July 24, 2009
A Green Marketing Ploy? NGOs Scrutinize Apple and Other Computers
Campaign & Advocacy
Whether it’s wind-powered electricity, hybrid cars, or earth-friendly cosmetics, corporations are jumping on the bandwagon to promote environmentally-friendlier products. The next step in this eco-movement is to target technology and, more specifically, personal computers and laptops. Critics claim that laptops use electricity inefficiently and contain biohazards that threaten poor children digging through landfills.
Two campaigns lead the criticism of computer manufacturers. Climate Savers Computing (CSC) began as a project by Google and Intel in 2007 and a spin-off of a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) initiative to reduce computer carbon emissions and energy use. Greenpeace focuses more on the biohazards associated with computers and rates electronics companies with its Guide to Greener Electronics. It also began the Green My Apple campaign specifically attacking Apple Computers’ environmental practices in 2003.
The Juicy Stuff: Why the Toxic Threat?
As one of the original progenitors of the green computers movement, CSC focuses on clean air and the elimination of carbon dioxide emissions by maintaining that computers waste 50% of the energy they take from power outlets. CSC avoids criticizing one group or one company—no surprise since it is a joint venture of various corporations and NGOs—but instead focuses on simple solutions to saving energy, such as using a power-save mode on desktop and laptop computers.
Greenpeace was one of the first to point out the more glaring hazards of seemingly innocuous electronic items. In 2003, it began to question the environmental friendliness of Apple products, launching “Green My Apple.” Cleverly parodying Apple’s own green and nutritious-looking emblem, Greenpeace encouraged Apple to change some of its practices by removing allegedly harmful chemicals from its products, particularly polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFR). On the other hand, Samsung and Sony score at the top of Greenpeace’s chart based primarily on their announced plans to completely phase-out PVC and BRC by 2010.
They Need a Bite of Reality
But what problems did Greenpeace have with these so-called “environmentally-hazardous” materials in the first place? Greenpeace takes a slightly different approach than Climate Savers Computing by combining the traditional environmental angle with a social one: quoting the Basal Action Network (BAN), Greenpeace alleges that chemicals used in computers and other electronics threaten children in developing nations who retrieve discarded computers from landfills and then dismantle them for parts, thus exposing them to chemicals.
PVC and BFR are dangerous in their purest forms. However, the idea that children in landfills are regularly coming in contact with chemicals from discarded computers could use harder evidential support from Greenpeace or BAN. BAN and Greenpeace have yet to produce independent evidence that documents that there is a serious problem with child exposure to computer materials in landfills. While they reference BAN’s 2005 photo-documentary The Digital Dump: Exporting Re-Use and Abuse to Africa, BAN and Greenpace fail to cite environmental impact and instead rely on anecdotal evidence from the photo-documentary.
But in their quests for environmentally-friendly, chemical-free computers, are NGOs such as Greenpeace and CSC actually putting consumers in harm’s way? For example, BFR is a flame-retardant, meaning that when a laptop gets too hot, BFR stops it from catching fire. The Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF) claims Greenpeace’s campaign against bromine is unsubstantiated and that the EU Risk Assessment declared BFR safe to use. BSEF Chairman Dr. Raymond B. Dawson says, “The Greenpeace campaign has the very real potential to lower fire safety around the world.” In return, Greenpeace maintains that alternative fire retardants are available and should be used. The organization also encourages computer manufacturers to adopt design changes that lower the risk of fire outbreak, similar to ones made in Apple’s new MacBook and MacBook Air.
From its efforts with Green My Apple, Greenpeace now claims credit for the impact of its campaign, saying, “Apple is clearly leading its competitors on toxics phase out. All PC companies should be concentrating on matching or beating Apple’s lead on this important issue.” But, according to Greenpeace’s own standards, Apple hasn’t really become fully—or even half-way—environmentally friendly. Despite a commitment from Steve Jobs for “A Greener Apple” in 2007, Apple remains at the bottom of Greenpeace’s own ratings, which begs the question of why Greenpeace praises Apple for its sub-par environmental performance. Perhaps Greenpeace’s positive comments about Apple somehow relate to politico-environmentalist Al Gore’s membership on Apple’s Board of Directors.
Green Computers: A Marketing Ploy?
The public relations battle over which computer company is greener, or intends to be greener in the future, is heating up. Dell criticizes Apple for promoting its environmental friendliness instead of fully disclosing its environmental activities. VP Bob Pearson wrote in his blog: “We wish Apple would be more bold [sic] in making a difference rather than making ads… we don’t recall Apple joining the conversation about the environment, either via key conferences or the blogosphere or via reporter meetings.” NGOs such as Climate Counts assign Apple low ratings on transparency, giving Apple a measly 3 out of 12 score on environmental reporting. Still, while Dell may be more transparent than Apple, Apple gets higher ratings from most green groups when it comes to actually being environmentally friendly.
Dell, HP and other large computer companies have mixed records in their quests to produce greener computers. Companies can improve their Greenpeace ratings merely by promising to make production changes, even if the plans won’t go into effect for years. But promises aren’t actions; they are simply obeisance to green initiatives and, ultimately, good marketing. In fact, HP has delayed its commitment to remove BFR and PVC from its products until 2011, while Dell has scheduled no definite date for introducing BFR- and PVC-free products.
Electronics companies are also taking full advantage of so-called green initiatives that were actually introduced years ago for cost-effective purposes, not environmental ones. “We’re seeing a ‘sales of popsicles to Eskimos’ kind of thing,” said Drue Reeves, an analyst at the Burton Group. “Some vendors have already had features in their products that could increase energy efficiency, but now they’re trying to resell them with that as a selling point.”
To support this new marketing of going green, Redemtech, a “sustainable computing” and consulting tech firm is pushing to become the new green electronics watchdog. It supports “independent e-waste auditing and certification bodies with the specialized expertise needed to validate a recycler’s claims and to certify recyclers to an operating standard.”
Does this green computing boomlet warrant all of this media attention and the substantial marketing and R&D expenditures by electronics firms? The answer is not clear. Thus far, green computer campaigns, such as Greenpeace’s Green My Apple and the efforts of Climate Savers Computing, have created more of a marketing venue for electronics companies than anything else. While companies may differ somewhat in their environmental standards, NGOs and electronics companies create the appearances of what seem to be major environmental differences when company standards aren’t really that groundbreaking. Consumers that use computers by Dell, IBM, and the like now face a number of unnecessarily complicated choices when purchasing a computer based on its “green credentials,” making the decision between good and bad apples seem trickier than it should be.
Jackie Ammons is a summer researcher at the American Enterprise Institute
Have questions or comments about this article? Let us know.
A JOINT PROGRAM OF
