Ads by TechWords
Subscribe to our e-mail newsletters
For more info on a specific newsletter, click the title. Details will be displayed in a new window.
Computerworld Daily News (First Look and Wrap-Up)
Computerworld Blogs Newsletter
The Weekly Top 10
More E-Mail Newsletters 
David Haskin's picture
David Haskin

Global Mobile

Nintendo and the cult of the deniers

Nintendo apparently has joined the strange cult of deniers. These are the folks who deny well-documented and witnessed issues such as the fact that human activities are warming the planet with potentially disastrous results.

Now, Nintendo is denying that we can take effective steps to solve the environmental crisis. Or, at the very least, it is saying that it doesn't give a damn.

It's bad enough that the company, which makes the popular Wii game console, ranked far at the bottom of Greenpeace's recent rankings of corporate environmental responsibility. What's truly remarkable is how the company responded to the ranking.

A spokesman dismissed the rankings by saying that they were, "based on the assumption that recycling is good for the environment."

Whatever you think of Greenpeace, it is clear that the vast majority of consumer electronics vendors take its rankings seriously and have been working hard to improve. And recycling is just one aspect of the Greenpeace rankings. So for Nintendo to have scored barely above zero indicates a cavalier attitude toward environmental concerns in general, not just recycling.

For better and often for worse, we live in a global economy that is based on companies creating desire for the new and the novel. This has fostered intense creativity and has helped create incredible wealth. But it also has created mountains of discarded junk that not only fill landfills but, in the case of electronics, also dangerously foul the environment with toxins. If we must remain addicted to the new and the novel, and I personally don't advocate that we do, then at least we should try to be as responsible and mindful about it as possible.

I'm not a game console user, so I can't speak to which console provides the best graphics or has the best games. But it is reasonable to base buying decisions not just on those factors but also on a company's sense of responsibility.

Nintendo has made its attitude toward the environment obvious. By contrast, one of Nintendo's primary competitors in the game console business, Sony, ranked near the top of the rankings. Of course, Nintendo has one other major competitor, and that company ranked third from the bottom of the Greenpeace list.

The name of that competitor? Microsoft.

 


 

What People Are Saying

Rate this
Rated +14
248 Votes

Quick question, Dave

How much did Microsoft pay you for this?

Rate this
Rated -22
400 Votes

Gullible Warming strikes again...

Whyowhyowhyowhyowhy do these people not remember that the group of junk science proponants preceding this one were writing books about The Coming Ice Age just 25 years ago? Why is it so hard to see the obvious evidence for cyclical climate changes, and instead look for and inflate every possible shred that might support their presuppositions?

ARRRRGGHHH!

Should we do something about pollution - sure. Should we stop clear-cutting thousands of acres: yes.
Should we continue to listen to these people whose primary attributes seem to be an excess of emotion and a complete lack of logic? NO

Rate this
Rated +6
422 Votes

Global warming HOAX

Its so nice to see that you have bought in to the hoax! I have a nice bridge to sell you.
As we all now know global cooling has started the temp has fallen that 1 degree that it took a hundred years to gain. ice age comming up!

Rate this
Rated +14
512 Votes

Why should Greenpeace know?

David, in the absence of dissenting information, Greenpeace issues a score of zero by default. They did so to Nintendo back in November and explained why on their site, with further explanation at Engadget.

Nintendo didn't earn their recent score of 0.3; they simply didn't provide any reasons for this or any other score. For Greenpeace to compare such non-disclosure to those other companies that complied produces inaccurate results that too many readers will take as honest.

Rate this
Rated -16
396 Votes

RE: Why should Greenpeace know?

I do agree that Greenpeace should have reported how and why it gave Nintendo a .3 score this time compared to a 0 score in November. I'm certainly not defending Greenpeace's methodology, or Greenpeace as an organization, for that matter. But there's a much bigger issue here that relates to corporate responsibility.

It would be understandable if Nintendo had chosen to not participate in the Greenpeace program -- I can imagine many reasons why that could be the case. Greenpeace is a controversial and confrontational organization -- perhaps Nintendo just didn't want to participate in a Greenpeace-sponsored initiative. Or perhaps they didn't like Greenpeace's methodology. Both are valid reasons to not participate.

But Nintendo refused to explain why it didn't participate and, in fact, an executive was quoted as saying, essentially, that the company didn't t believe recycling is a worthwhile effort (I am assuming the quote in the news story I referenced in the blog was accurate). That strikes me as cavalier and irresponsible -- at best. Even more so because it sets a tone for the company's primary market -- young people.

Put differently, my blog was about Nintendo, not Greenpeace. I was questioning Nintendo's attitude toward the environment and there's no evidence from this episode that Nintendo is at all concerned about its impact on the environment.

Rate this
Rated -12
270 Votes

Lost in translation?

the company didn't t believe recycling is a worthwhile effort (I am assuming the quote in the news story I referenced in the blog was accurate).

I've heard Nintendo's Japanese executives be misquoted often enough that I now take most anything they've purportedly said with a grain of salt.

Rate this
Rated -15
417 Votes

Nintedo ranking

Our Guide covers the public policy and practice of the leading electronics companies that sell millions of products every year.

Nintendo is one of those leading companies so it included in the guide. We have explained why Nintendo score changed a little on our weblog:

"Back in November we added Nintendo to our Green Guide to Electronics. Despite several requests for information Nintendo provided none and was the first brand to score 0. The next edition of the guide is released today and Nintendo only gets 0.3 due to an indication that it does have a chemicals management policy."

The fact that Nintendo are almost unique among the major electronics makers in providing so little public information about relevant environmental issues doesn't support it's claims to care about the environment.

Tom
Greenpeace

Rate this
Rated -1
171 Votes

Japanese Corporate Culture

While Nintendo is a comparatively small player in the list and manufactures far less than the other companies, its management is still tight-lipped, Japanese business sharks who care little for PR, and even less for outside criticism. A score of Zero, if warranted (and if they cared), would have executives resigning, and suicides reported (reference the Mitsubishi Fuso truck fire fiasco). These are companies that will fold at the slightest hint of impropriety. Why not try some legitimate investigation as "put your hands up or we'll shoot" obviously doesn't work.

I am pleased as pie Nintendo didn't give in to these terrorist tactics like Sony and the other companies who pandered for a high score. Bottom line: the process was rigged from the start due to scare tactics Greenpeace is famous for. Wouldn't it be more effective to try to document abuses, rather than throwing up your hands and assuming something is wrong?

I would like to pledge my support to Greenpeace on one front, however: your videos have just as much right to be on YouTube as those of your compatriots in the Pakistani Frontier.

Rate this
Rated +23
251 Votes

so the ranking is based on

so the ranking is based on what the company's public policy is as opposed to their actual implementation of said policy?

So if sony or microsoft claims they do this that and the other, they will score higher than another company just because they have informed you of their plans?

is that not horribly flawed?

you say you look at the practices of these companies... but only the practice of the plans they have publicly discussed?

plans without action dont serve us at all.