Cloud Computing's Environmental Footprint: AWS vs Azure vs Google Cloud
Every AI query, every streamed film, every financial transaction routed through the cloud burns electricity. The three companies that control this infrastructure -- Amazon, Microsoft, and Alphabet -- collectively run millions of servers across hundreds of data centres. The International Energy Agency projects that global data centre electricity consumption could more than double by 2026 compared to 2022 levels.
All three publish glossy sustainability reports. All three claim leadership on renewable energy. But what does the independently sourced evidence actually show?
Mashinii scored Amazon, Microsoft, and Alphabet across 11 ethical dimensions using court filings, regulatory actions, investigative journalism, and NGO reports. No corporate self-assessments. No ESG questionnaires. Here is what we found.
Environmental Scores: Energy and Emissions
Two of our 11 dimensions directly measure environmental performance. The gap between these companies is wider than their marketing suggests.
Planet-Friendly Business
Measures carbon emissions, renewable energy adoption, climate targets, and environmental compliance. See the full definition.
| Company | Score | Rank |
|---|---|---|
| Google (Alphabet) | +40 | 1st |
| Amazon | +30 | 2nd |
| Microsoft | +20 | 3rd |
Google: +40. Alphabet has invested heavily in renewable energy and maintained carbon neutrality claims since 2017, when it became the first major tech company to match 100% of electricity consumption with renewable purchases. The growing energy demands of AI infrastructure challenge that record, but the independently verifiable strength of its renewables portfolio remains the strongest of the three.
Amazon: +30. Amazon matched 100% of its global electricity consumption with renewable sources by 2023, seven years ahead of its original target. Over 500 wind and solar projects across 27 countries. AWS drives much of this commitment, as cloud infrastructure accounts for a major share of Amazon's energy use. Scope 3 emissions from its logistics network remain a question mark.
Microsoft: +20. Positive, but the lowest of the three. Microsoft has acknowledged that its emissions increased in recent years, driven by AI data centre buildout. The scale of its cloud and AI infrastructure means its environmental footprint is growing faster than its mitigation efforts.
A 20-point spread between first and last place. For investors evaluating cloud computing environmental impact, that gap is material.
Zero Waste and Sustainable Products
Measures waste reduction, circular economy practices, and sustainable product design. See the full definition.
| Company | Score | Rank |
|---|---|---|
| Microsoft | +70 | 1st |
| Google (Alphabet) | +40 | 2nd |
| Amazon | +10 | 3rd |
Microsoft: +70. The highest single score in this entire comparison. Microsoft's circular economy initiatives for data centre hardware, server component reuse programmes, and its commitment to being zero waste by 2030 are backed by substantial independently verifiable evidence. On waste, Microsoft is not close -- it is dominant.
Google: +40. Solid. Google has pioneered data centre cooling innovations that reduce water usage and invested in server hardware longevity. But it sits 30 points behind Microsoft on this dimension.
Amazon: +10. Mildly positive. AWS has made some commitments to sustainable data centre operations, but the broader Amazon business generates significant packaging and logistics waste. The cloud division's modest gains are diluted by the parent company's footprint.
Here is the twist: Microsoft scores lowest on energy but highest on waste. Google leads on climate but sits in the middle on waste. Amazon is the mirror image of Microsoft -- better on energy, weaker on waste. The "greenest" cloud provider depends entirely on which environmental metric you care about.
Full Scorecard: All 11 Dimensions
Environmental performance is only part of the picture. Cloud providers are also employers, government contractors, data processors, and corporate citizens. Here is how all three score across every dimension Mashinii measures.
| Dimension | Amazon (AMZN) | Microsoft (MSFT) | Google (GOOGL) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better Health for All | +30 | +30 | +10 | AMZN / MSFT |
| Fair Money & Economic Opportunity | -20 | -10 | 0 | GOOGL |
| Fair Pay & Worker Respect | -30 | -10 | -10 | MSFT / GOOGL |
| Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing | -40 | -10 | -10 | MSFT / GOOGL |
| Honest & Fair Business | -30 | -10 | -40 | MSFT |
| Kind to Animals | 0 | -10 | 0 | AMZN / GOOGL |
| No War, No Weapons | -30 | -60 | 0 | GOOGL |
| Planet-Friendly Business | +30 | +20 | +40 | GOOGL |
| Respect for Cultures & Communities | 0 | +50 | +25 | MSFT |
| Safe & Smart Tech | -30 | +10 | -30 | MSFT |
| Zero Waste & Sustainable Products | +10 | +70 | +40 | MSFT |
| Average Score | -10.0 | +5.5 | +2.3 | MSFT |
Microsoft leads overall at +5.5. Google follows at +2.3. Amazon trails at -10.0.
The averages are useful, but they conceal sharp divergences. Each company has dimensions where it dramatically outperforms or underperforms. Which risks matter depends on you.
The AI Energy Problem Nobody Has Solved
Cloud computing's environmental footprint is not static. It is accelerating.
Training a single large language model can consume as much electricity as hundreds of homes use in a year. Running those models at scale for millions of users compounds the demand daily. All three companies have made ambitious climate commitments. The independently verifiable evidence tells a different story.
Google committed to 24/7 carbon-free energy by 2030 -- not just annual matching, but every data centre, every hour. Recent reporting puts its global average at roughly 64% carbon-free. The gap between 64% and 100% is where credibility will be tested.
Microsoft pledged to be carbon negative by 2030. Its total emissions have moved in the opposite direction year-over-year, driven by data centre construction. The commitment stands; the trajectory does not support it yet.
Amazon committed to net-zero carbon by 2040 under its Climate Pledge. AWS has become the largest corporate purchaser of renewable energy globally by capacity. But 2040 is a decade later than the most ambitious targets set by its competitors.
For investors weighing green cloud computing options, the question is not just who scores highest today. It is whose trajectory remains credible as AI workloads double and triple.
Defence Contracts: The Score Most Investors Miss
An investor choosing a cloud provider on environmental grounds should also consider what else these companies build.
| Company | No War, No Weapons Score |
|---|---|
| Google (Alphabet) | 0 |
| Amazon | -30 |
| Microsoft | -60 |
Microsoft: -60. Public procurement records show significant defence contract relationships. Azure Government and Azure Government Secret are purpose-built cloud platforms for defence and intelligence agencies. This is one of the most negative scores in our entire technology coverage.
Amazon: -30. AWS holds a share of the Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability (JWCC) contract with a ceiling of up to $9 billion, plus a $723.9 million contract for additional defence cloud infrastructure.
Google: 0. Google withdrew from Project Maven, a Pentagon AI programme, in 2018 following employee protests. Its current defence involvement does not register at the same level as its peers. For investors who screen on military exposure, Google Cloud is the only major provider that carries no negative score here.
Data Privacy: Who Handles Your Data?
Cloud providers process enormous volumes of sensitive information. Their records on privacy diverge sharply.
Microsoft: +10. Mildly positive, reflecting investment in enterprise-grade cybersecurity and AI ethics governance.
Amazon: -30. Fines and regulatory actions contribute here, including a 32 million euro GDPR fine in France for tracking employee productivity. Concerns around Alexa and Ring data handling add weight.
Google: -30. The structural tension of an advertising company that generates the majority of its revenue from user data. Multiple GDPR fines, antitrust investigations citing data market power, and documented location tracking concerns all factor in.
If you hold equity in your cloud provider and also store sensitive data there, these scores deserve attention alongside the environmental numbers.
Labour Practices
Data centres require construction workers, operations staff, and vast contractor workforces.
Google: -10. Mildly negative. Documented concerns about contractor conditions and internal labour disputes.
Microsoft: -10. Similarly mildly negative. Contractor practices and subsidiary labour conditions weigh slightly.
Amazon: -30. The weakest of the three by a wide margin. Studies have found that warehouse workers in counties with Amazon operations earn 26% less than the average for all workers in those areas. Injury rates and working pace remain under ongoing scrutiny. While base wages have increased, the independently sourced evidence on worker welfare remains negative.
The Bottom Line
| Company | Avg Score | Planet-Friendly | Zero Waste | Best Dimension | Worst Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microsoft (MSFT) | +5.5 | +20 | +70 | Zero Waste (+70) | No War, No Weapons (-60) |
| Google (GOOGL) | +2.3 | +40 | +40 | Planet-Friendly (+40) | Honest & Fair Business (-40) |
| Amazon (AMZN) | -10.0 | +30 | +10 | Better Health (+30) | Fair Trade (-40) |
No cloud provider scores cleanly across all dimensions.
Microsoft has the highest overall average and dominates on waste reduction. But its defence contracting score of -60 is a disqualifying factor for many values-aligned investors. Strip that single dimension and its average jumps to roughly +11.5.
Google leads on climate and energy and is the only major cloud provider without a negative score on military involvement. Its governance record (-40) and data privacy challenges (-30) prevent it from pulling away.
Amazon trails on nearly every non-environmental dimension. Ethical sourcing (-40), labour practices (-30), data privacy (-30), governance (-30), and defence contracting (-30) add up to the most negative overall profile of the three. Its environmental scores are positive but cannot offset the breadth of concerns elsewhere.
The AWS vs Azure sustainability debate usually focuses on renewable energy percentages. The full picture -- including labour, privacy, military involvement, and corporate governance -- tells a more complicated story.
How Mashinii Scores Companies
Mashinii scores companies across 11 ethical dimensions using adversarial, independently sourced data. Scores range from -100 to +100. A score of 0 means insufficient independent evidence to assess. Every score is backed by cited sources.
We do not accept corporate self-assessments. Learn how our methodology works.
Check Your Cloud Exposure
If you hold shares in Amazon, Microsoft, or Alphabet -- directly or through index funds -- their environmental and ethical profile is already part of your portfolio. Most major index funds hold all three.
See exactly how your holdings score across all 11 dimensions in under 60 seconds.
Search any of these companies directly: