Apple, Philips rise in Greenpeace’s ranking
Green group’s latest report states that Philips Electronics rose 11 places, from the bottom 10 into the Top 10, simply by saying they have changed their policy on recycling. Of course, there’s no evidence any additional equipment has been taken back or that fewer toxins are being released into the environment as result. Pretty much the same can be said of Apple, too.
Greenpeace has published its quarterly Guide to Greener Electronics, which isn’t based on actual product testing or does its empirical verification of the claims made by the companies the group purports to monitor.
Of note to Apple’s many fans, the Cupertino, California-based computer and widget maker has also talked its way into the group’s Top 10 ranking of well-known electronics companies. One of the areas highlighted by Greenpeace for praise is the removal of toxic chemicals, though it’s hard to decide by reading their analysis whether Apple’s actually doing a good job or where exactly the problems lie:
All Apple products are now free of PVC and BFRs with the exception of PVC-free power cords which are in the process of being certified. But Apple fails to score top marks on this criterion because it uses unreasonably high threshold limits for BFRs and PVC in products that are allegedly PVC-/BFR-free. The company needs to be commended for running a bold advertising campaign highlighting the green credentials of its MacBooks.
So, kudos to Apple for making all of their products, except power cables, PVC and BFR free, and then kudos to Apple for marketing these claims, except for the fact that their products really aren’t PVC and BFR free?
The two anecdotes—Philips and Apple talking their way into the Top 10—cited in this write up really underscore the absurdity of Greenpeace’s own lack of transparency and reliance on corporate claims rather than verifiable science. Garbage in, garbage out.
Nevertheless, I think Greenpeace, Apple and the other organizations listed do most of what they say they do and actually do give a damn.
But, until someone’s actually doing on the ground testing, verifying and following up, who the hell cares what Greenpeace or Philips or whomever has to say? Honestly, people are making purchasing decisions based on unverified and often contradictory sound bites not facts…
What’s your take?
Related Posts:
