Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Hardware

Lenovo Tops Eco-Friendly Ranking 94

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the laptop-hugging dept.
gollum123 writes to tell us that according to a recent list compiled by Greenpeace, Lenovo has topped the list of "eco-friendly" companies scoring an 8 out of a possible 10 while Apple fell to the bottom of the list with only a 2.7. "Iza Kruszewska, Greenpeace international toxics campaigner, said the industry had made some positive steps in the last 12 months with firms starting to act rather than just issue statements of intent. Of the 14 companies profiled, said Ms Kruszewska, nine now score more than five out of 10."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lenovo Tops Eco-Friendly Ranking

Comments Filter:
  • by saikou (211301) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @05:56PM (#18612589) Homepage
    Say, in 2009 and you get the top billing [sci-tech-today.com].
    Greenpeace is weird. But we already know that :)
  • But... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lord Satri (609291) <<alexandreleroux> <at> <gmail.com>> on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @05:59PM (#18612629) Homepage Journal
    I had such a conversation with friends recently... does such analysis includes:
    - The time computers can be effectively used (Apple computers have a significantly longer lifespan on my desks than the PCs)
    - The waste of time / energy required to manage the computer (security, virus, etc)
    - The user-efficiency related to the operating system itself
    - The differences in sleep modes and energy consumption at low usage
    - The longevity and eco-friendliness of laptop batteries
    - etc etc etc.

    See also this previous /. story [slashdot.org] and Green My Apple [greenpeace.org]. In short, I believe not everything is black or white, it's rather grey. Of course, I agree that all computer producers should improve their eco-friendliness, but measuring this eco-friendliness is not a simple task.
  • by Qwavel (733416) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @06:09PM (#18612765)

    Apple came last in this ranking because, when they've done poorly in this ranking in the past, they sent out the PR attack dogs to undermine GP and the study, rather then making any changes to the practices in question.

    Of course, many companies behave this way. When MS discovered during the anti-trust trials that the public's perception of them was a problem, they too responded with PR rather then changing their behavior.

    Yes, Yes, I know that both GP and this study are far from perfect, but they are a more objective judge of this matter then Apple itself (or the Apple fanboys who are modding me down as we speak).

  • Most unexpected (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Bullard (62082) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @06:17PM (#18612885) Homepage
    Most unexpected, considering that Lenovo is mostly owned by Chinese Communist Party regime-held corporations with their in-house Communist Party political officers and all, and the regime's environmental record since they converted from communism to the more lucrative fascism hasn't been anything short of catastrophic for the common Chinese people.


    As an environmentally conscientious person I must give this particular corporation some credit for trying to do the right thing environment-wise, but I still wouldn't choose to allow my money to fund the militaristic policies of the Chinese state. Arrogant, expansionist and rich Chinese dictatorship is at the bottom of my personal wishlist.

    Are they still allowed to use the IBM logo to fool people?

  • Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Qwavel (733416) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @06:26PM (#18613011)

    Agreed. Measuring eco-friendliness is difficult and fuzzy.

    On the other hand, companies only make changes to their environmental practises if they are afraid of (A) a financial penalty (ie. getting caught breaking the law), or (B) bad publicity.

    And that's why we need studies like this. But whenever these studies appear, the company and its supporters look for ways to undermine the study and its source. This is a constant. If consumers buy into this, then the company escapes from having to make any changes. Consumers must accept that, as imperfect as the study and its source are, it is an opportunity to put pressure on the company to improve.
  • Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by grumpyman (849537) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @06:34PM (#18613097)
    The article is an apparent flame-bait for slashdotters. There's such a sentiment that "Apple is great", "Lenovo is evil, coz they bought our beloved thinkpad and it is run by a Chinese company". There's nothing to see here, in the comment page.
  • In related news... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mangu (126918) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @06:43PM (#18613233)

    Apple computers have a significantly longer lifespan on my desks than the PCs
    ...and Porsches have significantly longer lifespans than Fords. One of the main factors people take into account when replacing something is how much the replacement will cost.


    So, yes, if you consider the total environmental impact of a company, those with more expensive products will have a smaller effect. But this says nothing about the relative impact per unit sold, which is what really matters when you evaluate how "eco-friendly" a corporation is.

  • Re:But... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SnapShot (171582) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @07:56PM (#18614031)
    So they are kind of like a poster on Slashdot?
  • Greenpeace's claims have been analyzed in this BusinessWeek article and....

    That business week article is the same article the OP posted - just syndicated on a different website. Do you read the threads you're responding to?

    ....and in a series of articles at roughlydrafted.com.

    Roughly drafted? Sorry. They have no credibility after being busted spamming digg [googlepages.com]

    One conclusion both sources make is that Greenpeace applies different criteria to different companies and seems to be targeting Apple due to the company's visibility.

    Errrr, I didn't read that conclusion in the Business week article. Can you please explain how Greenpeace is applying different criteria to different companies?

  • Re:Bah. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cliffski (65094) on Thursday April 05, 2007 @05:15AM (#18617897) Homepage
    "to perform a fair, accurate and precise assessment of a company's environmental impact requires weeks, if not months, of intensive on-site research and measurement"

    and when the company involved tells you to fuck off, your only conclusion is to do nothing and ignore the topic? If any of these companies wanted to dispute their positions, they could invite GP in to take a look. You seem to think that the best information to have on the eco-friendliness of products is either none-at-all, or just to parrot back the greenwash spin that their PR companies put out.

    Newsflash -> sometimes companies do stuff they would rather their customers didn't find out about. Without lists like this, and groups like greenpeace, we would have even more destructive and toxic process being carried out. We don't use lead paint anymore, and we don't put asbestos in school buildings. This is because campaign groups (it never starts with governments) make a fuss about this stuff.
    Good for them.

It's later than you think, the joint Russian-American space mission has already begun.

Working...