2degrees
Assessed 16 July 2026 under NZ · Medium confidence
Evidence last captured 30 August 2026 · oldest 15 August 2026 · next re-check due 15 August 2027
We contacted this company 2 times between 6 August 2026 and 12 August 2026, by email and phone. No reply received.
A grade rules on whether a public claim is substantiated. It is not a finding about environmental performance, truthfulness, or the merit of the business. HowLegit is not a licensed adviser and nothing here is legal or investment advice.
Where this sits
All 21 energy companies, assessed against the same checklist in the same window.
2degrees ranks 7 of 21 in this sector by overall score, between 47.6% and 96.0%.
Findings
Environmental messaging does not reach the electricity customer journey. The power pages, plan pages and checkout carry no environmental information, so none of the validated programme is visible where the purchase decision is made.
Why this matters. A customer buying electricity encounters none of the environmental programme the corporate pages describe. That gap matters commercially: the work is already done and paid for, and it is invisible at the point where it could influence a purchase.
What closing this looks like
- Carry the environmental position onto the electricity pages, including the Net Zero 2040 commitment and what it does and does not mean for the energy a customer buys
- Assess New Zealand Energy Certificates for the electricity product, which would give the energy offering a verifiable environmental claim it currently lacks
“"We prioritise sustainability by reducing our environmental impact" (customer journey consistency)”
The sustainability commitment is made on the corporate pages and substantiated there, but it does not travel. The power pages, the plan pages and the checkout carry no environmental information at all, so a customer buying electricity encounters none of a programme that is externally validated and already paid for. The commitment is sound where it is made; the gap is that the journey where the purchase happens never meets it.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
"Fighting for Fair" brand promise sits alongside a $325,000 FTA conviction for misleading advertising (five charges admitted, April 2025). Employee count inconsistent: 1,520 vs 1,200+ across pages.
Why this matters. Specific, checkable statements about your own people build trust faster than broad positioning does. Where two pages give different figures for the same thing, a reader tends to discount both rather than pick one.
What closing this looks like
- Use a single employee figure across every consumer-facing page and state the date it was current
- Report electricity customer satisfaction separately from telecommunications, so the fairness positioning can be tested against the product it is applied to
“Fighting for Fair" (brand purpose)”
"Fighting for Fair" is the organising promise across mobile, broadband and electricity, and no definition of fairness, measure or reported outcome accompanies it. Set against an April 2025 Fair Trading Act conviction on charges the company admitted, the positioning carries more weight than the published evidence supports.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
“1520 New Zealand staff steering the ship”
The figure is specific and prominently placed, which is what this kind of claim needs. It is also inconsistent with "our team of 1200+" on the Our Story page, which carries a February 2022 date. A reader comparing the two pages cannot tell which is current.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
“at least 40% women in senior leadership" maintained three years”
The claim states a threshold, a population and a period, and the FY25 Annual Update reports 42% for FY25 against a 40/40/20 target in place since FY23. It is one of the few social claims on this audit carrying a number a reader can check.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
The Māori founding story is prominent on the Our Story page: Rangiaho Everton, the recognition of spectrum as taonga, and investment by the pan-Māori trust Hautaki. A current Māori engagement programme is published, Te Pou Aroha, with tikanga and Te Reo Māori training. Current Māori governance representation and ownership are not stated anywhere, while the leadership page names two directors as representatives of the investor that acquired the business in 2022.
Why this matters. A founding story invites people to expect a continuing relationship. Where ownership has changed, saying what the connection is now protects the story from being read as heritage marketing rather than a live commitment.
What closing this looks like
- State the current Māori ownership, governance and engagement position alongside the founding story, whatever that position now is
“Māori founding story (Rangiaho Everton, Hautaki trust)”
The founding narrative is given prominence on the Our Story page and is accurate as history: spectrum recognised as taonga, a group of Māori visionaries led by Rangiaho Everton, and investment by the pan-Māori trust Hautaki. Told without a present-day counterpart, it invites an expectation of three things continuing: Māori ownership, Māori representation in governance, and Māori engagement. The published record answers one of the three. Engagement is described: an internal Māori employee group, Te Pou Aroha, and tikanga and Te Reo Māori training reported across FY24. On governance the record is silent about Māori representation; the leadership page names the board and describes two directors as representatives of Macquarie Asset Management, which invested during the 2022 Vocus merger, and no director is described as representing Māori interests or the Hautaki trust. On ownership the record is silent; no consumer-facing page states a current Māori shareholding or what became of the Hautaki investment. Silence is not an ending, and nothing here suggests the relationship has lapsed. The exposure is that a reader who takes the founding story at face value cannot check two of the three expectations it creates.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
"Save 10% on your monthly Power bill" is conditional on maintaining broadband. Condition is stated but implications for switching and lock-in are not prominently addressed.
Why this matters. A conditional offer that reads as unconditional is the most common source of consumer complaint in bundled services. Stating the condition where the saving is stated keeps the offer clear at the moment the decision is made.
What closing this looks like
- State the broadband requirement in the same block as the 10% saving on the power page, not in an expandable answer below it
- Substantiate "simple and seamless" with a typical switching timeframe and a short description of the steps, or soften the wording to what can be evidenced
“One bill. No fuss.”
"One bill. No fuss." is read in the context of the bundle it describes, and the page states plainly what is combined. In that setting the phrase is a description of the billing arrangement rather than a promise about the service.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
“simple and seamless" switching”
"Switching to 2degrees is simple and seamless, with no downtime" is stated on the power page with no supporting detail: no timeframe, no description of the process, and no acknowledgement of the broadband condition that governs it. The claim is testable in principle and untested in practice.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
Pricing is address-specific with no public rates on comparison databases, so a customer cannot test the offer before entering an address. Power is available only alongside broadband, and the page states the saving before it states that condition. What happens to the electricity service if the broadband plan ends is not stated anywhere.
Why this matters. Pricing a customer cannot compare is pricing a customer cannot trust. Where the offer depends on a bundle, the total cost of the bundle is the number that matters, and it is the one a buyer currently has to assemble themselves.
What closing this looks like
- Publish indicative pricing for a set of representative households so a customer can compare before entering an address
- State on the power page what happens to the electricity service if the broadband plan ends, next to the saving that depends on it
“Save 10% on your monthly Power bill when you have both Power and Broadband with 2degrees”
The saving is stated as a percentage and the discount condition sits in the same sentence, which is the clearer half of this offer. The condition that governs whether the offer is available at all sits elsewhere: the answer "Yes, Power is only available when bundled with a 2degrees Broadband plan" is one expandable question further down the page, below the saving that depends on it. What happens to the electricity service if the broadband plan ends is not stated on the power page, in the help pages or in the energy terms. The page states what a customer gains by joining and not what they give up by leaving, so the switching cost cannot be worked out from the published material.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
“Discount "grows during higher-usage months”
The page explains why the saving varies rather than presenting a single figure, and gives the mechanism. That is a more honest framing of a percentage-based discount than a headline dollar amount would be.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
“Standard User and Low User plan options”
Both plan types are named on the power page and explained in the help pages, which is the disclosure a customer needs to choose between them.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
The help page tells customers they will not find 2degrees on Powerswitch and asks them to factor bundle discounts in themselves. 2degrees was added to Powerswitch's published list between 4 and 15 September 2026, and on 15 September the help page still carried the statement. The energy terms are published in the 2degrees name, but the terms index also carries a Vocus Energy section and Switch Utilities documents, and the trading relationship is explained only inside the terms document.
Why this matters. A customer told not to look for a retailer on the comparison tool most people reach first will not look, whether or not the listing is there. Terms published under a different company name compound it, because a customer cannot tell which document governs their service.
What closing this looks like
- State on the terms index that Switch Utilities Limited trades as 2degrees, so the relationship is visible before a customer opens the document
- Work with Powerswitch on a representation of the bundle discount, or publish a worked comparison showing how to account for it
- Update the help page to say that 2degrees is listed on Powerswitch, since the page currently tells customers they will not find it there and they will, so a reader is being sent away from a comparison route that is now open to them.
“Customers are told they will not find 2degrees on Powerswitch, attributed to the tool's handling of bundle discounts”
The help page reads "The reason you won't find 2degrees on this tool is because the tool can't handle displaying bundle discounts", and asks the reader to factor the discounts in themselves. Powerswitch's published retailer list did not name 2degrees when we checked it on 4 September 2026 and did name it when we re-checked on 15 September 2026, so the listing began between those dates. The help page still carried the statement on 15 September. A customer reading it is directed away from a comparison listing that now exists. This is graded FLAG rather than FAIL because the statement is overtaken by an external fact rather than contradicted by 2degrees' own published evidence, and because the listing is recent enough that the page may not yet have caught up.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
“Listed on billy.govt.nz (references on /power page)”
The listing on billy.govt.nz is a factual statement and the site is named and linked, giving a customer a comparison route the company does not control.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
The company's central commercial promise, "Fighting for Fair", is published on the about page and applied across every product line. Nothing published beside it sets out what the commitment involves or how a customer would know it had been met. The claim is not contradicted by anything in the electricity offering; it is unproven within it.
Why this matters. A brand promise built on fairness is measured against the public record, not against intent. Where a regulator has found otherwise, addressing it directly is more durable than leaving the positioning and the record to be read side by side.
What closing this looks like
- Acknowledge the April 2025 Fair Trading Act conviction on a consumer-facing page and state what changed as a result, or reframe the fairness positioning to what the record supports
- Define what "Fighting for Fair" commits the company to in measurable terms and report against it annually alongside the Community Impact Report
“Fighting for Fair" (commercial context)”
"Fighting for Fair" is the company's central commercial promise and it is published on the about page, where an electricity customer reaches it. It is an aspirational positioning statement and no pathway, measure or commitment is published beside it that a reader could test it against, which is what a FLAG records. This claim previously carried a FAIL, resting on the April 2025 Fair Trading Act conviction. That conviction concerns Australian business roaming rather than electricity, and a market-scoped audit does not grade a claim on conduct in another product market. The conviction remains recorded on this audit as a disclosure matter, under the S-B material silence flag, because 2degrees discloses it on no consumer-facing page and that silence is on its New Zealand surfaces.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
The sustainability page states the commitment in broad terms and links directly beneath it to the page carrying the detail: a Net Zero 2040 goal validated by the Science Based Targets initiative, an FY22 baseline and a 100% renewable operations commitment by FY30.
Why this matters. A commitment a reader cannot test is a commitment a regulator cannot verify either. Naming the solutions, the period and the measure on the same page as the promise turns a statement of intent into something you can be held to, and something a buyer can rely on.
What closing this looks like
- Carry the Net Zero 2040 validation onto the sustainability landing card itself, so the evidence is visible without following the link
“prioritise sustainability by reducing our environmental impact and promoting eco-friendly solutions for a greener future”
The commitment is broad in itself, but it sits in a card with a labelled route to the detail directly beneath it, and that route leads to the page publishing a Net Zero 2040 goal validated by the Science Based Targets initiative, a 90% Scope 1 and 2 reduction by FY30 against an FY22 baseline, and 100% renewable energy in operations by FY30. A reader who wants the substance is one signposted click from it.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
Science-based targets are published with a Net Zero 2040 goal, an FY22 baseline and external validation by the Science Based Targets initiative. Supplier coverage is reported at 61% against a 75% goal, alongside a 6-Star Greenstar building and the Re:mobile handset recycling programme.
Why this matters. Substantiated environmental claims are an asset. External validation of a reduction pathway is the difference between a statement a competitor can copy and a position a procurement team can act on, and it is the evidence that answers the first question any large customer asks.
What closing this looks like
- Publish interim progress against the FY30 Scope 1 and 2 milestone, on the model already used for supplier science-based-target coverage
“setting science-based targets to reduce our carbon footprint”
Published with the detail this claim was previously assessed as lacking. The environment page sets a Net Zero 2040 goal validated by the Science Based Targets initiative in late 2024, a 90% cut in Scope 1 and 2 emissions by FY30 against an FY22 baseline, and 100% renewable energy in operations by FY30.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
“6-Star Greenstar rated building”
The 6-Star Greenstar rating is a specific, third-party certified rating naming the building it applies to. The scope is stated and the claim does not extend beyond it.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
“E-waste trade-in / Re:mobile recycling programme”
The Re:mobile trade-in programme is described with what it does and who can use it. The FY25 Annual Update reports over 125kg of e-waste diverted from landfill, which gives the claim a published figure to stand on.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
“Business Partner Code requiring GHG measurement and science-based targets”
The Business Partner Code sets a supplier science-based-target requirement, and progress against it is reported rather than asserted. Supplier spend covered by science-based targets rose from 41% in June 2024 to 61% in July 2025 against a 75% goal, and membership of the Joint Alliance for CSR commits the company to auditing at least five suppliers a year.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
The Science Based Targets initiative mark is displayed on the environment page beside the sentence stating what it certifies, and the certification behind it is real and externally validated. The mark is used within the scope it was granted for, the company's own operational emissions, and is not extended to the electricity product. No self-awarded badge or unaccredited green mark appears on the environmental pages.
Why this matters. Imagery and certification marks set an expectation before a word is read. A third-party mark placed beside the claim it certifies is the strongest form of this, because a reader can check the certifier rather than take the company's word. The risk it avoids is a legitimate mark drifting onto products it was never granted for.
What closing this looks like
- Keep the visual treatment proportionate if an environmental claim is added to the power pages, so imagery does not outrun the evidence
“In late 2024 our Net Zero target was externally verified by the SBTi”
The Science Based Targets initiative mark is displayed on the environment page immediately beside this sentence, at the same prominence, and the sentence states what the mark certifies rather than leaving the logo to imply it. The certification is real and is graded on its own evidence at E2: a Net Zero 2040 goal validated by the SBTi in late 2024, a 90% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions by FY30 against an FY22 baseline, and 100% renewable energy in operations by FY30. The mark is used within the scope it was granted for, which is the company's own operational emissions, and the page does not extend it to the electricity or telecommunications products. The wider visual treatment is proportionate: the environment page is set in the corporate blue palette, the one photograph of generation infrastructure sits beside text about energy-efficient operations rather than standing as a claim to own generation, and no self-awarded badge or unaccredited green mark appears anywhere on the environmental pages.
Captured 30 August 2026 · source page ↗
The Consumer Care Policy of September 2025 is published and downloadable, with documented protections for medically dependent consumers, a hardship pathway with an external referral, and a 2025 Modern Slavery Statement.
Why this matters. Clear, published protections for customers in difficulty are among the most scrutinised disclosures in this sector. Having them documented and downloadable is a genuine strength and a direct answer to a regulator asking how vulnerable customers are handled.
What closing this looks like
- Publish the medically dependent consumer confirmation form on the power and help pages, not only inside the Consumer Care Policy document
“Hardship support / MoneyTalks referral”
The hardship pathway names an external, independent service and gives its contact details rather than routing the customer back into the company. That is a disclosure a customer in difficulty can act on without asking permission first.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
“Modern Slavery Statement 2025”
The 2025 Modern Slavery Statement is published and downloadable, covers the FY25 financial year, and describes supplier risk mapping, training, governance and audit activity rather than asserting that risk is low.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
“MDC registration and protection system”
Protections for medically dependent consumers are documented in the Consumer Care Policy of September 2025 with a confirmation-of-status form published alongside it. The obligation, the process and the form are all reachable from the same surface.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
Complaints process documented with 20 working day resolution target. Utilities Disputes and EA escalation pathways published with contact details.
Why this matters. When something goes wrong, the speed and clarity of the escalation path is what a customer remembers. Publishing the timeframe and the free external route removes the most common source of complaint escalation before it starts.
What closing this looks like
- Publish how many complaints were resolved within the 20 working day target, so the published timeframe carries a published outcome
“Complaint resolution within 20 working days”
The resolution timeframe is stated as a number of working days and is paired with the free, independent escalation route to Utilities Disputes. A customer can tell in advance what happens and when.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
Strong measurable social outcomes: 40% women in senior leadership (three years), 26 weeks parental leave at 100% salary, 1,118 volunteer hours in FY25, TupuToa and First Foundation partnerships.
Why this matters. Measurable social outcomes with published numbers are the strongest form of this claim. Parental leave, volunteering hours and partnership programmes reported with figures give a reader something to verify rather than something to believe.
What closing this looks like
- Report the 40% women in senior leadership measure against the wider workforce as well as the leadership tier, so the figure carries its base
“26 weeks at 100% salary parental leave”
The parental leave provision states a duration and a pay rate, both specific enough to be compared against the statutory minimum and against other employers.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
“4 days work / 5 days pay for returning parents (3 months)”
The four-days-worked, five-days-paid arrangement for returning parents states the ratio and the period it runs for. It is a specific commitment rather than a statement of support.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
“TupuToa and First Foundation partnerships”
The TupuToa and First Foundation partnerships are named organisations with stated purposes, corroborated in the FY25 Annual Update. Naming the partner is what makes this claim checkable.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
10% bundle discount documented with conditional terms. Smart meter reading frequency and complaint resolution timeframes stated. Consumer Care Policy verifiable.
Why this matters. Substantiation is what turns a price promise into a defensible one. Documented terms, published timeframes and verifiable policy documents are what a regulator asks for first when a pricing claim is questioned.
What closing this looks like
- Publish the Consumer Care Policy review date and the smart meter data refresh interval on the help page rather than only inside the policy PDF
“Smart meter daily usage readings (48-hour delay)”
The smart meter reading frequency is stated precisely, including the 48-hour delay, and the alternative for legacy meters is described alongside it. The disclosure tells a customer what to expect rather than implying real-time data.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
Complaint resolution target (20 working days) and external escalation to Utilities Disputes documented with conditions and timeframes.
Why this matters. Promises about resolution and refunds are tested at the worst moment in a customer relationship. Publishing the timeframe and the free independent escalation route is what makes the promise usable rather than decorative.
What closing this looks like
- State what happens if the 20 working day resolution target is missed, so the promise carries a consequence as well as a timeframe
“20 working day complaint resolution”
The resolution target is given as a specific number of working days on the same page as the escalation route, so the promise and the remedy if it is not met sit together.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
“Utilities Disputes escalation (free)”
The escalation route names the independent scheme, gives its address and states that it is free. A customer is told where to go and what it costs before they need it.
Captured 15 August 2026 · source page ↗
No comparative environmental claims identified.
Why this matters. No comparative environmental claim was made about the electricity offering, so there is nothing here to assess. If comparative language is introduced later, the baseline and the comparator both need publishing alongside it.
A Net Zero 2040 commitment is published and externally validated, with 100% renewable energy in operations by FY30 and a network energy-efficiency programme with Ericsson. Interim progress against the Scope 1 and 2 pathway is not yet reported.
Why this matters. A validated long-range target is credible; the interim steps are what make it fundable and defensible. Reporting progress against the near-term pathway is what stops a 2040 goal reading as a commitment nobody currently in the business will have to meet.
The one inconsistency identified between 2degrees' own channels is the employee figure, which reads 1,520 on the About Us page and 1200+ on the Our Story page, and it is graded at S1. The fairness positioning set against the April 2025 enforcement record is graded at C7 and at S1, on the pages where that wording is published.
Why this matters. Consistency is what a reader tests when the same promise or the same figure appears in more than one place. Two pages giving different numbers for the same thing tends to make a reader discount both rather than pick one.
No comparative or superiority claims identified for the electricity offering.
Why this matters. No comparative or superiority claim was made for the electricity offering, so there is nothing here to assess. Introducing one would require the comparator and the basis to be published with it.
What has changed since first assessment
This audit was assessed once and corrected once on our own initiative. What moved, and why.
- 22 July 2026First assessmentFirst assessmentB
Assessed from the public record, unsolicited, as part of the New Zealand energy sector scan. 2degrees did not commission it.
- 2 September 2026Scope correctionOur correctionB+
We corrected this ourselves. 2degrees did not ask us to.
Market Scope Discipline; CR-037 deduplication
Cite this
One company, with every graded claim, its own published wording and the dated capture each grade rests on.
You are here
The full analysis behind these grades: what the sector claims, how much of it holds up, and the seven findings that run across it.
Read it, free and without registration →
HowLegit, 2degrees — messaging integrity assessment. Energy sector register, assessed 16 July 2026. Overall B+ (73.7%). https://howlegit.com/register/Energy/2degrees A grade rules on whether a public claim is substantiated, not on its truth or on the merit of the business. Not legal or investment advice. Produced by HowLegit, which also sells audits commercially. The data on this page is public.
This entry is part of a complete sector scan. Companies not listed on the Energy register were not assessed — which is not the same as being cleared.