Digital Responsibility in Business: How to Escape the Greenwashing Trap?

Often heralded as a catalyst for innovation and efficiency, digital technology has also become a significant source of environmental pollution. With the proliferation of screens, massive data storage, and the rise of AI, its ecological footprint is surging. Yet, businesses are still struggling to accurately measure the real effects.

To delve into this issue, we spoke with Frédéric Bordage, founder of GreenIT.fr and a prominent figure in France’s responsible digital technology sector. Aiming to “bridge the gap between growth-resistant technophobes and startup nation geeks,” he has been guiding organizations in reducing their digital footprints for over two decades. Here’s an overview.

The digital impact is “ten times too high”

Based on life cycle analyses, Frédéric Bordage believes that digital technology accounts for between 40 and 60% of our annual sustainable budget—that is, the share of the planet’s limits allocated per person. In other words, our digital usage vastly exceeds what would be sustainable globally. “In concrete terms, it’s ten times too high,” the expert asserts.

This issue is particularly alarming because the impact is likely underestimated.

Major digital players, like the GAFAM and new AI actors, do not provide necessary information to complete the calculations. There are two major blind spots: the cloud and artificial intelligence. Everyone talks about them, throws around figures, but no one really knows, Bordage explains.

Devices, the primary source of pollution

By far, the main source of digital pollution is the manufacturing of devices: screens, smartphones, laptops, etc. This accounts for about 80% of the impacts. Therefore, businesses must prioritize reducing the environmental impact of these devices in their strategies. Bordage suggests two key factors: “minimizing the rate of equipment deployment and extending the lifespan of devices”.

We need to raise user awareness, because adding a 24-inch monitor to a desk negates all the efforts made across the information system. Screens are the heaviest burden.

Among the solutions, the digital sobriety expert also recommends refurbishing devices both at the time of purchase and disposal, as well as adopting eco-design practices, which extend the devices’ lifespan by reducing the software load. However, software developers can also hinder extending the lifespan of devices.

We should pressure software developers to extend technical support durations. We see this with Windows 10. Microsoft demands an upgrade to Windows 11, which requires a TPM chip not present in many existing devices, forcing companies to renew their equipment, even when they prefer to keep their current ones.

Misleading actions and symbolic gestures

Conversely, Bordage points out that many individual practices often recommended can confuse the issue and hide the real factors of pollution. “There are all the cliché topics, like deleting emails, which distract from the real challenges. I can formally demonstrate that deleting emails does not reduce impact, and sometimes adds to it. The same goes for ‘eco-friendly’ search engines like Ecosia. They are not real search engines; they are overlays that add impacts,” he clarifies.

Another overestimated example: streaming, often considered a major polluter. “In reality, when you conduct a life cycle analysis, you find that over an hour of Netflix in your living room, more than 80% of the impacts come from the manufacture of the television and its power consumption,” illustrates Bordage.

The real danger is that these small gestures divert attention from structural issues: the rate of equipment deployment and the lifespan of devices. While we discuss deleting emails, we are not talking about legal warranty periods, which should be at least 5 years for all devices.

Companies: How to effectively measure impact?

Carbon footprint: the misleading solution

For many companies, calculating the carbon footprint has become a common practice. It aims to quantify the greenhouse gas emissions produced by their direct activities (heating, travel, energy) and indirect activities (purchases, transportation, product usage). In France, it is mandatory for companies with more than 500 employees, public actors with more than 250 agents, and communities with over 50,000 residents. For others, it remains optional but is increasingly practiced as part of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policies.

Bordage is highly critical of the carbon footprint as a measurement tool, as it only addresses greenhouse gas emissions, which represent just 11% of the impacts of digital technology. “If a company only considers the carbon footprint of its information system, it misses 89% of the impacts. It’s literally greenwashing: we’re only looking at 11% of the problem when we could be analyzing 100%,” he explains. He admits, however, that most organizations act in good faith, unaware of the exercise’s limitations.

Often, this greenwashing is unintentional. Companies want to do the right thing, but their providers don’t fully grasp the issue. They sell carbon footprints because that’s what they know how to do, perpetuating this belief. But it’s not sufficient. You cannot build a serious and operational action plan based only on 11% of the problem.

Life Cycle Analysis: the only relevant indicator

As an alternative, Bordage recommends opting for Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), “the standard international method for quantifying the environmental impacts of digital technology on a global, European, French, corporate, or digital service scale”. The LCA uses a multi-criteria approach: it assesses the entire lifecycle of a product or service, from the extraction of raw materials to its end-of-life.

Unlike the carbon footprint, it does not limit itself to greenhouse gases but considers 16 indicators, such as resource depletion, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and ocean acidification. This method, recognized internationally and regulated by the European Commission, thus provides a comprehensive view of environmental impacts and prevents transfer effects—reducing one impact at the expense of another.

The strength of multi-criteria LCA is that it forces us to find systemic solutions. If we only look at one indicator, we risk worsening other impacts. If we consider all 16 indicators, we are forced to find global solutions. And often, this leads to sobriety, which disturbs some economic actors.

What about artificial intelligence?

For Bordage, artificial intelligence is not a threat in itself, but its impact entirely depends on how it is used. “What matters are the applications. A technology can generate unnecessary impacts, but it can also bring benefits to humanity. It’s not up to me, as a GreenIT expert, to determine which uses are useful or ‘respectable.’ It’s a societal and political debate, in the noble sense of the word,” he explains.

For the founder of GreenIT.fr, the business model is crucial: “A very specific AI, tailored for a particular use, can be resource-efficient. It can be frugal, eco-designed.” However, the current trajectory is in the opposite direction. Instead of prioritizing sobriety, the industry is engaged in a race for innovation and technological escalation.

On the ground, feedback is worrying: communities, departments, companies want to implement AI everywhere, without considering the consequences. Beyond the environmental impact, there are also critical issues: the loss of autonomy for decision-makers, who rely too heavily on tools they neither understand nor control.

Responsible digital technology: where do businesses stand?

Each year, GreenIT.fr publishes the Green IT Benchmark, which assesses the maturity of organizations on these issues.

After a decade of observation, the results are mixed. “The level of maturity of companies on Green IT remains low. While some are very advanced, the majority are still focused on secondary issues like deleting emails,” laments Bordage. Despite a general increase in the lifespan of equipment, the digital impact in businesses has risen from 40 to 60% over ten years, partly due to the proliferation of screens.

Another often overlooked impact: the operation of IT departments. “Up to 50% of the impacts of the information system can come from the IT department itself, that is, the home-to-work travel of employees and contractors, the square footage of the offices they occupy, and the equipment used. This aspect is rarely considered in evaluations, yet it is critical,” emphasizes the expert.

As for eco-design, the trend is not much more promising. The initial years of the Digital Eco-design Barometer showed signs of progress, but Bordage now observes a stagnation, even a regression, driven by a less favorable political and economic context.

The expert believes the solution could come from training professionals themselves. Through the Green IT and Responsible Digital certification, he bets on increasing the competence of employees to drive a lasting change. This approach aims to bypass the cynical stances adopted by some companies.

History shows that profound changes come from individuals. When a critical mass of trained and aware employees is reached within an organization, these practices eventually become part of its DNA.