Solution Atlas
SpecialisedUser storyConsultative playbook

Our sustainability report needs cloud carbon data and we are flying blind

The board has committed to scope 3 emissions reduction targets and IT is a material slice. Microsoft Sustainability Manager and Azure Carbon Optimization would surface the data but the team has not integrated either. The sustainability team's current numbers are educated guesses.

Trigger
Sustainability report cycle; board emissions target.
Good outcome
Carbon data live for the Azure estate, reduction patterns identified, sustainability KPIs in the FinOps quarterly cadence.
Diagnostic discovery

Signals this story fits

Observable cues that confirm the conversation belongs here.

  • ·Board has committed to scope 3 emissions reduction targets
  • ·Sustainability report cycle approaching with no defensible IT carbon data
  • ·IT estimated carbon footprint via spreadsheets or vendor invoices
  • ·No connection between FinOps cadence and sustainability KPIs
  • ·Microsoft Sustainability Manager or Azure Carbon Optimization licensed but unused

Questions to ask

Open-ended, SPIN-style — each one has a reason it matters.

  1. 1.What scope 3 target has the board committed to, and what is the IT slice?

    WhySizes the deliverable.

    Listen for: “50% by 2030 against a baseline year” · “IT is 15% of the total” · “we have not measured IT separately”

  2. 2.How is IT carbon estimated today — vendor invoices, generic intensity factors, spreadsheets, none?

    WhySurfaces the data gap. Most customers have a spreadsheet with educated guesses.

  3. 3.Has the sustainability team engaged with IT before, and what was the friction?

    WhySurfaces the cross-functional dynamic. Often the sustainability team owns the report but not the data; IT owns the data but not the report.

  4. 4.Is the scope Azure-only, multi-cloud, or full IT (including on-prem and SaaS)?

    WhyDrives the data ingestion strategy. Azure-only is simplest; multi-cloud needs cross-cloud aggregation.

  5. 5.What is the regulatory exposure — CSRD, SECR, regulator-mandated disclosure?

    WhyDetermines the audit-defensibility bar. CSRD assurance is stricter than voluntary reporting.

  6. 6.Does the FinOps cadence include sustainability KPIs today, or is it cost-only?

    WhySurfaces the integration opportunity. Sustainability KPIs sit naturally in the FinOps cadence once data exists.

Baseline → target architecture

TOGAF-style gap framing — what we typically see today, and what the proposed end state looks like. The gap between them is the engagement.

Baseline architecture

Sustainability team produces the report manually with educated guesses for the IT slice. No connection to actual Azure consumption. Microsoft Sustainability Manager and Azure Carbon Optimization either unlicensed or not configured. FinOps cadence does not include sustainability KPIs. Reduction patterns identified ad-hoc when leadership asks. No defensible answer to "where can we reduce IT emissions?"

Typical concerns

  • ·IT carbon estimated rather than measured
  • ·Sustainability report lacks defensible IT data
  • ·Reduction levers not identified
  • ·No integration between FinOps and sustainability cadence
  • ·Regulator or auditor exposure on disclosure

Capability gaps

  • ·Azure Carbon Optimization live for the Azure estate
  • ·Sustainability Manager data substrate (if multi-cloud or full-IT scope)
  • ·Reduction pattern library applied to top workloads
  • ·Sustainability KPIs in the FinOps cadence
  • ·Audit-defensible reporting artefact
Target architecture

Azure Carbon Optimization live for the Azure estate, surfacing emissions per subscription, region, and workload. Microsoft Sustainability Manager ingests Azure carbon data plus on-prem and other-cloud signals where applicable. Reduction pattern library applied — region selection, rightsizing for emissions, off-peak workload scheduling. Sustainability KPIs added to the quarterly FinOps cadence with named owners. Audit-defensible report produced from Sustainability Manager for the sustainability team. Defender for Cloud provides workload-level posture used as the reduction control surface.

Key capabilities

  • Azure Carbon Optimization per subscription and region
  • Sustainability Manager substrate (if broader scope)
  • Reduction pattern library
  • Sustainability KPIs in FinOps cadence
  • Audit-defensible reporting

Enabling SKUs

Resolved in the ‘Recommended cards’ section below.

Architecture decisions

Each decision is offered as explicit options with trade-offs — Hohpe's “selling options” principle. A safe default is noted where one exists.

  1. Decision 1.Reporting scope — Azure-only vs Azure + on-prem vs full IT (Azure + on-prem + SaaS + other-cloud)

    Azure-only via Azure Carbon Optimization

    When it fitsCloud-first organisation; Azure is the material slice.

    Trade-offsMisses on-prem and SaaS slices that may be larger.

    Azure + on-prem via Sustainability Manager

    When it fitsHybrid estate with significant on-prem footprint.

    Trade-offsOn-prem data ingestion needed.

    Full IT scope

    When it fitsCSRD-grade reporting; full IT-emissions picture required.

    Trade-offsLargest data integration effort; multi-vendor.

    Default recommendationAzure-only for the trial via Azure Carbon Optimization. Expand to Sustainability Manager for broader scope in phase two.

  2. Decision 2.Reduction lever priority — region selection vs rightsizing vs scheduling vs PPA influence

    Region selection

    When it fitsWorkloads with regional flexibility; emissions intensity varies materially by region.

    Trade-offsLatency and data residency constraints.

    Rightsizing

    When it fitsOverspecified workloads typical in the estate.

    Trade-offsPerformance regression risk.

    Off-peak scheduling

    When it fitsWorkloads with timing flexibility (batch, dev/test, training).

    Trade-offsSchedule complexity; coordination with business hours.

    PPA / renewable matching influence

    When it fitsHyperscaler renewable strategy aligns with internal targets; reporting becomes the lever.

    Trade-offsLess direct lever; mostly accounting.

    Default recommendationRegion selection and rightsizing first — both have direct emissions impact and overlap with FinOps levers. Scheduling for workloads with timing flexibility.

  3. Decision 3.Reporting cadence — annual report only vs quarterly KPIs vs continuous dashboard

    Annual report only

    When it fitsVoluntary reporting; no regulator-mandated frequency.

    Trade-offsNo operational management; reduction levers identified late.

    Quarterly KPIs in the FinOps cadence

    When it fitsSustainability KPIs integrated with operational reviews; reduction patterns acted on quarterly.

    Trade-offsQuarterly cadence requires data freshness.

    Continuous dashboard

    When it fitsActive reduction programme; teams act on emissions data weekly.

    Trade-offsOperational overhead; data quality must be high.

    Default recommendationQuarterly KPIs in the FinOps cadence. Continuous dashboard if there is an active reduction programme with named owners.

Low-risk trial — proof of value

60-day cloud carbon baseline + reduction pattern trial

8 weeks

Azure Carbon Optimization live for the Azure estate. Baseline emissions report produced for the trial subscriptions. Top 5 reduction opportunities identified (typically region selection + rightsizing + scheduling). At least one reduction pattern implemented on a non-production workload as proof. Sustainability KPIs added to the FinOps quarterly cadence. Two-page audit-ready report drafted as the artefact for the sustainability team.

Success criteria

  • Azure Carbon Optimization baseline produced for trial subscriptions
  • Top 5 reduction opportunities identified with quantified emissions impact
  • One reduction pattern implemented and emissions impact measured
  • Sustainability team accepts the report as the standing artefact

InvestmentAzure Carbon Optimization is included with Azure (no separate licence). Cost Management + Azure Monitor consumption + integration effort. Estimated ~€2–5k/month for the trial scope. Sustainability Manager added in phase two if broader scope is in play.

Proof metrics

  • ·Azure carbon baseline produced and accepted by sustainability team
  • ·Reduction opportunities identified with quantified emissions and cost impact
  • ·One reduction pattern implemented with measured emissions reduction
  • ·Sustainability KPIs operating in the FinOps quarterly cadence

Recommended cards

The SKUs and capabilities most likely to be part of the solution, with the editorial rationale for each in the context of this story. Add the ones that fit your situation.

Why for this story

Carbon and cost share the same workload and tag taxonomy. The FinOps cadence is where sustainability KPIs land — Cost Management is the operational substrate they sit on top of.

Why for this story

Workload signals (utilisation, runtime, region) feed both the rightsizing and the off-peak scheduling reduction patterns. Without Azure Monitor, reduction recommendations stay generic rather than workload-specific.

Why for this story

Workload posture and configuration recommendations from Defender for Cloud become the operational surface for region selection and rightsizing. The control surface where reduction patterns get applied.

Back to Sustainability & carbon-aware FinOps