Update: Greenpeace Responds… see the bottom of the post.

Late last month Nintendo was slammed by the environmental group Greenpeace in a report about the green-ness of major electronics companies.

Nintendo, the report stated with exclamation, is the “first global brand to score zero across all criteria!”

The standards the company failed at?

Nintendo was bottoming out in a ranking of “the 18 top manufacturers of personal computers, mobile phones, TV’s and games consoles according to their policies on toxic chemicals and recycling.”

But what of the widely-reported low power consumption of the Wii? Nintendo’s claim to print instruction manuals on recycled paper?

Not a factor. According to Greenpeace’s toxic chemicals standards, Nintendo deserved a zero.

I asked Nintendo for comment, and weeks later they have given me one:

Here is what I received from a spokesperson for Nintendo:

“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.”

I’ve asked a Nintendo rep for clarification. Where did these Green Procurement Standards come from? When did Nintendo start following them? And how can we learn more about them?

Hopefully we get more answers soon. Think it’s safe to assume Nintendo is out of the zero spot?

UPDATE: The ace reporters at Kotaku have found Greenpeace’s response to this statement. It begins:

We did give Nintendo the chance several times to address issues before the report was published. Therefore Nintendo should not have been surprised by the report having received it in advance.

We contacted the company by letter to their US, European and Japanese headquarters informing them of our guide, the criteria and that they could contact us with any questions, information or requests several months ago.

No response was received from Nintendo despite reminders. Before the ranking was published Nintendo received their ranking to correct or question anything we may have missed. No response was received.

Read the link for more.