Newsweek's methodology draws on ratings in three different categories and, interestingly, Activision is the leader in its sector ("Consumer Products, Cars") by a scant margin over Electronic Arts, in the "Environmental Impact Score" category. Respectively, Activision and EA rate 65th and 66th overall. The damage done to Activision's score came in its "Green Policies and Performance (457 of 500) and "Reputation Survey" (358 of 500). That was enough to sink the games publisher to No. 416 overall.

By contrast, ExxonMobil is at No. 395. EA didn't suffer as much in the other scores, and came out at No. 381. GameStop was the greenest games company, clocking in at No. 228.

Of the three metrics, the "Environmental Impact Score" seems the most empirical, covering data capturing "the total cost of all environmental impacts of a corporations global operations," according to one firm. The data is then normalized against a company's revenues to produce a truer metric, whatever the hell that means. "Green Policies" and "Reputation Score" are more built on opinion and analysis by third parties.

Whatever this means, beyond a major newsmagazine bootstrapping its relevance to the top social concern of the hour, you can see for yourself at the link.

2009 Green Rankings [Newsweek via IndustryGamers]

Sparking it is part of the reason we exist: sometimes it's the only way to raise an issue up in the public dialogue to a point where a discussion is had, a decision gets made, and action taken.

And that's what our work on games consoles is all about: getting something done about the problem of electronic waste.

Our recent videos here on Kotaku stirred up a variety of passionate responses.

I'd like to clear up a few misunderstandings about the toxic substances in electronics and consoles in particular. Pressuring Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft to remove toxic chemicals is just part of our campaign for greener electronics.

Greenpeace first started its Greener Electronics campaign in 2005 to address massive increases in the dumping of toxic electronic waste, or "e-waste", particularly in developing countries. We were seeing mountains of old electronics piling up. Ground water in parts of China was so polluted by toxic chemicals that it was undrinkable. Children in Ghana, Pakistan, and India were enveloped in acrid fumes every day from burning the PVC insulation off wires to recover copper. This is the ugly reality behind the huge growth in our use and disposal of more and more computers, phones, and gadgets.

In August 2006 we launched our Guide to Greener Electronics covering the policies and practice of leading mobile phone and PC makers on toxic chemicals and global recycling. Mobile phones and PC are the biggest contributors to the massive growth in e-waste but as the campaign progressed it was clear we needed to expand the focus of the Guide. In November 2007 we added TV makers and console makers to the Guide.

We added Nintendo and Microsoft (Sony were already featured) because of the explosive growth in console sales, making it one of the biggest growth areas in consumer electronics.

We focus on toxics elimination and global recycling as two vital areas to help tackle e-waste. Removing the most hazardous substances from electronics first makes them safer and cheaper to recycle responsibly. If old electronics are still dumped, less toxics equals less pollution.

Requiring global electronics firms to provide free take back and recycling for all their products has two major benefits. It makes it much easier and convenient for everyone to ensure their old electronics are recycled responsibly. Plus if companies who make products are also made responsible for them at the end of life they have a big incentive to make them more durable, reduce hazardous substances, and design for efficient recycling.

These principles apply to all electronics from mobiles to TVs, consoles to computers. Phasing out hazardous substances is not easy or quick to do. As a simple rule of thumb, the smaller and simpler the device the easier it is to remove toxic PVC plastic and Brominated Flame Retardants. Removing these substances from consoles is a challenge for companies but not an impossible task. The most progressive electronics companies committed to remove these toxics back in 2006 or 2007 with target dates of 2009 and 2010. Nokia, Sony Ericsson and Apple are definitely leading on toxics elimination. Progress from the biggest PC makers is mixed; Acer remains committed to completing a phase-out by end of this year, while Dell, Lenovo and HP have postponed their phase-outs.

If progress from other sectors has been mixed, console makers haven't even left the starting blocks. While Sony has a commitment to remove these chemicals from mobile devices by 2010, and has made progress with models like the Vaio laptop, Sony refuses to make any commitment for the PlayStation. Microsoft has a commitment but only by 2010. Nintendo has no set date to remove PVC.

Alternatives do exist

We are not asking for the impossible - alternatives to these substances do exist and are available. Apple has proved it's possible by removing BFRs and virtually completing PVC phase out while reducing the price of new models.

While many progressive companies in the electronics industry have taken up the challenge to make greener electronics that are free of the worst toxics, more recyclable and energy efficient, there's also been plenty of criticism thrown in our direction.

Here are my answers to several of the most common critiques related directly to consoles.

I often see criticism that we are not promoting solutions or alternatives, only problems. For me there are several parts to this. On eliminating toxics our expertise is on raising the issue, the solutions are best developed by the companies and the product designers, engineers and chemists backed by massive R&D budgets. Only companies can find the best solutions for their products. This is something companies need to invest in significantly. Pressure from their customers is vital to raise the issue of toxics elimination up on the ladder of corporate priorities. If enough gamers request consoles without the worst toxic chemicals, the manufacturers will move. Without that demand, nothing happens. In this sense every one of us reading this can be part of the solution.

Many comments highlight the fact that consoles are rarely thrown out and are in high demand on the second hand market. Undoubtedly this is true for many places, but with monthly combined sales of consoles in the millions and historical combined sales in the hundreds of millions there must be a significant number of consoles that have or will find their way on to the global e-waste pile eventually. It's very difficult to find any comprehensive global figures on amounts and exact consistency of e-waste, as the trade is illegal in many countries. However, old electronics containing toxic chemicals are often dumped in developing countries because that's the cheapest option.

Some claim we take money to attack other companies. Actually, no — we don't. Part of what makes Greenpeace different from many other environmental groups is that we simply don't accept corporate or government funding as a matter of principle. Our independence means we're free to bite any corporate hand we need to, without fear of upsetting a funder. We actually screen donations, and send back checks that don't come from individual donors.

Often stories like to portray our campaign as Greenpeace attacking a specific company. Yes, we do single out companies, either because they're a perfect example of a problem, or because they're the worst performer, or because they have the potential to lead the industry in a new direction if they change. The name of the game is to get an issue onto people's radar, and to build public pressure for change. You can call it Machiavellian, but that formula is what has given us a four decade track record of success. Nations no longer dump radioactive waste in the ocean, because we made it an issue. Antarctica is off limits to oil and gas exploration, because we made it an issue. Commercial whaling has been banned, because we made it an issue. We have no permanent allies, no permanent enemies. Our sole allegiance is to solving environmental problems.

Use your power

The people eeking out a living by scavenging smoldering mountains of our castaway technology can't comment here on Kotaku. But their voice matters greatly in this debate. There's no reason our gaming needs to be poisoning them. You — the gaming community — hold the power to change the way consoles are made. How can we hold that power, and not use it, when it's a matter of life and death?

Tom Dowdall coordinates Greenpeace's campaign for Greener Electronics.

The stop-motion videos turn the bits and pieces of the Playstation 3, Wii and Xbox 360 into fictional spokesman defending the companies decisions.

About two years ago Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony were added to Greenpeace's Guide to Greener Electronics. The organization said they added the companies to the list because of their use of toxic substances, including polyvinyl chloride and brominated flame retardants, in the consoles.

Sony has not announced any plans to drop the use of the materials, while Microsoft says they will in 2011, according to Greenpeace. Nintendo says they will, but has not set a date, the organization says.

"These videos contrast the weak excuses of console makers about toxics phase out with the very real impact of toxic chemicals when old electronics end up being dumped in the developing world,". said Tom Dowdall, Toxics campaigner at Greenpeace International. "Do Sony laptop users deserve fewer toxic chemicals than Playstation gamers?"

"It might be easy to dismiss consoles makers' low scores as not playing ball with Greenpeace, but in fact when users are getting toxic chemicals as unwanted and unneeded extras in their that shiny new console box, it's the consumer who's getting short changed", he added.

Reached for comment Monday, Microsoft had this to say:

"Microsoft is committed to phasing out the use of substances that pose a risk to health or the environment in its consumer hardware electronic products. To this end, we have committed to phasing out the use of several substances such as Brominated Flame Retardants and Phthalates by December 31, 2010."

PLAYSTATION 3

WII

XBOX 360

Maybe we should all just go outside and play... video games.

According to Greenpeace, "Nintendo remains in last place with a pitiful 0.8 points out of 10, scoring zero on all e-waste criteria."

Why did Nintendo score so low? Not providing information on things like "amount of renewable energy used" probably has something to do with it. Greenpeace didn't have information on multiple sections for Nintendo.

Instead, Nintendo's website has information regarding its social responsibility and environmental activities. Nintendo's already green, anyway with green being buckets of money.

In comparison, Microsoft ranked 2.7/10 and Sony ranked a decent 5.5/10.

Guide To Greener Electronics [Greenpeace via VG247]

Sony has a very good record in our ranking guide. They have committed to eliminating these chemicals from mobile devices. But why are we finding them in such high percentages in a console? This is a tool used by children in our homes. None of these chemicals exist in Sony's Vaio laptop. So if they can do it for a laptop, why can't they push this for the console also?

Greenpeace has taken things into its own hands. Literally. The environmental organization has dissected each of the three major game consoles and examined how environmentally sound the consoles' innards are.

Results, after the jump. Onward!

PLAYSTATION 3
• The console contains some bromine-free circuit boards — unlike the other two consoles
• The fan housing, however, has the highest level of bromine in a single component
• It contains PVC, but not as much as the Xbox 360

Xbox 360
• Only console containing DiNP phthalates — found in the AV cable.
• It contains the highest concentration of phthalates
• The console has more PVC than the Wii and the PS3.
• Its housing materials had lower levels of bromine, though.

Nintendo Wii
• Phthalates level is lowest of the three and doesn't exceed EU laws limiting phthalate.
• It has the lowest level of PVC of the three.
• Unlike the PS3 and the Xbox 360, the Wii doesn't contain Beryllium.

FASCINATING.
Greenpeace Results [SmartPlanet Thanks, Adam!]
Greenpeace Results [BBC]

Several months have passed, and the seventh version has been released. Sony still clocks in at 7.3/10, but has more products that are toxic PVC free and has improved its recycling and takeback of electronics. Microsoft has jumped up to 4.7/10 and has an improved timeline for toxic chemicals elimination. The company's takeback policy is still lacking, though. And Nintendo? The company now scores 0.3/10. Says Greenpeace, "Tiny improvement but still way behind." Hey Greenpeace, Nintendo doesn't have time for all this environmental crap! Too busy making buckets of money.
March 2008 Version [Greenpeace Thanks Bert!]

Now Nintendo has finally responded to Greenpeace's accusations that Miyamoto dines only on the finest baby eyes. Here's the letter they sent to various media outlets in response to the rating:

Nintendo is surprised by the content of the Greenpeace report.

Nintendo takes great care to comply with all relevant regulations on avoiding the use of dangerous materials, recycling of materials etc.

For example, all Nintendo products supplied worldwide are designed to comply with relevant global standards.

In order to certify that Nintendo products comply with standards for hazardous chemical substances, Nintendo has established the Green Procurement Standards, which require our component suppliers certify that any parts including hazardous chemical substances should not be delivered, and Nintendo fully controls its products in the company.

Nintendo is always actively looking at ways to continue to increase its environmental stewardship and holds this as a corporate priority worldwide.

The Greenpeace ranking criteria score companies on what they are doing beyond what is required by legislation. This is not a law enforcemen ranking Guide - we are looking for environmental excellence...Green procurement standards are a start. However other companies publish their chemical policy to allow independent assessment by customers. If Nintendo has this policy it should include all chemicals of concern and be public about it to their suppliers and customers alike. Many other electronics companies have published their chemicals policy...Well we have made two simple suggestions already:

Commit to phase out the worst toxic chemicals

Implement a global recycling policy

Nintendo has yet to do either of these, unlike many other electronics companies.

Read more on Greenpeace's new console initiatives here.

Nintendo response [greenpeace]