Dell Green, All Right–Green With Envy
by John Paczkowski
Posted on December 22, 2008 at 5:10 AM PT
I’m not sure which is more surprising: that Dell would publicly criticize Apple’s environmental claims in a post to the company’s Direct2Dell blog or that anyone would pay any attention whatsoever to that post, which is poorly researched and as unwieldy and silly as late ’90s-era Inspiron.
Like a heckler emboldened by one-too-many Prairie Dogs, Dell lobs (DELL) catcalls at Apple’s latest MacBook ad, which claims the machine is the “greenest” notebook on the market, thanks to its environmentally responsible unibody enclosure and the recyclable materials from which it’s made. Dell apparently finds such claims to be disingenuous and would prefer us all to think that its notebooks are the greenest.
“We have repeatedly said we want to be the greenest technology company on the planet,” Bob Pearson, Dell’s VP of Communities & Conversations, writes. “This is our aspiration. It really motivates us inside Dell to chase this goal. It’s very different than saying ‘we have the greenest laptops,’ which Apple has said. Apple hasn’t stated any goals, just made claims, which as far as we can tell, are not accurate. Our Latitude E-series makes energy efficiency, the use of BFR/PVC-free components and the elimination of mercury a priority. They were designed and built with the environment and easy accessibility in mind, arguably more so than the Macbook.”
Moreover, Dell believes Apple (AAPL) doesn’t understand the real meaning of being green from the viewpoint of a Fortune 500 company. “We don’t recall Apple joining the conversation about the environment, either via key conferences or the blogosphere or via reporter meetings. In fact, we believe Apple employees are not allowed to blog, as far as we can tell. If you want to make ‘big claims,’ you should be willing to tell ‘big stories’ in an open environment and let others critique your efforts. Don’t skip this step and go right to ads that may not even be truthful.”
Now, leaving aside for a moment the fact that it’s a marketing message that’s at issue here and such things are, by their very nature, prone to exaggeration–have we already forgotten that a court found Dell guilty of false advertising less than a year ago? And leaving aside, too, the fact that Dell has fallen to 12th place from 5th place in Greenpeace’s Greener Electronics Ranking over the past few years (and yes, I’m aware Apple ranks 14th), one would think that any company planning to accuse Apple of making bogus claims about green laptops and failing to engage in a meaningful dialogue about its environmental obligations would conduct the due diligence necessary to back them up.
Not Dell, though.
Because if the company had done its due diligence, surely it would have stumbled across Steve Jobs’s “A Greener Apple” essay, which details the company’s efforts to remove toxic chemicals from its products and to recycle its older products. It might have found Apple’s 2008 Environmental Update as well. That document explains, in a fair bit of detail, the company’s efforts to temper the environmental impact not just of Apple products, but the company’s facilities, and offers a nice overview of Apple’s recycling program and Supplier Code of Conduct, too.
“We wish Apple would be more bold in making a difference rather than making ads,” says Dell. Perhaps it would be better served making its own difference, rather than making empty, poorly research accusations about its rivals.
Comments
“We have repeatedly said we want to be the greenest technology company on the planet,”
Yup, that just about sums it up. Dell insist on talking about it and actually not achieving very much at all. A lot of their position with the Greenpeace chart was based on just talking up their green position with very little to back it up. Still new charts due soon – let’s see how they do.
Posted by John Molloy at December 22nd, 2008 at 8:14 amOkay, I bit! Is there a reason you failed to mentioned that Apple(14) is ranked lower than Dell(12) in the Greenpeace list?
Posted by Jeff Stevens at December 22nd, 2008 at 8:27 amAnd Dell had the same score as the prior ranking in which it fell (others rose!)?
Was it because the rankings are apple’s and oranges, pun intended, since Apple includes the ipod and the iphone.
You should have attacked the Ad as well. Which BTW reminded me of Apple attacks on the MSFT Vista Ad’s! Disclosure, I’m greener than anyone, I don’t own an ipod, iphone or MAC.
Apple’s focus on reducing chemicals in its MacBook is a promising start, but I’d encourage your readers to look beyond the company’s initial memo (now more than a year and a half old). Is computer recycling really free when your customers have to pay for it? Sure, most companies let you recycle when purchasing a new computer, but why not take it one step further? Dell is still the only technology company to offer a free recycling program for consumers worldwide.
You also mention facilities, but I read Apple’s recent update as downplaying the importance of the carbon impact of facilities. Is that the right message to send when thousands of companies across the globe are powering their facilities with green energy? I’d encourage Apple to rethink its approach and commit to a carbon-neutral goal, as Bob challenges in his post.
Finally, I don’t think an annual memo or manifesto qualifies as “joining the conversation.” Why wouldn’t Apple allow users to weigh in with environmentally-responsible product ideas? Or blog about progress from time to time? Transparency and dialogue go beyond a carefully-worded memo.
Above all, it’s important to look beyond the memos and 30-second ads and understand the key differences of any green initiative — whether it be recycling, product efficiency or overall transparency. After taking this step, we should all make a point of challenging every company to keep innovating.
Posted by Sean Donahue at December 22nd, 2008 at 8:47 am- SeanatDell
Actually, I did mention Apple’s Greenpeace ranking, albeit parenthetically. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have bothered to mention Greenpeace at all, since the group’s methodology is controversial — especially when it comes to Apple.
Posted by John Paczkowski at December 22nd, 2008 at 8:52 amSean …
Apple didn’t simply post an annual memo. It’s 2008 Environmental Update includes individual Product Environmental Reports for most all its products, as well as its facilities. Pearson’s post — which I can oddly no longer access — says, specifically: “Apple hasn’t stated any goals, just made claims.” That statement is categorically false, according to the materials I was able to find — and find very easily — online. Moreover, while Dell takes issue with Apple’s “greenest laptop” claim, it offers up no evidence whatsoever to refute it. Finally, if you believe Greenpeace, Dell’s own environmental record is in decline.
Now, I’m not saying Apple couldn’t do more. We could all do more. But I don’t put any stock whatsoever in Pearson’s allegations.
Posted by John Paczkowski at December 22nd, 2008 at 9:01 amThe fact is that Apple is the greenest computer company right now. . .green as in $25 billion in the bank. The #14 Greenpeace ranking isn’t mentioned because unlike Dell, Apple isn’t claiming to be one of the greenest companies. Instead, it is claiming a very green product, a claim which Dell does not refute with any evidence, other than to say that, overall, it is a greener company (and as said before, this would be true environmentally, not financially).
Instead of random posts on blogs, how about Dell employees like “Sean” focus on developing products customers actually want to buy, and not on what Apple is doing. We all know the company isn’t capable of developing such products, but at least if they give it a shot they can spend less time “blogging.”
Posted by Will Todd at December 22nd, 2008 at 9:02 amI find it unfortunate that Dell could not be more specific on the Direct2Dell post. I was encouraged when I came across it because the Apple commercial is about the clearest example of Greenwashing you will find. Simply put, it is a adv Apple never should have made, but Dell did a poor job explaining why. I Tweeted about it lamenting that the media’s Apple bias would probably ignore the post and the Apply fanboys would smell blood and blindly attack regardless of validitiy. Thanks for at least putting this issue out into the social conversation.
Posted by Dominic Pannone at December 22nd, 2008 at 11:48 amI’d love to see a comparison of the energy it takes to machine out the MacBook casing from a solid chunk of aluminum with forming the parts directly. And what happens to all the aluminum that’s removed during the process?
Posted by Phil Baker at December 22nd, 2008 at 5:19 pm“And what happens to all the aluminum that’s removed during the process?”
It’s made into another aluminum block.
Posted by Neil Anderson at December 22nd, 2008 at 7:49 pmConsidering how huge Dell is compared to Apple Computer they should be FAR, FAR in the lead. Dell turns over new designs many times faster and thus SHOULD be capable of moving old manufacturing technology out faster than Apple. Looking at the ad on youtube I don’t find the ad all that bad really, certainly it’s far better truth wise compared to a LOT of other consumer products (just watch the weight loss pill ads!) Casting an eye at Dell with their plastic enclosures which require a great deal more prep to recycle than aluminum. Browsing a parts list at the sheer number of different plastic materials in a typical lappy of theirs I find their ‘calling out of Apple’ to be at the very least, disingenuous.
Posted by Mathue Taxion at December 23rd, 2008 at 8:53 am