Ars Technica Challenges Greenpeace over Nintendo’s Poor Environmental Rating

Earlier this week, Greenpeace released a report scoring companies on environmental responsibility. For the first time game consoles were included in the research. Microsoft scored low, but Nintendo was given an unprecedented score of zero.

Ars Technica asks whether consumers should take this score card seriously. Greenpeace reserves the right to deduct penalty points “if Greenpeace finds a company lying, practicing double standards or other corporate misconduct.” Greenpeace also judges companies based on whether they have substituted chemicals that are known to cause health and saftey problems, even if the evidence is rather ambiguous, for environmentally friendly alternatives without researching whether there is indeed an alternative to be had.

Ars Technica charges Greenpeace with sloppy or lazy data gathering claiming it based its scores on unreliable sources of information.

The research in general appears lazy. Nintendo’s failing grade appears to be based entirely on this entry in the corporate FAQ, which briefly summarizes some of the steps the company has taken to protect the environment. Anything that’s not covered there is simply rated “No Information.” Similarly, all of the information on Microsoft originates from press materials and corporate statements on the company’s web site. Clearly, Greenpeace did not perform an exhaustive evaluation of chemical use through the manufacturing pipeline.

This lack of research undercuts the report’s credibility when it comes to chemical use during manufacturing. That’s unfortunate, because Greenpeace applied the same approach  to recycling programs, a situation where it makes sense. Recycling programs have to do more than simply exist; to be effective, they have to be easy to learn about and use. As such, checking for easy to locate material on a company’s website is actually a reasonable standard to evaluate these programs by.

Overall, it’s hard to take this report as a serious indication of the progress companies have made in eliminating hazardous chemicals from their manufacturing processes. But, if some companies respond to the bad publicity by expanding recycling programs and ensuring that they’re easy to use, then it’s possible that something useful will come out of it.

I’m afraid I too would have to question Greenpeace’s methods of research. The organization is riding a fine line between trying to spur companies to become more environmentally responsible and accusing companies of unsafe practices without evidence.

via Ars Technica