Shocking, absolutely shocking. I'm sure for many consumers they won't care much for these findings, but I do as one of my roles in our company is the environmental co-ordinator. From a personal point of view it looks like I'll be buying Samsung and Sony products in future. Nintendo and Microsoft should be totally ashamed, and I would like to see massive fines put on these companies until they get their act together.

I agree, totally shocking, I'm a big Nintendo fan but this should be posted all over the web to get them to react!

I followed the links and read the report, rather than just the editorial, and I think this is a little misleading.

Nintendo's specific ratings score a zero across all fields, and the indication is that Nintendo either didn't take part fully in the survey, or doesn't have environmental policies that cover the areas listed. It actually doesn't mean they are the most environmentally unfriendly company - they're just not managing the issue in the way that is being measured. Many of the measurements are European initiatives.

It looks like the Nintendo ranking is entirely based on the FAQ at http://www.nintend...nment. There's certainly no sign of any direct input from the company, or additional investigation by Greenpeace.

For example, the Nintendo FAQ claims it does not use banned substances, but Nintendo scores a zero in the "Banned Chemicals" category, apparently because its FAQ does not list specific banned chemicals.

That being the case, it seems that Greenpeace is including Nintendo in this report as a lever to persuade the company to provide more specific information prior to the next report.

Maybe Nintendo should be doing more for the environment - who can tell yet? However, the current report certainly does not contain enough evidence to levy the "massive fine" that the first post demands.

This article and the survey is missleading. As far as my observation goes there is no actuall input from any of the companys listed by Greenpeace. They just collected info and put this list together. Shame on Greenpeace

What we have here is ignorant eco warriors grabbing publicity for themselves and ******* in the gullible. As usual.

Nintendo scored lowest because Greenpeace couldn't find the information they wanted, not because Nintendo aren't green.

In fact the Wii uses less materials to manufacture than it's competitors and consumes substantially less power. So Nintendo are probably the greenest of the three, the opposite of what greenpeace say!!

The word censored in the above post is *******

OK let's try again.
Spelt backwards.

G N I K C U S

It may be so that Nintentdo are the greenest but there is no evidence to suggest. Why give them the benefit of the doubt?> Let them prove that they are green to greenpeace and the rest of the world. They should have their green information posted on their web site and should be proud of any green efforts made by themselves if they actually were doing something correct - just like millions of other businesses out there. So I think that they are hiding something.

Mr T Bone, maybe Nintendo have better things to do than waste their time appeasing eco fascists.

Go to Wikipedia on Brent Spar to see how badly greenpeace behave, especially in not letting the truth get in the way of publicity for themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spar_oil_rig

Bruce, this word filter is a pain in the E R S A

After reading up on Brent Spar, all I have to say on this matter is… K C U F Greenpeace.

I cant spell today, that should have read 'E S R A'

It's not just a matter of appeasing eco fascists as you call them but there are such things as environmental legislations. And companies can be taken to court and fined non-compliance when they cannot demonstrate they have all the correct paper work etc. So if they have it, why aren't they letting US (the public) see it? After all we keep them in business and millions upon millions of people care for environmental issues like this and if word gets out that they aren't helping, I'll be willing to take bets that the company will suffer until they get their act sorted. But that's only an IF, because IF it does have good environmental practices in place, why are they hiding them away from us? It's not like they are greenwashing like many companies do (Honda for example - what's their F1 car all about!?)

Hi Bruce

Let's get this straight. To attempt to rubbish Greenpeace as 'ignorant eco warriors' is a disingenuous and misleading statement to make.

Granted, Greenpeace clearly looks for ways of maximising the publicity they can get for their cause – in exactly the same was as every other charity, profit-seeking company or self-styled outspoken marketing consultant such as yourself does.

However, let's not chuck the baby out with the bathwater here, the very many positives of the work that Greenpeace does outweighs the negatives and few (accepted) critiques of their methods MASSIVELY. To be fair, going by SPOnG's follow-up of this news at http://news.spong....14362 it does seem like the issue here is that Greenpeace has been remiss in properly following up requests for information from Nintendo in putting together this report. And/or that someone at NCL in Japan has been remiss in not answering emails from Greenpeace requesting this information.

To anyone with the slightest knowledge of Wii and PS3 and of how Nintendo and Sony operate, for Nintendo to score zero in this report while Sony scores over seven out of ten, it’s clear that something was not quite right. It would seem that on this occasion this is down to poor communications between Greenpeace and NCL Japan and not down to some shameless pimping for column inches by Greenpeace, as you seem to think.

Kind Regards,

Adam Hartley
Associate Editor, SPOnG.com

Brent. Spar.