15/02/2026
I have been working in the refrigeration cabinet glass door business for nearly 20 years and have seen the market evolve significantly over that time. One of the most surprising changes, however, has been the shift in product quality—and unfortunately, not in a positive direction.
In the past, retailers almost always selected cabinet doors based on technical performance, energy efficiency, and total cost of ownership. Today, the approach often seems different. With EuroShop approaching and many attractive new products being presented—often with appealing pricing—it is a good moment to revisit what “total cost of ownership” really means in practice.
Yesterday I took the attached photos in a supermarket belonging to one of Europe’s largest retail groups—historically one of the most demanding in terms of specifications and performance. I was surprised to see one door missing (broken two months ago and still not replaced) and another door recently broken but still in place. This represents 1.25 meters of refrigerated cabinet that customers cannot access, potentially for weeks or months. The safety risk for shoppers and staff is clearly unacceptable, and there is also a serious risk of product contamination from falling glass fragments. Unfortunately, this store is not an isolated case; similar situations are becoming increasingly common.
The doors in question (I will not name the manufacturer) do not come close to the specifications this same retailer required only a few years ago. The achievable energy savings are limited, spare parts availability is poor, and the overall safety risk and customer experience fall far below what leading retailers would normally expect.
This brings us back to total cost of ownership. If we compare a door with a Ug value of around 2.2 to a REMIS door with a Ug of 1.1 W/(m²·K), the difference in energy performance alone can result in a return on investment of approximately 3.5 to 4 years (and this is just the difference between the 2 doors). When you add repair costs, lost sales, administration, and other indirect costs, the so-called “cheaper” product can quickly become significantly more expensive than a premium solution eventually costing several times more over the equipment lifespan.
I have never previously made strong claims about energy or cost savings from cabinet doors, nor have I directly compared our products to competitors. Historically, retailers performed these calculations themselves. However, I believe the time has come to remind the next generation of buyers of the principles that guided the market in the past—so that we can once again make decisions based on the right calculations.
