The article in the url link below from BusinessWeek provides insight into the tactics sometimes used by interest groups to pressure high-profile companies that the interest group suspects of committing social harm (Issues: NGO and Corporate Cooperation, p192; Internet, p237):
“Greenpeace is bringing the rhetorical hammer down on Apple for what it considers environmental offenses, namely for not moving fast enough to eliminate nasty chemicals from its products. Its latest headline-grabbing maneuver: pressure on ex-Vice-President and current Apple director Al Gore … . Publicly pressuring Gore, the thinking goes, improves the chances that Apple's board will amply consider two eco-friendly shareholder proposals.”
In this case, however, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Greenpeace is picking on a high-profile brand, rather than focusing on meaningful reform. As the author notes, Greenpeace seems to be applying double-standards in this case and unfairly targeting Apple for what it has failed to say, rather than what it has actually done:
“As of now, neither Apple nor Dell—nor Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) for that matter—is selling a single PVC- or BFR-free computer. So in truth, Greenpeace has graded Apple based on statements, not actions. Both Dell and Apple are in the same boat, but one is saying the right things in public, and getting applause for it. … So if you're evaluating an Apple purchase versus another computer product based on the haranguing that Apple is receiving from Greenpeace, don't be fooled. Apple's no more or less evil than any other computer manufacturer. And while it's one thing to call attention to a problem that an entire industry needs to address, Greenpeace's methodologies, in this particular case, don't paint an accurate picture.”
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
http://www.sagepub.com/Werther
Business Week Online
Insider NewsletterSaturday, March 31, 2007
*******************
BYTE IF THE APPLE: IS GREENPEACE OFF THE MARK ON APPLE?
The group says Apple isn't ridding its products of nasty chemicals fast enough. But it may be holding the company to different standards
by Arik Hesseldahl
http://newsletters.businessweek.com/c.asp?653539&c55a2ee820194f0f&51
