Greenpeace Down on Games Industry, Logic Flawed?

Earlier this week Greenpeace went after the games industry a bit, coming down on hardware manufacturers for poor environmental practices. Nintendo and Microsoft in particular got poor scores from the organization. Ars Technica's Opposable Thumbs blog notes, though, that their methodology is a bit odd. It's not so much that Nintendo's environmental policies (say) are all that bad - they're just not readily available on a website. "The research in general appears lazy. Nintendo's failing grade appears to be based entirely on this entry in the corporate FAQ, which briefly summarizes some of the steps the company has taken to protect the environment. Anything that's not covered there is simply rated "No Information." Similarly, all of the information on Microsoft originates from press materials and corporate statements on the company's web site. Clearly, Greenpeace did not perform an exhaustive evaluation of chemical use through the manufacturing pipeline."

What???

[Anonymous Coward]

The methodology of Greenpeace was odd? Really?

What a harsh statement. It is almost as if the poster was saying that Greenpeace twists research to meet their own overall political goals.

hmm

[nomadic]

Well I know anyone who criticizes Nintendo for any reason is drawn and quartered here, and even the word makes most slashdotters' (and all slashdot editors') critical thinking skills vanish in a puff of smoke...but my experience has been that if a company doesn't mention something, it's for a reason. If Nintendo is willing to brag about environmental steps they've taken, they're going to throw everything that possibly makes them look good in there. They're not going to fail to mention something positive out of humility or anything.

What a waste

[earnest murderer]

Greenpeace used to be a reasonably decent organization. With all of their wealth and power, they could actually be affecting real change instead of bullying for dollars.

This seems to be a frequent issue with charitable organizations. Once they achieve their goal or enough business types get involved, instead of dissolving they transform into a money making operation. I guess it's just more profitable to ride the coat tails of your founders than to actually do something worth while.

Greenpeace is bad for the enviroment

[NiceGeek]

I mean, they tarnish real environmentalists with their whack-job antics. They create a "boy who cried wolf" situation.

This is news?

[wattrlz]

When was Greenpeace ever lauded as a bastion of logic?

Re:What a waste

[antifoidulus]

Meh, Greenpeace is a bunch of rich kids who like to gripe and love to trash anything thats popular, truth be damned.

I wonder if there is an "Environmentalists against Greenpeace" group? I would like to join.

Greenpeace sucks.

[Egdiroh]

1. They do lousey research. 2. They care as much about announced plans as they do about current practice when rating companies. 3. They have admitted that their active chastisements are targeted at the companies that will get them the most press to target, instead of the worst, in terms of practice. In summary, they suck. What they say isn't that based in reality. And in my opinion they have reached the point where they are doing more harm to the cause of environmental progress then they are doing good.

Re:hmm

[G Fab]

You're right, criticizing Nintendo leads to a lot of flack on slashdot (and in the world in general... people really love that brand).

And surely you're right. Nintendo would publicize much of its environmentalism. But greenpeace is being dishonest here. It's not as though Greepeace is going to go out of their way to learn if Nintendo is a great company. That's because, at root, greenpeace is not about the environment. It's about western style government and corporations. Greenpeace's history shows it is generally focused on government regulation and distortion of truth for political purposes.

It's not as though Nintendo is pretending it is telling you the real story on Nintendo's environmental practices. Greenpeace is pretending it is, but is not doing the work to get the truth because it knows its story is better this way. Greenpeace is the one making the claim and with the responsibility to back it up with research. With, Nintendo, we can assume it is protecting itself and that's not very deceptive or surprising, but with Greenpeace, we are essentially being lied to.

Re:hmm

[webrunner]

Is it really fair to give them a ZERO though? It's their lowest score they ever gave anyone, and the reason is because they don't know what Nintendo is doing.

Unfortunately

[Sycraft-fu]

Most "environmentalists" are just alarmists, cause heads, extremists, etc and not really that concerned about fixing the environment. As you said, it's real easy to find something wrong since there is something wrong with EVERYTHING. All actions have a downside, that's just how it is. Well there are plenty of morons that just like shouting about all the things that are bad with society, rather than trying to provide any solutions. Solutions are hard, problems are easy.

Also, you'll discover that there are a good number that really are using environmentalism as a cover for another agenda, anti-corporatism often. So they really AREN'T interested in solutions, they just want to try and find lots of problems and use that as an excuse to further their actual agenda.

Terrorism isn't the only thing that is used like this. Anything that raises alarm with people is used by those with other agendas to push them.

What makes a troll?

[adminstring]

"Troll" is defined as "someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the singular intention of baiting users into an argumentative response."

What makes GP a troll or not is not:

• whether his facts are correct
• whether his logic is correct
• whether his opinions match yours or other Slashdotters, or even
• whether you or other Slashdotters might get mad at what he has to say

What makes GP a troll or not is whether he believes his facts and logic to be correct, and whether he is presenting his point of view as an honest part of the discussion, or if he is rather just playing a trick to get a rise out of people.

If you disagree with his facts or his logic, the proper response is to post your factual corrections, criticisms of logic, and differing opinions, as you have done. This makes the discussion more interesting and informative.

Whoever modded GP troll, though, is just lashing out at someone they disagree with. 75% of the "troll" mods I see in meta-moderation are of this nature. The key to spotting real trolls is to discern the likely intent of the poster. If I'm in doubt, I give the poster the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's a legit post.

Re:What???

[try_anything]

Their methodology wasn't odd, it just employs tactics that the typical geek wouldn't think of. Investigating current environmental practices and impacts, i.e., the engineering approach, could stir up a little PR tempest for companies to handle. Would companies respond by improving their environmental standards? Most likely it would be cheaper to act contrite, make a few token reforms and empty promises of more to come, and then sit back and wait for the next little tempest.

Greenpeace wants to force corporations to make specific promises about their environmental practices. This would make corporations vulnerable to much stronger pressure: Nintendo would suffer much greater damage if accused of outright lying to the public and lying to consumers. It doesn't mean much to most people when Greenpeace says a company isn't green enough, but most people take offense at being lied to. Plus, if a company promises to meet a certain environmental standard, people assume that the standard must be quite reasonable, probably the minimal morally decent standard. Nintendo would look very shoddy if they endorsed a standard and then failed to live up to it.

Compare this with the effects of an occasional expose, and it's easy to see that Greenpeace isn't just being lazy. They're trying to change corporate behavior in a way that has a lasting impact. And, perhaps more importantly, they're speaking in a language that corporations can understand and respect. Taking the corporate viewpoint for a second, doesn't it sound reasonable to formulate corporate standards, pledge to adhere to them, and expect to be held accountable? Doesn't that sound better than random ad-hoc drive-by shrieking denunciations (which is how executives perceive anything that references a reality external to law, shareholder demands, corporate memos, market research, etc.)?

Why, being held to one's own corporate standards is the second-best thing to not being accountable at all ;-) I'm surprised you attempt to invoke Greenpeace's radical reputation at a moment when they're taking an approach that shows a great deal of understanding of, and understanding for, the way modern corporations work.

Re:Maybe their logic is this

[DrXym]

Perhaps the whole point of the survey is public disclosure. Ever think of that? If people are expected to ask for the information, consumers will never know what goes on. As stated, companies should disclose it for investors if for no other reason since there is a very real risk of liability about manufacturing processes.

And maybe Nintendo isn't guilty of anything. In which case they should reveal their policies and bask in the glow of a high ranking next year.