Eco-warriors: Microsoft Azure versus Google Cloud Platform on sustainability

In the second part of our series, we compare the green merits of Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform.

As enterprises become more conscious of their Environmental Social Governance (ESG) profiles, attention is turning to cloud. How carbon- and water-hungry are the hyperscale data centres where so much compute and storage take place? When trying to assess which cloud services are the most sustainable, it's not easy to see past the glossy layer of greenwash which all cloud vendors apply - but to varying degrees.

In this article, we'll examine two of the top three cloud vendors. Google Cloud Platform (GCP) has a lower cloud market share, at 10%, than Microsoft Azure, which holds around a 22% share. Are these proportions reflected in their sustainability data?

See also Eco-warriors: Microsoft Azure vs Amazon AWS on sustainability

Methodology

We built the Sustainability Report on the foundation of the Sustainability Matrix: a set of 27 individual sustainability markers grouped into four categories. These are: Standards and Policies; Emissions/Energy/Water; Waste/Circular Economy/Recycling; and Transparency.

Each vendor we covered was assessed against the Sustainability Matrix criteria based on that vendor's own data - drawn from their ESG reporting, direct interviews with individuals at those organisations, and more general data available publicly, such as press releases. Each criterion has its own individual weighting in terms of its importance to sustainability, and each vendor is awarded a rating for the sustainability of its cloud services. The maximum score available was 60 points. All data was taken from reporting for year 2020/2021.

Azure and GCP are the second and third biggest cloud platforms, respectively, in market share terms. Both are dwarfed by AWS, which retains in excess of one third of the overall market for cloud services.

Microsoft demonstrates a scale of ambition for sustainability that matches its position as the largest software company in the world. Microsoft acknowledges in its own ESG reporting that carbon accounting and reporting is ambiguous and arbitrary and that this needs to change to reflect the true carbon intensity of cloud. To its considerable credit Microsoft exhibits a degree of openness in its own reporting, which the majority of its competitors would do well to emulate.

Google compares less well to Microsoft in terms of transparency (although it should be said does considerably better in this respect than other larger competitors) but still sets a high standard. There is a relatively small gap between the Standards and Policies category and the far more data driven category of Energy/Emissions/Water. What lets Google down is the exclusion of numerous Scope 3 emissions categories from its offsetting program.

Having said that, Google recently announced a considerably expanded portfolio of datasets and tools aimed at helping governments, industry and individuals to make more sustainable decisions. Google's willingness to share its greatest asset - its data - is commendable.

Microsoft Azure versus Google Cloud Platform: At a glance

• Standards & Policies: Of the 10 vendors in our analysis, Microsoft was the only one to score full marks in this category, while Google took 11 of the 20 points available. Microsoft wins sustainability kudos for its pledge to neutralise historical carbon emissions.
• Emissions/Energy/Water: Only one point separates Microsoft and Google in this category where reality meets ambition. Google was the only vendor in the whole analysis to score more highly in this very tangible category than on Standards & Policies.
• Waste/Circular Economy/Recycling: Both companies scored equally poorly here with half marks. Microsoft has a marginally better rate of diversion from landfill (78% as opposed to 77%) but generates extraordinary - and growing - amounts of waste in the first place.
• Transparency: Microsoft presents clear and concise data and admits that its claim to carbon neutrality is based on contractual instruments (which essentially amount to paying others not to emit carbon rather than not emitting it yourself.) Google only scores 6 out of a possible 10 points, mainly due to poor water and waste data and a certain haziness in Scope 3 reporting. Its carbon offsets are of high quality, however.

Microsoft Azure versus Google Cloud Platform: Standards & Policies

Standards & Policies criteria exist to provide clarity about the standards vendors have signed up to and also provide an indication of the ambition of the vendor in question.

Microsoft was the only vendor out of 10 in our full analysis to score top marks in this category. The company is certified and working towards multiple industry initiatives; has board-level sustainability representation (Chief Environmental Officer Dr Lucas Joppa); and provides customers with the ability to track Scope 3 emissions through the Emissions Impact Dashboard. Suppliers are also required to disclose their emissions.

Microsoft has the most ambitious sustainability goals, committing to carbon negativity, water positivity and zero waste by 2030. Its pledge to remove all their historic carbon emissions from the environment by 2050 is unique among cloud vendors.

Google has a narrower scope of certification which costs it points. It is ISO5001 certified but this certification focuses specifically on energy use, whereas our chosen measure of ISO14001 is a much wider environmental management certification.

Sustainability does have board level representation in the form of Chief Sustainability Officer Kate Brandt, but Google doesn't compare as well to Microsoft when it comes to signing up to recognised third party targets. Whilst Google supports the UN Sustainable Development Goals it doesn't specifically align itself to any of them, or report on progress against them.

Where Google does very well is in supplier and customer ecosystem engagement. Carbon Footprint provides customers with the gross carbon emissions associated with their GCP usage and is available free of charge to every GCP user. This tool helps GCP customers measure, track and report on the gross carbon emissions associated with their cloud use. Google has recently announced the addition of both Scope 1 and 3 emissions to its reporting data to the Carbon Footprint service (it was previously limited to Scope 2). Scope 3 reporting is notoriously challenging, and when we asked the company to the clarify the exact nature of its reporting a spokesperson commented:

"The Scope 3 data and reporting includes emissions from data centre operations, employee commutes and embodied emissions from data centre hardware and construction. It's relevant Scope 3 categories to Google Cloud -- for example, the concrete to build the data centre would be included."

Google also offers its customers Google Cloud Region Picker, which helps customers assess carbon footprint among other inputs, as they choose which Google Cloud region to run on. The company is also widening access to Google Earth Engine so enterprise and governments can access Google's data and AI heft to understand trends and correlations between human activities and environmental impact.

Microsoft Azure versus Google Cloud Platform: Energy

Emissions/Energy/Water covers the sustainability of data centres and office buildings.

Microsoft has ambitious energy, carbon and efficiency goals, although its available data (dating to 2017) suggests there is still work to do. Its market-based emissions (MBM) have been consistent in that time, ending 2020 at 11.2 million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e); but location-based (LBM) Scope 2 emissions rose from 2.7 million MTCO2e to 4.1 million MTCO2e. The company is performing well, but there is certainly room for progress - as Microsoft itself acknowledges.

Google is almost halfway to the NetZero by 2030 target. While both location and market-based Scope 2 emissions increased from 2019 to 2020, Scope 3 reduced by more than enough to compensate for that increase.

Google also provides good, clear data on its use of renewable energy. One hundred per cent of its electricity is purchased from renewable sources and the data is broken into 'grid' and 'PPAs and onsite,' which shows us how much energy Google generates from its own renewable sources and how much is purchased via contacts with suppliers and general grid mix. PPAs are a type of direct contract for renewable energy that is preferable to offsetting via other types of Renewable Energy Certificate (REC).

Google publishes a 'Carbon free energy across Google data centres hourly' percentage, which was 67% in 2020, an increase from 61% in 2019. Google has purchased 100% of its electricity from renewable sources since 2017.

Microsoft is also fully powered by renewables, although only 0.003% is self-generated; the remainder comes from PPAs.

When it comes to their respective data centres, Microsoft has built all facilities since 2017 to at least LEED Gold standard with an average power usage effectiveness (PUE) of 1.1. The company is also examining new, more efficient modes of cooling, such as two-phase liquid cooling and sunken facilities. Its current main cooling method utilises outside air and efficient adiabatic systems.

Google also does well in office space sustainability, with 58% of its office space LEED Gold certified and a further 27% certificated to Platinum standard - the highest possible rating. Its average PUE also comes in at 1.1.

Minimal data about cooling is provided within Google's main ESG report, but when we approached the company about this issue Google told us:

"We take a sites-specific approach to find the best, most efficient solution for each community. We evaluate data and consult with local experts, taking into consideration overlapping factors such as (carbon-free) energy, water, and refrigerants — and the climate change impact of each. Some examples of cooling solutions include:

• Using sea water for cooling at our Hamina, Finland, data centre.
• Cooling our data centre in Eemshaven, Netherlands, with industrial water, utilising a new industrial water pipeline funded by Google.
• In St. Ghislain, Belgium, we use raw water from a nearby industrial canal for cooling.
• In Douglas County, Georgia, we use reclaimed waste water for cooling. Google financed the construction of a side stream treatment plant, treating about 30% of the wastewater from the Douglasville-Douglas County Water and Sewer Authority that gets reused.
• Our data centres in Storey County, Nevada and Dublin, Ireland use air cooled technology. "

Both companies scored badly on water use efficiency. Microsoft does not provide this metric and is currently moving in a direction at odds with its water positive target. Water withdrawal has increased from 5,148,454m³ in 2017 to 7,618,089m³ in 2020. Equally, the amount of water Google takes has increased from 2.5 billion gallons 2016 to 5.7 billion gallons in 2020. This sits at odds with the commitment to replenish 120% of the water Google uses by 2030.

Microsoft Azure versus Google Cloud Platform: Waste

Waste/Circular Economy/Recycling is all about the extent to which cloud vendors are squeezing various categories of waste out of their value chain.

Both companies performed equally badly in this category, picking up only half of the available points.

Microsoft shares minimal data on waste, and where it does the company still did poorly. For example, in 2020/21 Microsoft generated 77,063 tonnes of waste, a massive increase on 2017 (26,059 tonnes). The amount recycled has increased, but so has the amount sent to landfill or incinerated. That said, the company does state that it includes e-waste in the recycling/reuse part.

Microsoft is targeting a 90% landfill diversion rate (waste kept out of landfills, normally through reuse and recycling) by 2030, and currently stands at 78%. It aims to have 100% recyclable packaging (currently 88%) by the same time, and to have eliminated all single-use plastics by 2025.

Google has managed to reduce overall waste generation since 2018, and it took a big tumble in 2020 when construction projects were halted due to the pandemic, so it did pick up one point here. E-waste is not broken out as a separate category in the main report, but a spokesperson for Google told Computing that in 2020, 23% of components used for server upgrades were refurbished inventory. During the same year, Google wiped clean and resold 8.2 million components into the secondary market for reuse by other organisations.

Google also gained full marks for breaking the landfill diversion data into offices (71%) and data centres (81%), but provides no data on single use plastic other than to share goals such as 'eliminate plastic from packaging and make 100% recyclable by 2025.' It states that this and similar goals are 'in progress.' If more data had been provided to show how much progress it had made on this goal then at least some points could have been awarded.

Microsoft Azure versus Google Cloud Platform: Transparency

Our final category, Transparency, deals with the extent to which the vendors make their environmental data available.

Microsoft does well with overall transparency of data, although Google doesn't lag too far behind. Both companies scored equally on criteria involving the thoroughness and quality of carbon accounting, carbon offsets and target-based GHG reporting. Lest we forget - carbon is not the only greenhouse gas (GHG) we must worry about.

Microsoft presents its data clearly, including Scope 2 and 3 LBM and MBM, GHG emissions (although there is no indication how close each metric brings the company to its target), and carbon offset quality. The only criticism we have with Microsoft's data is there is no visibility of the offsetting process, so we cannot see how offsets have been accounted for and applied.

What lets Google down, in addition to poor data on waste and water, is opacity of Scope 3 totals. The company breaks out the Scope 3 categories of employee commuting and business travel for its target of operational carbon neutrality, so these are the only Scope 3 emissions it offsets. However, Google's Climate Disclosure Project data makes clear that there are two other huge sources of Scope 3 emissions - 'Capital' and 'Other (upstream)'. 'Other' accounted for 7 million MTCO2e and it is not clear from the ESG report whether this is being offset.

Google is also fond of graphics indicating progress against target. This is useful to some extent but a percentage figure of progress against target would be more so.

Conclusions

Microsoft is significantly ahead of all cloud vendors on considerations of sustainability. The software giant performed well in nearly every area of our assessment, scoring close to full marks in each section except Waste. Its marks in Standards & Policies and Energy/Emissions/Water were both high, indicating that what Microsoft is actually doing to try to meet its ambitious targets gives them pretty high chance of actually doing so.

The company provides excellent quality data, with little evidence of green washing, and there is plenty of evidence that Microsoft is committed to sharing the data it gathers among its partner and customer ecosystem.

However, given its size and share of the market relative to Microsoft, Google performed strongly - particularly in the Energy/Emissions category. The scale of its ambition might not quite match up to Microsoft's, but on the whole Google is putting its money - which in Google's case is its data - where its mouth is. Its carbon accounting is reasonably transparent and it provides considerable and welcome detail on the type and quality of carbon offsetting. This matters because carbon offsetting is a notoriously murky practice, but Google gives every impression of being up front about its use of carbon markets. If Google could polish its Scope 3 reporting and offset these emissions, it would place the company on a par with Microsoft. At present, the exclusion of so many Scope 3 emissions calls into question Google's 'Carbon neutral on operations' claim.

Having said that, Google have clearly worked to make tools available to its customers and demonstrate an understanding and willingness to share data for the common good. It is also one of the few in this analysis to try and begin to quantify the carbon impact of remote working, which is only going to become more important as hybrid working beds in.

Recent extensions to the Google Cloud toolset will enable Google to better quantify upstream emissions and work with its suppliers to reduce these.

Microsoft Azure remains the greenest cloud, but Google Cloud Platform could well knock it off the top spot soon.

You may also like

/news/4340185/chatgpt-maker-openai-lose-usd5bn-2024-report

Finance

ChatGPT maker OpenAI could lose $5bn in 2024, report

Another round of funding may be needed to keep it afloat

/news/4340182/crowdstrike-outage-cost-usd44m-fortune-500-company-report

Corporate

CrowdStrike outage to cost $44m per Fortune 500 company, report

A quarter of top US firms were hit by the update blunder

/news/4339044/crowdstrike-thousands-typosquatting-domains-registered-global-outage

Threats and Risks

CrowdStrike: Thousands of typosquatting domains registered after global outage

CrowdStrike says cybercriminals are attempting to install a new infostealer malware through fake fixes