intelligence
Apple under fire. Again

A recent Greenpeace paper focusing on hazardous chemicals in the iPhone was the latest chapter in an Apple-Greenpeace saga that dates back to 2003. CIO Quarterly asks Greenpeace's Zeina Alhajj why so much focus is being placed on Apple, and whether this is actually just a case of industry scapegoating

The Greenpeace campaign on Apple dates back to 2003, when Greenpeace first contacted the electronics company for information on its chemicals policy. Several years and meetings later, Apple was placed near the bottom of Greenpeace's 'Guide to Greener Electronics' ranking. Soon after, Greenpeace launched a website encouraging Apple fans to email Apple CEO Steve Jobs, urging him to adopt greener practices. The stand-off reached new heights late last year, when Greenpeace published a paper focusing exclusively on hazardous chemicals contained within the iPhone.

Put together, it may start to sound like a targeted hate campaign, but that's not the case, insisted campaign co-ordinator and project leader of Greening the Electronics Industry, Greenpeace International, Zeina Alhajj. Greenpeace is targeting the entire electronics industry, which, despite promises to the contrary, is still far from  environmentally conscious, she stressed.

“We're not only targeting Apple. Apple is the one that gets the most publicity, because of what it stands for. We are targeting the electronics industry and all the key players that can make a difference.

“Appealing to Apple to take leadership on the environmental issue was actually a change in Greenpeace's style of campaigning. We didn't immediately jump up with our banners against Apple. In fact, the first line of our campaign was: We Love Apple. We just wish it was green,” Alhajj elaborated.

While Jobs did eventually make a high-profile pledge to eliminate certain hazardous chemicals from Apple's products by the end of 2008, just one month later, Alhajj was disappointed to discover that the newly-launched iPhone contained hazardous chemicals; chemicals that had been eliminated in Nokia phones months earlier. “We were all expecting that the iPhone, being the newest product after his statement, was going to include an environmental particularity.”

While Nokia is not completely off the hook, it scores the highest marks in Greenpeace rankings. It has removed or is phasing out many substances that others still use. “We take a different approach than many others in the electronics industry, ensuring all materials put into products are identified, rather than focusing just on what is not put into them,” company spokesperson, Nokia, Susan Allsopp said.

While Apple's record has improved slightly since Jobs' announcement, Alhajj wants to see more, primarily because of what the company stands for. “When it comes to innovation, nobody questions the leading role that Apple has in influencing and setting trends for the whole industry.” Alhajj simply wants this leadership mantra to also extend to the environment.

Greenpeace's drive to clean up the electronics industry is borne out of the fact that as an industry, it is developing rapidly, and the lifespan of devices is getting shorter, amounting to tonnes of e-waste. In fact, according to UN estimations in 2005, every year we generate between 20 and 50 million tonnes of e-waste. “We have tested for all these chemicals in  rainwater, in the environment, in drinking water, and we know that they cause harm. We've seen them everywhere, [even] in people's blood.”

Since companies are able to change whole product and supply lines in months, Greenpeace believes “change is possible, if there is a managerial decision to do it. It is all about setting your mind to it and demanding it from your supplier. Bear in mind that Nokia's supplier is also Apple's supplier – they all use the same people”.
The RoHS Directive in Europe forces companies to comply with chemical restrictions, but Alhajj believes the industry can act much faster than the legislative authority. “They shouldn't wait for legislation. We want to put the environment in the mind of the industry as a key element when they design products. They design them to be faster, smaller and sexier – they do not design them to be environmentally sound. For us it's also important that companies bear the financial responsibility of their products when they become waste, so that when they design products, it's not in the design to be trashed, but designed to last.”

Alhajj concluded, “From an environmental point of view, and a human point of view, the cost is priceless. Whoever delivers change, we're going to salute, and whoever doesn't, we will highlight, scrutinise, criticise and test”.