5

6
4 •PHILIPS
R
•ACE •SHARP •HP
7
T S U
3 •FU J I •A PP LE • S A M S U N G
• MO TO RO LA •SO
NOV
O •PANASONIC NY •NO 8
OFT •L E ER
ICS KIA
2 ROS E •SONY
9
1 •M
IC •LG •DELL
S
WH O N
DO BE O W

10
0

TEN F IL
IN IBA T IR L
•N SH GR O G ST
-- +
O
•T EE O
GUIDE TO
N?

GREENER ELECTRONICS VERSION 16

greenpeace.org/electronics
This Guide ranks leading mobile phone, game console, TV and PC manufacturers on their global
policies and practice on eliminating harmful chemicals, taking responsibility for their products
OCTOBER 2010
once they are discarded by consumers, and their impact on the climate. Companies are ranked on
information that is publicly available and clarifications and communications with the companies.

greenpeace.org/electronics
PHILIPS Ranking = 5.5/10
Philips stays in 3 place, with an increased score of 5.5, up from 5.1. Philips gains points for launching an LED TV that is free from PVC and BFRs, the first product in
rd

this category to be free from these hazardous substances. Philips also has a shaver range and adapters that are PVC and BFR-free, TVs with PVC/BFR-free housings (EU
market only so far, for nearly 2 years), as well as PVC/BFR-free Senseo and oral healthcare products and a PVC-free remote control.
Philips scores well on toxic chemical issues; it has committed to eliminating PVC vinyl plastic and all brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in all its new product models by the
end of 2010, and six types of phthalates and antimony by 31 December 2010. Beryllium and its compounds are already restricted; arsenic has been eliminated from TV
glass and other display products from 2008. However, it fails to support the need for the RoHS 2.0 Directive (Restriction of Hazardous Substances in electronics, currently
being revised) to adopt an end-of-life focused methodology for adding new substances and an immediate ban on organo-chlorine and bromine compounds.
Philips is weakest on e-waste and recycling, scoring zero on use of recycled plastic and for no longer reporting on recycling rates based on past sales. It also scores no
points for voluntary take-back and recycling as it has failed to expand its take-back programme in non-OECD countries, beyond India, or extend its pilot programmes in
Brazil and Argentina. Philips now claims to support Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR), is engaging in a European NGO and industry coalition in support of IPR and is
committed to actively working towards developing IPR-based recycling systems and their supporting financial mechanisms, but needs to support full internalisation and
transparent feedback of its products real end-of-life costs.
Philips is one of the top scorers on energy, and earns full marks for supporting the levels of cuts in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions needed to abate dangerous climate
change and for committing to absolute cuts in its operational carbon footprint of 25 percent by 2012 (using a baseline year of 2007). Its overall CO2 emissions dropped 10
percent in 2009 compared to 2008, with emissions from manufacturing decreasing by 6 percent. It also scores points for disclosing carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
from its own operations, for sourcing 15 percent of all electricity used in 2009 from renewables and for reporting to the latest Energy Star standard. All TVs sold in the US
and 90 percent of European models meet Energy Star v.3.

PHILIPS Overall Score

BAD (0) PARTIALLY BAD (1+) PARTIALLY GOOD (2+) GOOD (3+)
Precautionary Principle
and support for revision of RoHS Directive.

Chemicals Management

Timeline for PVC & BFR phaseout

Timeline for additional substances phaseout

PVC-free and/or BFR-free models

(companies score double on this criterion)

Individual producer responsibility

Voluntary take-back

Information to individual customers

Amounts recycled

Use of recycled plastic content

Global GHG emissions reduction support

Carbon Footprint disclosure

Own GHG emissions reduction commitment

Amounts of renewable energy used

Energy efficiency of new models

(companies score double on this criterion)
 PHILIPS Detailed Scoring
Chemicals
Precautionary Principle PVC-free and/or
Chemicals Timeline for Timeline for additional
and support for revision of BFR-free models
RoHS Directive. Management PVC & BFR phaseout substances phaseout (double points)

PARTIALLY BAD (1+) GOOD (3+) GOOD (3+) GOOD (3+) PARTIALLY BAD (1+)
Philips’ definition of the Philips scores top marks for Philips had a goal to have certain Six types of phthalates and Philips is the first company to
Precautionary Principle identifies providing Product and Process models of consumer products antimony will be eliminated by introduce a PVC and BFR-free
the need to take preventative Specs, criteria for identifying free of PVC and BFRs by the end December 31 2010. Arsenic has TV; its latest PVC and BFR-free
measures without full scientific ‘future substances’ for elimination of 2008 and aims to phase out been eliminated from TV glass products are the Econova LED-TV
certainty. More information. and examples. PVC and all BFRs by the end of and other displays from 2008. and the shaver range RQ12.
However, Philips states no More information. 2010, for consumer products More information. From July 2010 new adapters for
support for the need for RoHS 2.0 Philips Regulated Substances List, put on the market after that Beryllium and its compounds are consumer lifestyle products are
to adopt a ban on organo-chlorine Version A, replaces the Restricted date. Philips has brought a PVC already restricted with a threshold also PVC and BFR-free. Previously,
and bromine substances (at least and Relevant Substance and BFR-free LED-TV onto the of 1000 ppm, but include Philips put on the market TVs with
PVC, CFRs and BFRs within 3 – 5 Lists in Products and reflects market. More information. exemptions. See Table 5. PVC/BFR-free housings (EU market
years), as well as an end-of-life commitments to phase out PVC Philips needs to provide a timeline only so far), PVC/BFR-free Senseo
focused methodology for adding and BFRs (see Table 9). for overcoming the exemptions on and oral healthcare products and a
future substance restrictions. Restricted substances in beryllium and to clarify why other PVC-free remote control.
Philips statement on RoHS Processes list. types of phthalates (beyond the More information.
Recast. More information. Framework document. six specified) are not scheduled News release announcing
for elimination. Econova TV.
Product leaflet.

E-Waste
Provides info for Use of recycled plastic
Provides voluntary Reports on amount of
Support for Individual individual customers on content in products - and
take-back where e-waste collected and
Producer Responsibility take-back in all countries timelines for increasing
no EPR laws exist recycled
where products are sold content

PARTIALLY GOOD (2+) BAD (0) PARTIALLY BAD (1+) BAD (0) BAD (0)
Philips supports the principle of It is Philips’ intention to help Philips provides general advice to Philips aims to double the Philips introduced a vacuum
Individual Producer Responsibility establish global collection and customers on recycling, contacts collection and recycling of its cleaner which is made with
(IPR) at least as far as differentiation recycling systems. for recyclers in most of the EU end-of-life products by 2015. 50% post industrial plastics and
is concerned but not as far as More information. (excluding some New Member More information. 25% bio based plastic; the use
provisions that avoid the costs falling Philips has a voluntary take-back States), and a search tool to Philips reports that in 2008 of post consumer plastics is not
on others. Philips has signed the IPR programme in India encompassing locate recyclers courtesy of the the total amount of WEEE mentioned. Philips aims to double
coalition statement and has pledged 8 cities with 27 service centres. Consumer Electronics Association recycled waste in EU countries the amount of recycled materials
to actively work towards developing More information. in the US. was 69,818 tons. It no longer used in Philips products by 2015,
IPR based recycling systems Pilot projects have started in More information here, here provides details of its recycling however, this is for all materials,
and their supporting financial Brazil and Argentina, and monitors and here. rate as a % of past sales. not only plastics. In addition,
mechanisms. More information. can be recycled in Canada Good information for More information. as Philips does not report on its
For full marks on IPR Philips needs and New Zealand. In the US, customers in India. existing use of recycled plastic
to support full internalisation and Philips participates in the MRM it’s not clear what this target
transparent feedback of its products programme as well as MP3 player represents. More information.
real end-of-life costs, to document recycling via specified retailers.
its operationalising of IPR and More information.
continue to lobby for IPR, inter alia by
ensuring that the revised EU WEEE
legislation sets clearer requirements
(enforcement criteria) for the
implementation of IPR. It also needs
to reject Art 14.2. (continued use of
the Visible Fee) of the EC proposal
for a revised WEEE Directive.

Energy
Support for global Company Commitment to Amount of Energy efficiency of
mandatory reduction of carbon footprint reduce own direct renewable energy New Models
GHG emissions disclosure GHG emissions used (double points)

GOOD (3+) PARTIALLY BAD (1+) GOOD (3+) PARTIALLY GOOD (2+) PARTIALLY GOOD (2+)
Philips believes that global Philips discloses its CO2 equivalent Philips is committed to reducing In 2008, Philips doubled its All TVs sold in the US and 90%
emissions should peak in 2015 emissions to be 1,920 kt in 2009 its operational carbon footprint by purchase of green electricity from of European models meet Energy
and decline thereafter to achieve in its Annual 2009 Report. Some 25% by 2012, using 2007 as a 7% in 2007 to 15% currently. Star v.3. In 2008 all Philips TV
a 50-80% cut in 2050. It supports of these emissions are from supply baseline. Overall CO2 emissions By 2012, the number of sites models exceeded the requirement
mandatory cuts in domestic chain inbound logistics. However, dropped 10% in 2009 compared that use green electricity should for standby power consumption by
emissions in industrialised Philips loses a point as its verification to 2008, with emissions from be raised to the level needed to at least 70%. More information.
countries of at least 30% by 2020. is for its Sustainability performance manufacturing decreasing by 6%. achieve the 25% carbon footprint 10% of Philips current battery
More information. as a whole and only provides limited More information. reduction target by 2012. For charger models fulfil the Energy
assurance; it does not provide See Annual Report for maximum points Philips needs Star v.2 requirements. These
external verification using the baseline year (see ‘Improving to increase its purchasing of models exceed the technical
methodology for GHG emissions our Footprint’). renewable energy. Philips has Energy Star requirements by
according to the GHG protocol. asked its suppliers to introduce 5-15%.
Philips could also score more points procedures to avoid double More information.
by reporting emissions from a counting of renewable energy
second stage of the product supply certificates. More information.
chain (scope 3). More information.
Data definitions and scope.
KPMG verification.
Criteria on Toxic Chemicals
Greenpeace wants to see electronics companies clean up their act. Ranking criteria explained
Substituting harmful chemicals in the production of electronics will prevent worker As of the 8th edition of the Guide to Greener Electronics, Greenpeace scores
exposure to these substances and contamination of communities that neighbour electronics brands on a tightened set of chemicals and e-waste criteria,
production facilities. Eliminating harmful substances will also prevent leaching/off- (which include new criteria) and on new energy criteria.
gassing of chemicals like brominated flame retardants (BFR) during use, and enable
electronic scrap to be safely recycled. The presence of toxic substances in electronics The ranking criteria reflect the demands of the Toxic Tech campaign to
perpetuates the toxic cycle – during reprocessing of electronic waste and by using electronics companies. Our two demands are that companies should:
contaminated secondary materials to make new products. (1) clean up their products by eliminating hazardous substances; and
The issue of toxicity is overarching. Until the use of toxic substances is eliminated, it is (2) take-back and recycle their products responsibly once they become
impossible to secure ‘safe’ recycling. For this reason, the points awarded to corporate obsolete.
practice on chemicals are weighted more heavily than criteria on recycling. The two issues are connected: the use of harmful chemicals in electronic
Although there are five criteria on both chemicals and waste, the top score on chemicals products prevents their safe recycling once the products are discarded.
is 18 points, as double points are awarded for vinyl plastic-free (PVC) and BFR-free Given the increasing evidence of climate change and the urgency of
models on the market, whereas the top score on e-waste is 15 points. addressing this issue, Greenpeace has added new energy criteria to
The first criterion has been sharpened to require companies not only to have a chemicals encourage electronics companies to:
policy underpinned by the Precautionary Principle, but also to support a revision of the (3) improve their corporate policies and practices with respect to Climate
RoHS Directive that bans further harmful substances, specifically BFRs, chlorinated and Energy
flame retardants (CFRs) and PVC. The criterion on Chemicals Management remains the
same. The criterion: BFR-free and PVC-free models on the market, also remains the Ranking regrading: Companies have the opportunity to move towards a
same and continues to score double points. greener ranking as the guide will continue to be updated every quarter. However
penalty points will be deducted from overall scores if Greenpeace finds a
The two former criteria: Commitment to eliminating PVC with timeline and Commitment company lying, practicing double standards or other corporate misconduct.
to eliminating all BFRs with timeline, have been merged into one criterion, with the lower
level of commitment to PVC or BFR elimination determining the score on this criterion. Disclaimer: Greenpeace’s ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’ aims to clean up
the electronics sector and get manufacturers to take responsibility for the full
A new criterion has been added, namely Phase out of additional substances with life cycle of their products, including the electronic waste that their products
timeline(s). The additional substances, many of which have already been identified by generate and the energy used by their products and operations.
the brands as suspect substances for potential future elimination are:
The guide does not rank companies on labour standards, social responsibility
(1) all phthalates, or any other issues, but recognises that these are important in the production
(2) beryllium, including alloys and compounds and and use of electronics products.
(3) antimony/antimony compounds
Changes in ranking guide: We first released our ‘Guide to Greener
Criteria on e-waste Electronics’ in August 2006, which ranked the 14 top manufacturers of
Greenpeace expects companies to take financial responsibility for dealing with the personal computers and mobile phones according to their policies on toxic
electronic waste (e-waste) generated by their products, to take back discarded products chemicals and recycling.
in all countries with sales of their products and to re-use or recycle them responsibly. In the sixth issue of the Guide, we added the leading manufacturers of TVs
Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR) provides a feedback loop to the product designers – namely, Philips and Sharp – and the game console producers Nintendo and
of the end-of-life costs of treating discarded electronic products and thus an incentive Microsoft. The other market leaders for TVs and game consoles are already
to design out those costs. included in the Guide.
An additional e-waste criterion has been added and most of the existing criteria have In the eighth edition, we sharpened some of the existing ranking criteria on
been sharpened, with additional demands. The new e-waste criterion requires the toxic chemicals and e-waste and added a criterion on each issue. We also
brands to report on the use of recycled plastic content across all products and provide added five new energy criteria. In the fourteenth edition the criteria for the
timelines for increasing content. Precautionary Principle was made more challenging.
Criteria on energy For the latest version greenpeace.org/greenerelectronics
The five new energy criteria address key expectations that Greenpeace has of responsible
companies that are serious about tackling climate change. They are:
(1) Support for global mandatory reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions; Toshiba, Samsung, LGE, Dell and Lenovo continue to be penalised in
(2) Disclosure of the company’s own GHG emissions plus emissions this latest version of the Guide for backtracking on their commitments
from two stages of the supply chain; to phase out vinyl plastic (PVC) and brominated flame retardants
(3) Commitment to reduce the company’s own GHG emissions with (BFRs). Toshiba is served with a further penalty point for misleading its
timelines; customers and Greenpeace by not admitting that it would not meet its
(4) Amount of renewable energy used commitment. In addition, Microsoft is served with a penalty point for
(5) Energy efficiency of new models (companies score double on this the first time for backtracking on its commitment to phase out PVC and
criterion) BFRs by the end of 2010.

Click here to see more detailed information on the ranking