
A couple days ago, I questioned some of the methods behind the "Guide to Greener Electronics" issues by Greenpeace, pointing out what appeared to be inequities towards Nintendo (who scored a 0 out of 10) for the sake of dramatic gesture to promote the guide. Tom Dowdall, web editor for Greenpeace, took the time to write
Boing Boing Gadgets to explain how the guide was created and why in his opinion Nintendo got the same fair shake given to everyone else.
Dowdall first underlined that Nintendo was given many chances to address Greenpeace's concerns before the guide was published. "We contacted the company by letter to both their 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," explained Dowdall. "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."
Out of four companies newly added to the Guide, Nintendo was the only one who did not respond.
One of my criticisms was that the Greenpeace Guide seemed to judge Nintendo primarily from information—or the lack thereof—on the company's public F.A.Q. page; perhaps Nintendo was greener behind the scenes?
Dowdall: "We only rank companies on their public information and practice, not private information, to ensure the ranking is transparent, companies
can be held publicly accountable when they do make commitments. [Also,] making changes public helps drive competition between the companies."
And as for the criticism that it isn't Greenpeace's responsibility to police the actions of corporations? "We push companies to eliminate toxic chemicals beyond minimum legal requirements. Apple, Dell and HP have pledged to do this, phone companies like Nokia and consumer electronics giants like Samsung and Sony are already doing it. Hence Nintendo (or any company) just following legal rules they have to follow gets them no points."
In general, Dowdall felt like Nintendo got a pretty fair shake. "We treated Nintendo just as we did all the other companies. [That] Nintendo was the only company of the 18 featured who [chose] not to respond in any manner does not really make it unfair."
"The fact that Nintendo has none of this information, polices or practice relevant to the guide publicly available and offered none when requested compares badly when the 17 other companies in the guide are able to do this. If competitors can make these changes surely Nintendo can?"
"We hope this is the impetus for Nintendo to be more transparent, progressive and proactive in addressing the problems of toxic chemicals and e-waste."
Previously: Greenpeace Takes Electronics Companies to Task, But Are They Fair? [BBG]