Tech
IT Sustainability Think Tank: How IT directors can spot false green claims from Big Tech suppliers | Computer Weekly
The sustainability technology market is vibrant with activity across a range of use case areas (from ESG reporting, through nature capital, sustainable manufacturing, smart energy grids, green IT, and the circular economy).
However, for IT directors navigating this fast-moving landscape, distinguishing genuine environmental credentials from carefully chosen averages, aggregates, and sophisticated spin has become a critical competency… and one which could determine whether your organisation becomes recognised as a sustainability leader or an unwitting accomplice in greenwashing.
Beware of green IT with dirty secrets
One of the most glaring red flags when considering the sustainability of software and IT services is when suppliers tout the benefits of their artificial intelligence (AI)-powered offerings whilst remaining conspicuously tight-lipped about the environmental impacts of the resource-hungry datacentres powering them.
Even when a supplier can cite corporate-level commitments (say, for purchasing renewable power or offsetting emissions), if they’re unable or unwilling to provide granular-level transparency about impacts at the individual workload level, then this should raise concerns.
Global average figures that smooth out peaks and troughs, or rely heavily on offsetting to disguise true consumption, can mask uncomfortable truths about how green your use of their services (in your region, at the time you’re using them) actually is.
The environmental impact of AI becomes particularly pertinent when considering its application in sustainability use cases. Discussions at COP29 highlighted the ‘sustainable AI paradox’ – the fact that the very AI systems being deployed to solve climate challenges are themselves energy and water-intensive – and so it’s imperative that any sustainability solution deploying AI demonstrates clear net environmental benefits.
Absence of clear statements (taking into account the environmental costs of training models, as well as specific operational usage patterns – where and when workloads are being run, etc.) can mask a potentially green solution’s dirty secret.
Technology consumers face making inevitable trade-offs when attempting to balance sustainability against cost and performance, but without hard data upon which to make hard choices, decision-makers will be operating in the dark.
Insist on seeing actual energy consumption metrics for any cloud-based solutions. The most progressive providers are not only transitioning to renewable energy sources but are also doing so transparently. Vague claims about providing a ‘carbon-neutral cloud’, without specific, verifiable metrics, should be viewed with suspicion.
Also, be wary of sustainability claims that focus exclusively on future commitments rather than present achievements – especially if timeframes continue to shift. For example, have 2030 pledges recently morphed into similar-sounding 2035 ones?
Whilst Science-Based Targets and net-zero pledges for 2050 may sound impressive, they mean little without transparent reporting of baselines, current emissions, concrete reduction milestones, and regular progress updates.
Finally, if a company seems over-reliant on carbon credits (especially when it isn’t operating in a particularly hard-to-abate sector – such as like heavy industrial manufacturing), question whether they shouldn’t have made more of an effort to reduce their own carbon footprint before resorting to paying others to offset their impact.
This is particularly relevant following COP29’s carbon trading agreements, where – despite finally establishing country-to-country trading mechanisms after a decade of negotiations – concerns remain about credit quality.
Count what counts – not just what’s easy to
Everybody is (eventually) somebody’s Scope 3. Before smaller – hitherto out-of-scope – organisations find themselves swept up in the expanding catchments of environmental reporting legislation directly, they’re more likely to find themselves caught in a different net… that of a partner’s or funder’s Scope 3 (indirect) carbon emissions reporting.
In today’s ecosystem world, every company is linked to numerous others up and down their value chains for a variety of reasons, and responsibility to disclose greenhouse gas emissions has now joined that list of touchpoints. Suppliers who claim they can’t provide this data are either behind the curve or are potentially hiding something.
However, even if you can get hold of this information, watch for over-reliance on industry average proxy figures (rather than actual, accurate, attributable data), and proprietary certificates and badges that lack industry-wide recognition.
Platform-specific certificates (or benchmarking schemes designed to focus on ‘product community’ efforts) can obscure the true picture of consumption and emissions when what really matters is compliance with internationally recognised standards (such as ISO 14068, replacing the BSI 2060 scheme).
If a supplier’s primary evidence appears to consist more of self-awarded accolades, rather than respected third-party validation, proceed with caution.
Despite anticipated scale-backs to the eventual scope of the regulation, the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) frameworks represent a good start.
Even post-Brexit, CSRD matters because it covers UK subsidiaries of EU parent companies and UK companies with significant EU operations. Also many UK firms are voluntarily adopting it to maintain competitiveness for EU contracts.
Delays to, and reforms of, CSRD may provide UK companies with some immediate breathing room, but that’s no excuse for complacency. Suppliers that can’t demonstrate the ability to comply with these, and other emerging requirements, likely lack robust sustainability governance at their core – hampering their ability to effectively respond and report on their carbon footprint, whatever is ultimately asked of them.
There’s also now additional framework pressure on tech companies to transparently report and reduce their own emissions following COP29’s ‘Declaration on Green Digital Action’ (signed by 90 governments and 1,000 cross-sector stakeholders).
IT directors should specifically ask suppliers about their alignment with the Declaration and whether they’re contributing to their country’s enhanced Nationally Determined Contributions. The UK’s early commitment (made just prior to COP29) to reduce emissions by “at least 81%” on 1990 levels by 2035 will cascade down through procurement requirements, making suppliers’ sustainability credentials increasingly critical for public sector contracts (especially with the government’s mission-driven emphasis on “Making Britain a clean energy superpower” enshrined in its revised Social Value Model).
Also, look for evidence of an integrated (and ‘by-design’) approach to sustainability, not just a collection of disparate initiatives.
TechMarketView’s Sustainability Technology Activity Index research, which analysed the sustainability activities of over 2,000 suppliers and tech users worldwide, reveals that leading suppliers are embedding sustainability into their offerings rather than maintaining separate systems.
The Index also found that they’re providing the means for customers to leverage sustainability data for wider business decision-making and operational control too (beyond core sustainability interests).
If a firm’s sustainability team seems disconnected from its core product development and operations, its influence (and that company’s commitment) may be superficial. Sustainability should be a business issue – for them, and for you.
Shortcomings and shortcuts to being sustainability savvy
There’s something of a skills crisis at the sustainability-business-tech nexus. The uncomfortable truth is that many organisations lack the internal expertise even to properly evaluate third parties’ sustainability claims, let alone determine what sustainability means to their business.
With talent that combines environmental expertise, business context, and technical capability in short supply, companies should establish cross-functional teams to evaluate incoming proposals.
Don’t just include IT and procurement people (and sustainability specialists, where you have access to them), though – also look to finance teams, with their understanding of ROI models; operations, with their grasp of implementation realities; and business strategists, for the big picture context.
These combo teams can provide the domain expertise needed to spot greenwashing that might slip past unsupported generalists – especially when paired with the use of formal scoring frameworks that focus on third-party audited emissions data, compliance with recognised standards, and evidence of year-on-year improvements; and that weight verifiable, present-tense achievements over future promises.
Not every company has this breadth of expertise available, of course – even distributed across multiple roles and role-holders – and in such circumstances, IT services firms are ideally placed to step in and bridge the gaps.
According to data from the Index, professional services are involved in 34.9% of worldwide sustainability tech activity (rising to 38.4% in the UK) – underscoring how initiatives remain heavily consultancy-driven, rather than having yet become operationally embedded within organisations.
However, an over-reliance on external expertise risks businesses failing to truly embrace and understand sustainability thinking (and develop anti-greenwashing antennae) for themselves – with sustainability instead remaining more of a bolt-on consideration, at risk of being sheared-off when consulting budgets are re-assigned.
Moving forward
The stakes are higher than mere compliance. Unsubstantiated sustainability claims risk not just reputational damage, but also potential legal and financial consequences as greenwashing regulations tighten. IT directors that fail to implement rigorous verification processes risk allowing their organisations to become complicit in environmental deception (and losing control of their net zero narrative).
Companies should start by auditing their current technology partners against clear sustainability criteria; for new procurements, make third-party verified sustainability metrics a mandatory requirement; and also start to build internal competency through training, hiring, and strategic partnerships – but don’t wait for the perfect team to coalesce before acting.
By combining healthy scepticism with systematic verification, IT directors can ensure they’re working with genuine sustainability leaders rather than sophisticated storytellers. In a market where environmental considerations have the potential to reshape every industry, the ability to distinguish substance from spin isn’t just good governance. It’s business critical.
On November 8, an offer for loyalty card holders appeared on the website of MediaWorld, a European electronics retailer. The deal: an iPad Air for 15 euros (about $17) instead of the usual €879 (about $1,012). No catch, no strings attached. The proximity to Black Friday only made the offer more plausible. And so several consumers immediately purchased the product by choosing the “payment and pickup in store” opetion, on paper the safest to avoid unexpected problems.
The process was seamless, even for those ordering online. According to the accounts of some users on Reddit, their order was accepted, and after about 40 minutes they received an email confirming the availability of the product.
In the store, the €15 payment went through successfully and MediaWorld delivered the iPads as expected. The terms and conditions attached to the order make no mention of any clause regarding pricing errors or the possibility for the company to request subsequent additions.
MediaWorld’s About-Face
Eleven days later, however, MediaWorld sent a simple email—not a formal communication via certified mail—stating that the published price was “clearly incorrect.” The company then asked the affected customers to choose between two solutions: Keep the iPad and the difference to match the price but with a €150 discount, or return it and receive a refund of the €15 and a €20 discount voucher for their inconvenience.
MediaWorld’s Response
Following the incident, Wired contacted MediaWorld for comment. “We confirm that, in a very short period of time, due to a clearly recognizable technical error caused by an extraordinary and unexpected glitch on our e-commerce platform, some products were mistakenly displayed at prices that, due to their clear and objective disconnect from the true market value and the correct promotional price, should never have been displayed. This was a manifest error, making it economically unsustainable and not representative of our commercial offering,” a MediaWorld spokesperson explains.
Regarding the subsequent intervention to try to recover the products sold, the representative added: “By virtue of the provisions of the current regulations, we found it necessary to intervene, resorting to a legal principle aimed at preserving the contractual balance in the event of an error of this magnitude. Our approach was to prioritize the relationship with the customer and to offer solutions that went beyond the mere application of law. For this reason, we promptly contacted all affected buyers, proposing two alternatives.”
The MediaWorld spokesperson also confirmed to WIRED the two solutions first highlighted by Reddit users: “We offer product retention: the customer has the option to keep the purchased item, paying the difference between the price paid and the correct promotional price. We have also offered a further discount on the amount to be paid. Or return the product: the customer can choose to return the item free of charge, receiving a full refund of the amount already paid. In this case too, we have offered a MediaWorld shopping voucher. We firmly believe that these proposals demonstrate our willingness to support customers and maintain transparency and fairness. We continue to work to improve our shopping experience and maximum protection for our consumers.”
The Legal Issue: Is the Error Really Recognizable?
On the web, many lawyers point out that Article 1428 of the Italian Civil Code allows a contract to be voided if the error is fundamental and recognizable. But the issue, according to consumer lawyer Massimiliano Dona, is more nuanced than it seems.
“The premise is that the November 19 letter—in which MediaWorld demanded the return or purchase of the iPad at near-real price—is not a formal warning or formal notice, especially if sent by ordinary mail, as it is a proposal for a binary agreement. If the consumer ignores it, MediaWorld will evaluate whether to take formal action,” Dona claims.
“That’s why the key issue is whether, from a legal standpoint, MediaWorld’s claim is well-founded or not. To void a contract, it is necessary to demonstrate the consumer’s awareness of abusing the seller’s error. But to have this proof, it is not enough to claim that the 98 percent discount makes the error obvious in the eyes of the customer.” Furthermore, Dona also points to the fact that, “Today prices are not as standard as they once were. Between limited-time offers, flash sales, promotions, and contests (offered mainly on social or in apps) everything is more variable, plus now we are in the midst of the Black Friday discount season. Given these elements, perhaps we can consider it reasonable that the consumer thought of an advertising technique.”
How Does MediaWorld Test Consumer Awareness?
Dona also claims that there is no threshold beyond which the customer must necessarily notice the mistake: “There are other factors to consider. If the buyer is Mrs. Maria, who finds a deal and decides to take it, that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, it’s someone who buys five tablets and then immediately puts them back on sale, or even someone who resells electronics for a living, that’s another matter. In that case, the awareness of the mistake would be more obvious.”
The decisive issue, he claims, is the recognizability of the error: “From a legal point of view, everything revolves around the buyer’s ability to recognize that the price was incorrect. This is the real deciding factor, which must be contextualized both with respect to sales channel used by MediaWorld and the buyer’s professionalism.”
For now, then, the picture remains an evolving one: a public offer completed without dispute, a U-turn that came days later via email, and a legal assessment that would revolve around whether the consumer was able to recognize the error.
This story originally appeared on WIRED Italia and has been translated from Italian.
Say what you will about Beats fans, but at least they know what they like. These headsets and earbuds are instantly recognizable for their slick styling and bass forward sound profile. If that sounds like your speed, the Beats Studio Pro are currently marked down as low as $150 Amazon, depending on your color preference. I spotted them at the lower price in matte white, sand gray, and dune, with a slightly higher $170 price tag for the remaining colors, though your availability may vary.
While the Studio Pro lack some of the Apple-exclusive features you get with AirPods, for example, the upside is that they’re much more friendly with Android devices. Both platforms get access to one-touch pairing and the helpful Beats app, while iPhone owners also get the benefits of Hey Siri and Find My Device. The other features are a bit of a mixed bag, with a decent battery life of up to 24 hours with ANC on, or 40 with ANC off, but no auto pause when you take them off, or multi-point pairing beyond Google’s Chromebook and Android option.
Like most headphones from Beats, the sound profile is decidedly bass-forward, but Apple’s ownership has tempered that tendency over the last few years. As a result, this generation is more balanced than previous eras, with our reviewer Ryan Waniata complimenting the expansive sound stage and sharp details. Unfortunately, most Beats headsets don’t have any equalizer, and the Studio Pro are no different. For better or worse, you’re stuck with how they sound coming out of the box. These at least support high-resolution audio, up to 24-bit/48-kHz, but only in the wired USB-C mode.
For the Beats enthusiast looking for an upgrade or a second headset for the gym, these are a solid option at a deeply discounted price. They lack some of the richer and more advanced features found on more expensive headsets, but that may be the right compromise for some folks who just want something simple that works every time. If you’re not sure you can stand the bass, make sure to check out all of our favorite wireless headsets.
Google Pixel deals abound! The company has kicked off its Black Friday promotions on all of its Pixel hardware, from the value-friendly Pixel 9a to the flagship Pixel 10 Pro XL. There are even discounts on the brand-new Pixel Watch 4 and Google’s wireless earbuds. We’ve rounded up the best Google Pixel discounts this shopping holiday, and even included a handful of deals on Nest hardware if you’re inclined to Google-ify your home.
Check out our Best Early Black Friday Deals for more great deals on WIRED-tested gear.
Featured in this article
Google Pixel Phone Deals
Read our Best Google Pixel Phones guide for more details on these products.
-
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
-
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
-
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
-
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
Our top smartphone recommendation for most people, the Google Pixel 9a (9/10, WIRED Recommends) is a steal at $399. You get all the accouterments you’d want in a phone, from wireless charging and a reliable dual-camera system to solid day-long battery life and excellent performance for the money. Google also promises 7 years of software support, which is unmatched at this price, and there’s plenty of fresh software smarts that you’ll find useful every day, like Call Screening, which will cut down the number of spam calls you get.
-
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
-
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
-
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
-
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
A much better value than its predecessor, the Pixel 10 (8/10, WIRED Recommends) is one of the few smartphones at its MSRP with a triple-camera system that includes a 5X optical zoom camera. 5X! You can zoom in and capture your kid on stage at the school holiday concert in pristine quality. That makes it an even better buy at $599. Performance is a step up from the Pixel 9a, as is the selfie camera, and there are a few new exclusive software features—like the ability to AirDrop with iPhone owners. It’s the first Pixel (and flagship Android phone for that matter) with Qi2 magnets for faster wireless charging and access to the MagSafe accessory ecosystem.
-
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
-
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
-
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
-
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
Pixel 10 Pro and Pixel 10 Pro XL
If you want Google’s best hardware, look no further than the Pixel 10 Pro or Pixel 10 Pro XL (8/10, WIRED Recommends)—the only differences between the two are screen size and battery life. Scratch that, the XL also supports the Qi2 25-watt standard, allowing it to charge even faster from a compatible Qi2 wireless charger. Outside of that, performance goes up a notch from the base Pixel 10 because of the vapor chamber cooling system, which means demanding games will run a little better. The camera quality is sharper , especially the 5X telephoto and primary camera, and you can use Google’s Video Boost technology for better quality video clips. This is the best Google has to offer right now.
-
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
-
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
-
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
-
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
Want a folding phone? Google’s Pixel 10 Pro Fold (7/10, WIRED Recommends) is rated to withstand 10 years of folding and is one of the few folding phones with an IP68 dust- and water-resistance rating. (Just, maybe don’t bend it like this.) I can say that I have dropped this phone multiple times on asphalt, and it only has a few scratches on the frame. I think Samsung did a better job with the Galaxy Z Fold7 this year—it’s much thinner and lighter—but the Pixel 10 Pro Fold is still a solid handset if you prefer Google’s software smarts. The cameras are similar to what you’ll find in the Pixel 10, but you don’t get the same great image quality as the Pixel 10 Pro, despite “Pro” in the name.
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
You don’t always need the latest and greatest. Google has discounted last year’s Pixel 9 series (9/10, WIRED Recommends), though only some of these are worth the money. For example, the Pixel 9 Pro Fold is only $150 less than the Pixel 10 Pro Fold; buy the latter instead. The best deal here is the Pixel 9 at $499, which will still offer a slightly nicer experience over the Pixel 9a, though if you can spare an extra $100, you should opt for the Pixel 10.
Deals on Pixel Cases and Accessories
Check out our Pixel 10 Cases and Pixel 9 Cases guides for more recommendations.
Meghan Markle divorce to cause major financial loss for Prince Harry
MediaWorld Accidentally Sold iPads for 15 Euros. Then It Asked for Them Back
Players to watch at reborn SEC volleyball tournament
-
Tech6 days agoNew carbon capture method uses water and pressure to remove CO₂ from emissions at half current costs
-
Politics1 week agoBritish-Pakistani honoured for transforming UK halal meat industry
-
Business6 days agoThese 9 Common Money Mistakes Are Eating Your Income
-
Sports6 days agoTexas A&M officer scolds South Carolina wide receiver after touchdown; department speaks out
-
Business1 week agoWhat’s behind Rachel Reeves’s hokey cokey on income tax rises?
-
Sports1 week agoApple scrapping MLS Season Pass service in ’26
-
Fashion1 week agoAfter London, Leeds and Newcastle, next stop Glasgow for busy Omnes
-
Tech1 week ago$25 Off Exclusive Blue Apron Coupon for November 2025