Latest rankings : Sony 7.3/10, MS 2.7/10, Nintendo 0/10!

Skrying said:
Yes, because those few intelligent people you have in your organization makes it great... Just look at this situation to see the troubles with Greenpeace. This isn't the first time either, Apple magically increases their "Rank" simply based on what they say in public. Or they've, in one year, managed to nearly turn their act around...
Click to expand...

So you're saying they do no fact checking? Or are you just demonstrating that you yourself do no fact-checking?. You might like to check out the section with the hidden camera video under 'Matching words to actions', or better yet, read the whole article, the different linked reports, etc.

EDIT: And of course, I don't think it is strange that the first step for a higher score in this department is actually providing information on how you deal with the different issues. Otherwise it's like saying 'oh we're green. We can't tell you why, and we can't give you any proof, but trust us!' So if Apple was in fact a bit green, but didn't provide any public information on why and how, then providing that information certainly helps in scoring higher. I don't see how that's stupid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thread can stay open for now if people want to discuss the environmental considerations of consoles, that last-on-the-agenda item that most people sneak off early rather than discuss. Specifically if there's any wait behind these scores, or if they really are just coming from a browse of corporate websites. Discussion on Greenpeace as an organisation is for the political forum though.
 
Cryect said:
Here's where they state they look only at the websites.



http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up

You can check the below PDF to see exactly what they are looking for.

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-ranking-c.pdf
Click to expand...

I guess you're right, but they did go and check the information as I pointed out above (there's even a hidden cam video embedded in the original article) and they will take into account the results from those inspections in future versions ...

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.

The guide is updated every 3 months. The current version was published on the 26 November 2007.
Click to expand...

Also, they themselves indicate they're not looking at the energy consumption:

Disclaimer: Our 'Guide to Greener Electronics' aims to clean up the electronics sector and get manufacturers to take responsibility for the full life cycle of their products, including the electronic waste that their products generate. The guide does not rank companies on labour standards, energy use or any other issues, but recognises that these are important in the production and use of electronics products.
Click to expand...
 
Arwin said:
So you're saying they do no fact checking? Or are you just demonstrating that you yourself do no fact-checking?. You might like to check out the section with the hidden camera video under 'Matching words to actions', or better yet, read the whole article, the different linked reports, etc.

EDIT: And of course, I don't think it is strange that the first step for a higher score in this department is actually providing information on how you deal with the different issues. Otherwise it's like saying 'oh we're green. We can't tell you why, and we can't give you any proof, but trust us!' So if Apple was in fact a bit green, but didn't provide any public information on why and how, then providing that information certainly helps in scoring higher. I don't see how that's stupid.
Click to expand...

Or better yet just simply look at Greenpeace's past, what they consider important, and how their ranking make no sense at all.

You can't discuss the "green" technologies or handlings of a company when the report about it is not even trustworthy. The thread should be closed because the article the "report" from which it stemed is basically worthless.
 
It is really embarrasing for Nintendo to lack good explicit environmental policies and strategies. You would expect such a mature company to do better. They hardly can´t say they lack resources to deal with these things. I expect Miyamoto and friends to take some action right away if they care about the imageof the company.

Yeah you can argue that the ranking isn´t fair because it does not take into consideration every aspect or is unbalanced. But do you seriously think there is a ranking system that everyone would consider fair, of course not. The ranking system is what it is and it does bring up some important qualities.

GreenPeace does a great a job to bring attention to these issues, let´s hope they have resources to do follow-up studies.
 
Nintendo is surprised by the content of the Greenpeace report. Nintendo takes great care to comply with all relevant regulations on avoiding the use of dangerous materials, recycling of materials etc. For example, all Nintendo products supplied worldwide are designed to comply with relevant European standards, which we understand are amongst the most demanding in the world.

In order to certify that Nintendo products comply with European standards such as RoHS Directive, Nintendo has established the Green Procurement Standards, which require our component suppliers certify that any parts including hazardous chemical substances should not be delivered, and Nintendo fully controls its products in the company. Furthermore, Nintendo products comply with the European toy safety standards.

We do not know the basis or methodology used by Greenpeace to produce this report, and therefore cannot comment on it
Click to expand...

http://spong.com/article/14361/Nintendo_Responds_To_Greenpeace_Criticism?cb=368


Hmm, meeting RoHS and safety standards are pretty much given if they even want to sell ANYTHING on European grounds. (unless they also crave lawsuits)

Personally, from this response, I kind of think that Nintendo misses the point. :(
 
Skrying said:
Yeah, they'll add a quick section to their website. Probably only a few days away...
Click to expand...

Updating their web-site can probably be done fairly quickly, but there is plenty more to do:

nintendosl9.png
 
Skrying said:
Or better yet just simply look at Greenpeace's past, what they consider important, and how their ranking make no sense at all.

You can't discuss the "green" technologies or handlings of a company when the report about it is not even trustworthy. The thread should be closed because the article the "report" from which it stemed is basically worthless.
Click to expand...

QFT, period!
 
Arwin said:
I don't think they were talking about energy consumption here. The way I read it, the companies boasted on their green production lines, and greenpeace called them out on it. None of these companies probably boasted on their products' low energy consumption prowess so far. ;)

EDIT: there you go, the article Shifty linked to states:
Click to expand...

Of course they've boasted about the low power consumption of Wii (and DS for that matter). I don't remember them ever boasting about "green production lines" though to be honest. Not sure why you posted that quote either.

As people have said this report is pure stupidity. I'm sure the likes of Nintendo and Microsoft will edit there websites and go from world destroying monsters to defenders of the earth over night. All because greenpeace are so f'ing lazy they base an entire report on website info.... :LOL:

Anyway I might as well post this I suppose:

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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As Sony is a large manufacturer of goods that actually end up needing to be recycled this is not surprising. This isn't to say that MS and Nintendo don't need to do better but the reality is that game consoles don't end up in landfills like TVs do. Also, the numerical grade is almost irresponsibly misleading because, as has been pointed out, using a lower power consuming console is going to have orders of magnitude greater impact on the environment than a recycling policy.
 
Appears not so lazy from greenpeace.

SPOnG spoke to a Greenpeace UK rep earlier today to find out more about the recent report that seemingly slammed Nintendo for environmentally unsound business practices.

It seems that Nintendo of Japan (NCL) was contacted directly by Greenpeace, which was requesting information for the report. This information was not forthcoming, hence Greenpeace had to take the publicly available data from Nintendo’s website in compiling its report.

SPOnG then contacted Nintendo for its response to the damning report, which you can see here.

We asked Greenpeace for a response to Nintendo's reaction to the report, which was:

"The Greenpeace ranking criteria score companies on what they doing beyond what is required by legislation. This is not a law enforcement ranking Guide - Greenpeace is looking for environmental excellence.

"We expect all a company's products to be compliant with the EU's RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances in electronic products) Directive GLOBALLY - as a minimum. Otherwise, the company would be operating double standards - treating their EU customers to cleaner products (free of some heavy metals etc) while offering their non-EU customers more toxic products.

"We expect a company to communicate to their customers what it is doing on the environment. This information should include their Green Procurememt Standards so their customers can see what toxic chemicals the company's suppliers are allowed or not allowed to put into the products.

"Greenpeace is helping to create informed consumers, but companies need to play their part in communicating their environmental activities in a public and transparent way."
Click to expand...

http://spong.com/article/14362/Greenpeace_Responds_To_Nintendo_On_SPOnG?cb=731

As I said before, Nintendo of course meets the legal standards, or they won't be selling anything.
What "Green" means is not just recycling papers in the headquarters or not using toxic substances in the product. THOSE ARE GIVEN AND ARE A MUST TODAY.

It means going the extra step and making sure that other externalities caused by the company "that are not regulated by laws everywhere" are being dealt with.

IMHO Nintendo does have to take responsibility of their own report. It's not like Greenpeace snuck up on them and used only the information on the website.
 
on one hand u have greenpeace as a bunch of attention seeking whores (with the stunts etc) on the other hand they did have a major impact WRt whale hunting

= net result of a worthwhile group (though irritating) the world certainly is a richer place with them around
 
Maybe that's the problem. Perhaps Nintendo are manufacturing Wii and DS using refined whale? That's why Greenpeace are after them! :devilish:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
IBM backstabbing sony and neglected Apple ? (long read)
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
47K
Fox5
F
Back
Top