I noticed The Indie featured the Greenpeace rankings today too. http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2418417.ece
I'm interested in the differences between consumers' views and "the facts", especially if there's a disparity.
Here are the relative positions ('best' first) on Ethical Index Sept 2006 - a record of consumers' perceptions of the companies' business ethics:
1. Microsoft 2. Sony 3. Philips 4. Apple 5. Motorola
Consumers who are hacked off with Apple tend to be younger - as you’d expect they care more. They're doubtful about Apple's environmental record and their employment practices. They also think Apple has run 'misleading ads or promotions' - a reference to 'nanogate' – customers’ comments included "bad products which are expensive, no respect for customers" and "products aren't made to last".
Would you mind if I published the Index from 2006 from that Market Leader article you gave me here on the blog? I think there is a lot of discussion to be had over image and reality. Nike's another prime example; they are rated 'okay' (and Adidas/Raebok are not) on current practises in ethical consumer guides. But their legacy from the 1990s mean that consumers think they are right up (down) there with McDonalds & Shell.
Latest Greenpeace report 
2 comments:
I noticed The Indie featured the Greenpeace rankings today too. http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2418417.ece
I'm interested in the differences between consumers' views and "the facts", especially if there's a disparity.
Here are the relative positions ('best' first) on Ethical Index Sept 2006 - a record of consumers' perceptions of the companies' business ethics:
1. Microsoft
2. Sony
3. Philips
4. Apple
5. Motorola
Consumers who are hacked off with Apple tend to be younger - as you’d expect they care more. They're doubtful about Apple's environmental record and their employment practices. They also think Apple has run 'misleading ads or promotions' - a reference to 'nanogate' – customers’ comments included "bad products which are expensive, no respect for customers" and "products aren't made to last".
Would you mind if I published the Index from 2006 from that Market Leader article you gave me here on the blog? I think there is a lot of discussion to be had over image and reality. Nike's another prime example; they are rated 'okay' (and Adidas/Raebok are not) on current practises in ethical consumer guides. But their legacy from the 1990s mean that consumers think they are right up (down) there with McDonalds & Shell.
Post a Comment