I don't understand - my NES from 1985 is still working fine - how can you recycle that which is never trash? What else would a global recycling policy have?

Let it be known that the wii only consumes 10 watts of power on standby and 17 while playing games compared to the hundreds used by the other companies' consoles

Going after companies that appeal to the masses and popular culture just to force your own message on them does not help your cause, only hurt it. There are much MUCH bigger problems that you need to be concerned about than just a video game company.

Find something better to do.

If Nintendo wants to keep its information confidential, Greenpeace should give it an N/A score instead of zeroes across the board. Doing the latter just creates confusion, leading the public to believe that Nintendo is worse in its environmental practices than actuality.

For this reason, I have come to the conclusion that Greenpeace's so-called rankings cannot be trusted. Greenpeace is an organization that ranks companies by the amount of information they give...

May I remind you that the Wii uses ten times less energy than the 360 and PS3?

This report is ludicrous.

The idea that you rank a company a failing grade compared to other companies based on your criteria is absurd. Just because they don't "publish their chemical policy to allow independent assessment by customers" that matches your expectations is not a legitimate basis for your actions. Nintendo has actively documented, and published their activities regarding packaging, post-consumer waste, and toxic chemicals regarding both internal and global standards. Instead of making a note or call-out on your report stating that Nintendo has not published this information to your expectations, you have decided to take the more inflammatory route and mark them as failing. I find this to be the tact taken by a group that is not only pursuing a personal agenda, but also has complete and reckless disregard for their actions on others.

Considering the faith that many people have regarding Greenpeace’s actions on items such as environmental stewardship, they may look at this report on face value without reading the sub-text and make patronage decisions based on that. The only benefit this may have for you is to hurt sales and the consumer image for Nintendo un-justly. This does not encourage Nintendo to work with you regarding this considering the reckless tact you have taken.

I find myself highly disappointed in Greenpeace, and am now questioning any actions taken by Greenpeace that I may consider responsible or justified. You no longer have my support.

Best thing for Greenpeace to have done if Nintendo never replied would have been to leave Nintendo out of the report.

To address a few comments above.

Our Guide is produced to push companies to be more progressive and more transparent about how they are eliminating toxic chemicals and improving recycling. If any company was not included because they did not want to then undoubtedly any company who doesn't want public scrutiny of its environmental record could avoid it by not responding. By putting the onus on the companies to prove what they are doing publicly this creates competition to improve and be more transparent about environmental policies and practice. That's what we do - drive positive environmental change.

On energy Nintendo's low use is highlighted as positive on our new site comparing the Wii to the Xbox 360 and PS3.

On recycling - if Nintendo did recycle its old products it could save on resources and raw materials like Sony does - reusing the metals rather than using newly mined ones.

Tom
Greenpeace

Please tell me, how do you recycle your own product if you do not own it anymore because it is sold to a customer. I still have all my systems and use them. They don't have some ten year policy that you must return the system back to nintendo within that alloted time period so that they can recycle it. Would you like nintendo to go into people's homes and take their products back? That, my friends, is called stealing and is generally frowned upon in most civilizations.

To Tom's comment above:

Find something better to do. Picking on Nintendo for something as unfounded as this is ludicrous. There are much more pressing issues than video game consoles. Nintendo hasn't done anything wrong, and by giving them a zero you are only trying to mislead people into believing your silly poll.

I for one will be playing my Wii twice as much now, just to spite you. As for your video of Clash of the Consoles, that's serious copyright infringement, and I hope you all get sued.

If you think you will advice consumers with this childlike campaing, I don´t think you will be taken seriously for anybody.

Were you bored or what? Videogame industry were enough vulnerable for you to start spreading fear on people?

Sorry if I look mad or something, but I´m not agree about using fear on people to get concient about environmental issues. This looks just like a big publicity stunt.

To comments that the ranking has/will not be taken seriously or change companies. In fact the companies involved take it very seriously and have changed for the better. Lenovo and Sony have improved recycling schemes dramatically, Apple pledged to be the first to phase out toxic chemicals completely from computers. There's a good summary here:

Since Greenpeace launched its scorecard in August 2006, some companies have complained of unfairness, but few have ignored the ranking.

"It's always good to have an independent perspective on what you're doing," said Andrew Goldman, communications manager for Philips consumer electronics.

Goldman said Philips, which scored 17th, had formulated green policies as long ago as the 1970s and announced a program in September to expand its portfolio of green products. "But we are not in a position to be complacent. We need to do more, and it's becoming more of an issue."

On Nintendo specifically, spokesperson on the BBC: "Nintendo said that it is looking to establish a dialogue with Greenpeace"

So lets see - hopefully there will be more improvements from Nintendo and other companies in the next version.

Tom
Greenpeace

The only reason for companies are taking you serious is because you are just a hook for good public relations. That´s all.

If I had a company and I say to my costumers I follow Greenpeace standards, I´ll get more trust from my clients.

You're making yourselves look like an untrustworthy organization, and fools attempting to manipulate the internet with Mr Splashy Pants (your dedicated GP members feel crappy about that name) and blasting Nintendo et al with "holier than thou" rhetoric.

Spend your donation-funds more wisely.

Disgusting tactics by Greenpeace. I can't believe you get away with NO research and try to claim someone else is in the wrong.

So all a company has to do is lie on their website about recycling policies (not sure how recycling a permanent product like a console is relevant anyway), and they'll get full marks? Are you telling me you base all assumptions about what a company posts on their website, and do no work, but then AFTER they post this information you do extensive research to see if it is true? You examine Sony's factories in China to check up on them I assume?

This guide has tarnished my opinion of Greenpeace, I'm not sure I can trust any information you give out from now on.

Barry -

Recycling is very relevant unless some how games consoles never break and remain treasured family heirlooms never ever to be discarded?

In fact we do check up on factories, read our cutting edge contamination report.

Yes we do check up to see if what companies put on their websites is true. That's why we have publish reports on chemicals testing of laptops, checked the recycling policy of Motorola, Nokia and others in the Philippines, Argentina and Russia. We also deducted penalty points from LG and Sony for acting in contradiction to published policy.

tom

It is interesting that people are right there fighting a course such as whaling, but when comes to something that affects their every day life such as computers, Mcdonalds and gaming how defensive they get because they are forcing to consider what they do daily and as we know people really don't like the feeling they are being attacked or something they love or cherish is being attacked. They are companies who produce games console for profit and not in the least bit interested in the enviroment (despite what they say) so long as they are filling their pockets with cash. Of cause they are ignoring the ranking they don't give a stuff.

This is just stupid, how many people throw away consoles they buy from Nintendo?

How many complain about the amount of energy used?

How many complains about recyceling?

How many throw away Nintendo related products? Be it console or otherwise.

Think about it. I have never heard about anyone throwing away their console because it broke, they either fix it or call Nintendo to fix it.

As said earlier, why recycle what you don't throw away?

Re: Rodrigo "The only reason for companies are taking you serious is because you are just a hook for good public relations. That´s all.

If I had a company and I say to my costumers I follow Greenpeace standards, I´ll get more trust from my clients."

That's indeed where the power of such a campaign comes from, dude!! Companies wnat good PR and so will pay attention to their ranking.

The only interesting issue raised in the comments above: it would indeed be interesting to have data on how many consoles end up in the garbage and how many are kept as family heiloom... But game consoles have been around since some 30 years. Some of them might still be working and that's great (I too have an nintendo that's still working), but I would anticipate that the majority of consoles will break before that. Hence, I'd say that within a 30-40 years time frame, most consoles will end up in waste disposal facilities. So I believe it is essential to have recycling programs for electronic stuff. And I'm not talking about cell phones that are replaced so fast it's unbelievable...