Slashdot Log In
Dell and Nokia the Most Green (Tech) Companies
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Aug 28, 2006 07:35 AM
from the something-to-strive-for dept.
from the something-to-strive-for dept.
da_matta writes "Greenpeace has ranked top electronics companies on their attitudes towards ecology. In addition to what toxic materials are used in manufacturing, the report on "greeness", for example, considers how the recycling of old products is handled and how ecological issues are considered in company processes and decisions. Idea is that the ranking is updated quarterly, and companies would like achieve to the top position. Dell and Nokia take the top position with a rating of 7/10, with Apple, Acer, Motorola and Lenovo falling behind with ratings worse than 3/10."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Green Product Development (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's say you're making computer monitors in the early 90s and you start developing prototypes. You produce a 19" model that works well. Now, you could sink more money into the project and try to think of alterations to the design so that the chemicals inside the cathode ray tube can be safely removed before disposal
Now it's ten years later and you're well off as a company selling tens of thousands of units each year. And you get a letter saying that because your product contains harmful chemicals, you've scored low in some newspaper rating for green companies. Plus, you want to tap the hippie market and score more profits. What do you have to do to make your product 'green'? Well, what would have been a design change in the beginning is no longer possible. Not only do you have to do that but you have to change all your manufacturing plants and work out the new source for the changes in these products. Plus you've got all that inventory and raw materials sitting around waiting to be made into new monitors. Well, it just doesn't seem worth it anymore. Even if you offer dismantling them as a service, you'll have to charge nearly as much as the monitor costs--is this even realistic?
The sad fact is that (most of the time) green products need to start out as green otherwise there's a very good chance their success will allow their manufacturers to overlook the benefits from being a green product. It needs to be a design time concern. Computers have valuable metals in them--can you see an easy way of extracting these? It's a pretty complicated process right now and I don't think it's very efficient. Nobody seems concerned with asking themselves where the product goes when it's done because initially they're not afraid of making an environmental impact. But if all companies have this shortsightedness then we're bound to suffer. As good little consumers, we buy the best product (hail capitalism) and we evaluate the products based on commonly held beliefs about quality and service. Unfortunately, we lack the foresight to imagine what we do with the product when it's (usually short) life span is over.
When your CD player breaks, what do you do with it? In the old days, if a phonograph broke, you took it to a skilled craftsman who fixed it. Today we throw things away and just buy a new one constantly. This is because the labor involved with fixing the old unit is more costly than a new unit. In doing this, we really build up staggering amounts of trash--the EPA estimates that U.S. citizens generate 4.6 lbs of trash per day [epa.gov]. Doesn't this seem like something that is going to become a logistical nightmare?
Re:Green Product Development (Score:5, Interesting)
And as more and more people become concerned with the mess we are creating, "greeness" gets added to the list of criteria they use to select their next purchase. Smart companies (EG Dell and Nokia) perceive this new customer need and fullfill it, thereby taking that small (but growing) niche market. Eventually, due to competitive pressure, other companies follow suit. Then we have a little "green" war where each tries to outdo the other
Hail capitalism.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that greenness ranks fairly low on the average consumer's list of criteria when making a purchase, it might be that the relative eco-friendliness of Dell and Nokia has a lot more to do with being based in c
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hmmm. I wonder if there's some sort of organization that could compile some sort of...well, let's call it a report, on the various ecological footprints of various consumer products companies, in an effort to raise...what's that word? Awareness! That's it. Awareness of the value of ecologically friendly manufacturing practices.
The organization would need a catchy name. Something with "green" in it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really too surprising, when you think about it (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't find that too surprising. I think there's so much of a divide among large and small makers of computer hardware that smaller companies would be more focused just on competing with the larger companies.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't entirely agree with this, because part of the cost of a product is materials and energy, so it's a good thing economically to think green. Not poisoning your customers will also help
Costs Less Green too (Score:2, Insightful)
Too bad... (Score:5, Funny)
Server is getting slow... (Score:3, Informative)
This Green Electronics Guide ranks leading mobile and PC manufacturers on their global policies and practice on eliminating harmful chemicals and on taking responsibility for their products once they are discarded by consumers. Companies are ranked solely on information that is publicly available.
7 Nokia - Good but room for improvement on amounts recycled. More
7 Dell - Points lost for not yet having models without the worst chemicals. Strong support for takeback. More
5.7 Hewlett Packard - Timelines only to provide plan for toxics phase out. Good on amounts recycled. More
5.3 Sony Ericsson - Some models without some of the worst chemicals, but bad on precautionary principle and take back. More
5 Samsung - Points for toxic phase out but not good on take back and recycling. More
4.7 Sony - Some models without the worst chemicals, but bad on precautionary principle and take back. More
4.3 LGE - Points for toxic phase out date but bad on take back. More
3.3 Panasonic - Only good on chemicals management. More
3 Toshiba - Some models without the worst chemicals, but no timelines for elimination and poor on takeback. More
3 Fujitsu-Siemens - Points for some models free of worst chemicals, but poor on takeback. More
2.7 Apple - Low scores on almost all criteria. More
2.3
Acer - Should do better on all criteria. More
1.7 Motorola - Points for chemicals management. Recently broke clean up promise. More
1.3 Lenovo - The lowest score of all companies. More
Ranking criteria explained
The ranking criteria reflect the demands of the Toxic Tech campaign to the electronics companies. Our two demands are that companies should:
* clean up their products by eliminating hazardous substances;
* takeback and recycle their products responsibly once they become obsolete.
The two issues are connected. The use of harmful chemicals in electronics prevents their safe recycling when the products are discarded. Companies scored marks out of 30 this has then been calculated to a mark out of 10 for simplicity.
Follow the more link beside each company for the full details of their score. The full criteria for scoring the companies is available. Download the full pdf of the scorecard.
Each score is based solely on public information on the companies website. Companies found not to be following their published policies will be deducted penalty point in future versions of the guide.
The guide is updated every 3 months. The current version was published on the 25 August 2006.
Disclaimer: Our 'Guide to Greener Electronics' aims to clean up the electronics sector and get manufacturers to take responsibility for the full life cycle of their products, including the electronic waste that their products generate. The guide does not rank companies on labour standards, energy use or any other issues, but recognises that these are important in the production and use of electronics products.
Re:Server is getting slow... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
RTFA, or even simpler... (Score:3)
As far as "replaced by support team" is concerned, I can only assume you're talking abo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Case in point:
Dell laptops explode because of Sony's batteries; Dell sucks.
Apple laptops explode because of Sony's batteries; it's Sony's fault!
Godforbid Apple's na
Look at ipod batteries (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why waste all that screen space? If/when it goes down, post a link to cache or a mirror. Or even post the text, when it goes down.
enviornmental stewardship (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, because when the company's mission statement conflicts with profitability, the mission statement always trumps the cash.
Oh wait, no it doesn't.
If someone can give an example of a mission statement that's actually affected the way a big corporation is run in such a way that it reduces profits (for example, choosing to be more en
Re: (Score:2)
Reducing waste (Score:4, Funny)
Dell? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think windows intel PCs use more power than mac intel PCs? (or 'nix intel PCs?)
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct. Nasa chooses linux because it runs cools [linuxtoday.com]:
That said, the difference is probably negligible in day-to-day use.
I agree, the operating system makes little difference, if running the same processor. That's why I ask
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The very first paragraph states in bold lettering:
This Green Electronics Guide ranks leading mobile and PC manufacturers on their global policies and practice on eliminating harmful chemicals and on taking responsibility for their products once they are discarded by consumers.
I'll bite anyway though.
Are you simply throwing this question out there or do you have something in mind?
You specifically stated Wintel so I assume you have some kind of point you are tr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Power consumed by computers ultimately comes from burning fossil fuels, in the vast majority of cases. Intel chips use more power on average, and windows systems typically run more power hungry applications like games, media players, etc than linux systems. I'm not sure about macs.
The process use
Dell Self Disposal (Score:3, Funny)
BUY DELL!... Dude I got a... arson report.
Rotten Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
I know there's more to being green than just recycling batteries and parts, but Apple should be put under a microscope to make sure the money they're collecting for "recycling" is placed directly into "green" programs.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just like a 'restocking fee' when you return a mattress, or any other consumer good -- they can't call it a 'restocking fee' however, since it's not being put back on the shelf (at least not without refurbishing).
Re: (Score:2)
That's unpossible! (Score:2)
Seriously, this is about the manufacturing process not the products. As long as products are built in China, India and other places that can't afford to implement environmental LAWS, then this is what you get. Of course, when they do, you will not want to pay the extra expense of their products which will then be built in Vietnam, Sri Lanka and Africa. And so on.
What would greenpeace rate? (Score:3, Insightful)
A better question is what would be the truthfull assessment of greenness of greenpeace be? After all the produce nothing, the only effect they have is to prevent actions. They are the last word in paracitical, pointless organisations - dedicated to the idea that to do nothing is the best course. And yet the burn up valuable resources steaming around the world.
Take the money and energy wasted by greenpeace and put it into something with purpose that actually supports environmental progress rather than political positioning.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, they prevented the french from testing nukes in my "back yard", they prevented the franklin dam, and they stopped the senseless slaughter of whales (to name but a few of their achivements). Yes they are practical, but I wouldn't say they are the "last word". Pointless? I don't understand, I thought you wanted to "support environmental progress".
"Take the money and energy wasted by greenpea
Re: (Score:2)
"Disclaimer: I lived and worked on a sawmill, (old growth mountain ash), it was eventually shut down when it's 5yr lease ran out and the area is now preserved as a national park"
Okay where do you live? The French tested nukes in the south pacific. The only place that I can think of that might have a saw mill near there is New Zealand. I am not so sure that they have have old growth ash in New Zealand. The only page I found on New Zealand
Re: (Score:2)
Grandstanding, if that's how you characterise it, is a part of the political process, and life, for better or worse, is political in nature. It may help to remember that one of the reasons why people are even remotely conscious of the environment today is because years ago, certain individuals took it upon themselves to do nutty things like chain themselves to trees, or shoot videos of seal hunts.
As for computer
Greeness? (Score:2)
How much do consumers care? (Score:3, Insightful)
People buy Dell because of the price, and occasionally because they received some good service. People buy Nokia and Motorolla because of good product and the fact that it is shoved in their faces by nearly every wireless company. Nobody who wants a Mac is going to switch and buy a PC because they had a low green score.
I think that the "green" streak is being fed by a small by vocal minority. Yes, if everyone was educated on the environmental factors and it was convenient for them to go along with recommendations based on contributing to the overall health of the environment, you might see some purchasing decisions swayed. Mostly on the large corporate level.
Green Tax (Score:2)
It _is_ easy being green... (Score:2)
indirect greenness (Score:2)
Sun Microsystems? (Score:2)
A Cautionary Note... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, this report may not be what it seems to be. Very little data is provided as to how they have gathered their information. Assessing the environmental impact of even a small company, or doing an audit of same, is a very large task requiring weeks and weeks of onsite anlysis and testing. It is time consuming and requires a great deal of access to confidential business processes.
I, for one, do not believe for one single second that Greenpeace was given access to such data.
Greenpeace as an organisation gathers very large sums of money annually. Legally and fiscally Greenpeace is not a charity. There are many questions as to what they do with the money they raise. A few annual publicity stunts involving a handful of people, publicity material, and the running of a small ship, do not adequately explain where the money goes.
Greenpeace was famously incorrect in its stance against the Brent Spar disposal and provably lied during that campaign.
I would be astonished if this report was anything other than propaganda - you may draw your own conclusions as to why some companies should be favoured over others. But it cannot be as a result of balanced investigation and scientific method, unless they've arrived at the right result by accident.
I do believe that all companies should report their environmental impact truthfully as a result of a defined reporting standard in their annual reports. This is the only way such data can be accurately compared and contrasted. Some companies do do this volutarily, but we are a long way from an accepted standard method of reporting or auditing thereof.
Not purely self-serving (Score:4, Informative)
Every desk in large offices - i.e. the ones that don't need to use local contract cleaning agencies - has had a 3-compartment trash bin under the desk the whole time, for recycling. The large Finnish offices are perfect examples of energy conservation in a cold country by the correct design to naturally distribute sunlight.
I play a game in Finnish offices where if I want to carry on working after 9pm, I have to jump up and run around the office every five minutes, otherwise the lights go out to save energy.
Conservation and environmental awareness to a culture in and of itself. You don't get a genuinely high ranking like we do unless you really mean it. It certainly can and does have short term economic benefits too, maybe that is even the strategy. Who knows what motive really went in to the policy, but I guarantee you that on the ground and amongst individual Nokia people, it is a culture and one that people are happy and proud of.
Things work on a different scale in small Nokia offices. I worked out of the now defunct Peterborough, UK office a couple of years ago. They used to recycle Friday's roast dinner into Monday's curry.
Obviously I am not an official voice of Nokia. Just a happy employee currently working on http://www.nokiaforbusiness.com/americas/firewall
Re:A reason why Dell and Nokia migtht be near to t (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because you've been reading Apple's environment page [apple.com], which is peppered with feel good phrases such as "Apple helps to safeguard the environment" and "Apple recognizes its responsibility as a global citizen"
Apple talking the talk, but not walking the walk. Again.
Oh - and Dell & Nokia are near the top because they've made a greater effort to be green than the other companies.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Layne
Re: (Score:2)
I do my best to be green, but the rockstar poseur tactics of greenpeace are prefectly in line with the apple 'tude.
RTA (Score:5, Informative)
This is not a case of Apple refusing to "walk the walk", this is a case of Greenpeace compiling a misleading report (again); this time blaming Apple for walking with the lights out.
Apple is an especially secretive company. Its busy legal team and history of company secret related firings and court cases should be enough to tell us this alone, if not its more recent attitude toward distributions of Leopard (the upcoming OS X) found online or even the secrecy under which even its flagship retail store was constructed. For some, this evokes paranoia. For others, frustration. As an environmentally concerned consumer, Greenpeace's ranking of Apple does affect my desire to purchase hardware from the company in spite of obvious flaws in their review system.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though, green policies can actually save you money. A PC which shuts down while inactive, or which uses cooler / low power chips is going to save you a quite a bit of money over its lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)