Here's the full summary on Apple's performance:
Apple drops to 6th position, with a score of 4.6. Though one of the high scorers in this edition, Apple misses out on points for lack of transparency on GHG emission reporting, clean energy advocacy, further information on its management of toxic chemicals, and details on post-consumer recycled plastic use.
Apple receives half marks in Sustainable Operations. Apple does not score high on the e-waste criteria, losing points for lacking a robust take back programme in India. However it continues to score points for its global take-back programme, reporting that 2010 global recycling exceeded its 70% goal (as a percentage of sales 7 years ago), a level that it is confident it will maintain through 2015. Together with HP, Apple is a top scorer for policies and practices regarding conflict minerals, but fails in developing a paper procurement policy banning suppliers involved in deforestation and illegal logging.
Apple scores poorly on the Energy criteria; though Apple states that greenhouse (GHG) emissions data of its operations are externally verified, it has not provided details. Apple continues to lose points for not setting a target to reduce emissions. While 13% of Apple’s facility-related electricity consumption comes from renewable sources, the company could increase its score by setting an ambitious goal for boosting its renewable energy use by 2020.
Apple was one of the first companies to sell products free of polyvinyl chloride plastic (PVC) and brominated frame retardants (BFRs), but it does not mention plans to phase out antimony or beryllium. Overall, Apple continues to score well on the Products criteria. Apple has received public scrutiny for its decision to glue in batteries in its newest Macbook Pro, which creates barriers to easy recycling.