Sustainability in AV: Complexity, Confusion and our Commitment to Clarity
Sustainability is rightly high on the agenda for AV buyers, particularly in government and enterprise tenders. But while the intent is clear, the path forward often isn’t. Despite growing pressure to demonstrate environmental credentials, there’s still no consistently adopted way to define what ‘sustainable’ really means in the AV sector.
We’re all on the journey toward net-zero, but the path is anything but straightforward. Tobias Augustin explains how data can be misleading, and how Sharp’s commitment to transparency ensures our customers are supported to make informed, meaningful decisions.
Tobias Augustin,
Manager Product Management,
Sharp NEC Display Solutions Europe
Complexity and Confusion when Comparing Products
There are various ways in which buyers try to make sustainable decisions during the tender process, from comparing carbon emissions data or power consumption, to relying on independent agencies that claim to define sustainability standards. While these appear to offer the buyer a simple tick-box exercise, the reality is far more complex, and the resulting metrics are often inaccurate or misleading.
Comparing Products by Carbon Footprint
Buyers may request carbon footprint data per product. However, these figures are rarely comparable across manufacturers due to a lack of transparency around what’s included, and the inconsistent methodologies used. Production emissions are typically reported, but what about emissions from raw material sourcing, shipping and usage? These can vary significantly and are frequently outside the manufacturer’s control.
It all starts with the raw materials. More than 5,000 global raw material extractors are playing a role in the electronics industry supplying rare earth elements, various metals, and plastic granulate as the building blocks of modern technology. The processes used to extract or pre-produce these materials differ vastly in terms of energy consumption and may vary from day to day. Raw materials are traded like shares on the stock market, meaning suppliers change constantly. Trying to calculate the precise energy used to source the raw materials for a product is practically impossible.
Freight also contributes to a product’s total carbon footprint. If this metric is omitted, the reported carbon figure can understate the true impact. The carbon profile of sea freight varies widely depending on factors such as vessel type, container load rate, and operational efficiency. In addition, shipping routes change constantly due to weather conditions and geopolitical events, often leading to even higher carbon output.
Another variable factor is the local shipment from a European warehouse to the place of installation. Depending on the end customer’s location, travel routes can differ significantly, resulting in varying levels of carbon dioxide emissions.
When it comes to usage, manufacturers can estimate power usage in specific typical scenarios, but this doesn’t translate into consistent carbon emissions. The conversion of energy use into kilograms of carbon dioxide depends on local geographical factors, the energy mix of power plants, and patterns of daily usage.
Any carbon footprint data presented without these important caveats, risks misleading the buyer.
Comparing Products by Power Consumption
Published power consumption figures might seem like a straightforward way to compare products, but they often fail to reflect the real-world conditions. Consumption measured when a display is set at eco mode may look impressive on paper but doesn’t represent typical usage.
At Sharp, published figures also include the integrated USB-C power delivery of up to 65W, an essential capability for modern meeting rooms. This power draw can be disabled if USB-C functionality is not needed, but we believe in showing the complete picture. In contrast, other manufacturers exclude peripherals that still draw power in practice. Without an industry-wide standard, true like-for-like comparisons are difficult.
Any supplier offering figures without clearly defining usage scenarios may be presenting a distorted view.
Comparing Suppliers by Independent Standards
Some tenders rely on third-party certifications to assess an organisation’s level of commitment to sustainability. Ecovadis is one such popular rating, however, the same measurement criteria are applied to classify global manufacturers alongside local service providers, resulting in a lack of meaningful differentiation. The complexity of a large organisation is often lost in such assessments, creating an uneven playing field.
Even new EU directives like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), are only as good as the figures reported, with all the complexity and confusion noted above.
A conversation with us gives you a realistic, evidence-based estimate of the total carbon emissions and power consumption associated with our products.
It might not be a simple tick-box, but it’s a clear and honest conversation. We stand apart by prioritising transparency and integrity.
We don’t cherry-pick data or rely on selective metrics.
By speaking with us, you are making an informed decision based on real-world data, not on simplified, one-dimensional claims.
Talk to your Sharp representative today.
Sustainability is a journey
We don’t claim to have all the answers. Sustainability in AV is complicated, evolving, and highly dependent on the adoption of common standards across the industry. But we do know this - responsible design, transparent reporting, and long-term thinking are the only way forward. At Sharp, we are fully committed to this journey, and we invite you to join us. Learn more about the steps we are taking to achieve our Eco Vision 2050 at our Green Vision website.
Visit the Green Vision webpages