When you think of Apple, Inc., what comes to mind? Their rebellious underdog image; vibrant IPod advertisements featuring young dancers plastered up and down the avenues; a famous logo with a rainbow apple and the company that ‘thinks different’? Many in my home San Francisco Bay Area are rabid fans of the companies computers and progressive persona, but what about their track record when it comes to the environment?

Over the past year, turmoil has surrounded Apple because of their lackluster response to calls for improving some of their practices. Greenpeace activists launched ‘GreenMyApple’, a campaign aimed at pressuring Apple exec’s to modify their policies -- and fast. Instead, Apple fired back at Greenpeace, calling the criteria they use to rank companies on their website ‘disagreeable’. Although initially defending every aspect of their environmental practices, Apple has recently announced new programs focused on addressing a number of issues.

The first red mark on Apple’s scorecard results from their use of PVC (PolyVinyl Chloride) and BFRs (Brominated Flame Retardants) in all of their available products. Polyvinyl chloride is the center of much controversy, with some claiming it is perfectly safe and others saying it causes cancer in humans. In addition, it is speculated that PVC creates dioxin as a byproduct in the manufacturing and incineration process. Dioxin in the air, even at very low levels, is said to cause immune system suppression, reproductive disorders, a variety of cancers, and endometriosis. BFRs are applied to prevent electronics, mostly circuit boards, from catching fire during use. Although the most dangerous BFRs, called PBDEs, (PolyBrominated Diphenyl Ethers) have been outlawed, current materials could still be poisonous to water-living organisms and can cause humans to develop skin allergies.

Another point of controversy is Apple’s recycling program. Although donating to your local school or Goodwill is always a good idea, companies themselves are now expected to offer consumers a way to dispose of their old systems without negatively affecting the health of the environment. Many people simply burn their old supplies themselves, releasing dangerous dioxin and other chemicals into the atmosphere. More creative minds have turned old systems into terrariums or aquariums, aptly titled MacQuariums. Regardless, it is Apple’s responsibility to improve the dismal 9.5% recycling rate (based on sales in the last 7 years).

Everything else about Apple as a company and as a place to work seems genuinely appealing and fun, but at what cost? If the current situation continues, and Apple wants to stick with its core of well-educated consumers, Steve Jobs’ marketing department may have to spend more time and money spinning bad press than coming up with the next big ad campaign. And, although they have begun to make changes in order to confront these problems, the fact that Apple had to be prompted to make those changes sheds a bad light on the company image.

Apple has announced goals of eliminating the use of PVC and BFRs in all of its products and to improve their recycling rate to 30% by 2010, but has made no major changes to make these goals seem possible. Other companies have chosen to self-regulate and report on their environmental footprints for years, some for even decades. More recently, growing awareness concerning climate change has created a business environment where actually practicing green policies may be more profitable than marketing to appear as one that does, aka greenwashing. To be fair, many electronics manufacturers use similar production techniques -- but for a company that calls itself ‘revolutionary’ Apple has remained primarily stagnant in the face of mounting pressure to advance its platform, or at least accept its faults.