Greener Electronic Ranking: HP is Greenest, RIM is Worst
Greenpeace released its quarterly “Guide to Greener Electronics” on Wednesday (Nov 9), ranking 15 top electronic companies by their environmental policies and the impact of their products. On the report, Greenpeace puts HP on the first rank—greenest among others, and BlackBerry maker, RIM on the worst position, 15th out of 15 positions available on the ranking.
HP takes the lead with 5.9 points in the 0 to10 scale, scores most of its points and is the leader on the new Sustainable Operations criteria, which includes the management of its supply chain. It has the best program for measuring and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from its suppliers, disclosing emissions from its manufacturing at 3,500,000 tonnes CO2-e, with 91 percent of first-tier suppliers reporting estimated emissions in 2009, the report says.
HP also scores maximum points for its thorough paper procurement policy. And, together with Apple, HP is also a top scorer for its policies and practices on the sourcing of conflict minerals, for publishing its suppliers and engaging effectively in the Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition’s conflict-free smelter program. The only operations criteria where it scores relatively poorly is e-waste, where it needs to expand its take-back program for consumers in countries without legislation and improve on its reporting of data.
Nokia takes 3rd position in the greener electronic ranking, slips behind HP and Dell due to its weaker performance on the Energy criteria. Nokia scores most of its points on the new Sustainable Operations criteria, mainly for its comprehensive voluntary take-back program, which spans 100 countries providing almost 6,000 collection points for end-of-life mobile phones with accessible information provided to customers.
Nokia fails to score maximum points as although it is recycling increasing quantities of e-waste, however, the quantities are still small and are not reported as a percentage of past sales. It also fails to score on the paper sourcing criteria and needs to develop a paper procurement policy which excludes suppliers that are involved in deforestation and illegal logging.
Apple takes 4th place in the report, with a score of 4.6. It scores most of its points on the Sustainable Operations; it gets near to maximum points on the e-waste criteria, where it reports that in 2010, its global recycling exceeded its 70 percent goal (as a percentage of sales 7 years ago), a level that it is confident will be maintained through 2015, the report suggest.
Apple is also a top scorer for its policies and practices on the sourcing of conflict minerals, for publishing its suppliers and engaging effectively in the Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition’s conflict-free smelter program. But it scores zero on paper sourcing, however according to report. Apple also scores poorly on the Energy criteria; GHG emissions data of its operations needs to have external verification and it does not specify any target to reduce emissions.
Apple only scores a point for its information on battery life for the product life cycle criterion, but it needs to publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines, the report suggests.
Where is Samsung—the world’s biggest smartphone maker, Apple’s closest competitor? The Galaxy Nexus maker seems be not so green on Greenpeace’s greener electronic guide, it takes 7th position, 3 rank left behind Apple.
Samsung scores most of its points for Sustainable Operations for its relatively good e-waste take-back program and information. On Energy, Samsung scores maximum points for providing verified data on its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Samsung has set a target to “reduce the GHG emissions by 24 percent compared to ‘business as usual’ by 2015” from its operations, but does not have a target for cutting absolute emissions, which needs to be at least 30 percent by 2015, the report suggests. Its current use of renewable energy is low, at 0.1 percent of global electricity use, according to the report.
And, it is RIM, the BlackBerry maker on the bottom of the rank, 15th out of 15 positions available on the greener electronic ranking. How could that be? On Energy it discloses its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for its operations and business travel to the Carbon Disclosure Project; however, the report suggests, it does not have external verification for its data.
It also scores for its examples of energy efficiency and renewable energy use, but it does not yet have a clean electricity plan or a target to increase use of renewable energy. RIM does not yet have a target for reducing its GHG emissions; it should set ambitious targets to reduce its own GHG emissions by at least 30 percent by 2015 for its operations and use 100 percent renewable electricity by 2020.
For Products it only scores points for the energy efficiency of its products, for reporting that its Blackberry charger gets the European Commission IPP 4-star rating, although it does not report on the energy efficiency of its chargers as a percentage of all its external power devices.
It also risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of a trade association that has commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement. For hazardous substances, RIM should set timelines to phase out their use in all of its products. It needs to publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines to score points on the product life cycle criteria, the report suggests.
RIM have problem in its enterprise culture and outdated management, looks big but really old before grow up, low efficient and slow motion speed, always play catch-up.
Years before, companies make money from feature phone, it give RIM chance to make money without competition, but when they want make money in smart-phone market, they win easily, why, is that because they hired supper employees, no, RIM also have excellent employees from all over the world.
Strange culture in RIM, and this culture generate self-destroy political environment.
In RIM if a new hired person figure out major problem and introduce efficient approach, both manager and his buddy group member will proof their wrong approach works. just like someone point out driving a car is right way, pushing a car is wrong way, then both manager and his buddy group member will hate you, and proof that 3 person can also move the car by pushing it. cheating email will be sent to some vice president, saying like: see, the car moving, pushing a car is a natural part of the process.
RIM is not system oriented company, just self-destruct small company buddy culture, with a fat body. it is very strange company culture and strange company political environment, it promote stealing and cheating skill. RIM’s management may be a typical instance in MBA course.
CEO may want the management better, but can’t reach the target because of the culture, like I said 3 years ago, RIM is old before really grow up.
survive on its own is possible, but need a culture change like to promote hard working, telling/doing real things, but will the managers and their buddies say: “driving a car is right way, pushing a car is wrong way, pushing a car is not natural part of the process” ? the answer is impossible.
This culture deny or steal hardworking team members’ contribution/innovation, generate strange political environment, destroy RIM.