RT @CrunchGear @nicholasadeleon: Apple to Greenpeace: Look, we're trying our best, ok!
Cupertino can't get a break from Greenpeace ever since the controversial NGO won a Webby in 2007 for taking a bite out of Apple's environmental record.
Back in July, Greenpeace ranked Apple lower versus Samsung and Nokia (though higher than Nintendo and Microsoft) in its quarterly "Guide to Greener Electronics" for levels of certain toxic chemicals in MacBooks and other Apple products:
Apple's score remains at 4.7 [out of 10] points but it drops one position in this edition of the ranking to 11th place. 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. Apple still needs to commit to phasing out additional substances with timelines, improve its policy on chemicals and its reporting on chemicals management.
CNET News reported that Apple updated its "green" site on Thursday with new information on corporate recycling, greener packaging and even how Mac OS X works with the CPU to save energy between keystrokes. How Greenpeace will respond is anybody's guess. Though, one has to wonder: how much longer is Apple PR going to kowtow to these guys?
When light bulbs flicker
Corporate social responsibility, be it charitable works or going green, is no longer a novelty. These days, CSR is expected. The dividends are immeasureable in many respects but pay handsomely in others, as companies line up to paint themselves green, blue, pink and red (like Apple does). Today's consumer wants to know that their purchases will find cures and build schools. Eco-conscious consumers want carbon neutral, organic, renewable, sustainable. Oh, and they are willing to pay for it.
But how much homage is Apple willing to pay Greenpeace? Is Apple afraid of not living up to its promise of being a green company, one that is EPEAT certified six ways from Saturday? Does Apple fear that it will alienate its core customers if the company doesn't concede to Greenpeace's every finding? For that matter, is Apple allowing itself to be bullied or just afraid to press back? And who died and made Greenpeace God?
Perhaps this is classic "no-win PR," a concept I'll address in a future post. Like any company, Apple vigorously defends its reputation and has the numbers to back it up:
- 18th out of the 25 "Most Reputable Companies in the United States" in the Reputation Institute's "2009 Global Reputation Pulse Study";
- second in Cision's "2009 Corporate Media Reputation Index" of U.S. companies; and
- 14th in Harris Interactive's most recent "Annual RQ" summary report.
Averaging the rankings of those three scorecards, essentially the Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch of a company's public image, can be fuzzy math at best, as there is no accepted industry standard. Still as they say, Apple appears to rank well in the PR department. Even adding these scores doesn't quite give an accurate depiction of Apple's (or any company's) environmental track record. In this department, Greenpeace sets the standard, perhaps better than the EPA. Though I must ask: who governs Greenpeace's market research? Are their stats impeccable or just reasonably good? And why did Greenpeace so brazenly take Apple to task like it did in the first place? I smell an agenda...
Garderning or boxing gloves?
Apple continues to play this hand carefully, but I think it can do better. Being in PR for 15 years is no lifetime, but I've counseled my share of clients with targets painted on their backs. You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em -- and when diplomacy falls off the table, know when to fight.
Kudos to Apple's new green site. Well written and designed, it steers clear of the self-congratulatory tone set by most CSR sites and utters ne'er a peep about Greenpeace, as did Apple's old green site. And if that has Greenpeace seeing "red," then too bad. With all due respect to Greenpeace, try picking on real targets instead of easy ones for a change.
Comments [0]