Chapter 3: Measuring¶
Open questions¶
- How do you harmonize ICT and corporate sustainability reporting?
- How do you assess the global environmental and societal impacts of your products or services?
- How do you communicate your footprint from IT? And how often?
- How do you undertake engagement on your footprint?
- How do you quantify the results of your sustainable IT action plan? Please provide 3 concrete examples of actions achieved and measured during the past 3 years. Aligned with Paris Agreement and Fit for 55 European Regulation (2030 horizon).
- What do you require from hardware manufacturers or providers to assess their environmental and societal engagement and performance?
- How do you link an environmental and societal footprint with economic performance and a prosperity strategy?
3.1 How do you harmonize ICT and corporate sustainability reporting?¶
Rationale¶
Corporate Sustainability Reporting is now a standard for many organisations, especially large ones. New regulations, such as the CSRD (European Corporate Sustainability Responsibility Directive), will generalize these legal duties. As a part of a global organisation, the ICT department must endorse its own footprint and engage in its own mitigation actions, in compliance with the global strategy.
Evaluation criteria¶
| Evaluation criterion | Recommended priority | Proposed weighting (total = 12 points) |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting of ICT footprint shall be consistent with the reporting of the corporate one at the level of the organisation, respecting regulation (E.g. CSRD for targeted companies – with identified ESRS standards / other standards for public services). | P1 | 8 |
| The number (or proportion) of environmental and societal criteria that are common to ICT and corporate reporting, are declared. | P2 | 4 |
3.2 How do you assess the global environmental and societal impacts of your products or services?¶
Rationale¶
The evaluation of any environmental and societal footprint must reflect the global impacts of the ICT organisation or department, and the diversity of these impacts with their potential transfers in its value chain. Systemic assessment methodologies have been developed to ensure that. They have been applied to digital equipment as well as to digital services.
Evaluation criteria¶
| Evaluation criterion | Recommended priority | Proposed weighting (total = 18 points) |
|---|---|---|
| To cover the ecosystem (stakeholders) it is mandatory to take into account not only direct impacts (energy consumption, accessibility) but also indirect ones (generally the most significant, relative to mining, manufacturing or e-waste). Example of indirect impacts: Scope 3 GHG emissions, toxicities and acidification of biotope due to mining, or toxicities due to recycling of WEEE. | P1 | 4 |
| A systemic methodology has to be adopted: at least carbon balance, multicriteria (simplified) LCA is highly recommended. | P1 | 3 |
| Specificities of digital shall be considered. The answers must recognize the difference between general sustainability (that is wider than the perimeter of this guide) and Sustainable IT. | P2 | 2 |
| The different environmental and societal criteria covered shall be communicated. For Digital services (or function units), the following environmental criteria are highly recommended: • Climate change (kg CO₂ equivalent) • Mineral abiotic resources depletion (kg Sb eq) • Fossil abiotic resources depletion • Acidification (mol H+ eq) • Fine particulate emissions (DALY) • Water scarcity or water usage (liters of blue or brown water) • Ionizing radiation (kBq U235 eq) Note: in line with the PEF, 80% of the normalized footprint should be covered. Consequently, the footprint shall be computed on the 16 criteria of the PEF and the selection should be done only for the communication. |
P2 | 2 |
| Biodiversity indicators should be communicated in line with CSRD. The way in which they are computed shall be transparent, in order to avoid a strategy based only on decarbonization. | P2 | 2 |
| Hypothesis & impacts data basis, emission factors and other input data shall be taken into account for the footprint computation and documented. | P2 | 2 |
| Tools used to evaluate the footprint shall be communicated. | P3 | 1 |
| The scope covered by the footprint evaluation must be specified (E.g. Digital workplace, data centres, cloud, network). At least PCR standards shall be respected. | P3 | 1 |
| Societal dimension: SLCA (Societal Life Cycle Assessment) shall be promoted to consider also societal impacts (Human Rights, forced labor, modern slavery, children labor/education access). | P3 | 1 |
3.3 How do you communicate your footprint from IT? And how often?¶
Rationale¶
Transparency of public information about its environmental and societal footprint is today a requirement for any organisation. It must be easily understandable even by non-expert people. Moreover, regulation now exists to prevent greenwashing and there have already been prosecutions that resulted in a real degradation of brand image for some companies.
Evaluation criteria¶
| Evaluation criterion | Recommended priority | Proposed weighting (total = 14 points) |
|---|---|---|
| Transparent results shall be officially published and communicated to stakeholders, regarding the IT perimeter. | P1 | 4 |
| Any kind of greenwashing should be penalized in the evaluation, aligned with the European regulation (Green claims). Even if it is not intentional, it reveals a lack of maturity. We encourage to consider the possibility to use negative points on this revealing question. | P1 | 4 |
| Footprint data shall be used in communication to raise awareness. | P2 | 2 |
| For digital services providers, the footprint of the delivered services should be computed and communicated to the client. | P2 | 2 |
| Popularization shall be done to make figures comprehensible by anybody, using relevant comparisons. | P3 | 1 |
| Regular operational reviews (quarterly recommended) of footprint evaluation and KPI/OKR must be done, in line with governance criteria. | P3 | 1 |
3.4 How do you undertake engagement on your footprint?¶
Rationale¶
If we consider Sustainability Reporting to be a punctual and frequent measure of the footprint of the organisation, we must remember that a thermometer does not reduce the fever. Therefore, targets and roadmaps to reduce a footprint are necessary to engage the organisation and its IT teams. It provides the purpose for measuring and reporting.
Evaluation criteria¶
| Evaluation criterion | Recommended priority | Proposed weighting (total = 16 points) |
|---|---|---|
| The stakeholder should communicate forecasts and engagements on its future footprint. The means of measurement and methodology should be detailed and transparent. | P1 | 8 |
| Biodiversity is also considered in the engagement in line with CSRD requirements. The methodology to evaluate the biodiversity impacts, must be detailed and transparent. | P2 | 5 |
| The engagements must be coherent with the global CSR strategy. For example, with SBTi engagements (Net Zero). | P3 | 3 |
3.5 How do you quantify the results of your sustainable IT action plan? Please provide 3 concrete examples of actions achieved and measured during the past 3 years. Aligned with Paris Agreement and Fit for 55 European Regulation (2030 horizon).¶
Rationale¶
Targets and roadmaps must result in concrete action plans that produce concrete and measured results. Thus, communication must not focus only on future targets, but also on the results of the targets set a few years ago. The evaluation of maturity must not be based only on future intentions but on concrete achievements, especially when regulation milestones are fixed by authorities.
Evaluation criteria¶
| Evaluation criterion | Recommended priority | Proposed weighting (total = 15 points) |
|---|---|---|
| The actions should express an order of magnitude or a reduction of 5 to 6% per year in GHG emissions each year. | P1 | 6 |
| The organisation shall be able to communicate at least 3 footprint reduction actions, achieved during the past 3 years, that were quantified and that are aligned with a Paris Agreement or SBTi Net Zero. | P1 | 6 |
| The organisation does not consider measurement as a target itself, but as a mean to drive action plans and assess their credibility. | P2 | 3 |
3.6 What do you require from hardware manufacturers or providers to assess their environmental and societal engagement and performance?¶
Rationale¶
Independent studies have revealed that 70 to 80% of the environmental and societal footprint of the digital industry in the world is due to the manufacture of IT equipment and more specifically the extraction (mining) of raw materials required to produce the metals used in manufacturing. Hardware and infrastructure manufacturers have a clear specific responsibility that requires them to be transparent and to deliver concrete results in mitigating their impacts.
Evaluation criteria¶
| Evaluation criterion | Recommended priority | Proposed weighting (total = 15 points) |
|---|---|---|
| Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) shall be requested from manufacturers during a selection process for buying or leasing ICT equipment (computers, network hardware, servers, smartphones). An LCA shall respect ISO 14044/14064 standards, especially considering independent critical review. | P1 | 15 |
3.7 How do you link an environmental and societal footprint with economic performance and a prosperity strategy?¶
Rationale¶
Prosperity is one of the Three Pillars of Sustainability. On one hand economics topics also have an impact in the societal dimension, and on the other hand environmental issues can impact both the economy and society. Moreover, synergies can exist between sustainable IT and FinOps (Financial Operations), for example by reducing the frequency of renewal of equipment.
Evaluation criteria¶
| Evaluation criterion | Recommended priority | Proposed weighting (total = 10 points) |
|---|---|---|
| In line with strategy criteria, a measure shall be used to evaluate economic performance. Total Cost of Ownership and/or Life Cycle Cost Analysis shall be integrated into the decisions process and governance. | P2 | 10 |