Lenovo, Nokia and Sony Ericsson are among the highest-rated electronics performers, according to international pressure group Greenpeace’s Guide to Greener Electronics. Published this April, the guide ranks 14 companies according to their policies and practices on eliminating harmful chemicals, and on taking responsibility for products once discarded by consumers. Apple and Panasonic received the poorest marks.

Companies were scored across nine criteria, with double points awarded for tackling more environmentally damaging practices, such as adopting a timeline for phasing out brominated flame retardants (BFRs). The guide lists leading mobile and PC manufacturers based on publicly available information, and on company communications and clarifications.

According to Greenpeace’s website, as many as 4,000 tonnes of toxic e-waste are discarded worldwide every hour. Vast amounts are routinely and often illegally shipped as waste from Europe, Japan and the US to places where unprotected workers recover parts and materials. The driving logic behind the guide is that safe recycling of electronics can take place once harmful chemicals are removed from the products. China is one country that stands to benefit from greener practices.

In the latest ranking, Chinese manufacturer Lenovo (the company behind the IBM PC) displaced Nokia at the top by taking clear positions on the precautionary principle and individual producer responsibility. Lenovo provides global take-back and recycling services wherever its products are sold. Apple, on the other hand, scored badly on all criteria, though it does report on the amounts of electronic waste it recycles.

Companies do actually take notice of such lists. Lenovo’s website, for instance, trumpets the company’s new ‘No. 1’ status in its news section. And in response to the Greenpeace guide’s results, Apple made a commitment in early May to phase-out production of BFRs and PVCs by 2008 – a move that’s sure to lift the company out of the bottom slot.

“We’ve seen Michael Dell challenge the entire industry to adopt a worldwide take-back policy,” said Greenpeace. “[We’ve] watched some companies meet and then exceed our demands, and have enjoyed getting phone calls from other manufacturers asking when, precisely, new policies need to be adopted in order to be reflected in the next ranking.”

Combined with competitive pressure and increasing consumer concern for the environment, a poor reputation can seriously dent sales. Not surprisingly, factors like these have driven an overall improvement in companies’ scores ever since the guide was introduced in December 2006.

Such league tables are a form of ‘watchdogging.’ In this way, think-tanks, civil society organisations (CSOs), alternative media and even citizens (remember Erin Brokovich?) seek to hold accountable and compare public personalities, public institutions, and/or industry for their impacts on social and political life. Actions, decisions, products and policies of key players and countries may all be scrutinised over time according to quality standards, targets and indicators. The ultimate aim is to help reduce industrial pollution through transparency.

Watchdogging is nothing new. Successes were first demonstrated in the environment sector more than ten years ago, when the US’ long-established toxics release inventory revealed reductions in manufacturing sector emissions to air, water and land (45 percent between 1988–98). In the EU, the number of visitors to the European Pollutant Emissions Register (EPER) grew to 340,000 in 2006 (up 67 percent from its launch in 2004).

The Information Society is upon us! Your feedback and suggestions for inclusion are welcome at < >.