When someone first asks "what are your ICT emissions?", the temptation is to give them a number. Any number. Confident, round, slightly-too-precise: the kind that makes the conversation stop.
I've resisted that temptation. Barely, some days.
Because ICT emissions are one of the messiest corners of the entire reporting landscape, and under AASB S2 (Australia's climate disclosure standard), messy isn't good enough anymore. It's a compliance risk. A board sign-off. An audit finding waiting to happen.
Why this is actually hard
AASB S2 asks organisations to account for climate risks and emissions across their value chain, not just their own operations. ICT hardware sits right in that value chain, mostly as Scope 3: emissions you don't control but still have to own.
And historically, ICT procurement gives you almost nothing to work with. You get an invoice: product, quantity, price. Then, months later, someone in sustainability is asked to reconstruct the environmental footprint of a purchase that happened long ago, from a supplier who never provided the data to begin with. It's not a lack of intent. It's a lack of usable information.
Even when you do have data, precise measurement barely exists for most hardware categories yet. You're working with manufacturer figures, secondary datasets, assumptions, modelling, and every one of those choices needs a defensible reporting boundary behind it. That's not a flaw in the field. It's just where the discipline is, while regulators ask for numbers anyway.
Why "good enough" isn't
It's tempting to pick a plausible factor, apply it uniformly, and move on. I get the appeal: deadlines are real. But an emissions number that can't survive scrutiny isn't a disclosure, it's a liability wearing a disclosure's clothes. Under AASB S2, an auditor will ask you to justify that shortcut. Your board will ask why the number moved. "We changed methodology and didn't document why" is not a good answer to either.
Credible reporting means traceable assumptions, consistent boundaries year on year, and being upfront about what's estimated versus measured, plus a real answer for what happens at end-of-life, not just at purchase.
Where we landed
It's why we built procurement the way we did: Switch. Recycle. Impact.
Switch to new hardware through us and you get an AASB-ready GHG receipt at the point of purchase: estimated emissions linked to the actual invoice, methodology and boundary laid out plainly, not buried in an appendix. Your outgoing fleet gets recycled at no cost through Recover-E, with asset-level records and data destruction certificates, so end-of-life evidence exists when you need it instead of years too late. The residual value recovered feeds our Impact program. And whatever recovery can't mop up, we offset across our broader ICT portfolio, so the picture isn't left artificially incomplete.
To be clear: none of this makes anyone automatically compliant. That's not a claim we make, and not one any supplier can make for you. Compliance stays yours to own. What we can do is make sure you're not starting that work from an invoice and a guess.
The bit I actually care about
The real value here isn't the number. It's what building the number properly forces you to see. You can't do this rigorously without confronting how long your devices actually last, what happens to them when they're gone, and whether "recycled" means recycled or just means out of sight.
Complicated and credible beats simple and wrong, especially once your name is on the disclosure.
Greenhouse gas information for eligible hardware is estimated, using manufacturer information, recognised datasets, and modelling; availability and quality vary by product and manufacturer. This article isn't legal, accounting, financial, assurance, or sustainability reporting advice. Review methodology, boundaries, and assumptions and apply your own judgement.
