![]() |
The IT industry is singled out for its potential to help address the world's pressing environmental issues: the Smart 2020 report published last year found that information technology has the potential to bring about worldwide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of 15 percent or more by the year 2020.
But in its research of the industry, Greenpeace found that progress is happening far too slowly to achieve those goals. The top-ranking companies in the scorecard, available online at www.greenpeace.org/coolit, are IBM and Sun Microsystems, both of whom scored just 29 out of 100 points, across five categories: Public climate speeches, political advocacy, climate solutions, internal emissions targets, and renewable energy use.
![]() |
Of the 12 companies included in the scorecard, IBM earns praise for its own emissions targets -- the company has set hard targets for absolute emissions reductions longer than any other IT company in the survey -- and some praise for its climate solutions, some of which we've profiled already. Greenpeace recognized Sun Microsystems for its internal emissions targets and its political advocacy (notably, its status as a founding member of the BICEP climate partnership), but scored zero points for its climate solutions and renewable energy use.
At the bottom of the list is Toshiba, which scored just 2 points, Sharp with 5 points, and Sony and Microsoft with 7 points each.
Greenpeace developed the scores by asking the CEOs of each company to provide details about each firm's climate change activities along three key areas: Providing IT solutions to help measure and reduce climate impacts; lobbying for a strong climate agreement in Copenhagen, Denmark, at the climate-treaty negotiations this December; and reducing their companies' own emissions internally and increasing the amount of renewable energy they use.
“While governments across the globe are debating how to solve the climate crisis, it is disappointing that innovative IT companies that stand to profit handsomely from tech solutions are sitting on their hands and not advocating for science-based greenhouse gas emissions reductions,” said Greenpeace International Campaigner Casey Harrell in a statement.
As with Greenpeace's Guide to Greener Electronics, the group will update the rankings regularly. Full details are online at www.greenpeace.org/coolit, and the full rankings are below:
| Company | CEO | Score |
| IBM | S. J. Palmisano | 29 |
| Sun | J. I. Schwartz | 29 |
| Dell | M. S. Dell | 21 |
| Cisco | J. T. Chambers | 19 |
| Intel | P. Otellini | 18 |
| Fujitsu | K. Nozoe | 18 |
| Nokia | O. Kallasvuo | 16 |
| HP | M. Hurd | 13 |
| Microsoft | S. Balmer | 7 |
| Sony | H. Stringer | 7 |
| Sharp | K. Machida | 5 |
| Toshiba | A. Nishida | 2 |


Browse
Engage
Research











Not surprising...
Apple didn't even make it on the card...
Just a few years they were ranked as the most environmentally destructive state side computer manufacturer.
And now suddenly they try to hype a new lap top as the greenest one ever.
They never innovate - all they do is play the market.
And trying to act green is definitely marketable. Like all marketing you don't even have to live up to your claims...
I'm a Mac user, hope they're green and getting greener
Been using Macs since their inception in 1985. Ooops, revealed my age! (ummm, i was 4 when they came out!)
I heard that Apple (rumor mill from two friends "inside" the apple) was going to hit marketing heavy on "green" for their next five years of product announcements. Apple will be a "green apple", so to speak.
My business is domain brokering, and I've seen a rapid move towards companies purchasing any type of "green" domain name for their prodservs (products/services). When a company has a product they sell online, they MUST own their generic descriptive domain name for the product.
For example, if they provide "solar home design" services, then the company owning "SolarHomeDesign.com" is the king of the internet in this market. Nobody can uproot them, nobody can beat them in branding and advertising. Why? Because if consumers are looking to create a "solar home design" for their home, or contractors are banking on the continued interest in this area, this domain name controls the whole category.
Running ad campaigns with this domain name pointed to the company website establishes a recognition factor with consumers/contractors that the company that owns the domain "SolarHomeDesign.com" is the reputable source for that product and service.
If energy related companies want to get a jump on their competitors, they need to grab the generic descriptive domains defining their prodservs very quickly. The domain name will work 24/7/365, even if the company has to pay thousands of dollars for the domain, that domain will increase in value each year, and it never stops working for them. A newspaper, TV, radio, magazine, and even internet ad campaign only has a life of about 14 days AFTER the last ad is paid for. A domain name keeps on giving branding and even typein visitors for only a renewal fee of $8 a year.
Your readers should know about this, and try to focus on directing their company's ad budget to securing their online "generic" image that will make their competitors bang their heads against the wall.
Nothing is worse for your competitor than your company owning the domain that is the exact phrase of the products and services THEY also sell. They won't be able to compete with your company online, because you will own the "property" that people will see online.
So if you come across a domain name that describes what your company sells, and it is NOT owned by a competitor, but a domain broker, negotiate with them, get a good price, and OWN YOUR COMPETITION™!!!
nice article!
Stephen Douglas
Scorecards in General
Your point is well taken. I think in general, not necessarily to this specific scorecard, where a lot of scorecard attempts fail is because the measurers don't take the time needed to truly understand the business or scorecards are developed with specific "right answers" in mind rather than providing an objective analysis on actual performance - so that customers can make the right choices for themselves. I have seen this personally multiple times in environmental/sustainability surveys as well as scorecards. It is most important in developing a valid scorecard to ensure that one has a clear understanding of the underlying business, technologies and manaufacturing approaches.
Macs?
Apple continually exposes Greenpeace as the bunch of incompetent imbeciles they are. About 2% science and 98% politics.
Macs?
Where is Apple Computer?
They're new laptop batteries for example should show some cutting edge green.