Display the Future

Display manufacturing giants AUO and Innolux are the “tigers” of Taiwan, but their formidable revenues do little to mask their lackluster climate action. Despite one being slightly more proactive than the other, by failing to shift to renewables, both companies are missing a significant opportunity to cut costs and benefit the climate. Discover Greenpeace East Asia’s analysis below.

Think that AUO or Innolux should go greener?

Are AUO’s and Innolux’s climate pledges falling short of their mega-tech customers’ expectations?

While their customers, such as Apple, Dell and LG Electronics, have committed to renewable energy and emissions reductions, AUO and Innolux have yet to align with these critical goals. Can they catch up with their billion-dollar clients?

Plans to become carbon neutral across the supply chain by 2030.

Has used 100% clean energy in its facilities globally since 2018.

Called on suppliers like AUO and Innolux to also achieve RE100 by 2030.

Promised to reduce Scope 3 emissions by 45% by 2030.

Has used 61.5% clean energy since 2024.

Called on suppliers like AUO and Innolux to declare a target year for meeting or exceeding RE100 initiative expectations.

Pledged for all operations to use 100% renewable energy by 2030.

Called on suppliers like AUO and Innolux to comply with SBTi’s 1.5-degree decarbonization scenario.

Both AUO and Innolux have acknowledged the severity of the climate crisis. But can they make impactful change?

Paul Peng

Chairman, AUO

"Facing the severe challenges of carbon reduction and climate survival, AUO must accelerate its RE100 trajectory."

Jim Hung

Chairman, Innolux

“Innolux is not only upgrading and promoting ‘More than Panel’ but also aims to become a model in green electricity, because ‘No ESG, no business’."

Greenpeace believes that–like other electronics manufacturers–AUO and Innolux should aim higher.

They could achieve 100% renewable energy by 2030 via high-impact sourcing methods, including self-generation and direct investment in renewable energy.

As the tigers of Taiwan, AUO and Innolux should fearlessly embrace change and leave behind less impactful solutions.

Renewable energy certificates (RECs) - currently one of the more popular ways to “source” renewable energy - are one of the least impactful sourcing methods. In practice, they do not necessarily add new renewable energy capacity to the grid.

Which company is a greater burden on the environment and society by clinging to fossil fuels?

million USD

If AUO's energy transition stagnates, 2030 costs on the environment and society will exceed USD 118 million.

Environmental-Social Cost Savings

million USD

By the same count, Innolux's passive energy transition will increase environmental and social costs by USD 126 million in 2030.

Quantifying and monetizing carbon emissions helps companies manage their environmental and social impacts.
Read the report.

Why are AUO and Innolux behind when it comes to slashing costs?

Both companies lack strong future commitments and have low renewable energy usage. Compared to AUO, Innolux is particularly behind in its renewable energy transition, having not yet committed to RE100.

RE100 Target Year
‍

Renewable Energy Target
for 2030

0.0%

Current Renewable Energy Share

Climate
Target

Not set.

No commitment for RE100

Renewable Energy Target
for 2030

0.0%

Current Renewable Energy Share

Setting climate targets, such as for renewable energy use, is essential for several reasons. It drives corporate commitment and accountability, builds stakeholder trust, sets industry standards, and much more.
Read the report.

Who is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter if they continue
their business as usual?

0.0

million tons CO₂e
(2023)

Scope 2 Emissions

Highest!

0.0

million tons CO₂e
(2023)

0.00

tons CO₂e per square meter (2023)

Highest!

Product Emissions Intensity

0.00

tons CO₂e per square meter (2023)

0.0

million tons CO₂e

Projected Emissions in 2030

0.00

million tons CO₂e

Highest!

If they continue their business as usual, AUO and Innolux will be indistinguishable in their poor performance on energy use emissions, product emissions, and projected emissions for 2030. Without bolder action, neither company will make significant progress.
‍Read the report.

How much will clinging to fossil fuels cost AUO and Innolux?

million USD

According to a recent study conducted by Greenpeace East Asia and the City University of Hong Kong, fossil fuel energy costs and carbon taxes play major roles in carbon-related expenses for both companies. If everything remains the same, AUO will incur substantial energy costs by 2030.

Energy Cost of Carbon Emissions

million USD

While Innolux could save nearly 300 million dollars by shifting to 100% renewable energy by 2030, a “business-as-usual” scenario spells out a staggering cost for continuing with carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Business as usual is an unwise path for both AUO and Innolux, thanks to an expensive combination of fossil fuel energy costs and carbon taxes.
‍Read the report.

How much are AUO and Innolux sacrificing by failing to transition to 100% renewable energy (RE) by 2030?

million USD in savings lost

AUO could save hundreds of millions of US dollars by transitioning to 100% renewable energy in 2030.

Economic Sacrifices

million USD in savings lost

Shifting to renewables allows tech companies to avoid a projected spike in costs from tightening environmental regulations (such as those from projected carbon price hikes by 2050.) Innolux could save nearly 300 million US dollars in 2030 as a result.

Innolux is currently sacrificing greater benefits compared to AUO by failing to transition to renewable energy.

In the News

Innolux and AUO Should Follow Apple and Sony

EnergyTracker Asia

29 July 2024

News Title 1

News Title 2

News Title 3

News Title 4

About this Campaign

"Display the Future: Go Green" is a public education campaign created by Greenpeace East Asia. It is based on a 2024 study, "Powering Ahead: A Cost–Benefit Analysis of Renewable Energy Adoption Across the Electronics Supply Chain in East Asia," jointly authored by Greenpeace East Asia and the City University of Hong Kong.

Are AUO’s and Innolux’s climate pledges falling short of their mega-tech customers’ expectations?

Both AUO and Innolux have acknowledged the severity of the climate crisis. But can they make impactful change?

Greenpeace believes that–like other electronics manufacturers–AUO and Innolux should aim higher.

As the tigers of Taiwan, AUO and Innolux should fearlessly embrace change and leave behind less impactful solutions.

Which company is a greater burden on the environment and society by clinging to fossil fuels?

Why are AUO and Innolux behind when it comes to slashing costs?

Who is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter if they continuetheir business as usual?

How much will clinging to fossil fuels cost AUO and Innolux?

How much are AUO and Innolux sacrificing by failing to transition to 100% renewable energy (RE) by 2030?

In the News

About this Campaign

Who is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter if they continue
their business as usual?