Skip to main content

In January 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed the Nu-Heat website for the company's environmental policy or report. No formal report, policy or sustainability webpage was found.

The website did feature a blog dated 28 October 2019, entitled "Reducing our environmental impact", which detailed Nu-Heat's approach to addressing its environmental impact.

This discussed how the company supplied renewable heating systems, heat pumps and solar thermal, as well as underfloor heating which it claimed could be more efficient than traditional radiator systems. It stated that the company lobbied for faster roll-out of low-carbon technologies as a member of BEAMA. The company discussed the own site measures such as energy saving measures and recycling.

It further stated: "We measure our energy and water usage and our goal is to reduce this year on year – until recently we’ve been happy with a 10% reduction but we need to do better than that. Our premises are fully electric so as electricity decarbonises our measures need to change to focus as much on efficiency as on CO2. We will continue to take action at the same time as improving how we measure our environmental impact, so we can then prioritise what we do next to further lessen that impact."

No information was provided on the environmental impact of the sourcing of materials that went into the company's products. The company supplied own brand digital thermostats. There was no discussion of chemicals used in electronics. No quantified future targets or environmental performance data were provided.

An environmental policy was deemed necessary to report on a company's environmental performance and set targets for reducing its impacts in the future. A strong policy would include two future, quantified environmental targets, demonstration by the company that it had a reasonable understanding of its main environmental impacts, be dated within two years and have its environmental data independently verified.

Though Nu-Heat discussed its environmental impact in a statement within the last two years, it did not meet any of the other criteria. Therefore it received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for Environmental Reporting and lost a whole mark in this category.

Reference:

www.nu-heat.co.uk (8 January 2021)

In January 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed the website of Nu-Heat, looking for information on what the company was doing to tackle climate change. Ethical Consumer was looking for the following:
For the company to discuss its areas of climate impact, and to discuss plausible ways it has cut them in the past, and ways that it will cut them in the future.

For the company to not be involved in any particularly damaging projects like tar sands, oil or aviation, to not be subject to damning secondary criticism regarding it’s climate actions, and to have a policy to avoid investing in fossil fuels.

For the company to report annually on its scope 1&2 greenhouse gas emissions (direct emissions by the company), and to go some way towards reporting on its scope 3 emissions (emissions from the supply chain, investments and sold products).

For the company to have a target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in line with international agreements (counted as the equivalent of at least 2.5% cut per year in scope 1&2 emissions), and to not count offsetting towards this target.

The company's website featured a blog dated 28 October 2019, entitled "Reducing our environmental impact", which detailed Nu-Heat's approach to addressing its environmental impact.

This discussed how the company supplied renewable heating systems, heat pumps and solar thermal, as well as underfloor heating which it claimed could be more efficient than traditional radiator systems. It stated that the company lobbied for faster roll-out of low-carbon technologies as a member of BEAMA. The company discussed the own site measures such as energy saving measures and recycling.

It further stated: "We measure our energy and water usage and our goal is to reduce this year on year – until recently we’ve been happy with a 10% reduction but we need to do better than that. Our premises are fully electric so as electricity decarbonises our measures need to change to focus as much on efficiency as on CO2. We will continue to take action at the same time as improving how we measure our environmental impact, so we can then prioritise what we do next to further lessen that impact."

There was no mention of the climate impact of the sourcing of materials that went into the company's products. However, as the company's whole offering were renewable heating products offering an alternative to the burning of fossil fuels it received a partial exemption under this rating.

Overall, it received Ethical Consumer's middle rating for carbon management and reporting and lost half a mark under Climate Change.

Reference:

www.nu-heat.co.uk (8 January 2021)

In January 2021 Ethical Consumer searched the Nu-Heat website for the company's policy on the use of potentially hazardous chemicals such as, BFRs and PVC and/or phthalates, as the company supplied own-brand electronic items such as digital thermostats.

A toxics policy was deemed necessary for all electronics companies, as these substances were widely used by electronics companies and had a significant negative environmental impact when released after disposal.
A strong policy on toxics would include publicly disclosed data on the use of hazardous chemicals such as BFRs and PVC and/or phthalates; as well as clear, dated targets for ending their use.

As the company had no policies on the use of toxic chemicals in electronics it lost a whole mark under Ethical Consumer's Pollution and Toxics category.

Reference:

www.nu-heat.co.uk (8 January 2021)

In January 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed the Nu-Heat website for the company's conflict minerals policy, as the company supplied own-brand electronic items such as digital thermostats. It had not published a conflict minerals policy.

Conflict minerals are minerals mined in conditions of armed conflict and human rights abuses, notably in the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The minerals in question are Tantalum, Tin, Tungsten and Gold (3TG for short) and are key components of electronic devices, from mobile phones to televisions.

Ethical Consumer expected all companies manufacturing electronics to have a policy on the sourcing of conflict minerals. Such a policy would articulate the company's commitment to conflict-free sourcing of 3TG minerals and a commitment to continue ensuring due diligence on the issue. The policy should also state that it intended to continue sourcing from the DRC region in order to avoid an embargo and that the company had membership of, or gave financial support to, organisations developing the conflict-free industry in the region.

Due to the fact the company had no policy it received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for its policy on conflict free minerals and lost a whole mark under the Habitats and Resources and Human Rights categories.

Reference:

www.nu-heat.co.uk (8 January 2021)