Fairphone Challenges the Myth That Sustainable Tech Must Cost More

Raymond van Eck, CEO of Fairphone, rejects the notion that sustainable technology requires a premium price or inferior performance. He argues that with scale, responsible sourcing, and longevity, ethical products can compete directly on value.

The myth of a sustainability premium

In a recent interview at the Exertis technology conference in London, Fairphone CEO Raymond van Eck addressed a core barrier facing many sustainability-minded tech companies: the perception that consumers must pay more or accept lower quality when buying green products. Van Eck strongly disputes that "sustainability premium" narrative, presenting the recent Fairphone 6 as evidence that ethical design and mainstream competitiveness can coexist.

The common critique goes something like this: producing more responsibly, through fair wages, conflict-free materials, modular design, or extended support, must necessarily cost more. And because of those extra costs, quality or performance must suffer. Van Eck insists neither is true in principle, nor in practice. He argues that sustainably produced devices may embed modest additional costs: Fairphone estimates 20 to 25 dollars per unit, but economies of scale, supply chain leverage, and design choices can absorb much of that margin.

With the Fairphone 6, the company has deliberately positioned itself more squarely in the mainstream midrange smartphone market. The device offers improved display, a more modern design, and upgraded internals, yet is priced lower than its predecessor. Van Eck sees this as a demonstration that ethical and performance criteria can align.

He also emphasizes that consumers often overlook the total cost of ownership: a device that lasts longer, is repairable, and receives regular updates can be cheaper over time than a more affordable but disposable alternative. In his view, the sustainability narrative needs to shift: from "you will pay more for clean tech" to "you will pay less over time with more durable tech".

Broader context: green premiums, consumer willingness, and industry practice

Van Eck’s argument is situated within a broader debate about green premiums: the additional cost associated with cleaner, low-carbon, or sustainable alternatives. In many sectors, green premiums exist today. For example, low-carbon steel or high-quality recycled plastics often command price differentials. Still, those premiums are not uniform or immutable. They depend heavily on product differentiation, scale, and how clearly the environmental benefits are communicated and valued by consumers. Some zero-emission or low-carbon products may sustain large premiums, and others may not.

On the consumer side, the picture is mixed. Surveys in recent years have found that consumers are willing, on average, to pay more for sustainably produced or sourced goods, even under cost-of-living pressures. Yet willingness in principle does not always translate into actual purchasing behavior. That gap highlights the difficulty in converting sustainability demand into margins. Theoretical willingness must compete with real constraints: budgets, product comparisons, feature trade-offs, and brand trust.

Implications for tech, sustainability, and net zero

Van Eck’s stance carries implications far beyond Fairphone. It pushes against a barrier that often slows sustainable product adoption: the belief that cleaner choices must cost more or be less capable. If more companies can demonstrate that ethical, durable design can be competitive, it shifts the burden onto firms that rely exclusively on lower costs at the expense of sustainability.

From a net-zero perspective, this argument matters. If sustainable alternatives are seen as inferior or expensive, adoption slows, delaying emissions reductions. But if clean options become competitive on value, tipping points toward mass adoption are easier.

However, challenges remain. The electronics industry is deeply dependent on global supply chains, commodity price volatility, and rapid product refresh cycles. Scaling modular, repairable, ethically sourced devices demands investment and market acceptance. Also, not all sustainable measures carry only a small incremental cost. Some require breakthroughs in materials, energy supply, and circular design.

Still, Fairphone’s example suggests that even modest gains in sustainability, combined with rigorous product design and supply chain work, may suffice to reposition consumer expectations. In other words, sustainability does not have to be a luxury niche, but a baseline expectation.

As industries across sectors aim for net-zero, the conversation about green premium needs rethinking. Rather than assuming that clean always costs more, stakeholders may shift focus toward how to absorb or eliminate that premium: through scale, innovation, and new business models.

For Net Zero Compare readers, the takeaway is practical: when evaluating green technologies or sustainable solutions, do not treat higher cost or lower quality as inevitable. Investigate how much of a margin is structural, and how much is contingent on scale or inefficiencies. Over time, the winners may be those who can drive sustainable options to parity, or better.

Source link: techradar.com