and how does Greenpeace rate as a mobile phone supplier?
The wonderful thing about being an advocate for some cause or other is that you can appoint yourself qualified to make pronouncements about anything, anywhere and your followers will accept what you say.
This is not limited to GP, or any other "cause". Apple do it themselves - just look at the uncritical acceptance that their followers bestow on pretty much anything they bring out! I'm expecting an Apple-logo'd cardboard box to get rave reviews from the style-over-substance brigade any day now.
Right, back to the rant.Here we have an organisation who, if not explicitly anti-technology, certainly give the impression that we'd all be better off without a lot of the stuff we take for granted. They have somehow decided that we all need to know their opinions on how other people run their businesses. Maybe it's time for a few of the "targets" to start taking a closer look at how GP run themselves.
Maybe BP could see how they stack up as a petrochemical supplier, HBOS could see how well they manage as a bank and Nokia could research their standing as a mobile phone producer. What's that you say? "But GP aren't any of those things, they're a P.R. company!".
And there lies the answer: Nokia, or any of the other companies GP took it upon themselves to investigate, aren't an ecology company either. They make stuff for profit. Yes, it's nice not to waste materials and energy (because that lowers profits and hacks a few people off) but to have a bunch of outsiders criticise you for not meeting their standards in a field where you aren't a player must be rather galling. Maybe GP should be offering some constructive advice and help - rather than just sitting on the sidelines sniping at the easy targets.