More Highlights on the Road to Paint Industry Greenness

Last year, I delved into some European paint makers’ annual reports to examine in detail and highlight how some of them had been greening their manufacturing operations and improving their businesses’ sustainability efforts in 2023. 

Since then, things have intensified and companies have been obliged to conduct and report on Double Materiality Assessments (DMAs) as required by the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). 

The concept of materiality in reporting is usually a financial one that considers financial impacts and measures; the double materiality concept has been introduced as an evaluation of both financial and sustainability measures, designed to identify impacts, risks and opportunities (IROs) across the now standard categories of ‘E’, ‘S’ and ‘G’ (environmental, social and governance) and how they can be managed
and minimized.

A deep appreciation of the DMA outcomes shows that this kind of accountability starts to have quite wide-reaching implications for industry in terms of:

• Scope of activity (manufacturing sites, warehousing sites, retail locations and even head offices) and energy consumption at all such places.

• Supply chain accountability (raw material and packaging material transparency).

• Overseas operations, which may enhance the greater greenness of the paint industry beyond Europe. Examples of this mentioned include Hempel’s action on the recycling and re-use materials from countries where this is a less-developed concept, and Flügger’s review of the energy considerations and environmental impacts of goods that it produces for European consumption, but which it transports from Asia.

• Consolidation, making facilities use more efficient overall by having fewer of them and potentially designing new ones to be of greater energy efficiency.

• Electrification of transport (delivery vehicles, company cars) and progress towards the installation of charging points in car parks.

Double materiality assessments go beyond the companies’ own operations and spread upstream and downstream. Essentially, they look at the non-financial measures that impact people and the environment. The top paint makers reported on most if not all of this in the annual reports for 2024, but the companies are impacted differently according to the nature of all
their activities. 

What follows are some selected highlights of how three of the top paintmakers are striving to improve even further their eco-credentials and some of the contrasting approaches and impacts that this is having.

Hempel

The UK-based operations for Hempel (Farrow & Ball, Crown Paints) has scored very well in achieving circularity and recognition.

The Farrow & Ball operations have moved certain formulations to manufacture based on 100% bio-based binders, earning it a B Corp certificate that reflects the most stringent standards of social and environmental performance, public transparency and legal accountability.

Meanwhile, the Crown Paints operations recycled more than a million paint cans, at the same time increasing the recycled plastic content in its packaging by 81%. This has earned the company recognition from the British Coatings Federation and from Marie Claire UK, as the top decorating brand for sustainability in the UK.

Hempel has also been exploring ways to collaborate with secondary paint manufacturers, especially in countries where waste handling and re-use is not handled as responsibly as it might be.

Hempel has reduced its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 65% relative to 2021, and has now reached a 97% reduction in waste to landfill going from its production sites. It’s aiming for less than 1% landfill use by the end of 2025.

Among the earmarked tasks and milestones for Hempel in 2025 are the continued decarbonization of its company vehicle fleet and further chasing out any fossil fuel use within its units.

Jotun

One of the key aspects and successes for Jotun has been that of energy consumption. In 2024, Jotun generated nearly 4% of its own power through solar energy, a percentage that it expects to rise in the future. The company is heavily committed to buying renewable energy and has many agreements in place to do so. Solar panel installations at Jotun sites have already been affected in Thailand
and China.

Jotun’s record on energy substitution is quite impressive:

• Its consumption of fossil fuels fell by 25% between 2023 and 2024, while its reliance on nuclear sources was fairly steady across both years.

• The company’s total renewable energy consumption more than doubled, rising from more than 32,000 MWh to more than 68,000 MWh. Jotun achieved a 70% increase in the use of self-generated renewable energy, but the vast majority of its renewable energy use originated from non-Jotun (exterior) sources, and this increased by 121%. 

• In total, 38% of Jotun’s total energy needs were satisfied through certified renewable energy supply agreements.

Jotun is targeting 70% renewable energy use by 2030. It’s also targeting energy efficiencies in its buildings through the maximization of natural light in building design, heat recovery systems and the automated monitoring of light and temperature within its facilities.

Flügger

As with its other paint peers, Flügger is also moving towards greater electrification of its company vehicles, and has installed charging stations at its Rødovre HQ and at its facilities in Kolding, Bollebygd and Gdansk in recent years.

This is a rolling development at Flügger, one that is expected to contribute almost a quarter of total energy reductions by the company’s business year 2030/1. Other aspects of energy optimization land on Flügger for its retail operations, which is a balancing act for both heat and light management when viewed through the lens of electricity consumption. This must also balance eco-efficiency and the preservation of the consumer experience when shopping for paint. 

A small part of Flügger’s product portfolio is manufactured in Asia and shipped to Europe, begging the continued awareness of the company in considering the implications of long-distance transportation and its environmental impact, which could theoretically alter the location of products sourcing. This tightening up and reduced dependency on overseas manufacture is something that the EU is keen to push in the long-term in order to make European markets more self-sufficient and self-serving, targeting reduced dependency on overseas supplies, which potentially may leave industry vulnerable, should the geopolitical situations decline further.

Currently, 58% of Flügger’s energy use is fossil or fossil-derived, but 34% is renewable sources. The remaining 8% is accounted for by nuclear sources. Furthermore, Far Eastern products may occasion the greater use of fossil fuels, as Flügger points out in its report.

Scrutinizing all of the environmental performance results that these companies have published – and I only report on the positive outcomes, as a rule – it’s apparent that when companies have acquired abroad or produce outside the EU, to some extent it becomes a fly in the environmental ointment. 

Long-term strategies, such as Hempel’s move on Wattyl in Australia since it initiated its Double Impact strategy that expires this year, create the need to recalibrate baseline measures because certain figures have been pitchforked unexpectedly. Similarly, having some goods produced in Asia and shipped back to Europe makes it harder to achieve complete elimination of fossil fuels, as Flügger has discovered. 

Yet while overseas industries are trailing in their environmental performance in relation to Europe, a stark contrast emerges: find less impactful sources closer to their end-markets, or cultivate their lack of development to a company’s own ecological advantage, as well as its profit advantage. Maybe that’s an unexpectedly positive outcome for double materiality after all.