Skip to main content

G2 — Environmental Impact

Low severityNIST AI 600-1ISSB IFRS S2GRI StandardsAPRA CPG 229

Domain: G — Systemic & Macro | Jurisdiction: AU, EU, Global

Layer 1 — Start here​

Training and operating large AI models consumes significant energy and water — creating ESG reporting obligations, reputational risk, and emerging regulatory exposure.

AI compute is a significant and growing source of energy consumption. The International Energy Agency estimates data centres used about 415 TWh of electricity in 2024 — around 1.5% of global consumption — and projects this to more than double to about 945 TWh by 2030, with AI the main driver. Google and Microsoft both reported emissions rising well above their baselines in 2024 as they expanded data centres for AI. As organisations scale AI adoption, their share of that footprint becomes material for ESG reporting and sustainability commitments.

Is AI compute energy consumption captured in our sustainability reporting, and are we making model selection decisions that consider efficiency alongside capability?

AI adoption increases energy consumption and emissions. As your organisation scales AI, the aggregate compute footprint becomes material for ESG reporting and sustainability commitments. The audit finding means AI compute is not captured in your emissions tracking. This is primarily a reporting and governance issue — the controls are low effort relative to the reporting risk they mitigate.

Layer 2 — Overview​

Risk description​

Most organisations' AI footprint sits in someone else's data centre: it arrives as Scope 3 emissions from cloud and API providers, often without usable data. The risk is less that one model is damaging than that AI use grows quickly and invisibly — inflating emissions and energy costs, undermining published net-zero commitments, and leaving sustainability disclosures incomplete as mandatory climate reporting arrives in Australia and the EU.

Likelihood drivers​

  • AI compute not included in emissions tracking and reporting
  • Large general-purpose models used for tasks smaller models could perform
  • AI inference sourced from cloud regions with high carbon intensity
  • No governance process for approving large-scale AI training runs
  • ESG and AI governance not integrated

Consequence types​

TypeExample
ESG reporting exposureAI emissions not captured in sustainability reporting
Reputational harmInconsistency between sustainability commitments and AI scaling
Regulatory exposureMandatory climate reporting may capture AI emissions
Investor scrutinyAI compute driving emissions against net-zero commitments

Affected functions​

Technology · Finance · Risk · Sustainability · Procurement · Executive

Controls summary​

ControlOwnerEffortGo-live?Definition of done
AI energy consumption trackingTechnologyLowPost-launchEnergy consumption from AI training and inference measured and reported as part of ESG reporting. Methodology documented. Results feed into sustainability reporting.
Efficient model selection reviewTechnologyLowPost-launchAt system design stage, model selection decision documents why the chosen model size is appropriate — confirming a smaller model was evaluated.
Green data centre sourcingProcurementLowPost-launchAI inference sourced from cloud regions powered predominantly by renewable energy where operationally feasible. Region selection rationale documented.
AI compute governanceTechnologyLowPost-launchLarge-scale AI training runs included in capital expenditure and environmental impact approval processes.

Layer 3 — Controls detail​

G2-001 — AI energy consumption tracking​

Owner: Technology | Type: Detective | Effort: Low | Go-live required: No (post-launch)

AI compute — particularly large model training and high-volume inference — represents a material and growing contribution to organisational energy consumption. Without measurement, it cannot be reported, reduced, or managed. Investors, regulators, and major clients increasingly expect AI energy data as part of ESG disclosure.

Implementation requirements: (1) Measurement scope — capture energy consumption from: (a) cloud AI inference (API calls to hosted models — estimate via provider energy reporting or cost-based proxy if direct measurement unavailable); (b) self-hosted inference (GPU/CPU utilisation monitoring on AI serving infrastructure); (c) training runs (direct measurement from cloud provider dashboards or hardware power meters); (2) Estimation methodology — where direct measurement is unavailable (e.g. third-party API calls), document the estimation methodology. Acceptable proxies: provider-published energy intensity figures (tokens per kWh), hardware TDP-based estimates, or cloud provider sustainability APIs where available. Document methodology and assumptions; (3) Reporting integration — AI energy data must flow into the organisation's ESG reporting process. Agree with the ESG/sustainability team how AI energy data is categorised (Scope 2 for electricity, or Scope 3 for cloud-sourced compute), and ensure the data is available at the reporting timeline required; (4) Baseline and trend — establish a baseline in the first year of measurement. Report consumption and year-on-year trends. Rising consumption without commensurate business value growth is a governance signal; (5) Granularity — where feasible, attribute energy consumption to specific AI systems or use cases. This enables efficiency decisions — understanding that a specific inference pipeline consumes disproportionate energy can prompt architecture review.

Jurisdiction notes: AU — NGER Act (National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting) — large energy users must report; self-hosted AI compute may push organisations over reporting thresholds as usage scales. Mandatory climate-related financial disclosures under the Corporations Act and AASB S2 apply to large entities by size threshold — Group 1 from reporting periods starting 1 January 2025, Group 2 from 1 July 2026, Group 3 from 1 July 2027 — with Scope 3 from each entity's second reporting year | EU — CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) — in-scope companies report energy and GHG emissions under ESRS E1; the 2025 Omnibus simplification narrowed scope and delayed later waves, so confirm whether you are in scope. EU AI Act Art. 53 and Annex XI — providers of general-purpose AI models must document the model's known or estimated energy consumption | US — the SEC's 2024 climate disclosure rules are stayed and the SEC proposed rescinding them in May 2026; state laws (e.g. California's SB 253) and voluntary frameworks are the live drivers

G2-002 — Efficient model selection review​

Owner: Technology | Type: Preventive | Effort: Low | Go-live required: No (post-launch)

The default in AI system design is to select the largest, most capable model available. In practice, many use cases are adequately served by smaller, more efficient models at a fraction of the energy cost. Documenting the model selection decision creates the institutional habit of considering efficiency alongside capability.

Implementation requirements: (1) Selection documentation — at the system design stage, document why the selected model size is appropriate for the use case. The documentation must confirm that a smaller model was evaluated and why it was insufficient (or why it was sufficient and selected). Acceptable evaluation approaches: benchmark testing on representative use case inputs; cost/quality tradeoff analysis; published efficiency comparisons; (2) Task-appropriate sizing — provide guidance to AI system designers on task-appropriate model sizes: (a) classification, structured extraction, sentiment analysis — typically adequately served by small to medium models; (b) long-form generation, complex reasoning, multi-step tasks — may require larger models; (c) use-case-specific fine-tuning of a smaller model — often outperforms general-purpose larger models at lower energy cost; (3) Inference optimisation — for high-volume inference, document whether inference optimisation has been considered: quantisation (reducing precision of model weights), distillation (smaller model trained to replicate larger model behaviour), caching (storing results for repeated queries), batching (processing multiple queries simultaneously). These techniques often reduce energy cost with minimal quality impact; (4) Annual review — model landscape changes rapidly. Models that were uniquely capable when selected may now have efficient alternatives. Include model efficiency review in annual AI system reviews.

Jurisdiction notes: EU — EU AI Act Annex XI — GPAI providers must document energy consumption, so ask model vendors for it at procurement. CSRD — efficiency decisions feed into disclosure obligations | AU — Australia's AI Ethics Principles (2019) include human, societal and environmental wellbeing

G2-003 — Green data centre sourcing​

Owner: Procurement | Type: Preventive | Effort: Low | Go-live required: No (post-launch)

Where AI inference is cloud-sourced, the choice of cloud region materially affects the carbon intensity of that compute. Cloud providers publish carbon intensity data by region — selecting lower-carbon regions for AI workloads is a tractable, low-friction sustainability action.

Implementation requirements: (1) Region carbon intensity assessment — at infrastructure design stage, assess the carbon intensity of candidate cloud regions for AI inference workloads. All major cloud providers (AWS, Azure, Google Cloud) publish carbon intensity data by region and sustainability commitments by region; (2) Selection criteria — where operationally feasible (latency requirements, data residency requirements, regulatory constraints permit), prefer regions with higher renewable energy percentages. Document the selection rationale including any operational constraints that precluded a lower-carbon region; (3) Data residency compatibility — for Australian organisations, data residency requirements may constrain region choice. Where a lower-carbon region would require data to leave Australian jurisdiction, document the constraint and assess alternative mitigations (renewable energy credits, local renewable energy purchasing); (4) Provider sustainability commitments — at procurement, assess provider sustainability commitments: 100% renewable energy commitments, carbon neutrality timelines, energy efficiency targets. Include these in the vendor scorecard alongside cost and capability; (5) Annual review — cloud provider carbon intensity changes as their energy mix evolves. Review region selection annually against current provider data.

Jurisdiction notes: AU — AASB S2 — cloud compute is Scope 3 for the customer; region selection affects the figures reported | EU — CSRD — value-chain (Scope 3) emissions reporting includes purchased cloud services; provider sustainability data is a reportable input | US — California SB 253 requires Scope 3 reporting from large companies doing business in the state; elsewhere disclosure is voluntary

G2-004 — AI compute governance​

Owner: Technology | Type: Preventive | Effort: Low | Go-live required: No (post-launch)

Large-scale AI training runs — which can consume significant energy over hours to days — should be subject to the same governance as other material capital expenditures. Ad hoc training runs without cost or environmental impact assessment represent both a financial and a sustainability governance gap.

Implementation requirements: (1) Training run approval — define a threshold above which AI training runs require explicit approval: by cost (e.g. > $10,000 cloud compute cost), by estimated energy consumption (e.g. > 1,000 kWh), or by training duration (e.g. > 24 hours). Training runs above the threshold must be approved before execution; (2) Approval documentation — the approval request must document: business justification, expected compute cost, estimated energy consumption, justification for scale (why this model size, why this dataset size), and alternatives considered; (3) Continuous training governance — for AI systems with continuous or frequent retraining cycles, include the retraining schedule and its cumulative energy cost in the annual AI system review. Frequent unnecessary retraining is a sustainability and cost inefficiency; (4) Cost and energy attribution — ensure cloud cost and energy consumption from AI training runs are attributed to the AI system or project in financial and sustainability reporting. Unattributed compute costs are invisible to governance; (5) Post-training review — for approved large-scale training runs, conduct a post-training review: did the training achieve its objectives, was the actual cost within the approved estimate, and what was learned about the tradeoff between scale and performance for this use case.

Jurisdiction notes: EU — CSRD — large training runs are material to corporate sustainability reporting for companies in scope | AU — internal ESG governance | US — voluntary disclosure alignment with TCFD or ISSB S2

KPIs​

MetricTargetFrequency
AI energy consumption captured in ESG reporting100% of material AI systemsAnnual
Model selection decisions with efficiency evaluation documented100% of new AI system deploymentsPer deployment
Training runs above threshold with approval documented100%Per training run
Cloud region carbon intensity reviewedAnnually per AI system with cloud inferenceAnnual

Layer 4 — Technical implementation​

AI energy tracking — schema​

from dataclasses import dataclass

@dataclass
class AIEnergyRecord:
    system_id: str
    period: str                   # e.g. "2026-Q1"
    inference_kwh: float          # measured or estimated
    training_kwh: float           # measured or estimated
    estimation_method: str        # "direct_measurement", "provider_api", "cost_proxy", "tdp_estimate"
    cloud_region: str             # e.g. "ap-southeast-2"
    region_carbon_intensity_gco2_kwh: float  # grams CO2 per kWh
    total_co2_kg: float           # kwh * carbon_intensity / 1000
    renewable_energy_pct: float   # provider-reported for region
    scope_category: str           # "scope_2" or "scope_3"
    data_source: str              # URL or document reference for carbon intensity data
    notes: str = ""

    @classmethod
    def compute_co2(cls, kwh: float, carbon_intensity: float) -> float:
        return (kwh * carbon_intensity) / 1000

Compliance implementation​

Australia: NGER (National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting) Act 2007 — organisations exceeding threshold energy consumption must report to the Clean Energy Regulator. As self-hosted AI compute scales, it may push organisations over NGER thresholds. Mandatory climate-related financial disclosures (AASB S2, phased in from 1 January 2025 by entity size, regulated by ASIC) require Scope 1 and 2 emissions and, from the second reporting year, Scope 3; AI compute contributes to Scope 2 (self-hosted) and Scope 3 (cloud-sourced). The G2 controls enable the data collection required for compliance.

EU: CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) — in-scope organisations must report energy consumption and GHG emissions using the ESRS E1 (Climate Change) standard, which captures AI compute through energy use and value-chain emissions; the 2025 Omnibus package narrowed scope and delayed later reporting waves. EU AI Act Art. 53 and Annex XI — GPAI model providers must document known or estimated energy consumption, giving deployers something to request from vendors. EU Taxonomy Regulation — data-centre activities have technical screening criteria for climate change mitigation.

US: The SEC adopted climate disclosure rules in March 2024 but stayed them pending litigation, stopped defending them in 2025, and proposed rescinding them in May 2026 — do not plan around them. California's Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) requires companies with over US$1 billion in revenue doing business in California to report Scope 1 and 2 emissions from 2026 and Scope 3 from 2027; the Scope 3 rules are still being finalised and the law faces a federal challenge. Voluntary reporting: CDP and ISSB S2 provide frameworks for AI energy disclosure.

Incident examples​

Big Tech emissions rising against net-zero targets (2024): Google's 2024 environmental report showed greenhouse gas emissions of 14.3 MtCO2e in 2023, up 48% on 2019, which it attributed mainly to data-centre energy use and supply-chain emissions, warning that reducing emissions may be challenging as AI grows. Microsoft's 2024 sustainability report showed emissions 29% above its 2020 baseline, linked to building the infrastructure for AI. Both still hold 2030 climate targets. For their customers, AI services bought from these providers flow into Scope 3. (Google 2024 Environmental Report; Microsoft 2024 Environmental Sustainability Report)

Data-centre electricity set to double (2025): The IEA's Energy and AI report estimated data centres consumed about 415 TWh in 2024 (around 1.5% of global electricity) and projected about 945 TWh by 2030, with the United States accounting for nearly half of the growth. The scale has moved AI energy from a corporate reporting question to a grid-planning one. (International Energy Agency, Energy and AI, April 2025)

Scenario seed​

Context: An organisation announces ambitious net-zero targets. Three months later, it also announces a major AI capability investment requiring significant data centre expansion.

Trigger: An investor raises a question at the AGM about whether AI compute is included in emissions forecasts and net-zero pathway modelling.

Complicating factor: Most of the AI capability will be bought as cloud and API services, and the main provider supplies only annual, account-level emissions estimates with no per-workload data.

Discussion questions: How would you estimate AI's contribution to Scope 3 with the data available? What should the procurement contract require from the provider? Should the net-zero pathway be restated before or after the investment? Who answers the investor, and what can they honestly say today?

Difficulty: Foundational | Jurisdictions: AU, EU, Global