Network now...NEWS
Nintendo Remains Environmentally “Pitiful”
Greenpeace has once again condemned Nintendo.
In its recently published eleventh edition of the Guide to Greener Electronics, the environmental group has awarded Nintendo with a score of less than one out of ten; a number as low as the platform holder received last year [pdf].
Greenpeace closely scrutinizes the policies of leading global businesses, and looks over a broad selection of company practices from the use of certain chemicals, to manufacturing standards, to each company’s attitude on waste management.
Back in December Edge Spoke to Greenpeace International’s toxic campaigner Iza Kruszewska, who at the time slammed Nintendo for keeping its environmental policies secret.
“We’re in continuous dialogue with all the companies we speak to,” she said, “apart from Nintendo. I’ve never been able to get an answer from them aside from a couple of marketing people in the UK who have been trying to forward the messages to global headquarters in Japan, but we get no response from Nintendo. The company has an incredibly poor standard of communication regarding this issue.”
Greenpeace’s newest report [pdf] criticises Nintendo for the same level of secrecy, giving the Kyoto firm no scores in the areas where information could not be obtained.
“Nintendo remains in last place with a pitiful 0.8 points out of 10, scoring zero on all e-waste criteria,” said the report. “The company has banned phthalates and is monitoring use of antimony and beryllium, and although it is endeavouring to eliminate the use of PVC, it has not set a timeline for its phase out.”
Elsewhere, Sony saw its environmental score climb up even higher, due to the heightened energy efficiency of its products. Last year the company was said to be “way ahead” on environmental issues when compared to its peers Nintendo and Microsoft.
“Sony still has room for improvement on the other energy criteria,” the report adds. “It needs to set a target and timeline for increasing its use of renewable energy globally. It still needs to set a timeline for eliminating all phthalates, beryllium copper and antimony and its compounds.”
Microsoft, on the other hand, sees its Greenpeace score fall by 2.7 points. The firm has failed to clarify how its recycling data is calculated.
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
My friend is a part of that group....but, yeah, they do get annoying trying to control what we do and use just because it might be a little "environmentally unfriendly".....
My friend's not THAT crazy and annoying, though. Thank goodness! Lol
Greenpeace is nothing more than a bunch of do-gooders trying to control something. they should go home and mind their own business.
I only hope that this comes from a person in a country whose citizens are an example of don't doing this.
No, The Greenpeace rating has nothing to do with the environmental impact of Nintendo, it has to do with Greenpeace frustration of not being able to push Nintendo around. Just read what few facts are listed in the article: "Nintendo . . . has banned phthalates and is monitoring use of antimony and beryllium, and although it is endeavouring to eliminate the use of PVC, it has not set a timeline for its phase out.” "While Sony . . . still needs to set a timeline for eliminating all phthalates, beryllium copper and antimony and its compounds.”
So even though Nintenda has banned pthalates, Sony is still working on it and doesn't have a timeline set.
The Nintendo score isn't low because they are worse than Sony. The Nintendo score is worse than Sony because Nintendo doesn't recognize Greenpeace as the world arbiter to judge Nintendo's environmental impact - so Greenpeace slams them with a low score. Sorry, Greenpeace better come up with better data than that if they want me to pay attention to their scores. This just shows they have their own agenda and want to push anyone around that doesn't do everything their way.
I like my wii. Maybe I should go buy a new game for it.
you got this right. i bet this bunch is all made up of singles! who else would put up with them.
Why People are too stupid to think by them self and not follow what the liberal environmentalist wackos say to them? . This environmentalist are at war with everything that not is "GREEN" ( I'm sick of this word)
.Ask me... I can go green, and help the environment by eating a bucket of avocados and taking a dump on your front lawn.
Another case of enviro-nazis trying to take away more of our freedoms. There is nothing wrong with taking care of the planet and stopping deliberate destruction, but these ppl will not be happy until we all live like it's the 1500's. Their agenda is not progression, it is regression, along with complete control of your life. Let's review... we are supposed to stop eating meat because of cow farts, only flush your toilet every 3 days, and use 4 sheets of tp, get rid of your plasma tvs, Oh, and lets all switch to those wonderful lightbulbs that don't work, have tons of mercury, and that you need to call a hazmat team to dispose of them. Surprised they have time for this stuff with all the time they spend worshipping at the Gore temple and raiding dumpsters for their next meals.
Lert me ask you this: Before greenpeace, their methods aside, mentioned all the things you listed above, have you ever once thought about them? Have you considered that plasma TVs could be bad for the environment?
Greenpeace won't solve any of these problems. Consumers will. However, only if they are aware of them. That is what NGOs do - and that's why they do it so radically - because otherwise, who would listen? Greenpeace doesn't control anything, yes, you're supposed to do things - but since when exactly is something like that mandatory?
I'm not a big fan of the methods greenpeace uses, but people like you clearly demonstrate, that otherwise no one would care.
shroom, well put.
These kind of rabid, delusional 'environmental' non-governmental organizations who think they have the right to dictate policy - you almost wonder if they are getting 'grants' to say their piece.
Oh wait, I already know the answer to that problem.
Note to all the environmental cheerleaders here: it's NGO's like Greenpeace that turn a blind eye to REAL ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION, and have you obsessing over abstract nonsense like carbon emission footprints - the 21st century's equivalent of 'how many angels can stand on the head of a pin'.
I don't see them harping on about dumping nuclear waste in the oceans - I don't see them putting up a big fight over 'geo-engineering' - in fact they're for it. I don't see them fighting against GMO crops that kill all the honeybees - in fact, they don't give a shit. They seem pretty content with letting the GMO companies destroy the biosphere.
So, really, I don't NEED Greenpeace putting up a nice dog-and-pony show by going after computer game companies.
It's not that easy.
Adressing a problem on a global stage needs awareness of the consumers; Just read through the comments here, there are a lot of people who either don't care or don't even want to know about environmental effects. These are the mainstream consumers of (especially) the entertainment industry.
You won't reach this people with hypothetical scenarios because they simply don't care. Just look at some of the comments to this article:
"just go home greenpeace and and list a new name with some truth in it, like busy bodie, or think i know it all, or doo doo gooder, something that fits. get a life, no one gives a chit or will remember you."
With a generic position like this, who would care about the extinction of honeybees?
It's really a communication problem: People take these messages personal. They believe, that this is an accusation rather than the awareness for responsibility. One can't really blame them because it is formulated as one which is the whole problem behind this confrontation.
What toadwarrior mentioned
"we hear this shit about once a month if not more. Where was Greenpeace when Nintendo wasn't the most popular kid on the block?"
Of course they're around, would anyone have noticed them if Nintendo weren't popular? This is how NGOs work and, sadly, have to. Why? Because of people like the above mentioned. While I'm not a fan of these techniques, because of them Greenpeace has somewhat of an impact it wouldn't have otherwise.
wow, squarepusher, brilliant remarks.
I'm no fan of Greenpeace, but this kind of report is actually quite constructive in a way that a lot of their campaigns are not. They set out clear criteria and regularly update their rankings, meaning that a company which wanted to take the opportunity to clean up its act would know what to do and would have its efforts reflected promptly in future reports. Nintendo comes last not just out of the videogame companies but out of all the electronics firms they surveyed.
It's worth noting that Nintendo have completely failed to meet their own environmental targets - the report references Nintendo's own environmental policies, which it often seems to ignore. I don't think that independent watchdog groups are doing any harm by reminding companies of their own promises.
@Nick - there are already a vast number of environmental regulations in place in different countries, which are regulated by each country's respective environmental regulators. I find it interesting that Greenpeace aren't measuring regulatory compliance, but are using their own criteria instead. That said, given the patchwork nature of regulation, a survey of regulatory compliance is probably just too complex to do, and Greenpeace's own benchmarks are still worth listening to: a lot of the areas they measure are already law in some places and are becoming so in others. There's a definite trend in all jurisdictions around the world for greater environmental regulation and higher reporting standards, so a wise company would take the opportunity to get ahead of the curve here, clean up its act, avoid future bad publicity and reform its internal processes so as to anticipate future regulatory standards instead of just reacting to them.
Nice post Nathan.
As Ozzman said also it seems the the environment tends to not be the top priority of some governments. One thing not mentioned is maybe these companies should WANT to be better about it, not just because of bad publicity or because of legislation that forces them to be, but because they feel they have an ethical obligation to the environment in general to not be so neglectful. I'm sure over the course of the next year or so after heat records continue to climb and all these polar ice caps keep melting that eventually governements are going to come down hard on these companies so it's probably in their best interest to get their act together. I'm not saying those environmental effects are caused solely by electronic companies, but that they are definitely contributing their part (in a bad way). I can honestly say that I've modified some of my lifestyle habbits, (recycle more, drive less, get paper bags for groceries instead of plastic bags, etc.).
One thing not mentioned is maybe these companies should WANT to be better about it, not just because of bad publicity or because of legislation that forces them to be, but because they feel they have an ethical obligation to the environment in general to not be so neglectful
Yeah, and I wish I could ride a Unicorn to work but it ain't happening. Governments need to slam companies more for environmentally destructive practices... That said when they make loads for their respective countries what can they do? Such a capitalist society we're living in we can't help but let big companies do bad things. I wouldn't have a clue where to start but I think GreenPeace takes a good pragmatic approach. Maybe they could enforce they put little warning lables with yoshi dying in a sea of unrecycled WiiMotes on every WiiMote, clinging to dear life on a faulty balance board.
You have expressed my point. Thanks.
This has more to do with Nintendo being a successful capitalist enterprise than it does with their 'environmental credentials'. You don't see Greenpeace attacking developers of wind turbines despite the fact they are both utterly useless and a very large series of blots on the landscape. Since the rise of the 'green' era, these environmental organisations have dealt less and less with facts, gradually descending into pseudo-scientific extremism, using scare tactics on those without the knowledge to know any better. Even Greenpeace's co-founder shunned them because of this. Whenever you hear somebody who is supposed to be talking about science start banging on about "moral obligations", you can 100% guarantee they are twisting facts to suit an agenda.
I'm bloody sick of self righteous cocks bleating on about the environment.
I really don't care; sod off with your recycled toilet paper, environmental surveys, electric cars, ugly noisy wind turbines and your tofu and bean curd stew before I stick my carbon footprint where the sun don't shine.
And I'm bloody suck of idiots with childish attitude, thinking they are smart or revolutionary while they are exactly the prototype of a fool. I really don't care.
Ironically, I expect my lawyer being different, otherwise consequences for me will be severe.
lol, well put arronc07.
Ugly, noisy wind turbines? Have you ever seen any other type of power plant? Everything else looks a lot grosser than wind, apart from solar and is generally noisier. And on nuclear, personally I don't fancy myself as a guy from S.T.A.L.K.E.R so I'm with wind water powered turbines. Must say you take the cake for ignorant retarded comments I've heard this year, definitely rivalling dreamhunk.
Reading some comments here, reminds me why the world is what it is.
The childish attitude of defending religiously the lack of interest in environment practises, is as fun as sad.
I wonder, personally, if all these potential environmental changes end up coming true, if these attitudes will continue?
Dubs, you offer a valid point and I wonder if that's the case? I usually try to take the position of Devil's advocate as much as reasonably possible. Could they be doing that? Perhaps. But there HAS been a surge in the last 2 years in regards to how nature-friendly corporations are. There's been a huge push for better gas mileage, a lot more cars oare hybrid nowadays, there's been strict laws passed to mandate auto makers to have their cars so fuel efficient by year X it seems to me it's not that hard to believe that maybe this establishment does in fact have good intentions. I do remember a ways back reading multiple articles on all the major console manufacturers and other electronics companies' environmental policies, not just Nintendo's. And in this very article they mention Sony and MS. They may have hidden agendays or ulterior motives, but I don't think they have it out for the Wii any more than they may anyone else.
And Ozzman, very true that Nintendo has every right to ignore whomever they want. And I'm sure if I was getting called out for possible neglectful environmental practices I'd probably ignore them, too.
Here's the deal though, Nick, they have no evidence of POSSIBLE neglectful environmental practices. They have no evidence one way or the other. And Nintendo is under no obligation to provide it. Especially to Greenpeace. Maybe Nintendo thinks as lowly of Greenpeace as a lot of people do, and doesn't care about their survey? So printing that "those bullies at Nintendo are a bunch of big meanies for not sharing their info with us. We're going to tell the teacher" is their childish response, which only enhances my prior disgust for Greenpeace. I don't see why Nintendo should give a crap about Greenpeace, or their rankings.
"I don't see why Nintendo should give a crap about Greenpeace, or their rankings."
...because if they ignore Greenpeace, they end up getting rubbished in news reports, which is bad publicity, which hurts their reputation? Whatever you think of Greenpeace, it's really in Nintendo's interest to make someone available to answer their questions.
just go home greenpeace and and list a new name with some truth in it, like busy bodie, or think i know it all, or doo doo gooder, something that fits. get a life, no one gives a chit or will remember you.
Your rebuttle is based on the assumption that people reading the news ALSO take Greenpeace seriously, and would react to Nintendo's "bad publicity" with outrage. I suggest you do an informal poll of people around and see the general consenus amongst people of what they think of Greenpeace and their "findings." While I can't speak for your particular circle of friends, I did a similar exercise with mine. All but 2 laughed outloud when i mentionned the name Greenpeace and when i told about their "rankings" and where various companies "placed" in those rankings, they said they couldn't give a toss and probably wouldn't even read any headline that includes Greenpeace in it.
It's only bad publicity if someone actually reads it and takes it seriously.
Of course, and I agree with everything you say. The only concern I would have is why wouldn't Nintendo share that? It seems what there needs to be a company appointed as the overseer on anything environment related, perhaps a government agency? Companies would then have laws they have to abide by when dealing with their waste. That way we don't have these agencies running around spreading possible propaganda or potentially trying to just sell their name. One group, it's consistent with government set policies similar to how auto-manufacturers have to abide by fuel efficiency regulations. That would eliminate any possible concerns over hidden agendas/ulterior motives and force companies to not only fess up on their environmental practices but to follow guidelines that would put companies' waste policies in line with what's most safe for the environment. I'm all for government involvement when it's for a good cause.
Now, there may already be something in place that does this as I'm not well educated in that area and can't claim to know whether there is or not. To me, it seems as though that is a simple, logical, and obvious way to go about enforcing electronic waste policies.
The sad truth is that environmental policy and enforcement seems to be quite low on jsut about every government's priority list.
NOBODY IS MORE PITIFUL THAN GREENPEACE.
They are an awful organization in the business of generating press releases and little else. They attach their smear campaigns to successful, newsworthy companies like Apple and Nintendo in order to ride their coattails and generate more headlines for themselves in the hope of squeezing more donations out of their gullible, moronic supporters.
The sooner we all stop paying attention to their nonsense, the sooner they'll go away. This means you, Edge.
yea!!!!! got that right dubsTF.
Yeah because they should be focusing on the small guys right? The ones that aren't multi-national, billion dollar corporations which can determine environmental practices for an entire industry, companies too small to leave a bigger carbon footprint than your gasbagging.
we hear this shit about once a month if not more. Where was Greenpeace when Nintendo wasn't the most popular kid on the block?
No offense but how old are you?. Nintendo was the most popular kid on the block most of the last 25 years.
NES, Gameboy, SNES, N64, GBA, they all have ruled the market before Wii and DS.
"...but we get no response from Nintendo. The company has an incredibly poor standard of communication regarding this issue.”
Or, maybe they think Greenpeace is a joke and have better things to do with their time?
Greenpeace is a joke, started by some rich azz kid trying to make a name for themselves.