• No environmental impact report

    Hi. Www.ethicalconsumer.org has given Pureplanet its worst rating for environmental reporting because in 2017 it had no environmental impact report. There are no targets on the website, or externally verified environmental data.

    Is this still true? Is PP taking this seriously, does anyone know? (Deeds not words.)
    Tap below to see the best answer
    1
  • Hi. Www.ethicalconsumer.org has given Pureplanet its worst rating for environmental reporting because in 2017 it had no environmental impact report. There are no targets on the website, or externally verified environmental data.

    Is this still true? Is PP taking this seriously, does anyone know? (Deeds not words.)
    Tap below to see the best answer
  • Best Answer

    Quote Originally Posted by AlBrew View Post
    Hi. Www.ethicalconsumer.org has given Pureplanet its worst rating for environmental reporting because in 2017 it had no environmental impact report. There are no targets on the website, or externally verified environmental data.

    Is this still true? Is PP taking this seriously, does anyone know? (Deeds not words.)
    Hi @AlBrew
    Welcome to the community!
    Nice one for getting stuck in.
    Do you know how often these reports are published?
    As @Jon1 points out, in June 2017 we'd only just launched, in fact we were about one month old.
    There's a lot of info on our website, but to give you a bit here:
    Our electricity is 100% renewable (last year it was 52% wind and 48% solar) and backed by Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin, aka REGOs. More info about REGOs here.
    Our gas is 100% carbon offset, as we work towards a renewable electric-only future.

    Here's a blog post about one of our biggest suppliers, a wind farm in South Wales.

    Hope that helps you out a bit. Happy to keep chatting, of course
    Community Manager - Pure Planet

    ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
    4
  • Quote Originally Posted by AlBrew View Post
    Hi. Www.ethicalconsumer.org has given Pureplanet its worst rating for environmental reporting because in 2017 it had no environmental impact report. There are no targets on the website, or externally verified environmental data.

    Is this still true? Is PP taking this seriously, does anyone know? (Deeds not words.)
    Hi @AlBrew
    Welcome to the community!
    Nice one for getting stuck in.
    Do you know how often these reports are published?
    As @Jon1 points out, in June 2017 we'd only just launched, in fact we were about one month old.
    There's a lot of info on our website, but to give you a bit here:
    Our electricity is 100% renewable (last year it was 52% wind and 48% solar) and backed by Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin, aka REGOs. More info about REGOs here.
    Our gas is 100% carbon offset, as we work towards a renewable electric-only future.

    Here's a blog post about one of our biggest suppliers, a wind farm in South Wales.

    Hope that helps you out a bit. Happy to keep chatting, of course
    Community Manager - Pure Planet

    ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
  • I don’t have the facts but not terribly keen on the shoot first and ask questions later assumptive tone of your post - wouldn’t it be prudent or reasonable to garner some facts first and then point the gun? Your question is however reasonable.
    Maybe PP were unaware of the need to provide info, but that doesn’t make them unethical.(deeds not words??)

    From my perspective and conversations with PP to date I see nothing that leads me to believe that they are ethically lacking, quite the contrary, but then one persons ethics are another’s corruption.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    Who audits ethicalconsumer.org, and who funds them?
    (and who checks upon the ethics of the consumer?)
    Last edited by woz; 26-01-19 at 16:31.
    0
  • I don’t have the facts but not terribly keen on the shoot first and ask questions later assumptive tone of your post - wouldn’t it be prudent or reasonable to garner some facts first and then point the gun? Your question is however reasonable.
    Maybe PP were unaware of the need to provide info, but that doesn’t make them unethical.(deeds not words??)

    From my perspective and conversations with PP to date I see nothing that leads me to believe that they are ethically lacking, quite the contrary, but then one persons ethics are another’s corruption.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    Who audits ethicalconsumer.org, and who funds them?
    (and who checks upon the ethics of the consumer?)
  • If deeds not words is the policy then frankly ethical consumer need to really get their house in order. The link provided shows the result of a report compiled in june 2017, at a time when pure planet existed but was barely trading as a new business and as such did not have to produce any impact study reports. So as donald trump would say this is FAKE NEWS.the fact that their number 1 pick on the list is a company which is owned by the second company on their best buy list kind of sums up the validity of the report as it leaves me wondering how big a payday they get from ecotricity.
    Then again maybe im looking at the wrong report as PP were not bottom of a selective list and i dont subscribe to such so not all the info is available.
    Last edited by Jon1; 26-01-19 at 17:29.
    3
  • If deeds not words is the policy then frankly ethical consumer need to really get their house in order. The link provided shows the result of a report compiled in june 2017, at a time when pure planet existed but was barely trading as a new business and as such did not have to produce any impact study reports. So as donald trump would say this is FAKE NEWS.the fact that their number 1 pick on the list is a company which is owned by the second company on their best buy list kind of sums up the validity of the report as it leaves me wondering how big a payday they get from ecotricity.
    Then again maybe im looking at the wrong report as PP were not bottom of a selective list and i dont subscribe to such so not all the info is available.
  • Whenever I see headline grabbing reports like this, be it scientific, environmental, medical or political, I ask myself "Who funded this research?"
    All to often the 'facts', 'statistics' and 'leading expert's quotes' are selectively chosen, misinterpreted and taken out of context to bolster the slant the people behind the funding want the conclusion to convey. I give you Bush & Blairs WMD report on Iraq as a blatant example; or the countless reports provided by tobacco companies claiming smoking was harmless; or how benign tetraethyl lead was as a petrol additive . . . the list is endless.
    3
  • Whenever I see headline grabbing reports like this, be it scientific, environmental, medical or political, I ask myself "Who funded this research?"
    All to often the 'facts', 'statistics' and 'leading expert's quotes' are selectively chosen, misinterpreted and taken out of context to bolster the slant the people behind the funding want the conclusion to convey. I give you Bush & Blairs WMD report on Iraq as a blatant example; or the countless reports provided by tobacco companies claiming smoking was harmless; or how benign tetraethyl lead was as a petrol additive . . . the list is endless.
  • Oh and I forgot to add @AlBrew that we also support the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. We're the only British energy supplier to do so.
    Community Manager - Pure Planet

    ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
    5
  • Oh and I forgot to add @AlBrew that we also support the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. We're the only British energy supplier to do so.
    Community Manager - Pure Planet

    ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
  • Comprehensive answer 👍👍👍
    3
  • Comprehensive answer 👍👍👍
  • Thank you for what you relayed. Are you going to contact them to either redo their questionnaire or ask them to correct what they say about PP? That would seem the best (though not the quickest) way to resolve this?

    - - - Updated - - -

    I wasn’t saying PP were unethical. I was asking some questions. I think PP should re-engage with EC. (I’m not an expert so I value EC’s input. Of course, your QC point is always valid. But then QCC, and so on all the way down.)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Correct none of us has all the info which is why I asked. And I’d like PP to reengage with EC
    1
  • Thank you for what you relayed. Are you going to contact them to either redo their questionnaire or ask them to correct what they say about PP? That would seem the best (though not the quickest) way to resolve this?

    - - - Updated - - -

    I wasn’t saying PP were unethical. I was asking some questions. I think PP should re-engage with EC. (I’m not an expert so I value EC’s input. Of course, your QC point is always valid. But then QCC, and so on all the way down.)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Correct none of us has all the info which is why I asked. And I’d like PP to reengage with EC
  • Quote Originally Posted by AlBrew View Post
    Thank you for what you relayed. Are you going to contact them to either redo their questionnaire or ask them to correct what they say about PP? That would seem the best (though not the quickest) way to resolve this?

    - - - Updated - - -

    I wasn’t saying PP were unethical. I was asking some questions. I think PP should re-engage with EC. (I’m not an expert so I value EC’s input. Of course, your QC point is always valid. But then QCC, and so on all the way down.)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Correct none of us has all the info which is why I asked. And I’d like PP to reengage with EC
    Thanks for jumping back in @AlBrew
    That's great feedback. I've passed this on to our marketing team to see what the deal is with the Ethical Consumer questionnaires. It may be something that they run periodically
    Community Manager - Pure Planet

    ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
    2
  • Quote Originally Posted by AlBrew View Post
    Thank you for what you relayed. Are you going to contact them to either redo their questionnaire or ask them to correct what they say about PP? That would seem the best (though not the quickest) way to resolve this?

    - - - Updated - - -

    I wasn’t saying PP were unethical. I was asking some questions. I think PP should re-engage with EC. (I’m not an expert so I value EC’s input. Of course, your QC point is always valid. But then QCC, and so on all the way down.)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Correct none of us has all the info which is why I asked. And I’d like PP to reengage with EC
    Thanks for jumping back in @AlBrew
    That's great feedback. I've passed this on to our marketing team to see what the deal is with the Ethical Consumer questionnaires. It may be something that they run periodically
    Community Manager - Pure Planet

    ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
  • Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Thanks for jumping back in @AlBrew
    That's great feedback. I've passed this on to our marketing team to see what the deal is with the Ethical Consumer questionnaires. It may be something that they run periodically
    Marc, glad to hear that. When will you be able to let us know the outcome please? Whether EC have stepped out of line in critiquing PP as they did, or whether they have a good basis for it, it will be good to know
    0
  • Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Thanks for jumping back in @AlBrew
    That's great feedback. I've passed this on to our marketing team to see what the deal is with the Ethical Consumer questionnaires. It may be something that they run periodically
    Marc, glad to hear that. When will you be able to let us know the outcome please? Whether EC have stepped out of line in critiquing PP as they did, or whether they have a good basis for it, it will be good to know
  • Marc another month has passed. Do you have an answer yet? Thanks
    0
  • Marc another month has passed. Do you have an answer yet? Thanks
  • hi AlBrew
    Normally for the sake of harmony in the community I wouldn't respond to your post (it's not addressed to me anyway so apologies if you think it untoward of me to respond).
    Firstly a, a month isn't very long and PP are aware of your question, as marc says it's been passed to the team to look at.
    I have real issues with ethicalconsumer.org and the way they operate.
    I would go as far as to say that I fundamentally disagree with their stance on a number of issues and their boycotts.
    So even if a glowing positive audit was produced for PP (which no doubt will be the case in fullness of time) I'd still take it with a pinch of salt.

    My personal audit of PP is based on my real interaction with the company, and while there is still room for ethical improvement as there is in every company, and it's work in progress, I have no doubt in my mind that PP, as far as my ethical stance is concerned, PP surpass my expectations (especially given the strangulating regulatory framework in which they have to work)

    I think the real question you should be asking on here is Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Or to put it another way who is giving ethicalconsumer their moral authority?

    To be blunt I don't really care what they have to say about PP and publishing that PP have a negative rating when they haven't had time to be properly audited is as far as I'm concerned akin to blackmailing companies by leaving a negative review on tripadvisor when you've never been there..not really ethical is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlBrew View Post
    Marc another month has passed. Do you have an answer yet? Thanks
    4
  • hi AlBrew
    Normally for the sake of harmony in the community I wouldn't respond to your post (it's not addressed to me anyway so apologies if you think it untoward of me to respond).
    Firstly a, a month isn't very long and PP are aware of your question, as marc says it's been passed to the team to look at.
    I have real issues with ethicalconsumer.org and the way they operate.
    I would go as far as to say that I fundamentally disagree with their stance on a number of issues and their boycotts.
    So even if a glowing positive audit was produced for PP (which no doubt will be the case in fullness of time) I'd still take it with a pinch of salt.

    My personal audit of PP is based on my real interaction with the company, and while there is still room for ethical improvement as there is in every company, and it's work in progress, I have no doubt in my mind that PP, as far as my ethical stance is concerned, PP surpass my expectations (especially given the strangulating regulatory framework in which they have to work)

    I think the real question you should be asking on here is Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Or to put it another way who is giving ethicalconsumer their moral authority?

    To be blunt I don't really care what they have to say about PP and publishing that PP have a negative rating when they haven't had time to be properly audited is as far as I'm concerned akin to blackmailing companies by leaving a negative review on tripadvisor when you've never been there..not really ethical is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlBrew View Post
    Marc another month has passed. Do you have an answer yet? Thanks
  • So Marc, I’m still waiting to hear about this. I know PurePlanet is a business and staff time matters, but I don’t understand why there’s still no update on this after 10 weeks? Many thanks
    1
  • So Marc, I’m still waiting to hear about this. I know PurePlanet is a business and staff time matters, but I don’t understand why there’s still no update on this after 10 weeks? Many thanks
  • Hi @AlBrew
    I'm not 100% sure what you're asking! You point out that they didn't give us an environmental impact report in 2017 when PP was still in closed market entry.
    I've explained how we're backed by renewable energy guarantees and linked to our website which explains that in more detail.
    And I've linked to the United Nation's SDGs which we support.
    What are you waitng to hear about?
    Community Manager - Pure Planet

    ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
    4
  • Hi @AlBrew
    I'm not 100% sure what you're asking! You point out that they didn't give us an environmental impact report in 2017 when PP was still in closed market entry.
    I've explained how we're backed by renewable energy guarantees and linked to our website which explains that in more detail.
    And I've linked to the United Nation's SDGs which we support.
    What are you waitng to hear about?
    Community Manager - Pure Planet

    ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
  • So Al (I'd never normally start a greeting with so, but I'm emulating your style, personally I find it somewhat confrontational, but then I'm strange...)

    I distrust EC.org and would go as far as to say that any report from them would be a negative indicator for me.

    So...what's the end-game here? A happy positive report from EC, and we can all sit back and relax in the knowledge that all is well?

    ​Disclaimer:
    This post is not intended to be confrontational.
    Name:  giphy.gif
Views: 128
Size:  852.5 KB
    Last edited by woz; 10-04-19 at 16:10.
    3
  • So Al (I'd never normally start a greeting with so, but I'm emulating your style, personally I find it somewhat confrontational, but then I'm strange...)

    I distrust EC.org and would go as far as to say that any report from them would be a negative indicator for me.

    So...what's the end-game here? A happy positive report from EC, and we can all sit back and relax in the knowledge that all is well?

    ​Disclaimer:
    This post is not intended to be confrontational.
    Name:  giphy.gif
Views: 128
Size:  852.5 KB
  • Hi Mark to see the questions again just read back to jan 19. In my first post, and then the follow up after the pile on by WOZ et al. You have kindly provided other info, but not answers to the questions. You did pass the enquiry on to your marketing people (should it perhaps go to compliance?) but they haven’t replied either. I’m interested to know PP’s position on Ethical Consumer’s concerns. I appreciate some people active in the forum don’t think their concerns should be taken seriously, but rather than shoot the messenger, it would be good to hear the answers, either from you or from them after you’ve set them straight (if they’re now wrong, since 2 years has passed). Many thanks!
    1
  • Hi Mark to see the questions again just read back to jan 19. In my first post, and then the follow up after the pile on by WOZ et al. You have kindly provided other info, but not answers to the questions. You did pass the enquiry on to your marketing people (should it perhaps go to compliance?) but they haven’t replied either. I’m interested to know PP’s position on Ethical Consumer’s concerns. I appreciate some people active in the forum don’t think their concerns should be taken seriously, but rather than shoot the messenger, it would be good to hear the answers, either from you or from them after you’ve set them straight (if they’re now wrong, since 2 years has passed). Many thanks!
  • hi AlBrew
    Ethical concerns should of course be taken seriously, My replies were not intended to shoot the messenger but were in response to your contention that if EC.org were to give PP a clean bill of health all would be well, or that's how your original query/contention presented to me (with this query at least).
    ​I disagree with that, but that's only my opinion - it's about who I trust personally.
    I genuinely hope you (eventually) receive a reply which sets your mind at rest.
    Late edit..
    Here's their latest chart, top score 14 PP score 12.5, for anyone who is concerned HERE is a link.
    Name:  ecorgchart+arrows.jpg
Views: 102
Size:  174.2 KB
    for info:
    ​EC.org don't for example support a boycott of Brunei (Gay death sentences) or Saudi (multiple reasons), (or the UK for selling arms), but among others do support a boycott of Botswana, Caterpillar, Coca Cola, Hewlett Packard, Israel, Motorola....
    I'm NOT posting the above comment to trivialise your concerns, on the contrary, just looking for a balanced approach...
    ​One man's meat is another man's Vegan sausage roll...
    Quote Originally Posted by AlBrew View Post
    Hi Mark to see the questions again just read back to jan 19. In my first post, and then the follow up after the pile on by WOZ et al. You have kindly provided other info, but not answers to the questions. You did pass the enquiry on to your marketing people (should it perhaps go to compliance?) but they haven’t replied either. I’m interested to know PP’s position on Ethical Consumer’s concerns. I appreciate some people active in the forum don’t think their concerns should be taken seriously, but rather than shoot the messenger, it would be good to hear the answers, either from you or from them after you’ve set them straight (if they’re now wrong, since 2 years has passed). Many thanks!
    Last edited by woz; 10-05-19 at 18:37. Reason: don't look now, but there's a....
    1
  • hi AlBrew
    Ethical concerns should of course be taken seriously, My replies were not intended to shoot the messenger but were in response to your contention that if EC.org were to give PP a clean bill of health all would be well, or that's how your original query/contention presented to me (with this query at least).
    ​I disagree with that, but that's only my opinion - it's about who I trust personally.
    I genuinely hope you (eventually) receive a reply which sets your mind at rest.
    Late edit..
    Here's their latest chart, top score 14 PP score 12.5, for anyone who is concerned HERE is a link.
    Name:  ecorgchart+arrows.jpg
Views: 102
Size:  174.2 KB
    for info:
    ​EC.org don't for example support a boycott of Brunei (Gay death sentences) or Saudi (multiple reasons), (or the UK for selling arms), but among others do support a boycott of Botswana, Caterpillar, Coca Cola, Hewlett Packard, Israel, Motorola....
    I'm NOT posting the above comment to trivialise your concerns, on the contrary, just looking for a balanced approach...
    ​One man's meat is another man's Vegan sausage roll...
    Quote Originally Posted by AlBrew View Post
    Hi Mark to see the questions again just read back to jan 19. In my first post, and then the follow up after the pile on by WOZ et al. You have kindly provided other info, but not answers to the questions. You did pass the enquiry on to your marketing people (should it perhaps go to compliance?) but they haven’t replied either. I’m interested to know PP’s position on Ethical Consumer’s concerns. I appreciate some people active in the forum don’t think their concerns should be taken seriously, but rather than shoot the messenger, it would be good to hear the answers, either from you or from them after you’ve set them straight (if they’re now wrong, since 2 years has passed). Many thanks!
  • Quote Originally Posted by AlBrew View Post
    Hi Mark to see the questions again just read back to jan 19. In my first post, and then the follow up after the pile on by WOZ et al. You have kindly provided other info, but not answers to the questions. You did pass the enquiry on to your marketing people (should it perhaps go to compliance?) but they haven’t replied either. I’m interested to know PP’s position on Ethical Consumer’s concerns. I appreciate some people active in the forum don’t think their concerns should be taken seriously, but rather than shoot the messenger, it would be good to hear the answers, either from you or from them after you’ve set them straight (if they’re now wrong, since 2 years has passed). Many thanks!
    Hi @AlBrew
    OK thanks. This is your Jan 19 questions/post:

    Hi. Www.ethicalconsumer.org has given Pureplanet its worst rating for environmental reporting because in 2017 it had no environmental impact report. There are no targets on the website, or externally verified environmental data.
    Is this still true? Is PP taking this seriously, does anyone know?
    To which I've replied that:
    In June 2017 we'd only just launched, in fact we were about one month old.
    There's a lot of info on our website. It states that our mission is to help make the UK powered 100% by renewable energy.
    Our electricity is 100% renewable (last year it was 52% wind and 48% solar) and backed by Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin, aka REGOs. More info about REGOs here.
    Our gas is 100% carbon offset, as we work towards a renewable electric-only future.
    Here's a blog post about one of our biggest suppliers, a wind farm in South Wales.
    We also support the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. We're the only British energy supplier to do so.
    More info on SDGs here.
    Community Manager - Pure Planet

    ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
    1
  • Quote Originally Posted by AlBrew View Post
    Hi Mark to see the questions again just read back to jan 19. In my first post, and then the follow up after the pile on by WOZ et al. You have kindly provided other info, but not answers to the questions. You did pass the enquiry on to your marketing people (should it perhaps go to compliance?) but they haven’t replied either. I’m interested to know PP’s position on Ethical Consumer’s concerns. I appreciate some people active in the forum don’t think their concerns should be taken seriously, but rather than shoot the messenger, it would be good to hear the answers, either from you or from them after you’ve set them straight (if they’re now wrong, since 2 years has passed). Many thanks!
    Hi @AlBrew
    OK thanks. This is your Jan 19 questions/post:

    Hi. Www.ethicalconsumer.org has given Pureplanet its worst rating for environmental reporting because in 2017 it had no environmental impact report. There are no targets on the website, or externally verified environmental data.
    Is this still true? Is PP taking this seriously, does anyone know?
    To which I've replied that:
    In June 2017 we'd only just launched, in fact we were about one month old.
    There's a lot of info on our website. It states that our mission is to help make the UK powered 100% by renewable energy.
    Our electricity is 100% renewable (last year it was 52% wind and 48% solar) and backed by Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin, aka REGOs. More info about REGOs here.
    Our gas is 100% carbon offset, as we work towards a renewable electric-only future.
    Here's a blog post about one of our biggest suppliers, a wind farm in South Wales.
    We also support the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. We're the only British energy supplier to do so.
    More info on SDGs here.
    Community Manager - Pure Planet

    ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
  • Hi Marc.

    Perhaps someone at Pure Planet would like to respond to whomever's responsible for the report mentioned in the article here:
    Code:
    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-6992675/The-green-energy-firms-exploiting-cheap-certificates-mean-charge-more.html
    Particularly as they are pretty much accusing Pure Planet of, if not outright lying, then bending the truth.

    Most other providers of 'green' tariffs – everyone from Centrica-owned British Gas through to German-owned Npower and eco-friendly brands such as Pure Planet – derive little or no energy directly from renewable sources.
    They simply buy the right to label tariffs as 'green' through a complex 'certificated' system.



    Regards
    Mark

    2
  • Hi Marc.

    Perhaps someone at Pure Planet would like to respond to whomever's responsible for the report mentioned in the article here:
    Code:
    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-6992675/The-green-energy-firms-exploiting-cheap-certificates-mean-charge-more.html
    Particularly as they are pretty much accusing Pure Planet of, if not outright lying, then bending the truth.

    Most other providers of 'green' tariffs – everyone from Centrica-owned British Gas through to German-owned Npower and eco-friendly brands such as Pure Planet – derive little or no energy directly from renewable sources.
    They simply buy the right to label tariffs as 'green' through a complex 'certificated' system.



    Regards
    Mark

  • I can't find the words...
    The article is inaccurate and partisan, the comments are even worse....(don't read them you'll only upset yoursef)

    ​My only question is what deal did they come to with the companies they promoted. I suspect we'll never know.

    I wonder if the DM approached PP for "comment" before they published? and were told to errr...go away...
    1
  • I can't find the words...
    The article is inaccurate and partisan, the comments are even worse....(don't read them you'll only upset yoursef)

    ​My only question is what deal did they come to with the companies they promoted. I suspect we'll never know.

    I wonder if the DM approached PP for "comment" before they published? and were told to errr...go away...