In the third of our 2023 series of sustainability head-to-head comparisons, we examine the sustainability claims of Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform (GCP).

That the scale of demand for cloud computing is generating not just carbon and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) but also consuming rare earth minerals and water is increasingly well understood. As marketing and ESG reporting have become increasingly meshed, a growing number of companies have suffered reputational fallout from greenwashing. Earlier this year the EU voted to ban companies claiming carbon neutrality based on carbon offsetting - a field which is most charitably described as opaque, and in which Computing has been arguing for greater transparency for some time.

A focus on policy and data in ESG reporting as opposed to storytelling is useful for any vendor keen to avoid the accusation of greenwashing. Determining the extent to which this is provided is one of the goals of the Computing research into sustainable cloud.

The details and methodology of this research can be found here, and the most recent articles in the series can be found here (AWS v GCP) and here (AWS v Azure.)

In the third of this year's series we focus on the holders of second and third place in the cloud services market. In the first quarter of 2023 Microsoft Azure held a 23% market share and GCP 10%.

Last year, Azure won the greenest cloud trophy by a considerable margin, but GCP came a very comfortable second. Has the gap narrowed in 2023?

Microsoft Azure v Google Cloud Platform: At a glance:

• Standards & Policies: A clear win for Microsoft, with the difference being attributable to the provision of better information by Microsoft on progress towards UN SDGs and the Science Based Targets Initiative process of target validation.
• Energy/Emissions/Water: A draw, with both companies winning fewer than half of the marks available. Both companies have increased emissions and water withdrawal.
• Waste/Circular Economy/Recycling: Also a draw, with both Microsoft and Google scoring five out of eight marks available. In both cases waste volumes have fallen and landfill diversion rates are similar.
• Transparency: Microsoft wins in this category by providing significantly better information on the quality of the carbon offsets it uses, and by not using graphics which suggest faster progress towards net zero targets than separate data indicates.

Microsoft Azure v Google Cloud Platform:

Standards & Policies:

Standards and Policies criteria exist to provide clarity for customers, and potential customers about the standards cloud providers have signed up to.

What really stands out about the comparison in standards and policies between Microsoft and Google is just how closely matched the two companies are. Neither is ISO14001 certified although for different reasons. Microsoft's certification recently expired, and the company did not comment on whether a renewal for in the offing when asked. Google supplied the following comment:

"About ISO14001, some of our data centres achieved this in the past. We are currently evaluating this certification to ensure we have the right resources to implement and recognise the value of ISO 14001 in demonstrating evidence to support our compliance with, for example, the EU Code of Conduct. We should also mention that all of our Europe data centres have achieved ISO5001."

The small difference between the two companies can be traced back to the UN SDG and Science Based Targets Initiative criteria.

Microsoft scores full marks on UN SDG's because a whole report exists to explain how its activities align to certain goals and sets out progress made. Google gained one mark less because the company as a whole does not align itself with any goals. However, Google.org (Google's charity arm) is running a program for AI startups, not for profit bodies and academic institutions, and this program not only aligns with the UN SDGs but is putting up a significant $25m of funding.

The other point of difference is SBTi. Microsoft has had its near-term target validated, whereas a formal commitment to SBTi to validate Google's absolute emission reductions target has been submitted but only at the end of 2022 so this has not yet been validated or published, hence full marks could not be awarded. Next year, Google is likely to score full marks here.

On all other criteria on standards and policies Microsoft and Google score equally. Both businesses have built strong customer and supplier sustainability ecosystems. In particular both companies mandate that suppliers (although only Tier 1 suppliers in Google's case) disclose scope 1 and 2 emissions in order that they can incorporate that data into their Scope 3 emissions data. It is clear that both cloud vendors use their power to raise sustainability standards for suppliers.

Microsoft and Google also score equally on the ambitions of their respective targets. Microsoft could be perceived as having an edge given its commitment to carbon negativity by 2030 and pledge to remove historic emissions by 2050. The two share the same water positivity and zero waste targets but Google is unique among the hyperscalers in having as a target the enabling of 5GW of carbon free energy in key manufacturing regions and helping more than 500 cities and local govts reduce an aggregate of 1GT of emissions annually.

You may also like

/news/4338523/tatas-uk-gigafactory-project-takes-major-step-forward

Components

Tata's UK gigafactory project takes major step forward

Sir Robert McAlpine to build multi-billion-pound factory

/podcasts/4333508/national-grid-analogue-digital-ctrl-alt-lead-podcast

Public Sector

National Grid is turning analogue to digital - Ctrl Alt Lead podcast

'We can't do what we've always done, just more efficiently'

/news/4331149/ai-blame-googles-rocketing-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Green

AI to blame for Google's rocketing greenhouse gas emissions

Casts doubt on search giant's 'Net Zero by 2030' goal

Microsoft Azure V Google Cloud Platform: Which is the most sustainable cloud platform?

In the third of our 2023 series of sustainability head-to-head comparisons, we examine the sustainability claims of Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform (GCP).

Microsoft Azure v Google Cloud Platform:

Energy/Emissions/Water

Emissions/Energy/Water is about the impact of datacentres and office buildings. It's where hard data on emissions, carbon accounting and water use are examined, along with building standards, commuting impact and innovation in areas such as cooling and energy efficiency. This is where we can begin to determine the extent to which cloud hyperscalers are closing in on their stated targets.

The latter two vendors score equally in this category this year. It's worth noting that both lost marks compared in this category last year but proportionally Microsoft fell back further than Google. Microsoft's overall emissions increased this year by approximately 18% overall, despite those ambitious targets. Google's emissions grew by approximately 10%.

Neither company scores any points in the carbon intensity per MwHour Electricity consumed criterion. This metric is a useful indicator of just how much renewable electricity really is being consumed. Google's carbon intensity has increased significantly from 0.0615 to 0.1006 after being on a downward trend for several years, and Microsoft doesn't provide the data at all.

Microsoft generates almost none of its own electricity and Google doesn't give a breakdown. Google receives a point more than Microsoft in this category because the company responded to our questions about its claim to be "carbon neutral for operations since 2007."

Google acknowledged that the carbon neutral claim was based on purchasing renewable energy and carbon credits and commented as follows:

"When we committed to carbon neutrality, we envisioned carbon offsets as an interim solution. In 2017, Google became the first major corporation to reach a 100% renewable energy target — and have reached it every year since.

"Recognising there are still regions and times of day where clean energy is unavailable, in 2020, we set our goal of operating on 24/7 carbon-free energy (CFE) by 2030.

"In 2021, we set a goal to achieve net-zero emissions across our operations and value chain, including our consumer hardware products, by 2030. We aim to reduce the majority of our emissions (versus our 2019 baseline) before 2030, and plan to invest in nature-based and technology-based carbon removal solutions to neutralise our remaining emissions."

Both companies publish an average PUE of 1.1 which means that neither uses much incremental power for cooling or networking. It didn't result in extra points as only one point is available in this category but it's worth mentioning that Google is transparent about PUE calculations and makes it clear that all datacentres are included. Some companies are less transparent and give a PUE based on their newest and most efficient facilities.

Microsoft scores more than Google in the very important criterion of cooling. Microsoft has invested heavily in cooling technology and the 2021 ESG report details initiatives in individual datacentres and the company's work in liquid immersion cooling which may have some other benefits in terms of efficiency gains as opposed to just reducing the amount of water required.

By contrast, Google provides minimal detail, stating that its datacentres "employ advanced cooling techniques, using highly efficient evaporative cooling or outside air whenever possible instead of mechanical chillers." When asked for further comment, a spokesperson for Google posted a link to a cooling focused blog post which can be seen here. It provides very limited additional detail over and above that which is available in the main report.

Both companies also scored zero when it came to water withdrawal because both companies have increased the volume of water they withdraw. Comparisons involve converting US gallons into litres because the two companies use different units of measurement for their water withdrawal calculations. Microsoft's total withdrawal increased from 7,618 megalitres (equivalent to a million litres) to 7,657 megalitres. However, when Google's given withdrawal of 6,297 million gallons is converted into megalitres, we can see that the company withdrew 23,836 megalitres which is a huge water take in comparison with Microsoft.

Both companies were asked for comment and Google responded with a reference to this blog post. Microsoft did not provide any further information.

In both cases, it is difficult to see the path to water positivity by 2030 although it has to be said that Google has considerably more work to do.

There is little to choose between Microsoft and Google in terms of the environmental credentials of their offices and workspaces. Both are accredited to similar levels and both are trying to quantify the impact of more sustained remote working on carbon emissions. Google scored an extra point due to evidence of initiatives to encourage car sharing, the provision of EV charging facilities and shuttle buses.

You may also like

/news/4338523/tatas-uk-gigafactory-project-takes-major-step-forward

Components

Tata's UK gigafactory project takes major step forward

Sir Robert McAlpine to build multi-billion-pound factory

/podcasts/4333508/national-grid-analogue-digital-ctrl-alt-lead-podcast

Public Sector

National Grid is turning analogue to digital - Ctrl Alt Lead podcast

'We can't do what we've always done, just more efficiently'

/news/4331149/ai-blame-googles-rocketing-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Green

AI to blame for Google's rocketing greenhouse gas emissions

Casts doubt on search giant's 'Net Zero by 2030' goal

Microsoft Azure V Google Cloud Platform: Which is the most sustainable cloud platform?

In the third of our 2023 series of sustainability head-to-head comparisons, we examine the sustainability claims of Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform (GCP).

Microsoft Azure v Google Cloud Platform:

Waste/Circular Economy/Recycling

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

Both companies score equally in this category, picking up a little more than half of the available points. All the varies is the criteria in which points are collected.

Microsoft takes a point that Google does not in the paper consumption/recycling criterion simply due to providing some information about it. An example would be Microsoft's efforts to eliminate the use of paper cups in Singapore.

Both companies have reduced the overall quantity of waste that they generate - quite drastically in Microsoft's case. However, a reporting anomaly in Microsoft's 2021 ESG Report whereby the waste figure for 2020 is given at 40,570 metric tonnes whereas in the actual 2020 ESG report it was given at 77,063 metric tonnes (and no explanantion was provided when requested) lost it a point. By comparison Google's overall waste volumes continued to fall from 28,864 to 28,153 metric tonnes.

Neither company breaks out its electronic waste as a separate reporting category so neither win any points there.

Both have similar landfill diversion rates between 77% and 79% and have increased the proportion of refurbished components used in their datacentres. Both have also increased activity in terms of plastic reuse and recycling with Microsoft having reduced single use plastic in product packaging by 18%.

You may also like

/news/4338523/tatas-uk-gigafactory-project-takes-major-step-forward

Components

Tata's UK gigafactory project takes major step forward

Sir Robert McAlpine to build multi-billion-pound factory

/podcasts/4333508/national-grid-analogue-digital-ctrl-alt-lead-podcast

Public Sector

National Grid is turning analogue to digital - Ctrl Alt Lead podcast

'We can't do what we've always done, just more efficiently'

/news/4331149/ai-blame-googles-rocketing-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Green

AI to blame for Google's rocketing greenhouse gas emissions

Casts doubt on search giant's 'Net Zero by 2030' goal

Microsoft Azure V Google Cloud Platform: Which is the most sustainable cloud platform?

In the third of our 2023 series of sustainability head-to-head comparisons, we examine the sustainability claims of Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform (GCP).

Microsoft Azure v Google Cloud Platform

Transparency

Transparency is where Computing assesses the degree to which key environmental data is made available.

In this final category, Microsoft outperforms Google by two points.

Both companies take maximum points in categories relating to the quality of scope 2 and 3 reporting. They both break out location and market-based totals, and both have made efforts to get more clarity of scope 3 emissions. Microsoft in particular sets out data by region.

Google also reports emissions clearly but doesn't score full marks in the target-based criterion because the reader must compile data from different pages to get the fullest picture available. Google also tries to influence the reader by way of presentation by separating graphics to illustrate emissions reductions progress from the data tables themselves. A reader using these visual cues and not examining the data would conclude that more progress has been made towards the net zero target than is the case.

Microsoft also does better than Google when it comes to carbon offset quality and transparency. It publishes a document which sets out its criteria for high quality carbon removal, rather than relying solely on third-party validation criteria such as VCS, the shortcomings of which have been well documented of late.

Microsoft is also trying to raise standards for its customers by launching an Environmental Credit Service as part of its Cloud for Sustainability toolset, which aims to provide a common infrastructure to improve transparency and the ability to track the provenance of carbon credits.

Google does not score full points in this category because it heavily utilises carbon offsets to stand up its claim of carbon neutrality in operations. Whilst the company does provide a separate document on the subject and assesses the quality of offsets based on additionality, leakage prevention, permanence and verifiability, it declines to say which body verifies the credits.

Because of the concerns listed above, neither Microsoft nor Google score full marks in the overall transparency and accessibility of data criterion.

Computing asked each cloud giant directly whether they used third-party datacentres. Both ignored the question so neither was awarded any marks here. Why does it matter? It matters because the sustainability metrics being marketed by both companies such as customer carbon footprint quantification can only be accurate if the company is using its own infrastructure. For example, it is impossible to quantify the energy use or server utilisation rates of infrastructure that you have no control over. It also has an impact on water utilisation rates.

Conclusions

Microsoft wins this sustainability head-to-head - but by a small margin. Out of the 60 points available Microsoft finished four points ahead of Google. Three of these points are accounted for by Microsoft providing more detailed documentation on UN SDGs and being further ahead in the process of validation of its Science Based Targets, and in the quality of information provided about carbon offsets. The fourth was lost by Google due to presentational sleight of hand.

In 2023 there is very little difference in the sustainability of Azure and GCP. Both are significantly greener options than AWS. However, more pronounced differences can be observed in the trajectory of sustainability year-on-year.

Whilst some of the criteria that Computing uses in the sustainability matrix have been amended this year, the majority remained unchanged so year-on-year comparisons are valid. Google is very much on an upward trajectory having scored 35 out of 62 in 2022, and 37 out of 60 in 2023. The categories in which Google improved its scores were Standards and Policies and Transparency. Google is elevating the standards to which it holds it itself and, overall, being transparent about its progress toward them.

Microsoft lost seven points year-on-year, mainly from the Energy/Emissions/Water category. Microsoft sets itself extremely high standards for cloud sustainability, but the data currently suggests that it is not making anywhere near enough progress to make hitting those 2030 targets feasible. For Microsoft the gap between environmental ambition and the reality is widening. It remains the most sustainable cloud choice for now, but on its present trajectory looks set to relinquish this position in 2024.

You may also like

/news/4338523/tatas-uk-gigafactory-project-takes-major-step-forward

Components

Tata's UK gigafactory project takes major step forward

Sir Robert McAlpine to build multi-billion-pound factory

/podcasts/4333508/national-grid-analogue-digital-ctrl-alt-lead-podcast

Public Sector

National Grid is turning analogue to digital - Ctrl Alt Lead podcast

'We can't do what we've always done, just more efficiently'

/news/4331149/ai-blame-googles-rocketing-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Green

AI to blame for Google's rocketing greenhouse gas emissions

Casts doubt on search giant's 'Net Zero by 2030' goal