Businesses know they need to innovate. AI, cloud computing, and advanced data infrastructure are no longer optional for staying competitive.

Yet many are hesitating. Not because they do not see the value in recent technology, but they are afraid of what they might find if they look too closely at its environmental impact.

The concept of sustainability might have taken a few knocks in recent months, but there is still a global consensus that businesses need to do all they can to reduce their emissions count. It is an imperative driven not just by regulators, but also by a company’s customers, shareholders, and even its own employees.

However, recent surveys suggest a significant portion of business leaders are wary of fully measuring their tech stack emissions, fearing reputational damage and customer backlash.

The Wasabi 2025 Emissions Blindspots Report uncovered that as many as 45 percent of UK businesses feel they do not get full access to emissions data from their tech vendors. Also, almost half of UK businesses (47 percent) do not fully trust the quality and accuracy of the data they receive from tech vendors.

So, could it be that the uncertainty about emissions reporting is slowing down vital investment in new tools and infrastructure?

The problem of Scope 3 emissions

For years, companies have tracked carbon footprints, set net-zero targets, and touted green initiatives often driven by regulations from governments and intra-country organizations like the EU. When it comes to digital infrastructure, however, the picture becomes less clear.

The problem is Scope 3 emissions, which are the indirect emissions from a company’s suppliers, including cloud, software, and non-tech vendors. While these often make up the bulk of a company’s carbon footprint (on average, 75 percent depending on the sector), they are also the hardest to measure.

If a business migrates to the cloud, how much of that energy comes from renewables? If it trains an AI model, what is the real carbon cost? Many companies simply do not know at the moment. More worryingly, as our survey uncovered, many companies simply do not fully trust the data they are given.

This can create paralysis, with some companies avoiding auditing their tech emissions too closely as they are worried about what they will find. For other companies, they are wary of sharing the data for fear of a backlash, alienating their shareholders, and opening a door for tough questions to be asked.

For some, it may even mean that crucial investments are on hold as they decide which is the best route forward.

Why is this data so unreliable?

There are three main reasons why so many companies have issues with the data they recover from their providers. The first is perhaps the most important, and that is that technology vendors are not always transparent. Some providers still treat emissions data as a proprietary secret rather than a shared responsibility. Without full visibility into energy sources, efficiency metrics, and supply chain impacts, businesses are left guessing.

There is also an issue with reporting methods that are not consistent, as there is no universal standard. What works for one company might be confusing for another.

Finally, there is the issue of the inability of the companies themselves to accurately track and analyze data internally. They may lack the tools or the expertise, or it could even be that sustainability teams might calculate emissions one way, while IT departments use entirely different models.

This inconsistency breeds distrust, and when businesses cannot trust the numbers, they default to inaction.

Moving forward

If sustainability is becoming a bottleneck for innovation, then businesses need to take action. If a cloud provider cannot (or will not) disclose exact emissions per workload, that is a red flag. Procurement teams need to start asking tough questions, and when appropriate, walking away from vendors that will not answer them.

Businesses also need to unite to push for the development of a global measurement standard for carbon accounting. Until regulators or consortia enforce uniform reporting standards, companies will keep struggling to compare different measurements and metrics.

Finally, it is imperative that businesses rethink the way they see emissions reporting. Rather than it being a compliance burden, they need to grasp it as an opportunity. Get emissions tracking right, and companies can be upfront and authentic about their green credentials, which can reassure potential customers and ultimately generate new business opportunities.

Measuring environmental impact can be messy right now, but the alternative of sticking with outdated systems because new ones feel “too risky” is far worse.

The solution is more transparency, smarter tools, a collective push for accountability, and above all, working with the right partners that can deliver accurate emissions statistics. Companies that figure this out first will not just meet sustainability goals, they will outpace the competition.