Greenpeace just released their latest “Guide to Greener Electronics,” and it has some interesting conclusions about the gaming industry. Nintendo, as was the case in the previous installment of the guide, came in dead last. Simply stating that Nintendo doesn’t meet the stringent requirements for green electronics in the eyes of Greenpeace is reductive, so I thought I would examine what exactly goes into the ratings.
According to Greenpeace, they ask two things of electronics companies: that their products minimize or eliminate the number of hazardous substances and that they have programs to take back or recycle their products at the end of their life cycle:
The two issues are connected. The use of harmful chemicals in electronics prevents their safe recycling when the products are discarded.
The issue of hazardous chemicals complicating disposal is the reason why some states have electronics recycling taxes built into the sales of electronic, so it is a well-recognized issue. As far as the video game industry goes, it’s the manufacturing of consoles and peripherals that falls under the purview of this document. The inclusion of the makers of video game consoles in this guide only began four months ago in the last installment, so it is not as though there has been a great deal of time for companies to move closer to compliance.
Below are the specific criteria on which the companies are judged:
Chemicals policy and practice (5 criteria)
1. A chemicals policy based on the Precautionary Principle
2. Chemicals Management: supply chain management of chemicals via e.g. banned/restricted substance lists, policy to identify
problematic substances for future elimination/substitution
3. Timeline for phasing out all use of vinyl plastic (PVC)
4. Timeline for phasing out all use of brominated flame retardants (not just those banned by EU’s RoHS Directive)
5. PVC- and BFR-free models of electronic products on the market.Policy and practice on Producer Responsibility for taking back their discarded products and recycling (4 criteria)
1. Support for individual (financial) producer responsibility – that producers finance the end-of-life management of their products, by
taking back and reusing/recycling their own-brand discarded products.
2. Provides voluntary takeback and recycling in every country where its products are sold, even in the absence of national laws
requiring Producer Responsibility for electronic waste.
3. Provides clear information for individual customers on takeback and recycling services in all countries where there are sales of its
products.
4. Reports on amount of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) collected and recycled.
Now to look at how our beloved console producers fared. Keep in mind that for companies like Sony and Microsoft, the data is not limited to the environmental impact of the console. Presumably the Microsoft data must account for a product like the Zune, and Sony obviously has many more electronics under its umbrella.
SONY
Ranking: 7.3/10
Despite the incredible number of products that are accounted for under this guide, Sony is tied for 4th.
I can only discern the individual ratings from the overall score because the Greenpeace PDF of Sony links to Sony Ericsson. Nevertheless, that rating is enough to conclude that Sony is working hard toward compliance.It is apparent that Sony, with its vast experience in the electronics world, has a much stronger compliance division that can respond quickly to the green demands of the public. I’m certain that their take back policies will only improve in the months to come.
MICROSOFT
Ranking: 4.7/10
According to the guide:
The company has improved its score across many of the chemicals criteria; it now has a definition of the Precautionary Principle (although it is difficult to access) and scores full marks for its chemicals management and for setting a new timeline of 2010 to eliminate polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and all brominated flame retardants (BFRs).
In fact, the only Bad rating Microsoft received for chemicals was because none of their products were free of PVC or BFRs. It sounds like they’re working toward compliance in that arena, but they’ll have to accept a docked rating until the reach that point in 2010.
As for the recycling score, Microsoft received Bad ratings for “Provides voluntary takeback where no EPR laws exist” and “Provides info for individual customers on take back in all countries….” It sounds as though Microsoft puts the onus on the customers. Any information from Microsoft tends to point toward government agencies, so if the local government doesn’t have a proper recycling program, there really is no option for the consumer. It certainly doesn’t make recycling an Xbox an easy task.
The bottom like for Microsoft is that they need to be more proactive in establishing takeback and recycling programs. They are most deficient in the EU, so I think working on that would go a long way toward repairing the breach of (anti-)trust.
NINTENDO
Ranking: 0.3/10
Ouch. Nintendo receives a Bad rating in every single category with the exception of “Chemicals Management” in which they receive a merciful Partially Bad rating.
The main reason for this devastating rating? Nintendo just isn’t making its data available to Greenpeace. It’s entirely possible that the company has a Precautionary Principle but that they aren’t disclosing it. After all, the reason for a Bad rating in “PVC-free and/or BFR-free models” and “Reports on amount of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) collected and recycled” was that there was no information on those topics.
Almost all of the marks against Nintendo are a result of an opaque organization. While that is not the best approach for any company seeking to be compliant and green, it fits the pattern of Nintendo. They often function as a black box with only a select few knowing about the operations on the inside. I don’t think that buying a Wii necessarily means that a consumer is taking a potshot at Mother Earth, but I can’t be sure.
Nintendo just needs to suck it up and start supplying more information to compliance agencies. As more and more consumers are paying attention to “green” corporate initiatives, it will behoove Nintendo to pay attention to the public mood. Ultimately, I think that Nintendo will feel pressured to maintain its family-safe image and will begin to comply with these reasonable expectations.
Leave a Reply