Nokia sustainability record recognized widely

Published by Karen Bartlett on November 9, 2011

Great position in eco-ranking

GLOBAL - Sustainability is at the heart of everything Nokia does, and that’s why we’re delighted to be again ranked high in several sustainability rankings this year.

More than one billion people use Nokia phones – so we have a unique opportunity not only to improve our environmental performance, but also help them to reduce their own environmental footprint. For example, WWF Eco Guru from the Nokia Store helps you measure the environmental effects of your lifestyle.

At Nokia we don’t design one-off ‘green phones’ or gimmicks. We take sustainability into account in every stage of operations, and in every product we make, starting from the selection of materials and ending with a world-class recycling program.

All materials in our phones can be used again to make new products or generate energy, so nothing goes to waste. We have implemented power saving features and unplug charger reminders in our phones. Also, the locally stored software – like Nokia Maps – reduces energy consumption, battery life and cost. Our compact packaging means less paper and fewer trucks on the road.  

Maintaining sustainability as a core commitment means that legal requirements are a minimum, not a maximum, standard at Nokia.  

[ hana-code-insert ] 'promo2' is not found

We don’t often talk about the good things other people say about our work in sustainability – but for the past years, Nokia has been amongst the leading companies in the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes review. We were also ranked the 4th most sustainable publicly traded company in 2011 by Forbes Magazine.

Yesterday, the Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics ranked us in the top three overall and as first for mobile device manufacturers. We had been ranked #1 for ten consecutive times before. We were rewarded in particular for our product energy efficiency and our wide take-back program.  This time our ranking was lower mainly due to the newly introduced energy criteria and the number of devices made of recycled plastics. Nokia continues to believe that the primary way impact climate change is to reduce our CO2 emissions and to increase our energy efficiency. Use of renewable energy sources is only a secondary tool and unfortunately in many countries were Nokia operates this type of energy is not available. Regarding the use of recycled plastics, we are working on finding ways to overcome quality issues.

Moving onto rankings aimed mostly at investors, we were came number 2 (out of 20) in the Two Tomorrows’ rating in the Information and Communications Technology category. The ranking uncovers the extent to which the companies widely recognized as sustainability leaders deserve their place within the leading sustainability rankings.

None of that means we’re resting on our laurels. We just wanted to tell you that we’ve been dedicated to setting the highest environmental standards for more than a decade, and we’re still committed to improving our performance even further.

We want make the most sustainable choices, and we hope that you will too. 

Comments

  • Mika

    Which are Nokias next targets in sustainability? More green energy I hope…

  • http://www.teamphones.com/android/gingerbread-continue-to-climb-over-froyos-shoulder-1944.html Android Gingerbread Rises

    Really I always trust the nokia phones and I give the first priority to the Nokia phones.

  • http://www.facebook.com/thegadgetfreak Ajit Jalady

    Sustainability? Nokia! Are you joking? You killed Symbian and Meego! Now
    you are a division of Microsoft and talk about sustainability? Shame on
    you!

    • http://aani.nokia.fi Heidi

      Did you actually read the article? Sustainability issues have nothing to do with platforms, and they are and always will be important for Nokia – regardless of which smartphone OS we may have.

      • Jukka

        What Ajit is talking about is _sustainability_ in terms of nokia as company. Will Nokia continue to exist or will it be divided and sold to someone else.

      • Jukka

        What Ajit is talking about is _sustainability_ in terms of nokia as company. Will Nokia continue to exist or will it be divided and sold to someone else.

        • http://aani.nokia.fi Heidi

          Yes, but if you read this particular story you’ll notice it’s about sustainability in terms of Nokia’s environmental performance. It’s an area we’re very proud of and it’s definitely something worth talking about! 

          • Jukka

            By the way, the customers care the most about Nokia and not so much about _environmental_ performance.

          • Jukka

            Heidi,
            I know it’s off-topic, and you gonna remove it,
            but,
            I just wanted to say you, personally,
            If Nokia released 600, I could be a happiest man using that particular unit in 4-5 years in the future. That could be a best environmental impact. But, off course, I understand that Nokia is not interested in this kind of sustainability.

          • http://www.facebook.com/thegadgetfreak Ajit Jalady

            I’d ask Nokia to stop dreaming under the Leadership of Elop! I am very sad that I am forced to use an OS I dislike. You guys purposely dont want to release the N9(in countries like US and India) which has already won awards in Sweden … I will somehow get the N9 no matter what… And I guess that will be my last Nokia!

          • http://www.facebook.com/thegadgetfreak Ajit Jalady

            By the way the environmental stuff is important but in the current times, Nokias sustainability as an organization is more important…. Nokia is now just a hardware vendor and a maps service provider! (and also just a division of MS)

            -posting from ma N900!

          • http://www.facebook.com/thegadgetfreak Ajit Jalady

            By the way the environmental stuff is important but in the current times, Nokias sustainability as an organization is more important…. Nokia is now just a hardware vendor and a maps service provider! (and also just a division of MS)

            -posting from ma N900!

          • http://www.facebook.com/thegadgetfreak Ajit Jalady

            I’d ask Nokia to stop dreaming under the Leadership of Elop! I am very sad that I am forced to use an OS I dislike. You guys purposely dont want to release the N9(in countries like US and India) which has already won awards in Sweden … I will somehow get the N9 no matter what… And I guess that will be my last Nokia!

          • http://www.facebook.com/thegadgetfreak Ajit Jalady

            I’d ask Nokia to stop dreaming under the Leadership of Elop! I am very sad that I am forced to use an OS I dislike. You guys purposely dont want to release the N9(in countries like US and India) which has already won awards in Sweden … I will somehow get the N9 no matter what… And I guess that will be my last Nokia!

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NQJ2ZBGULJZA55XOLMX6BSI7EU Marcus

        I would argue that the support period for older devices and platforms has a more direct sustainability impact, too: if I have to discard a device that is still working well because software bugs are not fixed or apps are no longer compatible, this does contribute to a waste of raw materials.

        Or, turning it around, squeezing out a longer “economic life” out of hardware, once manufactured, by offering software improvements for longer is one way of conserving resources that would be open to a company such as Nokia.

        Of course, there are cases where new hardware is needed for certain features (such as GPS or graphics performance), but there is often some room about “gracefully degrading” features on older hardware. One recent example for a missed opportunity could be the exclusion of the N97 from the recent series of 5th Edition firmware upgrades.

        In my view this aspect is currently under-estimated, but I hope that at some point the additional resource usage through “avoidable” hardware upgrades is going to receive more attention.

        • http://aani.nokia.fi Heidi

          Of course – that is a valid point! The good news here is that as we have said before, we will provide software support for both Symbian and MeeGo for years to come.

          • http://www.facebook.com/thegadgetfreak Ajit Jalady

            by announcing that those platforms will be killed?

          • http://www.facebook.com/thegadgetfreak Ajit Jalady

            by announcing that those platforms will be killed?

        • http://aani.nokia.fi Heidi

          Of course – that is a valid point! The good news here is that as we have said before, we will provide software support for both Symbian and MeeGo for years to come.

        • http://conversations.nokia.com Ian Delaney

          Updates for a bunch of older devices came out this week – such as the X6 – we’re with you.

        • http://conversations.nokia.com Ian Delaney

          Updates for a bunch of older devices came out this week – such as the X6 – we’re with you.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NQJ2ZBGULJZA55XOLMX6BSI7EU Marcus

        I would argue that the support period for older devices and platforms has a more direct sustainability impact, too: if I have to discard a device that is still working well because software bugs are not fixed or apps are no longer compatible, this does contribute to a waste of raw materials.

        Or, turning it around, squeezing out a longer “economic life” out of hardware, once manufactured, by offering software improvements for longer is one way of conserving resources that would be open to a company such as Nokia.

        Of course, there are cases where new hardware is needed for certain features (such as GPS or graphics performance), but there is often some room about “gracefully degrading” features on older hardware. One recent example for a missed opportunity could be the exclusion of the N97 from the recent series of 5th Edition firmware upgrades.

        In my view this aspect is currently under-estimated, but I hope that at some point the additional resource usage through “avoidable” hardware upgrades is going to receive more attention.

    • Tarhini Hassan

      they killed Symbian!
      the correct thing is that Symbian killed itself.

      • http://www.facebook.com/thegadgetfreak Ajit Jalady

         Symbian did not Kill itself, Nokia killed it! When they put in the least amount of RAM on a high end device and expect symbian to deliver, what else does it show? Symbian is what it is now because of Nokias incompetant and reluctant/awkward descisions for hardware and developement of Symbian.

    • Tarhini Hassan

      they killed Symbian!
      the correct thing is that Symbian killed itself.

    • Tarhini Hassan

      they killed Symbian!
      the correct thing is that Symbian killed itself.

    • Tarhini Hassan

      they killed Symbian!
      the correct thing is that Symbian killed itself.

    • Tarhini Hassan

      they killed Symbian!
      the correct thing is that Symbian killed itself.

  • Anonymous

    Good article, Nokia is always at the front in these aspects. R&D
    teams at Nokia deserve so much respect and thanks for all their findings and creativity. Good to see Nokia recognised.

  • Anonymous

    Good Job.  Now, in terms of labor rules across Nokia’s supply chain, to include it’s first and second tier third party manufacturers, what is Nokia doing to differentiate itself from companies like Apple?  In particular, how does Nokia’s treatment of its labor force differ between hourly workers in Finland, China, Romania, Mexico and Brazil; in terms of environmental health and safety.  As well, are there limits to how Nokia’s hourly labor force is utilized…minimum holidays, minimum training days, minimum sick days, minimum maternity leave, maximum hours worked per day, maximum overtime, minimum overtime pay, etc,  It would be interesting to see if Nokia actually has an enforced policy that treats its employees and TPM workforce with a consistent level of human dignity.  If so, why is Nokia not highlighting this difference too?  If not, why not?  Like many other companies in this sector, does management have an underlying reason for placing profit motives above basic human dignities?