Apple not big on trees? Greenpeace releases "green electronics" report

Sooner or later a report like this had to be done by someone, question is whether Greenpeace was the best one to do it. That's probably moot now, since they say they'll be doing quarterly updates.

Better to get GP to improve what so far is a flawed product. They have to rely on inputs beyond what is published on the company websites, but verifiable input. Just because a company website or press release says that they have a recycling program in country X does not mean that the program is readily accessible or even known to consumers in that country.

They need to be more consistent in their application of the criteria. For example, why talk of penalizing Samsung for providing voluntary take-back in some countries but not all they sell in, when almost every company in the list -- including others rated higher -- does the same thing, but GP doesn't mention penalizing them? Why rate Sony and Samsung "partially bad" for providing little and incomplete information on their recycling programs, when high-rated Nokia does the same thing but is rated "partially good" for this same item?

If chemicals/materials management is as important as they stress, why obsess so much on PVC and PBRs, as if heavy metals were not still a problem? Maybe less so in Europe, but certainly not yet in developing nation markets.

If waste is such a priority for GP, why focus solely on management of the end-of-life product? Why not look at the whole picture -- waste reduction, lower processing waste, use of less packaging, support for remanufacture and reuse (this mentioned only in passing twice)?

The report talks much about Europe, North America, Japan and China, but little about Latin America and Africa. Given its network of offices worldwide, GP can't check on the status in places like Brazil, Chile, India, Mexico or the Philippines? For example, many jurisdictions in Brazil require take back of WEEE and/or all cell phones batteries -- why doesn't GP mention whether or not these 14 companies are complying? Do only European regulations and China's Green Box matter?

Why were only these 14 companies chosen? On what basis? The report itself does not say. Why, for example, was Epson omitted? Canon? Brother? Konica Minolta? Xerox? Kyocera Mita? Olivetti? Ricoh? Sharp?

In my opinion GP attacked Apple in its press releases, interviews, etc. instead of the lower rated Acer, Lenovo and Motorola because Apple makes a better, higher profile PR mark -- they get more press by doing so, not necessarily because Apple deserves it.

Anyone interested in my other musings on this can read them at http://www.temasactuales.com/temasblog/?p=8

Fantastic to see a well informed article about recycling that doesn't ridicule the important issue this is.

Yeah, Greenpeace isn't neutral. It's not their job to be neutral. They're pro-environment.

They are, however, not anti-capitalism. They also won't support one computer company over another, so they're neutral as far as computer companies are concerned. And if they point out a problem, there's usually something to it.

The scale does not seem slanted. The companies are pretty evenly distributed, somewhat towards environment-unfriendly, pretty much what you'd expect. There are companies which get a 7 out of 10, so it's not like you could not receive good numbers.

Apple fanboyism aside, it's clear here that Apple is a lot worse than Dell (and no, the amount of shipped computers does not matter one bit here - otherwise, successfull companies would automatically receive bad grades regardless of how much they do, which seems very unfair). They should do better, and pointing that out is not anti-capitalistic in any way. In fact, it's the very base of a free market: Customers should know how companies behave so they can "vote with their wallets."

why doesn't greenpeace make a "green electronics" report widget? :-))

here's what I care about: Apple making the best quality products they can for the least cost to me. I don't want them to waste money on recycling programs and I certainly don't want them to adopt any principles employed by inferior companies such as Nokia (I just got rid of my Nokia phone and will never buy one again - every engineer on that thing must have been a perfect Dilbert).

To #14 (Jon)

Your argument about Greenpeace is tantamount to filling a gas guzzler and burning fuel while it's cheap, because it's the 'American way', but it doesn't make it right. I think aiming to conserve our resources and how we manage sustainability is a positive thing. Try thinking less about yourself and more about other living things and people on this planet, and maybe it's time to start paying for it.

Quite a hefty anti-environmentalist sentiment in some of these posts!

I love Apple's product design, but as Jay points out they really should be leading the way on eco-responsible electronics. And the cost of correcting some of these points is really minimal.

When the capitalist POV is used as the only measure of success for a company, and without government regulations adjusting this force, bad things will happen to the environment. Ignore it or deal with it.

I'm scared that our world has people like Paul-Michael Bauer.

Jesus Christ is a liberal Neal, and that scum you speak of Neal, it is from your hell.

Spot on Jay, especially your concluding paragraph..
Most of the replies however, made me feel quite sad.

# 5
"Why do the rantings of a political action group have any credence here?"

What's political about environmental awareness, and the dedication to change things for the better. Is it that it interferes with Does that makes it anti-cap

#6
"One can already see a good evolution in the packaging department."

Evolution indeed, but I question if this was a decision based on environmental concern. I tend to believe that this was an economical decision.
Apple is a very creative company, with lovely, outstanding products. (Apparently) they are very creative bookkeepers too. And the way I read their environmental statements, I really think that they used that creativity to back-reason (as opposed to backdating) their evolutions to make up this nice yadah yadah. "Lead and cadmium in cables restricted". Nice work Apple, but how much? And how much is still in there? Good thing Apple went for Intel, at least they are aiming for 'leaf-free' (http://www.intel.com/technology/silicon/leadfree.htm).

And, aligned with this..

#16
"I have yet to hear anyone compliment Apple on saving the world from a few hundred million CD cases, CD sleeves, along with the associated celophane wraps and other packaging"
You can't seriously be thinking that Apple is in this for any environmental reason? They just jumped on the bandwagon Amazon (among others, read the Long Tail) has started. If it is Apple's intention to reduce (CD)waste, they should open up Itunes for other MP3 players as well.

"Personally, I believe the move to downloaded music, videos and the like is a step in the right direction that ought be acknowledged, Indeed, it is changing the world."

Our part of the world, indeed. Not the other part of the world, where we dump all our wasted computers, asbestos, etc. etc.

#14 Jon
Lollapallooza (#18) tackled this one nicely and thoroughly. Hope Jon reads it properly..


#17
"Greenpeace can go to hell with all the rest of the hippy-liberal scum."

Neal, what kind of ridiculous short-sided statement is that? (let me lower to your league for a split second:) is this yet another stupid american redneck comment? (no offense to all smart american rednecks and other americans.. )


Despite the Kyoto paragraph being neglected by Bush cs. every sensible person can see that we're screwing up this planet the way we're going and everyone -companies and individuals- should put their upmost effort in to change things for the better. It is NOT our planet. We ARE the planet.
Hippy-talk? maybe, but I dare you who disagree to reason why I'm wrong..

I totally go with BigJay (#20): "If someone like greenpeace doesn't point these things out, who would?"
However, I'm afraid they don't balance each other out.

For companies, plain profit is the main (and sometimes only) thriving factor.
So the truth is, Neal, we simply need a bunch of hippy-scum to kick that in those ignorant heads.

I could on about this, and I'm not even a hippy. I'm just concerned.
My two cents..