• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Greenpeace rates Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony in their Guide to greener electronics

Fjolle

Member
And apparently they didn't look at power usage...

We first released our 'Guide to Greener Electronics' in August 2006. The guide ranks the 18 top manufacturers of personal computers, mobile phones, TV's and games consoles according to their policies on toxic chemicals and recycling.

The sixth issue of the Guide has been expanded to include televisions and game consoles. Market leaders Microsoft, Nintendo, Philips and Sharp enter at the bottom of the ranking of environmental performance with Nintendo being the first company scoring zero out of a possible 10 points. Philips and Microsoft performed little better, scoring only 2 and 2.7, respectively. Sony Ericsson has taken over the top spot from Nokia while Samsung and Sony have surged ahead to now occupy second and third positions.

Sony scores a score of 7.3

[Stealth edit] People might need a link: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up
 
Lobster said:
Nintendo scored a 0 out 10 for being the console that uses less power.

Congrats Greenpeace, seems like you guys don't even know what you're talking bout anymore.
I think this is actually about manufacturing. Congrats NeoGAF, seems you don't even follow links before posting anymore.
 

quetz67

Banned
Dies Iræ said:
All of the money Nintendo's printing is causing mass deforestation.
*lol*

but why is Nintendo so low, their power consumption usually is the lowest and the consoles the smallest
 

C.T.

Member
Ranking criteria explained

The ranking criteria reflect the demands of the Toxic Tech campaign to the electronics companies. Our two demands are that companies should:

* clean up their products by eliminating hazardous substances;

* takeback and recycle their products responsibly once they become obsolete.


The two issues are connected. The use of harmful chemicals in electronics prevents their safe recycling when the products are discarded. Companies scored marks out of 30 this has then been calculated to a mark out of 10 for simplicity.

Follow the more link beside each company for the full details of their score. The full criteria for scoring the companies is available as well as in criteria on chemicals explained in depth. Download the full pdf of the scorecard.

Each score is based solely on public information on the companies website. Companies found not to be following their published policies will be deducted penalty point in future versions of the guide.
 

Lobster

Banned
a Master Ninja said:
I think this is actually about manufacturing. Congrats NeoGAF, seems you don't even follow links before posting anymore.

I was writing my reply before stealth edit..
 

Christine

Member
Basically what this means is that Nintendo has entirely refused co-operation with Greenpeace's audit requests. Expect them to stay at a zero rating more or less indefinitely.
 
80uwbja.jpg

7xmdgr8.jpg
 

nli10

Member
Greenpeace are no longer environmentalists (their founder left and publicly says so) and are far more anti globalization than pro environment so I'm not even touching their incredibly biased survey.

Imagine your favorite Indie developer was bought by EA and all the staff replaced but had th same name - that is today's GreenPeace.
 

jepense

Member
TwinIonEngines said:
Basically what this means is that Nintendo has entirely refused co-operation with Greenpeace's audit requests. Expect them to stay at a zero rating more or less indefinitely.
Yeah, if you actually read the report, they list "no information" on Nintendo for everything. I don't think any company can actually score a zero in the actual evaluation.
 

clav

Member
Oh Canada...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace

That doesn't make any sense. Nintendo's products consume the least in power, and plus I don't think any of us have thrown their products away in the dumpster, which allow the chemicals to seep through the soil.

I wonder how many people have trashed Sony and Dell computers.
 

Fjolle

Member
Well.. At least the 0 rating is because nintendo doesn't give any information about the things greenpeace rate...

So, if they get their stuff together they might score alot higher next time :)
 
D

Deleted member 1235

Unconfirmed Member
quetz67 said:
*lol*

but why is Nintendo so low, their power consumption usually is the lowest and the consoles the smallest

It's 'always on' and there is a billion of those suckers burning a tiny red/yellow light constantly. Thats apparently a big deal these days.
 

Nicktals

Banned
IronicallyTwisted said:
Why are they even on the list if nothing is known about their manufacturing process.

Strong hand tactics. Nintendo doesn't want to divulge information, so Greenpeace does this to get them to reconsider next year.
 

Keio

For a Finer World
Actually it's great that Greenpeace has highlighted this issue. If there will be a 100 million Wiis someday, I'd like it to be built as a recyclable product.

For example Apple really started actively looking at recycling and using environmentally friendly materials after Greenpeace highlighted their ignorance.

I think this is a case of too companies not actually using non-green electronics on purpose, but more one of them not having realized that you can build stuff for pretty much the same price and still be environmentally sound.

Here's hoping Nintendo follows Apple in this regard too.
 

Nicktals

Banned
Keio said:
Actually it's great that Greenpeace has highlighted this issue. If there will be a 100 million Wiis someday, I'd like it to be built as a recyclable product.

For example Apple really started actively looking at recycling and using environmentally friendly materials after Greenpeace highlighted their ignorance.

I think this is a case of too companies not actually using non-green electronics on purpose, but more one of them not having realized that you can build stuff for pretty much the same price and still be environmentally sound.

Here's hoping Nintendo follows Apple in this regard too.

Except they really don't know. Based on what I just looked at Nintendo didn't tell them anything, and they can't tell otherwise. They got a 0 because they didn't have references, or policies in place. It has nothing to do with anything.

Greenpeace did these rankings based on information that is available on the company in questions public website. Nintendo's website states:

"Nintendo is very concerned with doing our part to help preserve the environment. We're always researching new products and procedures to make our products and operations as environmental-friendly as possible.

Some things Nintendo is already doing:

In our offices:
* We recycle the paper we use company-wide.
* We limit our use of colored paper, since it's not easily recycled.
* We purchase recycled paper towels, report covers, message pads, and writing pads.
* We currently recycle more than 70% of the waste that is generated at our headquarters.
* We actively promote the recycling of aluminum cans and glass in our corporate cafeterias.

In our products:
* We use at least 80% recycled paper in all of our shipping packaging.
* We no longer use Styrofoam in our game pak or Game Boy packaging.
* All of our instruction manuals are printed on recycled paper.
* We no longer use plastic Game Pak covers.
* Our clamshell packaging is recyclable and most recycling centers accept it.
* We require that manufacturers not use any banned substances (such as lead, mercury, etc.) in components, nor use them in the manufacturing process for any components used inside of our products. This requirement also extends to suppliers of packaging, marketing materials, and other items used in the marketing and distribution of our products."


So basically this is just a tactic to get Nintendo to disclose information publicly on their website. And then if the information is bad, get them to do something about it. But really what they published is completely silly.
 

Keio

For a Finer World
Nicktals said:
* We require that manufacturers not use any banned substances (such as lead, mercury, etc.) in components, nor use them in the manufacturing process for any components used inside of our products. This requirement also extends to suppliers of packaging, marketing materials, and other items used in the marketing and distribution of our products."

So basically this is just a tactic to get Nintendo to disclose information publicly on their website. And then if the information is bad, get them to do something about it. But really what they published is completely silly.
Thanks for the clarification. It's great to see that Nintendo does not f. ex. use mercury and lead already. That should help them get better scores when Greenpeace actually evaluates them (if they get the info).

I wonder if they asked for the data from Nintendo or not for this publication.
 

sazzy

Member
So basically, Nintendo scored 0 because Greenpeace didn't have any information regarding their activities, and probably didn't bother researching beyond their website.

:lol
 

spritex

Member
Also, remember that Luigi, Link and Tingle all wear green.

Seriously though, it would be good to know the hard facts.
 

Nicktals

Banned
sazzy said:
So basically, Nintendo scored 0 because Greenpeace didn't have any information regarding their activities, and probably didn't bother researching beyond their website.

:lol

No, they explicitly state that they don't research beyond websites.

Greenpeace said:
Each score is based solely on public information on the companies website.
 

sazzy

Member
Nicktals said:
No, they explicitly state that they don't research beyond websites.

That's a GREAT policy. Why bother doing actual research when a bored intern can just look up the company's website?

They're really on top of their game :lol
 

zenbot

Member
Typical Greenpeace publicity whoring. I am an environmentalist but Greenpeace is a vile organisation: reactionary, duplicitous, and science-hostile.

For example Apple really started actively looking at recycling and using environmentally friendly materials after Greenpeace highlighted their ignorance.
No. Greenpeace ranked electronics companies based on their publicly available plans, rather than their actual records; and Apple did not make their plans available to Greenpeace. They were and remain one of the most environmentally aware electronics companies in the world. (Jobs is a fucking hippy, after all.)
 

Nicktals

Banned
RagnarokX said:
So it's even worse! They didn't even ASK lol :lol

Greenpeace is the new PeTA? http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7483765&postcount=70

Like I said, this is just a tactic to get Nintendo to make public the specific information that Greenpeace wants. Take that how you will. Nintendo will probably comply, put up the exact information Greenpeace wants, and avoid any bad publicity. This entire article is misleading, and really has very little to do with how environmentally friendly each of these companies are. It's more just a rating of how well their websites comply with what Greenpeace wants. These rankings are just a device to get that to happen.
 
Top Bottom