By Sahil Rumba

Copyright techgenyz

Greenwashing in Tech exposes the gap between real innovation and marketing claims.Learn how to spot genuine sustainability versus hype.Tech giants face scrutiny over offsets, transparency, and emissions.

We would like to believe that our smartphones, cloud services, and data centers are part of a bright future, supported by renewable energy, recycling, and responsible innovation. The tech companies want us to believe this too; they produce glossy sustainability reports, pledge to reach net-zero, write about “100% renewable energy”, or advertise “carbon-neutral” products. But more voices are asking in 2025: how much progress has actually been made, and how much is simply storytelling?

When we dig deeper, some claims do have real truth. However, other claims appear to be marketing tactics, intended to alleviate guilt, generate customer loyalty, or ward off regulatory scrutiny. These distinctions are essential; what appears virtuous may, in fact, be a distraction from necessary fixes, from supply chains, to raw material sourcing, to energy-utilizing processes, to products, and to transparency.

What Big Tech says they are doing versus what they are doing

A lot of the large technology companies are either operating (or running their data centers) on 100 percent renewable energy or otherwise have strong commitments to renewable energy. This is significant because data centers use a lot of energy. But there are caveats:

Some companies purchase or claim renewable energy certificates (RECs) or similar instruments to claim renewable energy use without directly matching the power use with renewables in real time or location. Meaning, on paper, they are ‘clean’, but physically, the grid they are drawing power from still has fossil fuel generation. This has been criticized as a way to obscure actual emissions.

A recent Policy review article highlighted that one set of scope-2 emissions (location-based) trajectory for Microsoft and Google has more than doubled in a few years, while their ‘market-based’ emissions appeared smaller. The discrepancies and differences are significant because the amount of actual emission reductions is open to question regarding actual progress versus how much is merely dressed in favorable accounting.

Carbon-neutral/carbon-negative devices and offsets

Another common assertion is carbon-neutral products (phones or gadgets or watches, etc.) or some variation on net zero or negative emissions, company emissions. They are attractive claims, but some are coming under scrutiny.

For example, Apple has faced (and is facing) lawsuits alleging that certain Apple Watch models are ‘carbon neutral‘. Critics are saying that some of the offset projects that Apple cites are ‘questionably effective’. The issue is whether offsets are meaningfully reducing emissions or simply allowing companies to continue business as usual.

And the very certification organisations themselves (like Verra that issues many carbon offset credits), are even under investigation for claiming projects are overestimating environmental effectiveness for projects, or in some cases, that they are based on areas that were not threatened in the first place (meaning the offset’s claim is not truly extra). This undermines much of the environmental rigor behind offsets purchased by large organisations.

Scope 3/downstream emissions- the undermeasured

Scope 3 emissions encompass all emissions from a company’s supply chain, product use, and disposal, emissions greater than its own direct operations. For many tech companies, this is the biggest sector of their footprint, but the reporting here can often be weaker, less transparent, or selective. Companies might not report or fully factor in emissions for users using AI tools (e.g., cloud computing use by customers ), data transfer over networks, raw materials, and shipping.

“Efficiency Is Not Enough: A Critical Perspective of Environmentally Sustainable AI” points out that making AI systems simply more compute-or energy-efficient does not take care of many environmental costs (materials, manufacturing, disposal). Efficiency is important, but not enough.

Cases with Solid claims

Some companies have made significant investments in building renewable generation (solar, wind) owned or directly contracted, instead of simply purchasing RECs. This allows for increased control and assurance of actual emissions reductions.

In some cases, companies are also creating internal tools for quantifying environmental impact in a much more rigorous way, better ensuring supply chain disclosure, pushing for repairability or circular design in products, reducing waste and plastic, improving energy efficiency in their data center designs, etc. These are much harder, more systemic changes.

Where the hype will try to hide cracks

Marketing usually emphasizes what is easy to change or what is easier to write about. Changes that make a difference are often the hardest to change. Here are some common barriers:

Vague Claims: “Green”, “Eco-Friendly”, “carbon neutral”, “net-zero” without clear parameters, timelines, or independent verifications. For example, if a company does not simply state what is included/excluded (like scope 1,2,3 emissions) and/ or relies heavily on offsets, we can consider the risk of misleading messagesOver-claiming small wins: For example, stating that a data center has renewable energy without recognizing that other emissions from the supply chain or usage are significant, or highlighting the recycling of packaging and failing to acknowledge whether the product’s lifespan and electronic waste are being addressed.Green Credits– Unsustainable Claiming: The allure of offsets or credits sounds nice, but they are offered as a project that perhaps was always protected, or in a project offered “additionality”, it may not exist. For example, investigations of Verra found rainforest projects were not reducing emissions or established in a region at low risk of deforestation in general; therefore, the alleged carbon benefit is not real.Selective transparency: Providing data that appears to be beneficial (such as reduction in emissions intensity, or using market metrics), while minimizing or ignoring larger or more holistic metrics (actual energy use, total emissions, or materials or waste impacts).Future promises versus present reality: Claims of, for example, “net-zero by 2030″ or “carbon negative by 2040” sometimes rely on capabilities or commitments that are still speculative; often, future promises emphasize systems or technologies that may or may not work as described. In the meantime, operational emissions continue to increase. For instance, reporting demonstrates that the scope-2 location-based emissions for Microsoft and Google have increased significantly over the last several years.

How to spot the real from the hype

For optimistic consumers, investors, or anyone trying to understand sustainability claims, here are indicators that can help distill substance from spin:

Identify third-party verification and audit reports: Is the company using independent and credible auditors or standards (e.g., Science Based Target initiative, CDP, GRI, Verra, Gold Standard)?Thoroughly assess emissions reports: Are scopes 1, 2, and 3 included? Are the reports from a recent year? Are the emissions data comprehensive figures of both location-based and market-based emissions (both brands assure you are seeing actual energy utilization, not just credits purchased)?Check depth instead of buzzwords: If a company states carbon neutral, does it clarify how (offsets? renewable energy? energy efficiency?), when the timeframe, what part of operations, which products the carbon neutral claims refer to?Make inquiries about offsets: To which projects does the data refer? Are they certified? What money goes into them by whom? Does the project demonstrate additionality and permanence? What were the risks of leakage (emissions just shifted elsewhere)?Examine company-wide trends, not independent claims: Is the company decreasing its overall footprint (data-centers, supply chain, product life time), decreasing or just decreasing ‘intensity’ per unit (this could mask total growth)Look for regulatory and legal action: Lawsuits, regulatory fines, and investigations provide evidence that claims are being contested (examples: Apple’s carbon-neutral watch models, Google being challenged by new reports of emissions growth)

It is promising to see the largest technology companies invest in green infrastructure, clean energy, and sustainability innovation. Some of what they do is real, and in many cases, it is simply better than doing nothing. But a promise does not equal enough. We deserve integrity.

Real innovation is when sustainability is integrally designed into all levels of a corporation, like product design, materials, its operations, its supply chain, user behaviour, through to disposal. Marketing hype is when they make claims that sound good to the ears, but the statements are vague, selective, or subject to verification.

As the consumer, the citizen, and the investor, we can demand more. When a tech company complicates and acts with transparent, measurable, verified action, not just powerful messaging, they do not just enhance their reputation, but they help build a more sustainable world. And given what happens if we do not have a viable planet, that kind of integrity matters.