Greenpeace has harped on electronics companies—Apple in particular—to "clean up" their act by publishing its annual Guide to Greener Electronics. Apple, however, has made great strides to improve the environmental impact of its products and operations over the last decade. This is despite constantly getting low ratings on "green" issues based mostly on the way Apple reports information about greenhouse gas emissions or the lack of published goals for certain environmental initiatives. The company has long argued that actions speak much louder than words, though, and it has now published data that firmly supports this contention.

To give an idea of how Apple seems to be unable to earn any cred for its green efforts, consider the most recent rankings by Greenpeace. All of Apple's computers earn an EPEAT gold rating, meet or exceed all Energy Star requirements, have phased out nearly all use of PVC, BFRs, and have made efforts to eliminate mercury, arsenic, and other harmful chemicals from its entire product line. That didn't stop the company from earning 4.7 points on a 10 point scale, mainly because the company didn't report certain details in the format that Greenpeace wanted, didn't give specific information about renewable energy use, and didn't state specific goals about the reduction of GHG emissions. Despite Greenpeace lauding the company's efforts to make its products more green, Apple actually fell back one place among the companies that Greenpeace tracks, while other manufacturers that offer less "green" products but make certain promises to make changes in the future earn higher rankings.

Others have put Apple way behind other companies as well. For instance, Newsweek recently published a ranking of the "Greenest Big Companies In America." It put Apple in 133rd place, well behind the Marathon Oil at 100, while HP and Dell were ranked number one and two respectively. The disparity seems to defy all logic and common sense.

This is why Apple has long sought to reframe the issue as one of concrete action versus published promises—which can be, and are, easily broken. Apple's latest data shows that the efforts Apple has made to improve its products, making them more environmentally friendly and more energy efficient, are actually paying off more than initiatives to reduce greenhouse emissions at its offices, for instance. "A lot of companies publish how green their building is, but it doesn't matter if you're shipping millions of power-hungry products with toxic chemicals in them," CEO Steve Jobs told BusinessWeek in an interview. "It's like asking a cigarette company how green their office is."

A comparison of Apple's overall CO 2 emissions by source. Product use over its projected lifetime accounts for the vast majority of those emissions.

Apple has now made a comprehensive, detailed analysis of carbon emissions for the entire life cycle of each of its products. While information is available for each individual product in the comprehensive "Environmental Reports," an aggregate of the data shows that the vast majority of carbon emissions come from manufacture and use of its products. Manufacturing, including everything from the extractions of raw materials up to final product assembly, accounts for 38 percent of Apple's carbon emissions, while use of its products over a standard lifetime—4 years for a Mac or 3 years for an iPod or iPhone—accounts for a whopping 53 percent of the carbon emissions. Transportation, maintaining it facilities, and recycling account for just 9 percent, with facilities alone responsible for just 3 percent of the company's 10.2 million metric tons of yearly carbon emissions.

That doesn't mean Apple isn't making improvements in facilities energy use. By the end of this year, the company will run its Cork, Ireland, and Elk Grove, California operations completely on renewable energy sources. Its Austin, TX offices use renewable energy as well. The company also provides incentives to use public transportation instead of driving in to work, including running biodeisel-fuled busses that transport as many as 600 employees per day.

What's more, Apple continues to "green" its business in several other areas. The company offers recycling in 95 percent of the countries it does business in, achieving a 42 percent recycling rate and aiming for an industry-leading 50 percent rate by 2010. Apple also continues to reduce the energy consumption of its products, reduce the materials used to make them, and reduce the amount of packaging they require. And the company continues to reduce the amount of toxic substances used in its products. "Not only is every Mac, iPod, and iPhone free of PVC and BFRs, we are also qualifying thousands of components to be free of elemental bromine and chlorine, putting us years ahead of anyone in the industry," reads Apple's website. "In addition, all MacBook Pro models feature displays with mercury-free backlighting and arsenic-free glass." The company also requires its manufacturing partners to maintain "environmentally responsible manufacturing processes."

Jobs admitted to BusinessWeek that criticism from Greenpeace and other groups encouraged Apple to improve its environmental initiatives, but says he won't start publishing certain specific, long-term goals just to satisfy those critics. Instead, Apple will continue to publish comprehensive data that shows the efforts and improvements Apple is making. Paul Dickinson, president of the Carbon Disclosure Project, applauded Apple's effort to make a more sensible, comprehensive measurement of its environmental impact. "Its approach is legitimate, and to be encouraged," he said. It may not gain the company any points with Greenpeace, but it sure seems like Apple is ahead of its competition in making real change when it comes to its impact on the environment.