Greenpeace has shared its disappointment with the electronics industry when it comes to newly added criteria to its ranking process, saying that overall company scores plummeted compared to its March ranking.

The environmental group announced in March that it would tighten requirements in its “Guide to Greener Electronics” company ranking and said today that in its latest edition of the guide, only two of two 18 companies measured scored above five out of 10 possible points.

Specifically, the newly added energy criteria include support for global mandatory reduction of GHG (greenhouse-gas) emissions, disclosure of GHG emissions plus emissions from two stages of the supply chain; commitment to reduce GHG emissions with time lines; proportional use of renewable energy in total electricity use of more than 25% operations; and energy efficiency of new end-product models based on the latest Energy Star standards.

“Greenpeace aims to show which companies are serious about becoming environmental leaders,” said Casey Harrell, Greenpeace International toxics campaigner, in a statement. “We want them to race toward meeting the new criteria: phasing out other toxic chemicals, increasing the recycling rate of e-waste, using recycled materials in new products and reducing their impact on climate change.”

Greenpeace has looked to the electronics industry for some time now to set an example for other markets. Indeed, the group continues to put intense pressure on the electronics industry, which it describes as “one of the most innovative and fastest growing sectors,” to take leadership in tackling climate change by reducing both their direct and indirect carbon footprint.

“Electronics giants pay attention to environmental performance on certain issues while ignoring others that are just as important,” said Harrell. “Philips, for example, scores well on chemicals and energy criteria but earns a zero on e-waste since it has no global take-back policies. Philips would score higher if it took responsibility for its own branded e-waste and established equitable global take-back schemes.”

Greenpeace put its spotlight on Philips in a March report, “Toxic tech: Not in our backyard", where it portrayed the consumer electronics giant as one of the industry’s worst e-waste offenders.

Apple has also received much criticism from Greenpeace in the group’s previous reports over use of two types of hazardous substances (toxic brominated compounds, indicating the presence of brominated flame retardants, and hazardous polyvinyl chloride) used in its widely popular first-generation iPhone handset.

Of the two companies that scored higher than five in today’s ranking - Sony Ericsson and Sony - Greenpeace made special note of Sony Ericsson, which it said stands out as the first company to score almost top marks on all of the chemicals criteria. The environmental group said that all new Sony Ericsson models are PVC-free, and as such, the company has met the group’s new chemicals criterion in the ranking, having already banned antimony, beryllium, and phthalates from models launched since January.

Greenpeace further noted that the best performers on energy efficiency are Sony Ericsson and Apple, with all of their models meeting and many exceeding Energy Star requirements.

Greenpeace also reported that Fujitsu Siemens scored full marks on the requirement to support global mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and that Nokia led the pack on renewable energy, already deriving 25% of its total electricity needs from renewable sources with a target to increase this to 50% in 2010. On a bright note for Philips, Greenpeace noted that the company used some 10% renewable energy in 2007 and intends to increase this to 25% by 2012.

By Suzanne Deffree, Managing Editor, News -- Electronic News, 6/25/2008

Link to Blog: Electronics giants plummet in new Greanpeace ranking

To comment on Greenpeace's ranking of electronics OEMs see, "Greenpeace pressure on the electronic supply chain: helpful or hurtful?"