Royal Philips sustainability score: 50/100
Philips is a Dutch health technology company headquartered in Amsterdam. Diagnosis and treatment equipment such as imaging is 48% of its sales, connected care such as patient monitoring 28%, and personal health products such as shavers and toothbrushes 21%.
More about Royal Philips
Its roots go back to 1891. It had 64,817 full-time employees and €17.8 billion sales in 2025.
Head office Amsterdam, NetherlandsStaff ~64,817 FTE (end 2025)Revenue ~€17.8B sales (FY2025)Website ↗
Philips's own emissions are 85% below 2015, mainly because its electricity is now 100% renewable, half of it through power purchase agreements. Its total footprint fell 5% in 2025 to 4.12 MtCO2e, partly from its sales mix and a change of method, while emissions from purchased goods rose 8%. Its targets are SBTi-validated, but its 'carbon neutral' operations claim rests on offsets, it takes back 20% of its equipment against a 42% target, and in 2023 it paid a US EPA settlement over a radium-contaminated former clock factory site.
Royal Philips scores 50/100 (Making progress) on SINK's independent climate assessment, scored from public data only. Scores are free. Companies can never pay for anything about their own score. Last verified October 2026.
That places Royal Philips joint 158th of 934 companies scored, and joint 5th of 22 in Healthcare / Pharmaceuticals.
What is Royal Philips doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Carbon Footprint: Operations and Targets & Commitments (9/10, 8/10). Weakest on Nature & Biodiversity Impact and Controversies & Red Flags (5/10, 5/10).
Where Royal Philips lost points
For each question that lost points, the evidence our public rubric looks for that we didn't find.
- Emissions from its own operations9/10No verified figures published with their method and a falling trend.
- Emissions from its supply chain7/10No full value-chain map or supplier engagement programme.
- Whether its emissions are falling6/10No consistent fall over several years across its operations and supply chain.
- How clean its energy is7/10Less than 90% of its energy shown to be renewable.
- Its effect on nature5/10Its effect on nature isn't measured or independently verified.
- How it uses materials and handles waste6/10No verified figures for reuse and recycling across the business.
- Its effect on water6/10No water stewardship programme or verified fall in water use.
- Its climate targets8/10No validated long-term net zero target.
- How openly it reports8/10No mission-locked structure, such as B Corp certification.
- Its record on controversies5/10Points deducted for controversies or its business model. The finding is under question 10.
A score changes when the evidence does. We use new published evidence at the next rescore. Anyone can send us new evidence, free. How to send it.
How is Royal Philips's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleHas Royal Philips's score changed?
Royal Philips's score has moved from 56 to 50 across 2 recorded reviews, down 6 points.
- 56 → 50-629 October 2026
Re-scored under the current methodology (v2.5); owner ruling 2026-10-29. History gap: the last recorded row is 56 (2026-04-11, initial_score), but the live score before this change was 48 (previousScore 56). The intermediate change(s) were not recorded at the time and are not reconstructed here.
- Scored 5611 April 2026
Initial score at platform launch
What evidence is Royal Philips's score based on?
11 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which of the ten questions it informed.
45% of them were published by Royal Philips itself; the rest come from independent sources.
54% of Philips's reported footprint (2.24 of 4.12 MtCO2e in 2025) is modelled: the electricity its products are expected to use over their lifetimes (for example 10 years for an MRI machine), worked out from use patterns estimated by Philips's experts. We use the reported total, as we do for the use-phase emissions of oil and car makers. How to treat use-phase emissions for products that enable clean energy is on our list for the next methodology review.
“We have reduced our Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2% compared with 2024 and by 85%, compared with the baseline 2015.”
“This marks our second voluntary annual report of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) recommendations”
“Restore land equal to 30% of our total manufacturing land footprint and reduce water withdrawal in water-stressed areas.”
“We aim to reduce our impact on nature by managing and restoring biodiversity on manufacturing sites and reducing water withdrawal.”
“In 2025, we improved the circular materials management across our sites to 95%.”
“all our sites are powered by 100% renewable electricity”
“Koninklijke Philips N.V. commits to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions across the value chain by 2045.”
“This company received a grade of F.”
“Philips North America LLC. has agreed to pay $706,175 plus interest to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)”
“The company has not published a review of its industry association memberships and climate policy engagement.”
“The consortium has committed to contracting renewable electricity from the wind farm for the first 10 years through a virtual PPA.”
If you believe a source has been misread or a newer version exists, submit a challenge.
Is this your company? Claim this profile (free)
Use this score in tenders
Send the link, or the one-page score sheet. It links back to this page and every source. Free.
Open the score sheet →Send new evidence, free
Scored low because little is published? Publish what you do and send us the link, free. If it holds up, your score changes, and the change is logged on your page.
How to send evidence →Put your score on your website, free
It shows the current score and links to this page, so it changes when the score does.
Track this score
Bidding for a public contract? Check if you need a Carbon Reduction Plan, free →
Want your own page like this?
Free, independent, every source shown. Send it to any buyer who asks about your sustainability.
How does Royal Philips compare with other healthcare / pharmaceuticals companies?
Where Royal Philips sits among healthcare / pharmaceuticals peers.
Among the 22 major healthcare / pharmaceuticals brands we've scored, Royal Philips is tied =5th of 22, with 1 other.
Who scores higher in Healthcare / Pharmaceuticals?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above Royal Philips.
Novartis cut its emissions to 4.36 MtCO2e in 2025, with Scope 1 and 2 down 45% and Scope 3 down 17% against 2022, under SBTi-validated targets for net zero by 2040.
See the breakdown →Nemera's total footprint has risen for two years, to 126,000 tCO2e in 2025, after falling from its 2019 level.
See the breakdown →GSK has credible climate infrastructure: verified Scope 1&2 data, SBTi-validated net-zero to 2045, and sector-leading nature disclosures.
See the breakdown →Which companies moved this week, and why.
One email, every Sunday. Score changes, new research, the stories behind the numbers. Free.
We'll send one email to confirm. No spam. Unsubscribe in one click.
Checking a company?
Search free →Asked to prove you're sustainable?
Get your business scored, free →Been scored?
Find your page and claim it, free →Scores are free. Companies can never pay for anything about their own score.