Samsung presents a “zero consumption” screen: true ecological innovation or greenwashing?

Samsung wants to replace the good old advertising posters and other paper advertising posters with E-Ink screens. In any case, this is what the South Korean manufacturer suggested during the Infocomm 2024 show, a major North American gathering for all communication professionals. Thanks to its Color E-Paper, the brand promises to put in the hands of all stores and other service establishments a color electronic ink screen which, revolution, does not consume “Nothing“.

The 32-inch panel (82 cm diagonal) would actually pump less than 0.005 W when displaying a static image, a consumption that allows it to display a macaroon.zero consumption“, since below the threshold determined by the International Electrotechnical Commission.”New product offers a more environmentally friendly alternative to traditional promotional methods, while providing the visibility businesses need“, Samsung boasts. Enough to catch the eye of stores that would like to evolve their marketing tactics.

The screen, better than paper?

But even with minimal power consumption, Samsung’s new screen leaves an ecological footprint on the planet that must be questioned. First of all, the use promoted by Samsung somewhat undermines the discourse.responsible” of the brand. If these panels are mainly used to advertise consumer products, then their role in the depletion of resources caused by said products cannot be neglected.

Can an advertising screen, however economical it may be, which extols the advantages of an SUV really be considered environmental progress? Compared to current advertising screens, the answer is obviously yes. The huge televisions that populate our stations, metro corridors and store windows consume 20,477 kWh in 10 years according to Ademe. Switching to screens that consume less energy (designed to display static images and not videos) could obviously change the situation. But at the heart of the approach is always a consumerist intention potentially harmful to the planet. Especially since Samsung is clearly not presenting its Color E-Paper screen as a successor to current advertising screens, but rather as a high-tech alternative to the good old paper display.

A production far from being “zero emissions“

Beyond the symbolic opposition between environment and advertising, it is also relevant to question the technological impact of such an innovation. Samsung positions its screen as a practical alternative to traditional paper posters, because the content displayed can be easily modified according to sales, seasons or promotions. Enough to save on paper printing. But does the frequency of these modifications justify, ecologically, the production and use of a screen rather than the printing of new paper posters?

Screens, like all the electronic gadgets around us, generate three quarters of their carbon footprint during their manufacturing phase, and this stage is far from being “zero emissions“.

From the extraction of the resources necessary for the manufacture of a processor to the alloy of metals used in the making of the device, until the (complex) end of life of this type of gadget, the few megahertz which animate Samsung’s screen already has a notable ecological footprint. Not to mention that, as Arcep notes, “screen size has an influence on the environmental impacts of digital equipment over its entire life cycle“. A 32-inch screen, even “zero consumption” will be proportionally more polluting than your little e-reader.

Ask yourself the question of relevance

Replacing a paper poster with a screen therefore raises the question of the relevance of the digitization of our uses in the face of the ecological challenge. In its general framework for the eco-design of digital services, Arcep first proposes to question “the usefulness of the digital service” et “the expected benefits of the digital solution evaluated compared to an alternative solution“, plus low-tech.

The authority suggests a few simple questions to assess the relevance of a project. For example, “Is the use of digital technology for this service necessary?“, “Are there other non-digital solutions to meet this need?“, “Does the added value of the service justify the mobilization of the resources required for its creation?“or finally”What would happen if we didn’t have it?“. The answer to these questions allows, in the case of screens “zero consumption” from Samsung, to distinguish between an ecologically relevant technological improvement and an innovation intended to clear one’s conscience.