This is probably old but I missed this...

Microsoft and Nintendo scored worst amongst the 18 rated electronics companies, Sony actually scored best and seems to be the only company in the green zone.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/company-scores-plummet

Regarding employment numbers per generated profit Nintendo and Microsoft also score miserably in comparison to Sony. Sony is going through harder times financially, but employs over twice the amount of people than Microsoft and over 50 times the people than Nintendo.

And people get upset about the PS3 being too highly specced and thus priced accordingly.... It almost seems many people would prefer to see the PS3 pricing to have dropped rather than Sony keeping people employed.

Isn't this really old? Also, wasn't the Nintendo score due to them not giving Greenpeace that information so they were just given and advertised to be 0? (There was definitely a thread about this when it was current news)

Having more people employed per generated profit just seems like bad business.

I don't see how it's possible that Nintendo, which is posting massive profits and is employing far fewer people than Sony can score worse in that category. Can someone explain how that could happen that has more knowledge on the subject?

That's not very good.

Onyxmeth said: I don't see how it's possible that Nintendo, which is posting massive profits and is employing far fewer people than Sony can score worse in that category. Can someone explain how that could happen that has more knowledge on the subject?

They didn't give greenpeace any information.

So Greenpeace decided to just rank them low.

Also... for what they could get... it's an average.

So despite the fact that the PS3 wastes way more energy then the Wii...

Sony makes much more products.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=21019&page=1

http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=21014

There you go.

naznatips said: Nintendo doesn't cooperate with Greenpeace because they don't release their production information to anyone they don't have to... which of course includes the environmental extremist group up on their pedestal. They got 0 because Green Peace was pissed that Nintendo wouldn't give them information, which is Nintendo's right.

naznatips said: akuma587 said: There is a big difference between power consumption of the console and environmental practices of the company. Depending on the specifics, the latter can be a lot worse than the former. Except Nintendo's environmental practices are no different than Sony's or Microsoft's... Greenpeace just won't do any research on their own, and power consumption is a big issue.   For reference: The average american household runs about 1000 watts of power at a time.  A PS3 uses 20% of the energy of an entire household. Again though, it's ridiculous that people are considering Greenpeace a legitimate environmental group.  They barely qualify as more than terrorists, and they give a bad name to real environmental groups.

@ SeriousWB

Thanks for repeating myself.

That's why I posted to off topic.



"Nintendo has once again landed at the bottom of Greenpeace's list of tech manufacturers when it comes to eco-friendly practices.

Nintendo scored .3 out of 10 in the March version of Greenpeace's Guide to Greener Electronics, which ranks companies in categories such as precautionary principle, timeline for PVC phaseout, and amounts recycled.

The only category in which Nintendo did not score the lowest ranking of "Bad" was chemicals management, in which it ranked "Partially Bad."



IMO this is a company's responsibility. You can do more by employing more people as well as you're helping the global community. Sony is a highly competitive company, with many competitors for many different market segments.

Microsoft mainly relies on its desktop OS monopoly ever since they bought the Quick and Dirty OS CP/M ripp-off, renamed MSDOS. Nintendo of course only competes in gaming, I do think they should hire more people considering their solid economics.

If you knew it was old, you should have searched. The threads and posts in my previous reply were found quickly by searching for "Nintendo Greenpeace" on this site.

Why? The PS3 is very energy efficient for the tech it provides, it's not like you're gaming 24/7 or do you? It draws very little power when on stand-by.

Also note that you will probably be using a TV when you game. Many TVs draw well more energy than the console.

Just make sure to switch to green electricity if you're worried, my PS3 is running on wind energy!

If it is bad for Nintendo to make more profit on less employees, does that mean that construction companies should stop using backhoes because you could employ more people and get less productive work done?

After all, if a man with a shovel and wheelbarrow does the work of 20 men digging with their hands, a man with a backhoe does the work of 20 men with a shovel and wheelbarrow, and there are hundreds of thousands of backhoes in operation in North America we could ensure everyone in North America who wanted a job could have a job if we simply eliminated the backhoe, shovel and wheelbarrow ... right?

In the real world, if you're not wasting resources those resources can be put towards more productive pursuits and (since the overall production is higher) everyone benefits in the long run.