Slashdot Mirror
Dell and Nokia the Most Green (Tech) Companies
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."
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.
... 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.
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. Doesn't this seem like something that is going to become a logistical nightmare?
My work here is dung.
I work on a Lenovo and it really behaves as if it was made out of recycled parts.
Of course Dell is up there, their Laptops displose of themselves!
I am surpised Apple was quite so low on the list
That's because you've been reading Apple's environment page, 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.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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.
Download and read the Apple PDF. Apple is low on the list because the website you point to is what Greenpeace reviewers were reading (along with other Apple-released material). Throughout the PDF, Greenpeace "researchers" admit to giving Apple low scores because Apple hadn't publicly released any information. Without that information, they assumed it was bad. This would be fine if Greenpeace were reporting on the quality of company press releases. As it stands, their report is very misleading.
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.
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.
I have worked for Nokia since 1999.
. html
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