In January 2021 Ethical Consumer searched the NIBE company website for details of the companies environmental reporting. Ethical Consumer was looking for a recent report which contained quantified future targets and independently verified environmental data.

The company discussed its input materials, chemicals, packaging materials, water and waste generation, energy efficiency and greenhouse gases. It was held to have a reasonable understanding of its environmental impacts.

The company had targets but they were all, at the time of writing, in the past. They included "To reduce energy use 30% by 2020 compared with 2013 as the baseline (measured in MWh/SEK M in sales)" and "55% of our sales to consist of LCE classified products* by the end of 2019."

The company said that it was going to produce new targets but they could not be found. Ethical Consumer realised that the 2020 annual report was not yet available. But without being able to see the targets it was not possible to give the company credit for them.

The report was not independently verified.

Overall, NIBE therefore received Ethical Consuemr's worst rating for Environmnetal Reporting.

In January 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed NIBE's website, 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 entire business was based on producing products to tackle climate change. The company said:

"Our entire value chain, from vision to end customers, must be based on the sustainability principles in our business principles and values, which are firmly rooted in our long tradition of responsible entrepreneurship."

In its 2019 Annual Report the company discussed meaningful ways in which it had cut its emissions in the past and would continue to do so including replacing refrigerants with new ones that have lower climate impact, reducing its use of energy and converting to rewewable energy.

The company reported its scope 1&2 emissions in its annual report but did not seem to report its scope 3 emissions, although as it pointed out, it's entire business was about the development of green products - products that produce less emissions in use.

The company had targets that would help to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, but no target specifically for greenhouse gas emissions.

As it met parts 1 and 2 but not parts 3 or 4 it received Ethical Consumer's middle rating for carbon management and reporting and lost half a mark under Climate Change.

In January 2021 Ethical Consumer searched the NIBE website for the company's policy on the use of potentially hazardous chemicals such as PVC, BFR and phthalates in its products. No policy could be found.

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 PVC, BFR and 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.

In 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed the NIBE website for the company's conflict minerals policy. The company had a very brief conflict minerals policy dated 2016. If it had anything more recent it was not possible to find it.

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.

NIBE's policy stated that it was committed to conflict free sourcing. It said that it was working on "establishing procedures in management systems to be in a position to fulfill reporting obligations to the SEC and respond to customer inquiries based on the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas." and that it was "requiring our suppliers to implement a policy regarding Conflict Minerals and exercise due diligence to investigate the source of these minerals".

There was very little further detail. As a result the company 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.