Greening electronics – is Philips getting it right?

Electronics is a thorny issue in the race to carbon label consumer products in the UK. They are complex to manufacture and contain raw materials from all over the world – plus they use most of their energy post purchase. Given these complications, Philips, the Dutch-based electronics giant, has approached its first green labelling scheme with caution.

Theo Schoenmakers, Philips’ head of sustainability, recently helped launch the firm’s fourth Ecovision programme, which intends to increase the energy efficiency of operations by 25% in the next five years, but more importantly pledges to lift revenue from “green products” to 30% by 2012, compared with 15%, totaling €4 billion, last year.

In an interview with ClimateChangeCorp.com, Schoenmakers acknowledged that the “the impact we make as a company is negligible compared to the impact of our products”.

The meaning of ‘green’

For Philips, a product is “green” once its external auditor, KPMG, has certified that it is at least 10% more efficient than other similar products on the market. Efficiency is measured in at least one of five categories: hazardous substances, recycling, packaging, product weight and energy efficiency.

Philips’ green products have carried a special green logo since April 2007, across North America, Europe and Asia. Many of the products scored their 10% higher efficiency rating through energy efficiency – but customers cannot be sure what category their product excelled in until they visit Philips’ website. Shoemakers admits this is cumbersome and says the firm is looking to provide more information on its labels.

The green range, which Philips promises to extend across all of its product ranges, currently includes some televisions and other audio/visual electricals, but mostly features energy saving lighting. Philips is one of the big three global players in the lighting industry, alongside GE and Osram, and is keen to capture the growing market for energy-saving bulbs.


“the impact we make as a company is negligible compared to the impact of our products”


Schoenmakers claims that higher specifications do not mean a product must use more energy, but admits there are limits to the energy efficiency of some luxury products, such as big-screen TVs. “At some point in time we are bound by the laws of physics. If people want to buy a big TV, it will use more light”. And light requires energy.

For example, the green-labelled LCD TVs, which Philips says are more energy efficient that conventional TVs of the same size, will still use more energy than a smaller conventional television. It is these kinds of issues that complicate green labelling in electronics.

Schoenmakers says that of all Philips’ green products, he expected energy saving light bulbs to sell best. “People with rational motivations will go for cost savings. Installing lower energy light bulbs for relatively little cost could save more than 50% of a home’s electricity bills”.

Buying more complicated energy-saving electronics, such as a TV, would be more of “an emotional choice”, says Schoenmakers. Philips’ energy-saving TVs, which include light sensitive dimming functions, can “only save around €10 a year in energy bills” compared to competitor products.

Schoenmakers maintains that all Philip’s green products will offer as many specifications and be priced the same as less green products on the market.

Light bulbs – the big issue

According to Philips’ chief procurement officer, Barbara Kux, “more than 90%” of the company’s carbon footprint is accounted for by the energy consumed by the products of its lighting division.

Philips says that with 19% of the world’s electricity consumed by lighting, replacing all incandescent light bulbs with energy-efficient alternatives could achieve a reduction of 500 million tons of CO₂. According to Greenpeace, the switch could save nearly one-tenth of the world’s electricity bill.

But Greenpeace has criticised Philips’ record so far on the light-bulb issue, and on two counts. In India, the company was targeted for being the largest manufacturer and market-share holder of incandescent bulbs in the country. Greenpeace claims that against 12 million compact fluorescent lights in the fiscal year 2005/06, Philips made 163 million incandescent light bulbs.

According to Greenpeace, India could save up to 12,000MW of electricity by banning the incandescent bulb, which is equivalent to almost 4% of its CO₂ emissions, whilst simultaneously addressing the nation’s “chronic energy shortage”.

In Europe, meanwhile, Greenpeace accuses Philips of stalling the banning of incandescent light bulbs. The European Lamp Companies Federation, of which Philips is a part, recently announced its “New Lamp Industry Initiative” to phase out energy-inefficient lighting by 2015.

Schoenmakers maintains that “governments need to set boundaries for companies”, adding that if a ban came in today, Philips had the technology ready to supply mainstream energy-efficient lighting to the whole of Europe. He says that Philips is still working to provide energy-saving lighting to “niche markets” only, with the aim to develop energy-saving alternatives for its entire range of lighting products by 2015.

Philips recently lobbied the EU to drop anti-dumping tariffs on energy saving light bulbs from China, where the company manufactures many of its bulbs. The tariff was re-established for another year in September 2007, amidst protests from companies and climate-change activists alike. “It is clear that, with 90% of light bulbs produced outside the EU, these tariffs must be dropped,” Schoenmakers says.

To its credit, Philips is being transparent about its carbon footprint, by factoring in the amount of energy used throughout their products’ lifespan. The company, which Schoenmakers says is a strong supporter of energy efficiency, insists that the technology exists now to replace “mainstream” incandescent light bulbs. Now it seems the challenge for governments is to ban the old bulbs.


Philips, the facts:

- Philips total carbon footprint in 2007: 346 Million tons CO₂ equivalent/year. This includes 3 million tons CO₂ from operational (buildings, logistics, air traffic) and 344 million tons through products.

- More than 90% of Philips’ footprint is related to the products of its lighting division.

- Today, according to Philips, 67% - 75% of the world’s lighting uses older, less energy efficient technology, developed before 1970.