Reporting & compliance
The evidence behind the disclosure.
Energy, carbon and materials disclosure is now mandatory for all but the smallest organisations, and the data centre sits at the centre of it. The regulations name specific metrics. Most reporting cannot produce them honestly. This is the measured evidence that can.
Compliance reporting fails most often long before the point of disclosure: the data underneath the report does not exist in a form that survives audit. Building energy is well measured. The IT load inside the building, which is where the largest share of consumption and the largest available reduction both sit, usually is not. The regulations increasingly ask for exactly that IT-layer measurement. Interact was built to produce it.
The landscape
The regimes converging on the data centre.
The list keeps growing each reporting cycle. What it has in common is a move from voluntary best practice toward audited, mandatory disclosure, and an increasing demand for the IT-efficiency data the industry has historically not measured.
EU · mandatory
Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)
Broad ESG disclosure across climate, water, circular economy, pollution and biodiversity, plus governance and supply chain. The IT footprint of an organisation is in scope, and increasingly expected to be reported on measured terms.
EU · mandatory
Energy Efficiency Directive (EED)
All EU data centres with an installed IT power demand of 500 kW or more must report against a defined set of KPIs, including the IT-equipment efficiency metrics drawn from the EU Code of Conduct and the EN 50600-4 / ISO 30134 series. Reporting cycles are already live.
EU · voluntary best practice
EU Code of Conduct for Data Centre Energy Efficiency (EUCoC)
The reference framework much of the mandatory regime is built on. Sets the expectation that IT-equipment efficiency is measured and reported alongside the building's Power Usage Effectiveness.
International standard
ISO/IEC 30134-4 (ITEEsv) and 30134-5 (ITEUsv)
The formal IT Equipment Energy Efficiency and Utilisation metrics for servers. These are the numbers the EED and EUCoC reference, and the numbers most operators cannot currently produce because they require per-configuration benchmark data.
Our explainer on ITEEsv →Carbon accounting standard
GHG Protocol, scope 2 and scope 3
The basis for SECR, ESOS, SEC, BEGES and most national carbon regimes. Scope 2 covers the energy the hardware draws; scope 3 covers the embodied carbon of the hardware itself. Both depend on knowing what the equipment actually does and what it is made of.
EU · supply chain
Critical Raw Materials reporting
The EU monitors 30 critical raw materials in short or politically unstable supply; 23 are used in data centre IT hardware. Reporting on the materials inside an estate, and on their recovery at end of life, is moving up the regulatory agenda.
What is actually in a server →The gap
Where most reporting falls short.
Almost every framework above asks, directly or indirectly, for the efficiency of the IT load itself. Almost no operator can answer it. The reason is structural: the metrics require per-configuration measurement of server performance per Watt, and that data does not exist on a spec sheet. Reporting that leans on manufacturer figures, plate ratings or building-level PUE satisfies the form of the requirement without the substance, and that gap is exactly what auditors and regulators are starting to scrutinise.
The evidence
What Interact produces for compliance.
We do not file your report. We produce the measured, sourced, audit-clean evidence that sits underneath it, in a form that holds up when someone asks how you arrived at the number. Specifically:
- ITEEsv and ITEUsv figures for the estate, against the ISO 30134 method, recorded with the benchmark used
- Scope 2 energy and scope 3 embodied carbon per server, to the GHG Protocol
- A materials breakdown, including Critical Raw Materials, for circular-economy and supply-chain disclosure
- Water footprint of the electricity consumed, derived from the data centre's grid location
- A stated methodology and assumptions for every figure, available for inspection by an auditor
The methodology behind these figures is peer-reviewed and published. The dataset is the largest body of measured server performance data in the category. That is what makes the disclosure defensible, built on measured evidence. For the underlying papers, see the Resources page.
Engagement
How it works as an engagement.
Compliance evidence is produced through the same two solutions as everything else. Verify produces the evidence for a single reporting cycle or a single decision. Advisory makes the measurement an ongoing capability, so each reporting cycle draws on a live dataset that is already in place. For organisations whose reporting obligation recurs annually, Advisory is usually the better fit.
Have a reporting deadline coming?