Gaming giants fail toxic exam

Posted by jossc — 27 November 2007 at 6:57pm - Comments

Green Elecronocs Guide Autumn 2007

With Christmas getting ever closer we've some unfestive bad news for gaming giants Nintendo, makers of the popular Wii, Gamecube and Game Boy consoles. They've achieved a spectacular zero score in the latest edition of our quarterly Greener Electronics Guide - the first time such a feat has ever been accomplished.

The guide ranks companies on the toxic content of their products and their willingness to take back and recycle them once they become redundant. This is the first time that we've included gaming consoles, giving Nintendo the chance to leap straight into last place - an opportunity they grasped with both hands!

Although Nintendo were the only company to achieve total hopelesness, they faced stiff competition from other luminaries of the electronics world, notably Microsoft and Philips, who put in almost equally abject performances.

Did you know?
The average lifespan of computers in developed countries has dropped from six years in 1997 to just two years in 2005.

At the other end of the scale Sony Ericsson snatched first place from Nokia, while Samsung improved to a creditable third place. You can find a full breakdown of the results and how they were obtained on the Greenpeace International website.

The Greener Electronics Guide is our way of getting the electronics industry to face up to the problem of e-waste. We want manufacturers to get rid of harmful chemicals in their products, as well as putting an end to the stories of unprotected child labourers scavenging mountains of cast-off gadgets created by society's gizmo-loving ways.

If you want to ensure that the gifts you give this festive season don't hang around polluting the Earth long after they've outlived their usefulness, why not consult the guide for pointers in the right direction?

Do you mean criticisms such as this? If so, I refer you to m' learned friend Martin from our international office:

To pick up on the two points above our report requires Nintendo not just to have policies, but to make them public so their customers know what they are buying and so people can check that they are being followed. Not only did we do plenty of research, we also contacted Nintendo in advance of the reports publication, but so far there's no sign that they want us, you or anyone else to know what they're doing about toxic chemicals in their products.

So the easiest way for Nintendo to remove that zero next to their name is to come out and tell us what they're doing and what they plan to do.

web editor
gpuk

This ranking is specifically about toxics in technology. It looks at hazardous substances and product takeback/product recycling. It doesn't rank companies on labour standards, paper recycling, energy use or any other issues - but we do recognise that these are important. There's more about the criteria and Nintendo's ranking in this pdf.

By the way, the next edition of the guide will include energy consumption as a criterion - and we expect to see Nintendo perform well in that.

On your last point - that you require manufacturers not to use any banned substances (lead, mercury, etc.). As you say, these substances are already banned, under the European Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RHoS) Directive. Obviously, we'd expect companies to adhere to existing laws.

This ranking isn't about getting manufacturers to adhere to laws that already exist - it's about getting leading companies like Nintendo to take a stand and ban hazardous chemicals that are still in use, like PVC and BFRs.

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

Thought some of you might be interested in our response to what Nintendo have been saying about the ranking, on our Making Waves blog.

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

Do you mean criticisms such as this? If so, I refer you to m' learned friend Martin from our international office: To pick up on the two points above our report requires Nintendo not just to have policies, but to make them public so their customers know what they are buying and so people can check that they are being followed. Not only did we do plenty of research, we also contacted Nintendo in advance of the reports publication, but so far there's no sign that they want us, you or anyone else to know what they're doing about toxic chemicals in their products. So the easiest way for Nintendo to remove that zero next to their name is to come out and tell us what they're doing and what they plan to do. web editor gpuk

This ranking is specifically about toxics in technology. It looks at hazardous substances and product takeback/product recycling. It doesn't rank companies on labour standards, paper recycling, energy use or any other issues - but we do recognise that these are important. There's more about the criteria and Nintendo's ranking in this pdf. By the way, the next edition of the guide will include energy consumption as a criterion - and we expect to see Nintendo perform well in that. On your last point - that you require manufacturers not to use any banned substances (lead, mercury, etc.). As you say, these substances are already banned, under the European Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RHoS) Directive. Obviously, we'd expect companies to adhere to existing laws. This ranking isn't about getting manufacturers to adhere to laws that already exist - it's about getting leading companies like Nintendo to take a stand and ban hazardous chemicals that are still in use, like PVC and BFRs. Cheers, Bex gpuk

Thought some of you might be interested in our response to what Nintendo have been saying about the ranking, on our Making Waves blog. Cheers, Bex gpuk

About Joss

Bass player and backing vox in the four piece beat combo that is the UK Greenpeace Web Experience. In my 6 years here I've worked on almost every campaign and been fascinated by them all to varying degrees. Just now I'm working on Peace and Oceans - which means getting rid of our Trident nuclear weapons system and creating large marine reserves so that marine life can get some protection from overfishing.

Follow Greenpeace UK