| Scruff7 said: a blog post from someone attempting to defend apple's failure to meet it's own standards of green electronics is not proof of incompetence of an NGO or it's report - that's called cherry picking. it is simply one persons outspoken opinion and his perception of events. Greenpeace has been around for over 3 decades and is still going strong, they have made mistakes in the past, but for the good they have done far outweighs their failures. lets not blow this out of proportion. Greenpeace praises some companies for having excellent policies on the use of toxic materials and their dedication to recyling, while lambasting other for failing to implement robust policies or (in the case of Nintendo) failing to implement any policies on the use of toxic materials or recycling of products. Nintendo does not have environmentally sound policies, this is what the report has said. if they don't have the policies, there is little chance they will be acting in an environmentally sound manner. it is exactly because Greenpeace are a well known and respected organisation that this report has gathered so much media spotlight. of course its going to put the backs up a few people, it holds organisations accountable for not being environmentally friendly at a time when it's very central to peoples desires. these companies will avoid the report and dismiss it as hearsay and misrepresentation. on the other side of the coin you can be sure that the top named companies will blow their own trumpet about this, exactly like Steve Jobs did. I am quite sure that if this report had show Sony to be acting in an environmentally unfriendly way with Nintendo near the top of the list, the Nintendo fans would love to air about it. the question you have to ask yourself is: if all these other companies are making an effort to demonstrate how they are committed to the environment through their policies, why doesn't Nintendo? |
Greenpeace is hardly a respected organization to people that are in the know regarding what are the legitimate environmental organizations as opposed to sensalists. Real orgs that care about the truth and accuracy of their reporting don't do baseless reports for headline grabs.
And if you read into it, its not that they faulted nintendo for not having any policies, its that nintendo didn't give any to them. That is nintendo's right, Greenpeace has no authority to require disclosure of information. If they were a responsible organization, they would've said, Not Available instead.
Plus, it looks like all of the so called "investigative reporting" that they're doing amounts to checking their websites and seeing if there's information that matches their requirements.
