| stof said: Right. And their policy section has no environmental policies. Seems like a pretty good reason to state that they don't take environmental factors into their policies. And has Nintendo responded to that yet in any way? Have they said "we only scored low because of these reasons, this is what we're actually doing"? or "in light of this report, this is what we have planned"? Shouldn't companies be striving to reduce their impact? Shouldn't Nintendo have tried to show Greenpeace everything they could about what they're doing to reduce harmful chemicals and waste? It just seems really weird that everyone is jumping to Nintendo's defense over something that doesn't actually effect the games at all. Greenpeace didn't give Mario Galaxy a 7, they just pointed out that the company doesn't seem to have any interest in reducing their environmental impact. Kind of makes sense for an environmental agency to do don't you think? |
Stof, you are completely ignorant of this situation. First of all, you are defending Greenpeace, who is hardly a legitimate environmental protection organization. Second, Nintendo did respond to Greenpeace's claims.
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 global standards.
In order to certify that Nintendo products comply with standards for hazardous chemical substances, 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.
Nintendo is always actively looking at ways to continue to increase its environmental stewardship and holds this as a corporate priority worldwide.
http://gonintendo.com/?p=31399
Greenpeace's response to this is below:
Nintendo: We were surprised by the content of the Greenpeace report, given that we take great care to comply with all relevant regulations on avoiding the use of dangerous materials, recycling, etc
We did give Nintendo the chance several times to address issues before the report was published. Therefore Nintendo should not have been surprised by the report having received it in advance.
We contacted the company by letter to their US, European and Japanese headquarters informing them of our guide, the criteria and that they could contact us with any questions, information or requests several months ago.
No response was received from Nintendo despite reminders. Before the ranking was published Nintendo received their ranking to correct or question anything we may have missed. No response was received.
Nintendo: For example, all Nintendo products supplied worldwide are designed to comply with relevant global standards.
The Greenpeace ranking criteria score companies on what they are doing beyond what is required by legislation. This is not a law enforcemen ranking Guide - we are looking for environmental excellence.
We expect all a company's products to be compliant with the EU's RoH (Restriction of Hazardous Substances in electronic products) Directive globally - as a minimum.
Nintendo: In order to certify that Nintendo products comply with standards for hazardous chemical substances, Nintendo has established the Green Procurement Standards, which require our component suppliers to certify that any parts they deliver do not include hazardous chemical substances, and ensure that Nintendo fully controls its products internally.
Green procurement standards are a start. However other companies publish their chemical policy to allow independent assessment by customers. If Nintendo has this policy it should include all chemicals of concern and be public about it to their suppliers and customers alike. Many other electronics companies have published their chemicals policy.
Nintendo: We are always actively looking at ways to continue to increase our environmental stewardship and hold this as a corporate priority worldwide.
Well we have made two simple suggestions already:
Commit to phase out the worst toxic chemicals
Implement a global recycling policy (Nintendo has actually done this. It's in fact right on their website)
Nintendo has yet to do either of these, unlike many other electronics companies.
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/2007/12/nintendo_response.html
What it boils down to is a ridiculous George Bush style "if you aren't with us you are against us" mentality. Just because they refuse to supply an iligitimate organization with their company's production information doesn't mean they are anti-environmental. Why should anyone support Greenpeace? They are extremeists at best and terrorists at worst. There are lots of valid environmental protection organizations out there, and you know what they are doing? Focusing on actual important issues.
