Burt and participants in P2Tech,
The short answer is "no". At least, the exceptions are so rare as to prove the rule. The problem is that most "green" plating (and I include here water conservation, energy conservation, improved use of compressed air, optimized waste treatment, and improved management systems and process controls, along with the obvious "eliminate cyanide" type options) is in the process, with the benefits accruing to reduced costs directly or indirectly, or improved risk management. The product itself is rarely more "green" (substitutes for cadmium and lead being notable, and mature, counter-examples). So saying that because you are a "green" plater a customer should use you is almost, but not quite, now at the level of saying, "Hey, look, we don't cheat on our taxes!" It is smart business, but poor PR.
We are working on two projects to build green plating facilities, one in China and one in Mexico, that will be as "green" as possible (while still using cyanide-based solutions for some steps) and that will be competitive in terms of costs with "non-green" facilities within the "mother" firms. And it is not because of cheaper labor, special tax breaks, etc. New plating operations now incorporate many great ideas we have known about for years that, unfortunately, only clear investment hurdles as greenfield choices. Retro-fits need not apply. And calling it "green" is now just one more punch on the supplier's ticket required by more and more customers. For the same money.