Skip to main content

In January 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed the Gasokol website for the company's environmental policy or report. The "Sustainability" and "Mission Statement" pages contained some brief statements such as: "GASOKOL is aware of its responsibility toward future generations. In the course of their daily dealings, all employees take care to act as role models in the conservation of scarce resources. On behalf of both people and the environment, GASOKOL employs a holistic approach to solar energy and naturally renewable raw materials."

Similarly it stated: "Working for both people and the environment, we take a holistic approach to the resource-conserving use of solar energy. We are aware of our responsibility toward future generations. Solar systems are the hallmark of economically-efficient, environmentally-friendly building owners. Our objective is to provide energy that does not consume natural resources – for greater independence and a better quality of life. Doing so, we create jobs, value and prosperity."

No further information was 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.

Gasokol did not meet any of these criteria. However, as it was a small company with an annual turnover of less than £10.2 million, and appeared to only be producing solar thermal collectors, a renewable heating technology, it was considered to be providing only environmental alternatives. It therefore received an exemption from providing full environmental reporting. However, the fact that it received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for toxics prevented it from having a best rating.
Overall, therefore, it received Ethical Consumer's middle rating for Environmental Reporting and lost half a mark in this category.

Reference:

www.gasokol.at (11 January 2021)

In January 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed the website of Gasokol, 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 solar thermal product, a renewable heating technology.

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 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.gasokol.at (11 January 2021)

In January 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed Gasokol's website for the company's policy on the use of potentially hazardous chemicals such as, BFRs and PVC and/or phthalates. No policy was found. Gasokol manufactured solar thermal systems which normally include a digital controller. The website contained product specification information for Gasokol solar controllers and was therefore considered to be a manufacturer of electronic products.

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.gasokol.at (11 January 2021)

In January 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed Gasokol's website for the company's conflict minerals policy. No policy was found. Gasokol manufactured solar thermal systems which normally include a digital controller. The website contained product specification information for Gasokol solar controllers and was therefore considered to be a manufacturer of electronic products.

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.gasokol.at (11 January 2021)