At the end of February, I noted the Greenpeace website: A Greener Apple as an interesting approach to encourage an environmental commitment from the icongraphic Apple brand.
itwire, like many commentators, believes Apple was maligned by Greenpeace, simply for not promoting its “leadership” in environmentalism. I’m not convinced that a company as brand savvy as Apple was simply being modest previously. However, this site proclaims:
If its [Greenpeace’s] campaign against Apple has had any effect, it’s merely on the surface and in terms of PR, not reality. Is Apple doing anything different? Not as far as I can see. What’s more important: walking the walk, talking the walk, or talking the talk? My money is on the former, whereas Greenpeace’s seems to be more concerned with the latter two.
This does make an important point about whether making a public statement is enough. But now that Jobs has decided to talk more about the company’s “leadership” – gaining global headlines in the process – the pressure will be on to deliver.
Indeed, eweek recently reported that Apple shareholders were urging for greater commitment to improving environmental performance.
Apple probably aren’t the worst PC performer environmentally – but when you are the icon of choice for millions of customers, you have a certain responsibility. One that it appears the management and shareholders now recognise.