For many IT leaders, the move to public cloud has already happened. For others, it is accelerating fast. The case is familiar, and focuses on scalability, resilience, speed, and access to advanced services that are hard to replicate on‑premise. What is less clear is how to measure and confidently manage the environmental impact of that shift.
Cloud providers have made real progress in carbon reporting, but anyone responsible for sustainability, risk or compliance will recognise a growing problem. The data behind cloud emissions is still inconsistent, incomplete and hard to validate. As reporting expectations tighten, especially under frameworks like the corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSRD), that uncertainty is becoming more than an academic issue.
Cloud carbon data quite opaque
The uncomfortable truth is this that cloud carbon data is not yet transparent enough to rely on blindly. That does not however mean that organisations are powerless. It means they need to take a different approach.
This approach is rooted in better architecture, not better promises, and by building a cloud carbon data supply chain, business and IT leaders will have the foundations necessary to accelerate their path to net zero while improving efficiency too.
This is an area that Digital Catapult is supporting through targeted intervention to accelerate the practical application of deep tech innovation across industry. Through our engagement with industry, it’s clear that cloud emissions data should be treated like any other complex supply chain, requiring traceability, governance and system-level design.
The problem isn’t effort, it’s structure
AWS, Microsoft and Google all publish customer carbon tools that provide region‑level estimates, service‑level insights and increasingly granular Scope 3 coverage. This progress should not be dismissed. Independent analysis, however, continues to show structural gaps which include methodologies that differ between providers, market-based accounting which dominates the space and often masks real grid impacts, and region-level data that remains patchy or averaged.
For organisations preparing for more rigorous sustainability assurance, this creates an awkward question around the best way to make credible decisions when the underlying data is imperfect. The answer is not to wait for hyper-scalers to “fix” transparency, but to design for imperfection. In convening capabilities and strengthening UK industrial supply chain resilience, we recognise the innovation necessary to do this and the insight that can be applied from the logistics and supply chain space to solve this challenge.
Lessons from physical supply chains
Other sectors have faced this problem for years. Manufacturing supply chains rarely have clean, uniform carbon data. They operate across tiers, borders and contractual boundaries, with inconsistent formats and limited verification. Digital Catapult’s Cross‑Catapult Carbon Accounting (CCCA) research shows that progress comes not from perfect data, but from good systems.
In manufacturing, shared data frameworks, traceability and governance allow organisations to work with incomplete information while still producing auditable outcomes. Cloud emissions are no different, and treating cloud sustainability as a data supply chain, rather than a single report, changes the equation and will be critical to enabling sustainable carbon cloud computing that will equip the UK to be future ready.
What does a cloud carbon data supply chain look like?
In practice, a cloud carbon data supply chain can be broken down into four layers, starting with the data producers. These include cloud provider dashboards, but also independent grid‑carbon datasets such as Electricity Maps or WattTime, hourly renewable energy certificates aligned with EnergyTag, and internal telemetry showing how workloads actually behave, and no single source is sufficient on its own.
The second layer is transformation and modelling, where raw data must be normalised. Regions, scopes and accounting methods need consistent definitions and data lineage must be explicit. This layer also supports dual accounting, with market-based figures for reporting, and location-based figures to understand real operational impact.
The third layer is governance and trust, which is often the missing piece. Standard KPIs (such as PUE, WUE and CUE), verification rules and clear treatment of Scope 3 and Scope 3 emissions make outputs defensible. Where data is unavailable, procurement and contracts must step in to set transparency expectations.
The final layer is decision and reporting, and only once the upstream system is credible should data flow into dashboards, optimisation tools and regulatory reports. Reporting becomes a by-product of good architecture, not a scramble at year end. There are key benefits to building a cloud carbon data supply chain, and there are certain steps that IT leaders can take now to set themselves up for the future and to unlock new opportunities.
What IT leaders can do now
When it comes to the necessary steps that IT leaders can take now to build the architecture required for sustainable cloud computing, cloud provider tools should be used but never in isolation.
Comparing market‑ and location‑based views and validating both against independent grid data immediately improves understanding and reflects a more resilient, supply chain-led approach to carbon data. Moreover, region selection should be treated as a sustainability decision, not just a cost or latency choice, particularly as digital infrastructure becomes more tightly coupled with energy systems and grid dynamics.
Google’s publication of regional clean energy data and Microsoft’s carbon optimisation tools make this increasingly practical for IT leaders, and this is where Digital Catapult is supporting partners to translate insight into action.
Carbon-aware workload scheduling for example, can reduce emissions for certain workloads, particularly batch and AI training jobs, but evidence shows benefits vary. The opportunity lies in selective, data‑driven application, not blanket rules.
At the engineering level, Software Carbon Intensity (SCI) metrics allow teams to compare architectures, optimise code and track improvements over time, without simply shifting emissions elsewhere.
Alongside this, organisations should actively demand greater transparency through procurement. Region‑level emissions data, standard efficiency metrics, access to raw APIs and optional granular energy certificates all reduce long‑term risk and rework. In following these steps, IT leaders can unlock new opportunities to mobilise commercial growth while navigating regulatory frameworks and enabling many to present accurate emissions data on their cloud activity.
Taken together, these steps form the foundations of a cloud carbon data supply chain, enabling organisations to move from fragmented, inconsistent data toward a more robust, auditable and decision-ready system. In doing so, IT leaders can not only improve sustainability outcomes, but also unlock operational efficiencies, support compliance with evolving frameworks, and drive more resilient, future-ready digital infrastructure.
While hyperscalers are improving their disclosures, gaps will remain for some time. Waiting for perfect data is therefore a losing strategy and is why Digital Catapult continues to partner with industry leaders to support them as they consider alternative solutions that leverage deep tech innovation.
This is why we emphasise that a better response is to treat cloud emissions like any other critical supply chain, recognising the value of building a framework for improved resilience, governance and traceability. Organisations that do so will not only improve sustainability outcomes, but also strengthen compliance, credibility and decision‑making, equipping many to be future-ready.
Cloud sustainability is no longer just about what providers claim. It is about how enterprises design the systems that sit on top, and any business interested in understanding how to integrate and apply novel design systems can learn more here.
