Finally, Some Kudos For Apple From An Environmental Group

Posted by: Peter Burrows on October 05

Yes, you read that right. Although it’s been criticized by the likes of Greenpeace in the past, today two related groups called Clean Production Action and ChemSec will issue a report that highlights Apple as one of seven companies that are leading the pack in terms of eliminating toxic substances from electronic poducts. The author of the report, Clean Production Action’s Alexandra McPherson, says that Apple’s success in finding replacements for bromine-based flame retardants (BFR’s) and chlorine-based plastic softeners called PVCs will set the bar higher for companies that have insisted this is not possible. While HP and Dell say they have yet to find economical substitutes for these substances in all cases, Apple worked with suppliers to find non-toxic substitutes for “thousands of parts, including printed circuit cards, connectors, fan impellers, cable insulators, adhesives, films, inks, dyes, flexible printed circuits and enclosures.”

Specifically, McPherson credits Apple for its “elemental” approach to the problem. Most companies are endeavoring to eliminate particular BFR and PVC compounds, in part to comply with the European Commission’s Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS). But in 2007, Apple banned the use of any chlorine or bromine in any form, beyond trace amounts. And rather than just ask suppliers to sign documents promising to follow this order, it put in place processes such that suppliers have to get their products inspected by outside testing labs, and present the findings to Apple.

At least one of Apple’s key suppliers, drive-maker Seagate Technologies, is also among the seven that are hailed in the report. “We’re aligned to the more far-reaching requirements of Apple—that any form of chlorine or bromine is bad,” says senior vice president of global materials Bob Seeburger. Seagate had already begun demanding “Full Materials Disclosure” of its suppliers, requiring them to report all the chemicals present in their products, when Apple came knocking with its new orders in 2007. Like Apple, Seagate management had decided that having toxic free products would be a differentiator in the marketplace as governments put restrictions on more substances. “So rather than push back [against Apple’s demands], we focused on compliance,” says Seeburger.

Apple worked closely with Seagate to create greener drives, which now comprise most of the company’s product line. And Apple is working closely with other suppliers as well. For my story a few weeks ago on its green effort, Apple connected me with a maker of PVC-free resins that is helping it eliminate the last bastion of PVC in its product portfolio: in those white cords used to connect its devices to monitors and the wall outlet. I agreed not to reveal the supplier’s name, a condition from Apple that reflects its secrecy about its operations. But the source says Apple took a lead role in developing PVC-free cables, which are expected to be the norm starting with the next round of new products the company announces. Rather than just depend on its supply chain to do the work, Apple appointed employees to work full-time on the project, including engineers to help design the product as well as manufacturing experts to help Apple’s contract manufacturers understand how to produce them in high volumes.

Evidently, this was a significant engineering achievement. PVC has been a staple of electronics manufacturing because of its low cost, its flame-resistance and its stability; it’s the reason cables stay flexible, don’t crack and hold their color over the years. Besides the investment in the project, Apple also agreed to pay more for the cables at first. “Apple is really walking the talk,” says the source. “They’re willing to accept cost penalties to use these materials, and that has historically been the big obstacle. They accept that new technologies will be more expensive at first.”

McPherson from Clean Production Action says she appreciates Apple’s engineering-oriented, product-based approach, compared to other computer companies. Totally eliminating use of BFRs and PVC “is an expense that neither HP or Dell have been willing to accept.” She allows that those companies are far larger and have much broader product portolios, so eliminating these chemicals would cost them far more than it cost Apple (and would be more painful, given their thinner profit margins). Still, “Apple’s accomplishments prove that it’s possible,” says McPherson.

She hopes other NGOs, as well as the EC, will adopt Apple’s elemental approach, and use Apple’s compliance program to keep suppliers honest. Then, the party would be over for companies that have earned green kudos for their policies and promises, without much scrutiny of their actual products, she says. “Dell has the best precautionary principle of any company in the world,” in that it promises to be vigilant about avoiding substances that could be harmful, even if they have not been banned or regulated. “But what’s been lacking was implementation. That’s why we’re focusing on Apple.”

Apple executives say are only too happy to concur. They say that Apple focuses less on green initiatives—say, lowering monthly electricity usage or moving to renewable sources of power—and more on integrating green thinking into its basic engineering efforts. Done right, this benefits the environment and Apple’s bottom line simultaneously. Not only do greener products appeal more to consumers, but the engineering effort often leads to lower costs in the long run (For example, McPherson notes in her report that Apple eliminated six feet of PVC-based cables inside the latest version of the Mac Pro). “But this is very hard stuff, and when most people hit the wall they give up,” says COO Cook. “We think about how to use a pole vault to get over the wall.”

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/