEO signaled, perhaps in advance of a draft rewrite of the standards.
