Apple’s green enough without another layer of bureaucracy

Of all the high-tech companies out there, none seems to suffer more public criticism for its environmental practices than Apple. Greenpeace has a history of setting its sights on the company with, among other things, its high-profile “Green My Apple” campaign. More recently, corporate responsibility foundation As You Sow, on behalf of some Apple shareholders, has pressured the Apple board to prepare a sustainability report by July, outlining how the company is “[reducing] greenhouse gas emissions and [addressing] other environmental and social impacts such as toxics, recycling, and employee and product safety.” A second group, meanwhile, wants Apple to set up a board-level sustainability committee.

Apple is resisting both of these demands — and rightly so, in my view. The directive to crank out an annual sustainability report implies Apple is currently very secretive about its sustainability practices — perhaps because the company’s green practices are lackluster, if any exist at all. That would explain the need for an added layer of bureaucracy in the form of a special “green unit” to finally get the company moving on some environmental initiatives.

Reality-check time: First off, Apple is a leader in sustainability among hardware vendors. The company has successfully incorporated green practices at all levels of its supply chain, in the way its products are designed and built, and in its business practices. Further, the company is very open — surprisingly so, given its reputed secretive nature — in reporting on its eco-oriented accomplishments and initiatives. A wealth of information is readily available on the company’s Web site, presented in a remarkably clear manner.

For example, do you want to know the size of Apple’s environmental footprint? That data is prominently placed on the environmental section of the company’s Web site. It’s currently around 10.2 million greenhouse gas emissions. Want to know how that breaks down? There’s 38 percent from manufacturing, 5 percent from transportation, 1 percent from recycling, 3 percent from Apple’s facilities, and the remaining 53 percent from product use — that is, the energy Apple’s products consume when used by customers. (By the way, if other high-tech companies incorporate that last figure into their own environmental footprint, I haven’t heard about it.)

Apple also clearly outlines at least some of the strategies it has adopted to reduce its environmental footprint, some of which the company arguably might want to keep secret, as they may give competitors bright ideas. Among them, on the supply-chain side, the company reports that it reduced its packaging of the 13-inch MacBook by more than 40 percent between 2006 and 2009. As such, the company can ship 50 percent more boxes per airline shipping container. That saves one 747 flight for every 32,000 units the company ships, resulting in fewer carbon emissions and, I expect, a significant reduction in shipping costs.

Speaking of the supply chain, Apple also has made public its Supplier Code of Conduct (which other high-tech companies also have in place), requiring suppliers to adhere to rules pertaining to safe working conditions, treating employees fairly, and establishing and maintaining environmentally responsible manufacturing processes. Beyond that, Apple released last year a comprehensive report on audits it conducted of its suppliers [PDF], including disclosure of violations (the most prevalent being some suppliers hiring workers from one country to work in factories in another country) and remedies.

[ Green demands have trickled down the supply chain, with large companies like Verizon demanding greener components from suppliers. ]

Beyond how it addresses sustainability in along the supply chain, Apple divulges in some detail how it has increased the energy efficiency of its products over the years. The company reports, for example, that a 2006 15-inch MacBook Pro is responsible for 21.44g of CO2e emissions per hour (when the system is idle with the display on); a 2008 model is responsible for 12.57g. The secret sauce for these power improvements: more efficient components and smarter power-management software.

Energy efficiency and GHG reductions are but part of an overall green-product strategy. Green-tech products are also modular, long-lasting, and easily recyclable. Moreover, they have a smaller overall footprint (meaning they’re made of fewer materials), and they contain a minimal amount of toxic materials. Here, too, Apple reports progress on various fronts. Among them, the mass of a 2009 20-inch iMac is 8.3kg. The mass of a 17-inch 2002 iMac is 10.5kg; despite a larger display, the newer machine uses less material and takes up less space.

In a similar vein, Apple is the only company — I stress “only” — recognized by former-thorn-in-its-side Greenpeace for virtually eliminating all toxic vinyl plastics (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) from its entire product line. This includes not only desktop computers, laptops, and monitors but also mobile devices, a product space that’s screaming for greening.

I could go on in this vein, sharing Apple’s practices for reducing waste in its own facilities, pointing out how many EPEAT Gold-rated products the company has — oh, and noting that Apple’s reporting on its products, facilities, recycling, and supplier responsibility already complies with widely accepted Global Reporting Initiative Sustainability Reporting Guidelines.

The bottom line here, for me, is that Apple is a leader among high-tech vendors in embracing sustainability practices. The company has sown green seeds at all levels of its business practices and has made information about its sustainability-oriented endeavors and accomplishments readily available. True, Apple hasn’t firmly stated that it will reduce its carbon footprint by X percent in Y years, but then, just how useful are those predictions anyway, given the inexact science of measuring carbon footprints? Reporting measurable, ongoing results — which Apple is already doing — should suffice.

Hence, I see no need for Apple or its shareholders to create a vague “board-level sustainability committee” to keep Apple focused on green practices, as the company clearly already is thinking on them. As for the call for more reports, concerned shareholders might consider reading what Apple has already made public before insisting on even more material.

This story, “Apple’s green enough without another layer of bureaucracy,” was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Follow the latest developments in green IT at InfoWorld.com.