Comments on: HP Claims Greenpeace Critique Unfair

By: Greenpeace's carrot for HP: the fine art of lobbying

Greenpeace's carrot for HP: the fine art of lobbying — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:40:14 +0000

[...] though is its attention to detail. You see, a couple of months ago I reported on Greenpeace’s use of the big stick about HP’s performance with respect to using PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride, or vinyl plastic) and [...]

By: monkchips (James Governor)

monkchips (James Governor) — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:57:35 +0000

Twitter Comment

is feeling impressed by Greenpeace engagement with, and commentary on, his posts yesterday http://bit.ly/1i9enE [link to post]

- Posted using Chat Catcher

By: Tom Dowdall

Tom Dowdall — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:40:45 +0000

Hello Greenmonk,

Interesting to read HP’s response. Here are a few responses from Greenpeace. We pushed HP to commit to phase out toxic chemicals in 2005. HP responded to this in March 2006 with a commitment to achieve this in 2009.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/hewlettpackardHPtoxicchallenge090306

We also pushed other electronic makers to do the same. Dell, Lenovo, HP and Acer committed to do this by 2009 with various statements. Later Apple promised to do this by end of 2008.

Why do we ask for commitments? For steps such as phasing out toxic chemicals this requires long lead times, significant R&D in to alternatives so it’s not something companies can change very quickly. Commitments do however send a clear signal to other companies that they should follow suit and a clear signal to the large electronics supply chain that suppliers will need to prepare to provide alternatives to big companies.

Recently we have seen Apple phase out PVC and BFRs in all applications in its latest PC’s except for the PVC free power cords (pending certification). They missed their end 2008 deadline but not by much and they have shown that it clearly is possible to find alternatives that do not compromise safety, reliability or the environment for PC’s. On toxics elimination Apple is leading other PC brands.

On the other hand we have criticized Dell, HP and Lenovo for now dropping their 2009 commitment and failing to even set a new timeline. This sends a signal to suppliers that these companies are not prioritising the sourcing of alternatives so suppliers will invest less in developing these and low demand will ensure economies of scale do not reduce costs.

As well as Apple, Dell has more products with reduced PVC and BFRs than HP so we see HP as falling behind, and definitely not leading on toxics elimination as the above statement claims.

The full detailed criteria for our Guide to Greener Electronics is available here:

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/improved-criteria-explained.pdf

We provide companies the chance to feedback on criteria but we also update the criteria and scoring according to best practice by the most progressive companies so it continues to drive improvements from all companies featured.

Cheers,
Tom Dowdall
Greenpeace International

By: Alexandra

Alexandra — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:03:13 +0000

Siempre se puede criticar o mejorar los informes de Greenpeace, pero hay de decir que logran llamar la atenciÃ³n en los problemas.

Estoy de acuerdo que lo mejor hacia la sostenibilidad es comprar menos objetos, pero no se puede siempre cargar al consumidor con todas las responsabilidades. Las empresas tienen que mejorar su producciÃ³n y sus mÃ©todos. Y para comprar mejor (o menos), el consumidor necesita informaciÃ³n, lo que las empresas no siempre dan. Esto lo hace Greenpeace.

Gracias por el artÃculo, saludos.

By: HP Report: Good Performance on Sustainability (but dinged by Greenpeace) | On Sustainability | ZDNet.com

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 01:10:10 +0000

[...] Tom Raftery of Greenmonk published a statement from HP today which sets out to rebut the Greenpeace charges. Rather, instead I suspect HPÂ may have opened up a whole new can of worms by suggesting a goalÂ does not a commitment make: Greenpeace say we are backsliding on commitment. The statement is untrue. HP had a goal. Subtle but important difference. This was a deliberate language on our part as we knew when making the goal that the effort would requires significant R&D effort, and when we made the goal there was no clear solution to the problem. HP is conservative enough not to make commitments when we have no clear idea how we are going to achieve them. (You can criticise our conservatism in this regard and that would be fair – but you cannot criticise us for backsliding on a commitment we didnâ€™t make) [...]

By: followgreen (FollowGreen com)

followgreen (FollowGreen com) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:18:09 +0000

Twitter Comment

[link to post] HP Claims Greenpeace Critique Unfair

- Posted using Chat Catcher

By: James Governor

James Governor — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:28:44 +0000

thanks for the feedback Ed. Like i said, i could just change the word unfair to untrue…

By: James Governor’s Monkchips » The Problem With Corporate Sustainability Goals: Too Scared To Fail

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:57:13 +0000

[...] wrote a post on Greenmonk this morning adding context to a story about Greenpeace chiding HP for [...]

By: Ed Gemmell

Ed Gemmell — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:35:01 +0000

Greenmonk team.
To elaborate on my previous thought. When clarifying HP’s position on the Greenpeace ranking at no point did I say the report was unfair. We don’t think in terms of fair/unfair. Greenpeace have a position, and we respect what they are trying to achieve. The points I made included the statement made by greenpeace is untrue, HP is not backsliding, and that we believe in this particular space we believe ourselves to be leaders.

The title of your piece “HP claimes Greenpeace critique unfair’ is editorialising on your part, and not the postion of HP.

keep writing

By: kbedell (Kevin Bedell)

kbedell (Kevin Bedell) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:20:25 +0000

Twitter Comment

RT @monkchips: HP claims greenpeace critique is unfair (the rebuttal) [link to post]

- Posted using Chat Catcher