Green promises from technology companies are everywhere. Servers described as carbon neutral, cloud platforms that reportedly run on 100% renewable energy, and datacentres branded as sustainable.
The marketing machine is powerful, and many executives want to believe these claims because they align with boardroom goals and customer expectations. Yet, the gap between what is said and what is real can be wide. Many technology firms are less than transparent, often overstating their environmental claims. For IT directors, the challenge is to cut through the noise and distinguish between what truly holds up under scrutiny and what is simply branding.
In boardrooms, slick presentations can make bold promises that collapse under scrutiny. A hosting provider’s service may be promoted as powered by renewables, yet closer examination often reveals that only a portion of electricity comes from renewable sources, purchased through certificates with minimal connection to actual clean energy generation.
Behind every bold claim lies a trail of data — or the absence of it — highlighting the need for rigorous evaluation of supplier sustainability statements.
Red flags in sustainability marketing
A good starting point is to watch how a company talks about sustainability. Vague language is a common warning sign. Words like “eco-friendly,” “green,” or “sustainable” without measurable detail should trigger immediate scepticism. These are catchphrases that can mean anything and nothing at the same time.
Another giveaway is selective reporting. If a company only highlights the energy used by one part of its operations but ignores emissions from manufacturing, logistics, or disposal, that is cause for concern.
Some suppliers celebrate reductions in datacentre power usage while quietly omitting the emissions linked to hardware production or supply chains. The absence of a complete picture often tells a bigger story than what’s presented.
A third red flag is the overreliance on offsets. They have their place, but offsets should be used only as a last resort after all feasible emissions reductions have been made. When a supplier claims “net zero” or “carbon neutral” purely by purchasing offsets rather than cutting emissions at the source, it signals a weak commitment to genuine change.
IT directors need to determine whether the company is actively reducing energy use and operational emissions or simply paying to balance them out on paper.
Verifying environmental claims
Verification requires persistence. When a technology partner makes a bold statement, ask for hard numbers. If a company says their cloud is powered by renewable energy, request details: What percentage of electricity is directly purchased from renewable sources? What portion comes from certificates or credits? Which third-party audits confirm this?
There are established standards that can guide verification. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol), ISO 14064, and the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) are widely accepted references. Suppliers aligned with these standards are more likely to provide trustworthy data. If a supplier avoids mentioning any standard or provides overly simplified numbers, that is a sign to dig deeper.
IT directors should also look at reporting frequency. Annual sustainability reports backed by independent verification suggest greater seriousness than irregular press releases. Consistency is often the difference between long-term environmental programs and temporary marketing campaigns.
The role of transparency
Transparency is the dividing line between marketing and reality. A technology partner serious about sustainability will share data openly, explain methods clearly, and admit shortcomings. No company is perfect; emissions from servers, logistics, and hardware manufacturing are unavoidable. A supplier that openly admits challenges while outlining credible reduction strategies deserves more trust than one that claims perfection.
Suppliers that clearly note which parts of their supply chain are difficult to measure while providing plans to address gaps demonstrate a higher level of accountability. This approach stands in contrast to companies that advertise zero emissions without offering any detailed breakdown. Transparency strengthens confidence even when reported numbers are not flawless.
Building internal competency
IT directors cannot rely solely on supplier claims; they must equip their teams to question and verify. This requires building internal knowledge about sustainability standards and carbon accounting. Basic training on how emissions are measured — Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 — is essential. Without this knowledge, teams can be easily swayed by clever marketing.
Developing a culture of enquiry makes a difference. Encourage teams to question every claim: Where does this number come from? Who verified it? Does it cover the full lifecycle of the product or only a portion? These questions push suppliers to move beyond vague language and into measurable territory.
Another practical step is to collaborate with peers across industries. Sustainability is not an area where competitive advantage should prevent knowledge-sharing. Directors can join industry groups, working groups, or alliances where sustainability verification methods are discussed and refined. Learning from others’ experiences saves time and prevents costly mistakes.
Avoiding complicity
A subtle but serious risk lies in becoming complicit in greenwashing by repeating unverified claims. If an IT director promotes a supplier’s sustainability credentials internally without proper verification, the organisation can unknowingly pass misleading claims to customers or stakeholders.
This not only damages credibility but may also attract regulatory scrutiny, particularly as the UK Green Claims Code sets clear expectations for businesses to ensure environmental claims are accurate, evidence-based, and transparent. Adhering to the code helps organisations reduce the risk of reputational or legal consequences while promoting responsible environmental reporting.
To avoid this, directors should establish a rule: no sustainability claim should be shared externally until it has been verified. Even internally, teams should be encouraged to treat supplier claims as provisional until supporting evidence is reviewed. Documenting the due diligence process helps protect the organisation if claims are later challenged.
Looking beyond Big Tech
Big tech companies often dominate sustainability headlines, but smaller providers can sometimes demonstrate more genuine commitment. Mid-sized or niche technology firms may put real effort into reducing emissions, partly because reputational damage from exaggeration would be harder to absorb. While they may lack resources for polished marketing campaigns, their environmental commitments can carry greater substance.
This does not mean that larger providers should be ignored. The same level of scrutiny must be applied across all vendors. Whether the claim comes from a global cloud provider or a regional datacentre, the key questions remain the same: Are the numbers transparent? Are they independently verified? Do they align with recognised standards?
For IT directors, verifying supplier sustainability claims is a matter of diligence and careful assessment. Red flags such as vague language, selective reporting, and overreliance on offsets must be treated as signals to investigate further.
Claims supported by independent verification, transparent data, and alignment with recognised standards provide a firmer basis for trust. Transparency and openness are often more telling than polished marketing campaigns.
Building organisational competence in sustainability ensures that teams can evaluate claims critically and avoid amplifying misinformation. The responsibility extends beyond procurement; it shapes how companies present themselves to customers, regulators, and society at large.
When directors hold vendors accountable, they not only protect their organisations but also push the technology sector toward genuine progress.
