|
By James Konstantin Galvez, Reporter
Swedish cellular phone maker Sony Ericsson tops
the 8th edition of Greenpeace “Guide to Greener Electronics,”
the environmental group said Friday even as other companies who
previously scored high in the quarterly survey have seen their
ranking plummet. In a press conference in Makati on Thursday,
Greenpeace Southeast Asia Toxics Campaigner Beau Baconguis said that
aside from Sony Ericsson, Japanese electronics giant Sony also
scored high in the latest survey.
“Many companies score well on this ranking but
it was Sony Ericsson who tops in most aspect. The company scored top
marks especially on toxic chemical phase-out,” Baconguis said
though she added the company did not perform well in recycling.
Both company got 5.1 in the score card out
of the highest possible rating of 10.
Greenpeace said all Sony Ericsson products
are Polyvinyl Chloride-free and has met the new chemical criterion
in the ranking, having already banned antimony, beryllium and
phthalates from models launched starting January this year.
Sony on the other hand is a front-runner
in eliminating toxic chemicals and with a 53-percent recycling rate
while it has also committed to using renewable energy by as much as
50 percent in 2011. At present the company uses 20 percent of
renewable energy to meet its needs.
Baconguis though cautioned the public that
the survey is not an endorsement of a certain company adding that
Greenpeace just wanted to pressure companies to go cleaner in their
production and the public to be aware of what products they are
buying.
But she added that the survey was
efficient in pushing companies to go green.
But the overall score of the 18 companies
ranked in the survey has plummeted as the group tightened the
requirements on the disposal of e-waste and toxic chemicals and
imposed new criteria for evaluating companies’ impact on the
global climate change.
The newly added energy criteria, Baconguis
said, require companies to show their political support for global
mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the post Kyoto
political process.
Companies must also commit to absolute
reductions in GHG emissions from their own operations.
Baconguis said most companies take a
limited view of this by only focusing on the energy efficiency of
their products rather than including the production process.
Data showed that Information and
Communications Technology sector currently accounts for 2 percent of
global GHG emissions.
“As one of the most innovative and
fastest growing industries, Greenpeace expects the sector to take
leadership in tackling climate change by reducing both their direct
and indirect climate carbon footprint,” the Greenpeace official
stressed.
The survey was the first time that global
warming was included in the criteria since Greenpeace came up with
the project in August 2006. During its first year, 12 companies
participated.
In December 2007, Greenpeace decided to
include TV and game console manufacturers.
Based on the survey, many of the participating
companies ranked well on energy efficiency as their products even
exceed “Energy Star” standards.
Energy Star is a joint United States Environment
Protection Agency and the US Department of Energy program setting
energy efficiency standards for electrical and electronics products.
Using the said standards as the parameter, the
best performer on energy efficiency are Sony Ericsson and Apple,
with all of their products models meeting and even exceeding the
requirement.
Other companies that made a score in the survey
were Nokia with a score of 4.8, Samsung with 4.5, Dell with 4.5,
Toshiba, 4.3, Acer, 4.3, Panasonic, 4.3, Motorola, 4.3, HP, 4.3,
Apple, 4.1, Sharp, 3.9, Lenovo, 3.9, Philips, 3.7, Fujitsu Siemens,
3.7, LG, 3.3.
Because of their gaming consoles,
Microsoft and Nintendo ratings are still down at the bottom with
2.15 and 0.8 respectively.
Baconguis said that while electronics companies
pay attention to environmental performance on certain issues, they
tend to ignore others that are just as important such as on e-waste
and recycling and on the global “take-back-policies.
|
