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

The company discsussed some things on its website, and also linked to a sustainability report, but it was from 2015.

It discussed raw materials, energy, recycling, end of life disposal methods, waste and water. However, there was no discussion of toxic chemicals and so it was not held to have a reasonable understanding of its environmental impacts.

No quantified future targets could be found. The environmental data presented did not seem to independently verified.

Overall, Viessmann therefore received Ethical Consuemr's worst rating for Environmental Reporting.

According to the Viessmann website (www.viessmann.com) viewed by Ethical Consumer in January 2021 the company owned a commercial airfield in Germany, Allendorf (Eder), along with a fleet of private jets.

In January 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed Viessmann'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 discsussed some things on its website, and also linked to a sustainability report, but it was from 2015. The website discussed meaningful ways that it had cut its emisisons in the past and would continue to do so - using electricity from renewable energy sources, bringing in efficiency measures in production and within buildings.

No explicit greenhoues gas targets could be found, and although the company alluded to its emissions, no figures could be found.

Overall the company received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for carbon management and reporting.

In January 2021 Ethical Consumer searched the Viessmann's 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 Viesmann's website for the company's conflict minerals policy. 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.