A few days ago I published a blog dinging Nintendo for scoring zero points in Greenpeace's Guide to Greener Electronics.

Apparently, I struck a nerve.

I received numerous comments from readers upset that I'd criticize a company for its policy regarding the environment, when Greenpeace based its ranking solely on information Nintendo makes available to the public.

Hmmm. I don't really quite see what the problem is there, since a company's Web site is the snapshot it would like to present to its viewing public, but anyway, here's the deal.

Greenpeace acknowledges that its guide is based ONLY on publicly published information on the Web sites of the companies it ranks.

Quoting directly from the Greenpeace site:

"Each score is based solely on public information on the companies [sic] website. Companies found not to be following their published policies will be deducted penalty point in future versions of the guide. The guide is updated every 3 months. The current version was published on the 26 November 2007."

Yes, it is true that for all we know Nintendo wants to keep its better environmental policies, such as promoting the recycling of obsolete devices and restricting the use of toxic substances in device manufacturing, out of the public eye.

My main point is companies that wield as much influence as Nintendo does should be leading the way toward greener technology. And, if in fact, it is doing other green things behind the scenes, it should probably be loud and proud about it.

For instance, Apple didn't score a perfect 10 in the guide. It managed to earn 6. But check out its very verbose and information-rich site that takes great pains to detail the good it's doing for the environment.

Now, Sun didn't even make it on the list, for what reasons I'm not sure, but compare its public information on environmental policy to that of Nintendo.

Pretty marked difference, wouldn't you say?

Unlike Sun and Apple, Nintendo's policies governing its commitment to preserving the environment are much more difficult to find, forcing users such as myself to find the information hidden within a FAQ page.

Again, I am not suggesting Nintendo is the devil incarnate and has it out for the planet. Rather, it amazes me that a company that wields as much influence as Nintendo wouldn't want to be more upfront and aggressive in leading the way in forward-thinking environmental policies.

The technology sector is all about making our futures brighter and more productive, and sets the tone for how the world will work, so I am continually floored when these modern marvels forget about preserving the most important aspect of the future: us.

Everyone on that list should be scoring 10 points. Even Sony Ericsson, the guide's top point-grabber ,couldn't get all 10, instead coming in with 7.7.

The Greenpeace Guide is a great way of shedding light on companies such as Nintendo (for example) that should step it up. Lead the way. So many people will follow (as you know).