Not all big players are leading the way
28 May 2010
This week’s newsletter contains a thought-provoking story from Greenpeace. Their latest Greener Guide to Electronics has revealed that a number of top companies aren’t exactly fulfilling their promises.
Looking first at the top achievers, the aces of the pack, Nokia stays in first place with a slightly increased score of 7.5, up from 7.3. It gained points for achieving its goal of phasing out brominated compounds, chlorinated flame retardants and antimony trioxide in all new models of products and for its CEO’s statement in support of 30% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in industrialised countries by 2020.
However, despite Nokia’s support for further restrictions for chlorinated and brominated substances in legislation, it loses a point on its position on the RoHS Directive, as it does not openly support restrictions on PVC vinyl plastic, chlorinated flame retardants (CFRs) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in the next three to five years; that is to say, conforming to RoHS 2.0.
Sony Ericsson remains in second place, with the same score as last time; 6.9. It is the best performer on the toxic chemicals criteria of all the ranked brands, being the first to score full marks. All Sony Ericsson products are free from PVC vinyl plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs), with the exception of a few components that are still being phased out. The company has already met the challenge of the new criterion on chemicals by banning antimony, beryllium and phthalates from new models launched since January 2008. Furthermore, Sony Ericsson is one of only two companies so far (the other being Acer) that is proactively lobbying in the EU for the revision of the RoHS Directive to adopt a timeline for further restrictions on organo-chlorine and bromine substances.
Philips moves up to third place from fourth, and scored well on toxic chemical issues, having committed to eliminating PVC vinyl plastic and all BFRs in its new product models by the end of 2010, as well as six types of phthalates and antimony. Beryllium and its compounds are already restricted; arsenic has been eliminated from TV glass and other display products since 2008.
When the other end of the table is considered, Microsoft can be seen to rise to 16th place from 17th, with an increased score of 3.3 points; up from 2.4. It gains most of its points on energy for supporting mandatory cuts in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and for providing external verification for its own GHG emissions; it is no longer scored on the energy efficiency of its products as there is still no Energy Star standard for games consoles. It also gains points on e-waste, for providing better information to its customers on take-back of obsolete products and for reporting on the recycling of its e-waste. However, it loses a point on chemicals management as despite being committed to phase out PVC vinyl plastic, this information is not communicated to its suppliers in its Restricted Substances for Hardware specification.
Finally, Nintendo remains in last place, but has increased its score to 1.8 out of 10; up from 1.4. It gains points for adopting the precautionary principle in its approach to managing chemical substances and for publishing its Standards for chemicals management. Interestingly, Nintendo scores most points on chemicals – it has put games consoles on the market that have PVC-free internal wiring – and it has banned phthalates and is monitoring use of antimony and beryllium. Although it is endeavouring to eliminate the use of PVC, it has not set a timeline for its phase-out.
However, Nintendo continues to score zero on all e-waste criteria. It does score points on energy criteria, especially for the energy efficiency of its low power AC adaptor for the Nintendo Dsi that meets the requirements for external power supplies in the Energy Star programme. It also retains a point on energy for disclosing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from its own operations. However, it fails to score for its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, due to a second year of increases, despite a commitment to cut CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases by 2% over each previous year. Emissions in 2007 increased by 1.5% compared to 2006, following a rise of 6% in 2006.
Where does that leave the industry? We’re looking at issues that affect the entire supply chain, but it’s important to note that despite Greenpeace’s tough scoring system, all companies are improving their performance. So although Greenpeace does have a slightly high-handed approach, perhaps the pressure it is putting on industry is contributing to a more environmentally-friendly approach from the electronics sector.
Contact Details and Archive...
Most Viewed Articles...