Rank a Brand

How sustainable is Philips ?

Philips & sustainability


Philips
First milestones, should be better Click here for score rapport: 9 out of 39

Sustainability summary

Philips has achieved the D-label. Philips has started to take sustainability into account. The brand scores most of its points for its transparency on and efforts to reduce its climate emissions and by working together with multiple initiatives to increase the use of conflict-free minerals. Still, a lot more can be done for Philips to prove that the company is fair and green.

Brand owner: Royal Philips Electronics Inc.
Head office: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Sector: Electronics
Categories : Smartphone
Free Tags: Phone, Monitor, HiFi & Audio, TV & Home cinema, Headphone, Accessories & Services

What's your sustainability news about Philips?

Philips sustainability score report

Last edited: 17 May 2016 by Erwin
Last reviewed: 17 May 2016 by Mario

Questions about Climate Change/ Carbon Emissions

3 out of 6
1. Is there a policy for the brand (company) to minimize, reduce or compensate carbon emissions? Philips implements several measures to reduce climate emissions, such as energy efficiency management programs and sustainable product innovations (see link, page 43 & 185). Source
2. Has the brand (company) disclosed the annual absolute carbon footprint of its 'own operations' (Scope 1 & 2) and has the brand already reduced or compensated 10% of these emissions in the last 5 years? Philips has decreased the climate footprint of own operations (Scope 1&2) from 746.000 tons of CO2e in 2011 to 497.000 tonnes of CO2e in 2015. This represents a decrease of around 33,4% (see link, page 41). Source
3. Has the brand (company) set a target to reduce its absolute ‘own operations’ carbon emissions by at least 20% within the next 5 years? Philips does not yet communicate total reduction targets that exceed the year 2015 (see link, page 43). Source
4. Does the brand (company) publish the annual carbon footprint that also covers the major suppliers, and does the brand have an effective policy in place to reduce these carbon emissions? For 2014, Philips communicates an estimation of 3.010 million tons of CO2e for its entire purchase volume. This represents an decrease from previous year (3.408 million tons of CO2e). But, Philips does not specify a clear policy how to reduce these emissions (see link, "Climate Change 2015 Response" & "Climate Change 2014 Response"). Source
5. Is at least 35% of the electricity used by the brand (company) generated from renewable resources, such as wind or solar energy? Philips' total level of renewable energy use was 55% in 2014. Philips reports for 2015 to have used 54% renewable energy on total electricity consumption, but is not clear enough about the sources of supply (see link, page 43). Source
6. Do all new products of the brand meet energy efficiency requirements such as Energy Star (where applicable)? Philips is not clear whether all new consumer products meet the requirements of standards such as 'Energy Star' (see link, page 40-43). Source

Questions about Environmental Policy

2 out of 19
1. Has the brand (company) eliminated PVC in all new products? Philips communicates to be in the process of voluntary phase-out of PVC and BFR's, and reports that 65% of sales (excepting power cords) are free of PVC and BFR's (see link, page 42). Source
2. Has the brand (company) eliminated BFR's in all new products? See remark for environmental policy question 1. Source
3. Has the brand (company) eliminated at least 2 of the 3 groups of suspect chemicals (beryllium, antimony and phthalates) in all its new products already? Philips does not communicate its current status concerning elimination of at least 2 of the 3 groups of suspect chemicals (beryllium, antimony and phthalates) in all all its new products (see link, page 40). Source
4. Has the brand (company) banned the use of benzene and n-hexane in the final assembly of products? Benzene is restricted and almost entirely phased-out in manufacturing. But, Philips does not specify its status concerning n-hexane (see link, page 203 & 204). Source
5. Has the brand (company) banned the use of benzene and n-hexane in the full production chains? See remark for environmental policy question 4. Source
6. Does the brand (company) publish its annual material footprint, or alternatively material footprints for each sold product, and does the brand have an effective policy in place to reduce the overall environmental impact of material use? Philips implements several measures to improve its annual material footprint, but does not publish its annual material footprint, or alternatively material footprints for each sold product. Source
7. Does the brand offer the charger as optional to the product? Philips does not mention anything about offering the charger as optional to the products. Source
8. Does the brand (company) source at least 10% of its plastics from recycled plastic streams and does the give a timeline to increase this percentage to at least 25% by 2025 ? Philips mentions using recycled plastics in its products, but it is not clear what percentage of total plastic use this constitutes (see link, page 42, 54 & 186). Source
9. Does the brand (company) source at least 20% of its plastics from recycled plastic streams? See remark for environmental policy question 8. Source
10. Does the brand have clear objectives to minimize the environmental impact of packaging, by reducing, re-using and recycling, and does the brand annually report on these results? Philips implements several measures related to more sustainable packaging, but does not publish the annual packaging volumes/weights per material type (see link, page 40-42). Source
11. Has the brand (company) a take back program and is the take back recyling rate higher than 5% of the weight of the annually products sold? Philips publishes data on its recycling efforts in weight, but not as a percentage of its sold products (see link, pages 41, 44, 186 & 225). Source
12. Is the take back recyling rate higher than 10% of the weight of the annually products sold? See remark for environmental policy question 11. Source
13. Has the brand (company) an active policy in place to increase the product life-span of products, such as longer warranty periods or easy repair with easy ordering of spare parts? Within Philips' 'EcoVision' program life-cycle measures are implemented. But, no concrete information with regard to prolong the life-span of Philips products are specified yet (see link, page 186 & 187). Source
14. Does the brand (company) use replaceable batteries in all portable devices? Some of Philips' products contain replaceable batteries, but it's not clear if all of them do. Source
15. Does the brand (company) provide online repair manuals for all products? Online repair manuals for Philips products are provided via iFixit. Source
16. Does the brand (company) guarantee supply of spare parts and software updates for all products, for at least 3 years after end of production? Philips does not provide clear information about the availability of spare parts and software updates after end of production. Source
17. Does the brand (company) give at least a 3 years warranty on all products? Philips does not mention anything about an extended warranty period for its products. Source
18. Does the brand (company) publish a water and/or land use footprint and is there a policy to minimize, reduce or compensate this footprint? Philips implements measures to regulate water use at its own operations and supply chain. In 2015, Philips used around 2.7 million m3 of water (represents a decrease of 14% compared to 2014) (See link, page 44). Source
19. Does the brand (company) publish a water and/or land use footprint that also covers its most important suppliers? Philips publishes a water footprint with data from its own operations, but suppliers are not covered. Source

Questions about Labour Conditions/ Fair Trade

4 out of 14
1. Does the brand (company) regularly publish an updated list of smelters that are identified in the own supply chain? Philips publishes a list of smelters, effective as of December 2014. Source
2. Does the brand (company) have a clear policy to only source from smelters that have passed the conflict-free audits, and has the brand already achieved this for at least one metal/mineral? Philips does not yet clearly specify, whether at least one metal/mineral can be considered as entirely conflict-free (see link, page 198-200). Source
3. Is the brand (company) significantly involved in at least 1 initiative that addresses the urgent appeal to improve the social and environmental conditions of mining metals and minerals; for example tin from endangered tropical islands Bangka and Belitung, conflict minerals from Congo, etc? Philips is also a member of the 'Conflict-Free Smelter Program' (CFSP) (see link, page 199). Source
4. Is the brand (company) significantly involved in at least 2 initiatives that addresses the urgent appeal to improve the social and environmental conditions of mining metals and minerals; for example tin from endangered tropical islands Bangka and Belitung, conflict minerals from Congo, etc? Philips also partners with the 'IDH Bangka Tin Working Group'. Source
5. Is the brand (company) significantly involved in at least 3 initiatives that addresses the urgent appeal to improve the social and environmental conditions of mining metals and minerals; for example tin from endangered tropical islands Bangka and Belitung, conflict minerals from Congo, etc? Philips does not mention membership at any other endorsed initiatives. Source
6. Is the brand (company) significantly involved in at least 4 initiatives that addresses the urgent appeal to improve the social and environmental conditions of mining metals and minerals; for example tin from endangered tropical islands Bangka and Belitung, conflict minerals from Congo, etc? See remark for labor conditions policy question 5. Source
7. Does the brand (company) have a Code of Conduct (CoC) for both its own factories and those of its suppliers, which includes the following standards: No forced or slave labor, no child labor, no discrimination of any kind and a safe and hygienic workplace? All standards are mentioned in Philip's supplier code of conduct (CoC) (see link). Also in its own operations CoC all these standards are covered (see link, next question). Source
8. Does the brand’s (company’s) CoC include at least 3 of the following workers rights: 1. a formally registered employment relationship 2. a maximum working week of 48 hours with voluntary paid overtime of 12 hours maximum 3. a sufficient living wage 4. form and join labor unions and bargain collectively; and in those situations where these rights are restricted under law, to develop parallel means? 1. Not mentioned; 2. No, maximum work week is set at 60 hours, but the maximum overtime hours are not specified; 3. No, wages must comply with applicable wage laws but does not mention a living wage; 4. No, this right is mentioned but a parallel means in situations where these rights are restricted under law is not mentioned. The standards for its own operati Source
9. Does the brand (company) have a published list of direct suppliers that have collectively contributed to more than 90% of the purchase volume? Philips does not provide a significant list of direct suppliers. Source
10. Is the brand (company) a member of a multi stakeholder initiative (MSI), wherein independent NGO’s or labor unions are represented, that collectively aims to improve labor conditions and that carries out independent audits? Or does the brand (company) significantly purchase its supplies from factories certified by such MSI’s? Philips is a member of EICC, but civil society organizations do not have a decisive voice in this initiative. Also, Philips is an implementation partner of the “IDH Electronics” program. But, the scale of operation of that initiative is very limited given the scale of Philips operations (see link, page 198). Source
11. Does the brand (company) annually report on the results of its labor conditions policy? Are more than 95% of final manufacturing stage production facilities monitored for labour conditions? Philips publishes an audit summary report with follow up actions. Philips states, that 195 risk suppliers were audited in 2015. But, its remains unclear whether more than 95% of its final manufacturing stage production facilities are monitored (see link, page 196-198). Source
12. Are at least 25% of final manufacturing stage production facilities in high risk countries compliant to the Code of Conduct? Philips does not specify, whether at least 25% of its final manufacturing stage production facilities in high risk countries are compliant to its labour standards. Source
13. Are at least 50% of final manufacturing stage production facilities in high risk countries compliant to the Code of Conduct? See remark for labor conditions policy question 12. Source
14. Are at least 50% of final manufacturing stage production facilities in high risk countries compliant to the Code of Conduct - including a living wage? See remark for labor conditions policy question 12. Source