Philips only takes back its e-waste in countries where it is
legally obliged to do so, and refuses to shoulder the real costs of
its own e-waste fairly. Instead, Philips tries to make other
producers bear its costs and make consumers pay higher or distorted
costs by supporting 'collective producer responsibility'.(1)
Other electronics producers, including Sony, Toshiba, Dell and
Lenovo, accept responsibility for their own-branded obsolete
products, supporting 'Individual Producer Responsibility'(2), and setting up voluntary
take-back systems for their products. Philips stands out in sharp
contrast, as it actively lobbies against the implementation of
individual producer responsibility, under existing legislation and
its adoption in future legislation(3).
"Although it promises 'sense and simplicity', Philips is instead
promoting a senseless and irresponsible approach to tackling
e-waste," said Martin Hojsik, Greenpeace International toxics
campaigner. "Philips should simply take financial responsibility
for its own products. And, it has to make sure all its discarded
products are collected worldwide so that the burden of cleaning up
this toxic e-waste is not put on the shoulders of unprotected, poor
people."(4)
A recent study by Greenpeace International on the dumping of e-waste in Ghana found a lot of
discarded Philips products on dumpsites(5). As there are no recycling
facilities for hazardous e-waste in the country, the recycling
workers treating the waste - often children - are exposed to a
cocktail of toxic chemicals and poisons when the products are
broken apart.
In Russia, Philips also fails to ensure that its discarded
products are properly recycled. "It is outrageous that Philips
refuses to take back its e-waste in Russia," said Alexey Kiselev,
Greenpeace Russia toxics campaigner. "When e-waste is burned the
toxics chemicals in the products are release into the environment.
A recent study showed that soil from places
where e-waste is burned is severely polluted."(6)
Greenpeace wants all electronics companies to take back their
products in all countries where they are sold. They should pay for
the recycling of their own products, and should thus avoid
distorting the costs passed on to the consumers. When producers
pay, they have an incentive to stop using toxic materials in the
design of their products and make them more durable and recyclable
in order to lower the recycling costs.
Other contacts: Martin Hojsik, Toxics Campaigner, Greenpeace International:
Tel: +42 19 0531 3395
Email: martin.hojsik@greenpeace.org
Alexey Kiselev, Toxics Campaigner, Greenpeace Russia:
Tel: +79 03770 5786
Pictures to be available from:
Greenpeace International photo desk: + 44 (0) 7801 615 889
Notes: (1) Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. Sustainability Report 2006, page 55
(2) Greenpeace's Questions and Answers about Individual Producer Responsibility
(3) June 2008: Philips submitted a position paper to the European Commission in which the company asks for the deletion of the principle of Individual Producer Responsibility in the WEEE-directive.
(4) Greenpeace demands to Philips
(5) "Poisoning the Poor"
(6) 'Russian Refuse' - A study on environmental contamination in Russia associated with electronics production, recycling and disposal.