Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Apple ranks fourth on Greenpeace's 'Guide to Greener Electronics'

Greenpeace on Wednesday released its new "Guide to Greener Electronics," in the environmental group ranked Apple fourth among major device makers.

The poll ranked 15 companies across three areas: energy, greener products and sustainable operations. The report also challenges companies to reduce their carbon footprint in a variety of areas, and also to set "ambitious" goals for renewable energy.

With a score of 4.6 out of 10, Apple came in fourth place — up five places from the previous Greenpeace report. The iPhone maker scored strong on its sustainable operations, but was ranked poorly on energy.

Greenpeace said it believes Apple's greenhouse gas emissions data needs external verifications, and the organization criticizes the fact that Apple has not specified any target to reduce emissions. But it also gave credit to Apple for its improved energy efficiency and use of renewable energy.

While energy was the company's low point, the sustainable operations category was particularly strong for Apple. Greenpeace credited Apple for exceeding its own goals in global recycling in 2010, and also ranked it as a top scorer for policies and practices on the sourcing of conflict minerals.

Apple also had a strong showing in the products criteria, as all of the company's devices are free of PVC vinyl plastic and brominated flame retardants. The company also received maximum points for reporting that all of its products meet or exceed the latest Energy Star standards for energy efficiency.

For years now Apple has pushed the environmentally friendly aspects of its products, countering a dispute that began with Greenpeace in August of 2006, when the organization issued a report condemning Apple for the use of toxic chemicals in its devices. Greenpeace also pulled a number of publicity stunts, such as a "Green My Apple" campaign in London in October of 2006, and a "greening" of Apple's flagship Fifth Avenue glass cube in January of 2007.

The negative publicity helped to prompt Apple co-founder Steve Jobs issue an open letter to customers and shareholders in May of 2007, in which he admitted that the company had not been forthright on its environmental policy. As part of the letter, Jobs outline a timetable for the removal of toxic chemicals from the company's products, including arsenic, mercury, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and brominated flame retardants (BDRs).

Jobs later said he felt Apple's tight-lipped approach to developing products hurt its image with environmental organizations. He argued that Apple's products has always been green, but previously didn't make a point to mention it in public. Apple now mentions its products' environmental impact with a scorecard at each keynote.

"We tend to report rather than predict," Jobs said. "You won't see us out there saying what the PC is going to look like in 2016. We quietly go try to invent the PC for 2016."

Apple's fourth-place ranking in this year's Greenpeace "Guide to Greener Electronics" places it behind Nokia (4.9/10), Dell (5.1/10), and in first place, HP (5.9/10). Immediately below Apple were Philips (4.5/10), Sony Ericsson (4.2/10), Samsung (4.1/10) and Lenovo (3.8/10).



28 Comments

retrogusto 17 Years · 1144 comments

Not surprising that they scored low in their use of recycled plastic in their products--they don't use much plastic of any type in their products.

jensonb 17 Years · 533 comments

Are Greenpeace still using their flawed methodology or have they decided to start grading based on, you know, facts?

jragosta 18 Years · 10472 comments

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jensonb

Are Greenpeace still using their flawed methodology or have they decided to start grading based on, you know, facts?

Why would they start basing things on facts? They've got a great scam going now.

Greenpeace has always been about show. The companies who talk the most about their 'green' efforts (and who publicly make donations to environmental groups) get good marks. Companies who do great things but don't issue weekly press releases or invite Greenpeace members to lunch do poorly in their rankings.

Just look at their individual marks:

"Clean Electricity Plan". Apple ranks 'Low'. I guess Greenpeace missed the article that says that Apple's NC data center will be powered by solar.

"Clean Energy Policy Advocacy". Apple ranks 'Zero'. They never sent a check to Greenpeace.

"Recycling" (paper and plastics). Apple ranks 'Zero'. But look at the facts:
http://www.apple.com/environment/#recycling

Quote:
Our original goal for 2010 was to achieve a worldwide recycling rate of 50 percent. (To calculate this rate, we use a measurement proposed by Dell that assumes a seven-year product lifetime. The weight of the materials we recycle each year is compared to the total weight of the products Apple sold seven years earlier.) We exceeded that goal in 2009, one year earlier than projected, when we achieved a rate of 66.4 percent. This far surpasses the last reported numbers from Dell and HP, which were each lower than 20 percent.

Given that 66.4% recycling rate (which is probably higher than 99% of companies out there), how in the world do they give Apple a 'Zero'????

"Measure and Reduce Energy Use in the Supply Chain". Apple ranks 'Low'. Apple clearly measures this - and works hard to reduce it. For example, the following web site is illustrative:
http://www.apple.com/environment/

Greenpeace people are idiots. They are all about 'show' and never let the facts distract them from their agenda. I'd love to see someone stand up to them and demand that they support their claims with more than their own unfounded opinions.

markbyrn 15 Years · 662 comments

Not interested in the politically fueled pseudo-science of Greenpeace.

solipsism 19 Years · 25701 comments

The good news is I now an example of a review company I rank lower than Consumer Reports.