In France, digital already represents 4.4% of the national carbon footprint. Globally, it is estimated between 2 and 4% of greenhouse gas emissions and is growing faster than other economic sectors. In this context, the lack of environmental transparency in the cloud has become a regulatory and reputational risk for companies.
Regulatory issue
CSRD, Green Claims Directive, DGCCRF: greenwashing now exposes companies to financial sanctions, non-compliance risks and vulnerabilities in their extra-financial reporting.
Greenwashing is no longer a matter of image or communication. It has become a legal, financial and regulatory risk for companies.
Obligation for verified environmental reporting including Scopes 1, 2 and 3. Scope 3 represents up to 90% of digital footprint, often invisible.
Prohibition of unproven environmental claims. Sanctions can reach 4% of annual turnover in case of non-compliance.
Sanctions up to 80% of advertising budget for misleading commercial practices. 15% of controlled establishments had serious shortcomings in 2023-2024.
Choosing an opaque host amounts to transferring a regulatory and reporting risk directly to your company. Scope 3 represents more than 90% of ICT sector emissions.
Audit of environmental communication practices according to Green Claims Directive (EU) 2024/825 criteria. These findings are derived from cross-analysis of supplier communications, public reports and Directive (EU) 2024/825 criteria.
Generic claims without proof of recognized excellent environmental performance
No PUE per site, no CUE, no published Scope 3
Claims of neutral impact based solely on offsetting emissions
If any of these elements are missing, the greenwashing risk is real. This checklist can be copied, printed and used in calls for tenders. This checklist aims to help companies assess a supplier's transparency. It does not constitute a certification or labeling.
Annual measurement, per site, with documented calculation method
Values per site, with CO₂ factor used. Target: < 50 g CO₂e/kWh IT
Water usage effectiveness. Target: < 0.10 L/kWh IT (very water-efficient). To be considered with local water stress
Complete annual report, clear and verified methodology. Scope 3 represents more than 90% of ICT emissions
Allocation approach to clients documented, source emission factors
Volumes per site, GO cancellation copies, PPA summary. Prefer additional PPAs rather than simple GOs
No "neutral" or "net zero" claim based solely on offsetting
Factual analysis based on verifiable data. Models are presented generically to facilitate comparison.
| Model | Transparency | Published data | Client risk |
|---|---|---|---|
Traditional host | ❌ Opaque | Limited | High |
"Green" marketing | ⚠️ Partial | Partial | Medium |
Transparent hosting (e.g. French infrastructures publishing their indicators) | ✅ Total | Complete | Low |
Example of transparent architecture: FileVert (French infrastructure, published data)
FileVert doesn't just promise neutrality. FileVert publishes only what can be verified.
Concrete features for truly eco-friendly hosting
From problem to solutions: our complete ecosystem for responsible digital
Verified ranking with transparent methodology: PUE, ISO 14001/50001, Green Web Foundation
See detailed comparisonOptimize duration and environmental impact of your data: temporary vs permanent storage
Optimize your dataEverything you need to know about green hosting and greenwashing
FileVert relies on transparent hosting and publishes only what can be verified. Verifiable approach, not declarative.