I voted "other" because the real answer isn't listed. This is recognizing that the Big Companies do care about the environment, but they care more about customers and sales. So therefore it is incumbent on we customers to reward these companies with sales if you happen to like their product, or at least praise if you don't.

Imagine progress in a sustainable sense as a three-legged race. Each "leg" is consumers, corporations, and government. The corps are taking steps, and unless the consumers take similar steps, the racer will fall over. Gov't is also taking steps too, with restrictions on electronics and recycling, but they can be a lot more comprehensive too.

I think most people on TH get this idea intuitively.

I *am* inspired by these mega corps doing something for their all too tarnished images, but is it enough? Let's face it, they're still paying next to nothing for outsourced jobs in third world countries, they're still polluting the environment in those countries, and they're still shipping these products across the world in environmentally unfriendly ways. Now, if they were to announce that they were protecting the environment, producing goods locally, and paying decent, union wages to employees, I might have a different opinion. Until then...

Like Kevin said, they are trying and will stop if being green is not profitible. They outsource jobs to third world countries and ship because it makes the product cheaper, and we like cheap. When more consumers start paying more for the green products and practicles then more companies will beccome green or more green.

I'm torn. One the one hand, it is nice to see green practices gaining mainstream acceptence.

On the otherhand, I worry that the label will become just another meaningless label, like Natural.

Without the big distortions in our economic system, green would be more profitable than polluting and it would have hit the big time a while ago.

F.ex, wind and solar are a lot cheaper than coal if you "internalize" all the costs of coal (mercury pollution, air pollution, water pollution, smog, global warming, etc). But right now, all these costs are paid by society and not by coal companies.

Same with any other company that produces waste, poison, greenhouse gases, uses lots of (directly and indirectly) subsidised fossil fuels, etc.

I'm definitely inspired by the changes that major corporations have been making. Although it's not enough yet, it's a positive step in the right direction, and I think we can encourage this positive behavior while also encouraging these companies to take their efforts even further.

I, for one, really enjoy McDonald's iced coffee. It's really really good. Do I think they should do more? Yes—and I tell them so.

Corps are amoral machines. They do whatever they are paid to do. Finally by public awareness (thanks to all who have worked to get attention on the environment), they are being redirected by us to "go green".

The real concern is that consumers pay for appearances more than reality. If we reward them for just "saying green" instead of being actual green, that's all we'll get. Their powerhouse advertising machinery is already in place and effective. Actually changing their business processes requires phenomenal structural changes. So inertia says this is likely mostly going to be just hype. e.g. Oil companies claiming big interest in renewable energy, tobacco companies producing "low tar" products and saying smoking never hurt anybody, ... Seriously, company lies could fill encyclopedias.

Answer: consumer watchdogs are going to need to breath down corporate backs and verify whose changes are real. And they are going to have to compete against corporate megaphones muddying the waters. It's just like political campaigning.