Are you reading this on a Mac? D'oh. A new Greenpeace report ranks Apple's environmental record worst among 14 major electronics firms, based on use of hazardous chemicals in production and efforts to recycle products at the end of their lives. The iPod manufacturer was i-poohed for continuing to use several types of harmful chemicals, including PVC and some brominated flame retardants, and for the lack of a comprehensive recycling program for its products. Little-known Chinese PC maker Lenovo got top honors in the Greenpeace report, and was lauded for letting all of its customers give back their computers for recycling. Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Dell, and Samsung filled out the top five. Apple disputed the rotten report and claimed through a spokesperson that it "has a strong environmental track record and has led the industry in restricting and banning toxic substances such as mercury, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium, as well as many [brominated flame retardants]." How's that for biting back?
source: The Independent, Michael McCarthy, 04 Apr 2007
source: MSNBC.com, Associated Press, 04 Apr 2007
source: BBC News, 04 Apr 2007
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
coastie Posted 4:15 am
05 Apr 2007
Permalink
Robecology Posted 5:59 am
05 Apr 2007
Permalink
valerie Posted 11:27 am
05 Apr 2007
looks like they need to create an even better vision of themselves and transform this bad news into great news
innovative creative leadership, its what they do best, i challenge them to get to the top of that list and have fun doing it
and, sure the job of Apple PR is to tell bout the good they do, but it sure sounds like they can do a whole lot better
as far as longevity..I know many kids whose i-pods don't see 2 years ...abuse, whatever, they don't want to pay to have them fixed and they will end up in the garbage
Permalink
geobeck Posted 1:46 am
06 Apr 2007
As for lifecycle management and recycling, how many computer companies will take back your previous computer, even if it's not one of theirs?
Go to http://www.apple.com/environment/. Their environmental strategies extend beyond meeting numerical targets for specified substances. I don't see the problem with their environmental policy.
Permalink
Mattybee Posted 2:03 am
07 Apr 2007
Permalink
eelalien Posted 11:45 pm
09 Apr 2007
Permalink
ageeworth Posted 12:05 am
10 Apr 2007
But there's a problem with Greenpeace's claims. Let's start with the issue of PVC. Apple and Dell still use it in certain parts, notably the plastic insulators on internal cabling. Still, Dell gets more credit on the PVC issue. Why? Because Dell has said it plans to stop using PVC by 2009. This even though, given its volume, Dell is flooding the world with far more PVC than Apple. Dell shipped 39 million PCs in 2006, more than seven times Apple's 5.3 million, according to researcher IDC. Apple, too, has committed to eliminating PVC but hasn't set a definitive date.
Now let's look at BFRs, which are used to laminate printed circuit boards, in part to keep computers from bursting into flames. As with PVC, Dell has promised to eliminate their use by 2009. Again, Apple has promised to do the same, but hasn't set a date. Meanwhile, both are waiting for the computer industry to settle on better alternatives that don't have such negative environmental impacts.
As of now, neither Apple nor Dell--nor Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) for that matter--is selling a single PVC- or BFR-free computer. So in truth, Greenpeace has graded Apple based on statements, not actions. Both Dell and Apple are in the same boat, but one is saying the right things in public, and getting applause for it. What happens, I wonder, if 2009 comes and goes and Dell finds itself backtracking on its commitment? Nothing good, from a public relations standpoint, I suspect.
There is another authority on this issue: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which hosts an online tool called EPEAT, the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool. EPEAT uses a set of criteria developed with the IEEE (formerly the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), which is a global standards-setting body for electronics manufacturing.
False Drama
EPEAT has established 23 required and 28 optional criteria, addressing such issues as reducing and eliminating toxic materials and building machines whose life can be extended by swapping out old parts for new. Using those metrics, Apple acquits itself well. No single maker earned a "gold" rating, which means the vendor meets all of the first 23 criteria and at least 75% of the additional 28. To qualify for "silver" status, you have to meet the first 23 requirements and at least half of the additional 28. Apple's MacBook Pro came within two points of hitting "gold" status, scoring 19 out of 28 on the optional requirements. Dell's highest score was 15, on its Precision and Latitude notebooks.
And how did Apple and Dell score on the "materials selection" portion of their EPEAT tests? Terribly: Both got zero out of three. The same was true of HP.
So if you're evaluating an Apple purchase versus another computer product based on the haranguing that Apple is receiving from Greenpeace, don't be fooled. Apple's no more or less evil than any other computer manufacturer. And while it's one thing to call attention to a problem that an entire industry needs to address, Greenpeace's methodologies, in this particular case, don't paint an accurate picture.
From http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc ...
Permalink