San Francisco based Outlaw Consulting recently surveyed 100 Gen Y 'trendsetters' (aka cool folks from 21-29 years old) in Miami, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, asking what brands they perceived to be the most eco-friendly. Here’s the 15-deep list:

Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Toyota, Honda, Google, Aveda, Zipcar, American Apparel, Ikea, 7th Generation, Apple, the Body Shop, Starbucks, Netflix and Method.

Now I want everyone to channel his or her inner Bob or Olivia (or Big Bird) from Sesame Street and play the old favorite, One of These Things is Not Like the Others! Feel free to hum the song to yourself…
Before we start, let’s first nix the two traditional car companies since they fit in a whole other version of ‘not like the others’ and would confuse the game. Now that they’re out of the way, let’s go:

One of these brands is not like the others...one of these brands just isn’t the same…hmm hmm something hmm hmm….can you guess which one before the song is done…and now the song is done!
Did you guess Apple? If you did, pat yourself on the back, or fist-pump like Tiger or smirk like the President. Whatever works - good jobs (pun intended).

If you didn’t guess Apple – worry not - lots of folks outside of the hard core of the environmental movement don’t realize that the iUniverse we’re living in aint as green as you’d think, and Apple has a very spotty (at best) record on the environment.

Ironically, green living and the Apple brand are often inexorably linked to a certain breed of person – also known, in part, as Generation Y trendsetters. So asking a bunch of 20-somethings to abandon Apple in any discussion of ‘good’ brands would be a tough sell. Well-done Apple. Right?

What’s under Apple’s skin?

Apple has two main green-cred problems. First, the company simply hasn’t taken a leadership position in reducing it’s operational impact on the environment, and the company is lagging far behind most tech companies in terms of establishing clear and actionable CO2 reduction plan.

According to Climate Counts, a non-profit that ranks large businesses' CO2 reduction efforts, Apple scores an 11 on a scale of 1 to 100. The Electronics Industry average is 56/100, or five times better than Apple, and the next closest competitor, Nokia, scored 26 points better than the Mac maker. Where I come from, that’s an F-. I’m guessing nobody at Apple headquarters ever scored that low on a test at Stanford (they all go to Stanford, right?), but 9 is 7 better than the 2 they received in 2007.

Secondly, Apple gets into trouble with the worm-tangle of wires and other components inside its products. Many of their inecessities, including the first generation iPhone, use and abundance of PVC (polyvinyl chloride) and BFR (brominated flame retardant) - both of which are toxic and have been all but phased-out by other cell phone and electronics companies.

Environmentalists and consumers alike have railed against the company for this. Greenpeace may have even had an iorgasm reporting that the iPhone didn’t live-up to Steve Jobs’ pledge to be Apple’s first green product. After all, a group like Greenpeace doesn’t get iPhone-like buzz every day, and buzz gets the message out.

Consumers. Consumers are under Apple’s skin

So what’s the real story here? Apple good? Bad Apple? Buy? Sell? What!?

I think the point is this – Apple’s brand is far too valuable for its leaders and shareholders to place at risk just because the company spent all it’s time on form factor and not enough on environmental impact. After all, Apple’s earned its throne as ‘the’ consumer brand of the 2000’s. Their products are gorgeous, intuitive and cool. The company has its collective finger on the pulse of consumer preference and innovates with the best of ‘em – most of the time. So it’s no wonder Gen Y, along with GenX and all the other Gens, love Apple.

Lots of these folks also love the environment – and their knowledge of environmental issues and considerations continues to develop as both a social and consumer topics. So while some may see the GenY Green Companies list as an indictment that the polled were more concerned with cool, green-looking (or daresay greenwashed) brands, rather than the genuine green track record of the brands, maybe the opposite is true. Maybe consumer preference is actually driving corporate behavior and performance.

You see, Apple is progressing – the new 3G iPhone and the MacBook Air have both made significant strides in phasing out those endocrine disrupting plastics and fire retardants. They’re not perfect, but even GreenPeace has reported on the improvements. The company has also pledged to devise and execute a comprehensive climate action plan, and has started taking other small steps like email receipts from the Apple Store and they recently applied for a patent for solar-powered mobile devices. So change is in the Apple.

All of this tells us one thing: A leading company with tons of brand equity is a company with tons to lose. And nobody in a leadership position likes to lose. Apple has clearly seen the risk in continuing its past environmental policies and behaviors. So maybe the GenY green companies list is a self-fulfilling prophecy – GenY expects green from these great brands. Now it’s the brands’ jobs (there it is again) to really fulfill the green prophecy - because GenY has spoken: They like their Apples, and they like them green.

Also in Hot Potato

• The Shape of Your Glass
• Biodegradable Cups and Cutlery
• Man-made Whitewater Courses
• Chrysler's $2.99 Gas Deal
• Civil Disobedience at its Best or at its Worst?