Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Dell and Nokia the Most Green (Tech) Companies 174

Posted by Hemos 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This discussion has been archived.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.

Dell and Nokia the Most Green (Tech) Companies More

Dell and Nokia the Most Green (Tech) Companies

Comments Filter:

  • Green Product Development (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@noSpAM.gmail.com> on Monday August 28, 2006 @08:37AM (#15993116) Journal
    Something interesting about tech companies is that concern for the environment is something that comes in usually later in the company's lifetime--after they've become millionaires. Because being green is, unfortunately, usually more expensive than the alternative.

    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 ... but you're not even sure how many of these will be made and the market's not looking so good and you just want to start turning a profit. Plus you have all the other guys to compete with and they don't have any sort of thing like this nor does the government demand it.

    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)

      by LaughingCoder ( 914424 ) on Monday August 28, 2006 @08:43AM (#15993141)
      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.

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Angst Badger ( 8636 )
        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.

        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)

          by Moofie ( 22272 )
          "Given that greenness ranks fairly low on the average consumer's list of criteria when making a purchase"

          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)

            by plague3106 ( 71849 )
            I think greenpeace is taken by some wacko organization that unlawfully attempts to board other vessels in the ocean, then complains when occupants of said vessel forcefully prevent them from boarding, saying that they could have been hurt by the occupants tactics...
    • Something interesting about tech companies is that concern for the environment is something that comes in usually later in the company's lifetime--after they've become millionaires.

      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)

      by polar red ( 215081 )
      Because being green is, unfortunately, usually more expensive than the alternative.
      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 :)

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by iamsolidsnk ( 862065 )
      Most developing countries that have come under international criticism for environmental pollution have been quick to point out the head-start that the now Industrialized nations had. The United States industrial revolution polluted the surrounding environment on a massive scale, especially the Great Lakes / Eerie / Hudson River areas. Pittsburgh steel mills especially come to mind during the Carnegie years also. Countries that are just now trying to develop their infrastructure are finding it cost-prohi

  • Costs Less Green too (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Interesting Dell & Nokia seem to cost the least green too =)

  • Too bad... (Score:5, Funny)

    by aadvancedGIR ( 959466 ) on Monday August 28, 2006 @08:47AM (#15993153)
    I work on a Lenovo and it really behaves as if it was made out of recycled parts.

    • I work on a Lenovo and it really behaves as if it was made out of recycled parts.

      Every Thinkpad I have owned, including the one I'm using right now, was recycled. I bought them used and only one was a lemon. Too bad you got one that does not work, but you might just check your software.

      When I say that one was a lemon, I say that because it would not stay up for months at a time when I carried it around. Sitting on a desk, it works well enough.

      The funny thing is that my rating of Green is heavily s

      • By my definition, every Dell is a lemon out of the box because it runs Windoze.

        I can just imagine you saying this out loud, with a really really smug expression on your face.

        substantial environmental savings can be had if people would just use decent software and had more durable machines.

        Decent software like Linux, which has problems doing power management on many laptops, and makes features like hibernate very hard to use properly? I never could get even APM to work on my laptop under Linux, one of the ma

  • Server is getting slow... (Score:3, Informative)

    by rollonet ( 882269 ) <rollonet@Nospam.gmail.com> on Monday August 28, 2006 @08:48AM (#15993157) Homepage
    Karma whoring... Heres the contents of the article before it gets /.'ed

    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)

      by legoburner ( 702695 ) on Monday August 28, 2006 @09:07AM (#15993225) Homepage Journal
      Apple 'what is backwards compatibility' computers is not up the top of the greens, even after they make it so batteries (generally) have to be replaced by their support team instead of third parties? What a shock! I think most of the Apple faithful that I have met are of the 'I love being green but am always too busy to recycle' mindset and so wonder if that is the same with Apple themselves.
      • If you had paid attention to the article or even to the copy+pasted text above, you would realize the flaw in Greenpeace's "review". They aren't basing their ratings on any hard work or "research", they're just reviewing a bunch of PR material. Apple didn't score badly because it fails to comply with EU standards, Apple scored badly partly because its PR material wasn't sufficiently lucid for crackhead Greenpeace editors.

        As far as "replaced by support team" is concerned, I can only assume you're talking abo

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MaWeiTao ( 908546 )
          Why is it that when an "evil" PC company like Microsoft is criticized everyone jumps aboard and takes all claims at face value. When Apple is shown to have done something wrong suddenly there's an excuse for everything. It's a conspiracy, the article is biased, certain details weren't taken into account or whatever it is isn't even Apple's fault.

          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
          • Your argument is what, that I should take Greenpeace's misleading report (big surprise that Greenpeace would publish something misleading) at face value because lots of other people take anti-Microsoft misleading reports at face value? Er, no thanks.

            I have never had a problem using OS X's Mac Classic mode. All my documents have loaded just fine, thank you.

            I have not had any luck running DOS/16-bit applications in Windows XP without third party tools.

            I have been a DOS user for 13 years, a Windows user for 11
      • Apple's mindset is surely reflected in in their newest, and most popular, products, the ipods. Having a non-removeable, non-replacable battery surely reduces the greenness of an ipod since it encourages a throw-away culture. Battery stuffed? Buy a new ipod.
    • Karma whoring... Heres the contents of the article before it gets /.'ed


      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.
  • IMO the most imporant factor for rating a companies "greeness" is the prominace of the pharse "enviornmental stewardship" in its corporate mission statement.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by BVis ( 267028 )

      IMO the most imporant factor for rating a companies "greeness" is the prominace of the pharse "enviornmental stewardship" in its corporate mission statement.

      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

      • Big companies often get big before they aquire a mission statement. The statement is usually and idealized version of what they thought they were doing at the time of writing. Think of it as therapy for fragile executive ego's.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Moofie ( 22272 )
      "the prominace of the pharse "enviornmental stewardship""

      You misspelled "farce".

  • Reducing waste (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28, 2006 @08:52AM (#15993171)
    Of course Dell is up there, their Laptops displose of themselves!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by zCyl ( 14362 )
      Not only that, but they're constructed out of recycled cardboard and chewing gum.
  • Did they take the power consumption of Wintell machines into account here?
    • Did they take the power consumption of Wintell machines into account here?

      Do you think windows intel PCs use more power than mac intel PCs? (or 'nix intel PCs?)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nolife ( 233813 )
      Well, you could RTFA or at least have skimmed it.
      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)

        by ObsessiveMathsFreak ( 773371 )

        You specifically stated Wintel so I assume you have some kind of point you are trying to get across or you are attempting to imply that there is some assumed known and defined power disadvantage to that combination.

        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

        • The process used to create the computers might be clean, but what about their efficiency out in the world? The process used to create an SUV might be ecologically friendly, but if the beast still guzzles petrol, where's the benefit?

          The benefit is that only 20 tons of CO2 are released, instead 20+ tons of CO2 plus other gases and chemicals dumped in a river or lake or what have you.
  • Sony should be higher on the list now that they're recalling X million toxic battery bombs. At least they could get some good press for it somehow!

  • Dell Self Disposal (Score:3, Funny)

    by kemo_by_the_kilo ( 971543 ) on Monday August 28, 2006 @09:20AM (#15993309)
    Dell, Now with Self disposal support. the reason why dell is a green company is because their most toxic part (the batteries) automatically sef distruct to get rid of pollution.



    BUY DELL!... Dude I got a... arson report.

  • Rotten Apple (Score:5, Interesting)

    by no_such_user ( 196771 ) <jd-slashdot-2007 ... ay.com minus bsd> on Monday August 28, 2006 @09:22AM (#15993323)
    In 12/2005, my still-under-warranty iPod was gathering bad sectors on the drive. The "genius" at the Apple store said bad sectors were normal, and to just reformat it. After being quite persistent, he relented and gave me a replacement. But not before charging me a $30 "recycling fee". Bullshit! Given that they'll use all the parts, save for maybe the battery, again, I find it quite hard to believe that the battery costs $30 to recycle. FWIW, the way out of this fee is to purchase the Apple extended service plan. And then go back the next day and return just the service plan.

    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.
    • But not before charging me a $30 "recycling fee".
      It's not to cover the costs of recycling, it's to cover administrative costs and to act as a disincentive for people to return defective merchandise.

      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)

        by MoneyT ( 548795 )
        It's better called a "refurbishing fee" or "rental fee". Any time a company does that, it's because they have to do some work to make the product sellable again and because they take a hit on it. And the reason companies charge such fees are all the morons who go out and buy new expensive electronics to use for 3 days and then return them for full refund. People do it all the time and it costs the company money, so they just pass those costs back on to everyone else. Unfortunately it's another case of a few
    • That policy changed this year. See http://www.apple.com/environment/recycling/ [apple.com]
  • My plastic Crocs are the ultimate hippy shoe. That they are made out of never biodegradable plastic is something you're not supposed to notice.

    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)

    by sane? ( 179855 ) on Monday August 28, 2006 @09:44AM (#15993446)
    I've always considered there is something rotten with the political grandstanding of greenpeace.

    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)

      by TapeCutter ( 624760 )
      "only effect they have is to prevent actions. They are the last word in paracitical, pointless organisations"

      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)

        by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
        "Yes, they prevented the french from testing nukes in my "back yard", "
        "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
        • I live in Australia, the sawmill where I worked was is in eastern victoria (the pointy end), and we do have big back yards. I worked there during the early '80s at the same time they stopped cutting old growth areas, however that does not mean all protesters have given up, [geco.org.au] nor does it mean all timber cutting has ceased.

          I agree their stance on nuclear power is pure dogma left over from the '70s, as you say Lovelace has already pointed this out and greenpeace are trying to ignore his "incovenient truth", I
          • PS: You are probably thinking of a different type of Mountain Ash [wikipedia.org], I was talking about Eucalyptus regnans [wikipedia.org]. The largest logs we handled while I was at the mill were 12-14' in diameter, I don't have any pictures of my own so I snaffled one from google, this [google.com] gives you an idea of the size, you get two logs like that from one mature tree (~70 meters^3).

            I figure timber is as valuable a resource as oil since our civilization is highly dependent on both. If you look at the area north of the mill on google maps y

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
              I have seen the same type of stupid logging in North Carolina. In the US we have gotten better at managing things like forests not perfect but getting better. You see that is what is so odd. I don't think that groups like Greenpeace really do much to help. I think they actually do more harm than good. As you said they alienate you and me. I swear I don't understand why the world is getting more polarized. Maybe all this communication is allowing only the extremists that scream the loudest to be heard.
              The
              • Coal is almost as abundant as sand in Australia and is a large export earner, even the fact that our large deserts make solar and wind very attractive it will be hard to replace coal with something else. Plus our government never does anything without a "nod" from the US.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
                  "Plus our government never does anything without a "nod" from the US."
                  The US is building wind farms.

                  I really doubt the US has anything to do with what kind of power stations Australia builds. It does make a good excuse though.
                  Canada has built their own reactors for years. Very few countries have as close a tie to the US as Canada and the US doesn't tell them not to build solar or wind. Solar isn't a good choice for Canada and I don't know if wind is practical with all the hydro-power they have.
                  Now if Austra

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
            As you said I fail to see how Greenpeace is any better than any other political group. I don't like or trust most of them. I wouldn't call the French nuclear testing "in your backyard" but people do have different view points. However I would say you have every right to be cranky with your own government and that of the UK over their nuclear testing. "I had to say to to help combat the idea that people from the US only know their own history."
            Oh and everyone on the planet has the right to be mad over what
    • I've always considered there is something rotten with the political grandstanding of greenpeace.

      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
  • Is that the degree to which something grees? Seemed odd, so I conducted some scientific research [googlefight.com] to back up the claim.
     

  • How much do consumers care? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DaveWick79 ( 939388 ) on Monday August 28, 2006 @10:43AM (#15993749)
    I've been selling and servicing PC's for 11 years now and never once has power consumption or environmentally friendly disposal been a factor in the purchase decision. I don't believe that the majority of people really care what happens when they throw out their PC. Their two choices are 1)throw it in the dumpster, or 2)take it to someplace that recycles/refurbishes old equipment. Most people throw it in the dump because #2 takes too much effort or costs them too much.

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )
      Companies like Dell don't do environmental friendless (or anything else for that matter) out of the goodness of their hearts. They don't have hearts. Neither does Apple.

      Dell and others do what they do because their customers require it. Big business and government are much different to sell to than the home user, and that most likely explains why Dell actually DOES more regarding being green while Apple just says they do. Dell needs it while Apple only needs to brag about it in order to reinforce the el

    • I've been selling and servicing PC's for 11 years now and never once has power consumption or environmentally friendly disposal been a factor in the purchase decision.

      You must not be in California.

      Here, both are big issues.

      Power is a real issue.
      Electricity is expensive...
      Air conditioning is expensive...

      Environmental standards are very high.
      Recent laws forbid dumping electronics.
      Proper "household hazardous waste" disposal is free and pretty easy.
      The cities regularly have promotion programs (eg. CRT drives).

      N

  • If foreign companies that pollute more than even US law allows *cough*China*cough* paid import taxes to cover the costs of their pollution, a lot more Americans would buy the cleaner, Greener products produced (more) domestically. That kind of protection of our markets and environment would keep the US greener, both cleaner and richer.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ajs318 ( 655362 )
      Which is why I believe, and have always believed, that production standards for imported goods should satisfy the same criteria as locally-made goods -- not only in terms of the product itself {e.g. no 110 volt appliances in countries with 230 volt mains}, but also in terms of the production process. Manufacturers in Western countries where there are things like health and safety, workers' rights and pollution control can't hope to compete on price with manufacturers in third world countries where there
      • "Protectionist" foreign trade agreements are the modern equivalent of armies, protecting our borders from foreign advantages in trade wars. America has discarded our soverignty by creating regional and global trade agreements that reduce our trade border to the lowest standards of any country in the world. We are now occupied by foreign trade armies firing cheap goods into our country from polluted, exploited foreign strongholds.
  • It's no suprise that Dell ranks highly. They don't do any electronics manufacturing (a dirty process) - they simply assemble components they source from other vendors. I'm sure they would've scored far worse if the manufacturing processes of their supliers were included in the ranking.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )
      Apple is no different than Dell in that regard. Nice try.

      Read the ratings and you'll realize that what you claim is beside the point.
  • Does this take into account the greenness of the outsourced companies that provide any infrastructure services for Dell? I'm assuming from the conversations (accents, phone lag) that I've had with Dell tech support on behalf of my friends/family that have purchased Dell hardware that a big part of their call center op's are non-US based and not owned by them.
  • Interesting that Sun Microsystems didn't even rate a mention, even though they've bet a lot of the company on being more energy efficient than the competition.

  • A Cautionary Note... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by owlnation ( 858981 ) on Monday August 28, 2006 @12:22PM (#15994415)
    Dislcaimer: I studied Environmental Economics at university. I do believe in protecting the environment, and would take a radical approach in doing so in many cases.

    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.
  • Now greenpeace has the ability to use the publicity they get to shake down companies for "contributions."

    "Hey, Mr. CEO, it would be a real shame if your company was downgraded to not-so-green in our next report. You could go a long way to showing your support for the environment by tossing a few bucks our way."

    Don't think for a second that won't happen.

    • Greenpeace doesn't take corporate donations. So I'll think, for a second, that won't happen.

      Where does Greenpeace get its funding from? To maintain absolute independence Greenpeace does not accept money from companies, governments or political parties. We're serious about that, and we screen for and actually send checks back when they're drawn on a corporate account. We depend on the donations of our supporters to carry on our nonviolent campaigns to protect the environment.
      • Right. No cheques drawn from a company account. No problem with cheques drawn from a CEO's personal account, which he later manages to both write off against tax as a donation and claim back as 'miscellaneous expenses.'

  • Not purely self-serving (Score:4, Informative)

    by gjh ( 231652 ) on Monday August 28, 2006 @01:45PM (#15995046)
    I have worked for Nokia since 1999.

    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. html [nokiaforbusiness.com]
    • 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.

      It sounds like you might need to get your system re-calibrated. We have the same system in our new lab, and I had to do this for the first month after we moved in. Then I got the workmen to come back in and re-callibrate it, and now it detects the small movements of a person working at a computer. This means you get a

    • 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.

      You're not exactly making it (being "green") sound practical...

      Though this could be a good employee weight-loss program...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gjh ( 231652 )
        Well, thing is, the Finns don't stay late. If they need to work harder, they turn up at 5 in the morning. So it's not calibrated for the likes of me :)
  • Dell and Nokia? Ah ah ah! This is a joke. Since Nokia started producing cell-phones it also produced mountains of batteries. Dell has only recently taken measures to recycle PCs and make them greener. As far as I know Dell doesn't take back its old junk. It doesn't even take back computers left on lease for 3 years! I say something's fishy like maybe Greenpeace got cheaper price on Dell laptops and Nokia GSMs.
    ___________
    Sorry no clever signature. If you find one I can use, the beer's on me.

  • I recently purchased a monitor from Dell. It came in three boxes. One was the monitor itself, the second was a power cord, which, I suppose is semi-justifiable because that will be the part which changes depending on teritory, but the third was a 30-page product manual (printed in 12 languages, of course). It's this kind of lazy packaging that really makes me doubt the thoroughness of Greenpeace's research into Dell's stance on the environment.

    The company I work for buys all their PCs from Dell, and the a

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ajs318 ( 655362 )
      Have you tried simply posting the empty packaging back to them, with no return address, labelled "POSTAGE TO BE PAID BY RECIPIENT" and for the attention of the ISO 14001 Compliance Manager ?
  • I note that Fujitsu-Siemens receive a very poor rating. I know for a fact* that this is not representative. Let me shed a thin ray of light:

    A number of the listed companies evaluated here have been measured on their *promises and intents*. FSC has answered on what they actually *do* -- and not even what they are capable of. For instance, some FSC desktops are marked as "not pvc free" only because customers insist on MS mice, and MS uses pvc in the mouse cord.

    I won't go in deeper detail -- I'd get bashed any

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close