Skip to main content

In January 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed the Apricus website for the company's environmental policy or report. No such information could be found.

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.

Apricus did not meet any of these criteria. However the company was only in the business of manufacturing and marketing renewable heating products: solar thermal, solar lighting and heat pumps.

As the company was a small company with an annual turnover of less than £10.2 million and all its products were an environmental alternative, it received an exemption from providing full environmental reporting information. However, the fact that it received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for toxics also meant it was not able to have a best rating in Environmental Reporting.
Overall, therefore it received Ethical Consumer's middle rating for Environmental Reporting and lost half a mark in this category.

Reference:

www.apricus.com (8 January 2021)

In January 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed the website of Apricus, 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.

No information on any of the above was found. However the company was only in the business of manufacturing and marketing renewable heating products: solar thermal, solar lighting and heat pumps.

As the company was a small company with an annual turnover of less than £10.2 million and its business was solely concerned with renewable energy and heating products, it received a partial exemption from providing full carbon management and reporting information. It therefore received Ethical Consumer’s middle rating for carbon management and reporting and was not marked down under Climate Change.

Reference:

www.apricus.com (8 January 2021)

In January 2021 Ethical Consumer searched the Apricus website for the company's policy on the use of potentially hazardous chemicals such as, BFRs and PVC and/or phthalates. This was due to the company marketing on its website own-brand electronic products such as solar controllers.

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.apricus.com (8 January 2021)

In January 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed Apricus's website for the company's conflict minerals policy, as the company's website marketed own-brand electronic products such as solar controllers. No policy was found.

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.apricus.com (8 January 2021)