Does the company claim that streaming only accounts for a small percentage of energy consumption/CO2 emissions?
When a representative of an industry claims that their sector has a negligible impact on energy consumption/CO2 emissions, it implies that the responsibility for addressing environmental concerns should primarily fall on others. Additionally, if the representative simultaneously expresses environmental concern but downplays the impact of streaming, which is an entertainment industry rather than a necessity for survival, it raises suspicions of "greenwashing." Such assertions suggest that the company may be attempting to create an illusion of environmental consciousness without taking substantial actions to mitigate their actual impact.
Does the company provide a detailed audit of its CO2 footprint in the full GHG scope, including employee commuting?
CO2 footprint audits serve as an objective comparison measure among streaming providers or companies when executed properly. However, it is crucial to be cautious of misleading claims, as some audits may exclude a significant contributor to a company's CO2 footprint: employee commuting. If the company publicly provides this information on its website, it indicates that its commitment to ecology extends beyond mere marketing differentiation.
Does the company cite attracting new talents or investors as a justification for adopting green practices?
When a company not only adopts green practices to attract new talents or investors but openly acknowledges it, it can raise suspicions that the company's commitment to ecology may not be genuine. Instead, it suggests that ecology is viewed as a mere constraint preventing the company from accessing a broader pool of candidates or investors, rather than a true concern for sustainability.
Does the company promote the use of newer codecs like AV1 instead of H.264?
AV1, despite its advantages for bandwidth, and upselling for hardware, and software vendors, poses significant drawbacks in terms of energy consumption. It demands considerably higher energy usage on both the encoding and decoding sides, with encoding requiring 5 to 20 times more energy than H.264 High Profile. Additionally, very few devices (less than 3%) currently possess hardware support for AV1, resulting in energy-intensive software decoding as the primary means of support (source: https://www.scientiamobile.com/av1-codec-hardware-decode-adoption/).
Promoting AV1 can be counterproductive for ecological concerns. It necessitates upgrading broadcasting equipment and may require end users to either upgrade their devices or charge them more frequently for the same usage. While AV1 benefits bandwidth, hardware, and software vendors, its overall ecological impact outweighs the advantages, making it a highly questionable choice from an environmental standpoint.
Does the company promote the use of 5G?
When it comes to streaming, the benefits of 5G are limited. Most streaming services, particularly as they strive to optimize costs, offer minimal 4K support, which rarely requires more than 15 Mbps of bandwidth. In contrast, the latest 4G standards already support up to 1600 Mbps bandwidth. Therefore, increasing mobile bandwidth through 5G does not significantly enhance the streaming experience. Instead, focusing on higher network density or, better yet, expanding fiber connectivity would have a more substantial impact. It's worth noting that 5G adoption also necessitates device upgrades, resulting in a considerable environmental impact without corresponding benefits for streaming services.
Does the company promote "just-in-time" transcoding and transcode any input source regardless of how it will be viewed?
Certain delivery methods, such as podcasting, VOD2Live, and FAST Channels, often have content readily available in a "ready-to-broadcast" format that does not require additional transcoding. Introducing unnecessary transcoding processes for these delivery methods can lead to increased energy consumption and storage requirements. Moreover, additional transcoding can often result in a degradation of the source input, negatively impacting the overall quality in the majority of use cases.
Streaming providers may offer flexibility, often driven by factors like unnecessary DRM implementation or invoicing considerations, as a justification for providing transcoding options to broadcasters. However, such practices do not bring any tangible benefits to viewers and only contribute to the utilization of additional computing and storage resources, which ultimately have a detrimental impact on the environment.
Does the company offer no-DRM, no-ad, progressive download alternative for VOD content ?
ABR streaming requires more complex infrastructure and encoding techniques to dynamically adjust the quality of the video based on the viewer's available bandwidth. This complexity can lead to increased energy consumption in data centers and network equipment. In contrast, progressive download delivers content in a linear fashion without the need for adaptive adjustments, resulting in simpler infrastructure requirements, especially if a source file can be used. ABR streaming involves continuous monitoring of network conditions and frequent adjustments to the video quality, which generates additional network traffic. This extra traffic can contribute to increased energy consumption and carbon emissions. Progressive download, on the other hand, involves a one-time transfer of the entire media file, reducing the overall network overhead and potentially lowering energy consumption. ABR streaming requires client devices (such as smartphones, tablets, or computers) to have more processing power and network connectivity capabilities to handle the adaptive streaming algorithms effectively. These additional requirements often result in the production of more advanced, energy-intensive devices. In the case of progressive download, simpler devices with lower specifications can handle the playback, reducing the environmental impact associated with device manufacturing and disposal. That’s how Netflix can still work on a first-gen iPad nowadays for example.
Does the company rely solely on its provider's marketing and communication to verify its energy/CO2 commitments?
It is not uncommon for companies that primarily use ecological claims as a marketing strategy to also be susceptible to similar marketing tactics from their suppliers. In doing so, they absolve their suppliers from the responsibility of providing tangible evidence that their marketing claims align with their actual actions. A notable example often cited is AWS (Amazon Web Services), where the perception of using AWS may lead some to assume ecological responsibility.
However, when examining the details, such as in the case of France, it becomes evident that Amazon's renewable energy efforts are far from sufficient. With only a 15 MW solar facility to support their operations, it becomes clear that their renewable energy capacity falls significantly short of meeting the substantial energy demands of Amazon, AWS, and Prime services, irrespective of the time of day or season.
Companies must not solely rely on their providers' marketing and communication to validate their energy/CO2 commitments. It is crucial to conduct thorough investigations and demand concrete evidence of sustainable practices to ensure genuine environmental accountability.
Does the company require employees to come to the office?
Transportation associated with employees' daily commute constitutes a significant portion of energy consumption and CO2 emissions for most companies, particularly in service-based industries. Therefore, if a streaming provider lacks a remote work policy or demonstrates reluctance towards implementing one, it raises questions about the company's genuine commitment to environmental priorities. Given that the majority, if not all, employees in such companies can effectively work from home with a reliable internet connection, the absence of a remote work option indicates a disregard for the environmental impact of commuting.
Does the company have solar panels on its office and parking roofs?
Many companies, including streaming providers, tend to prioritize luxury buildings in attractive locations that feature various leisure amenities, rooftop areas, and terraces. However, it is essential to question how many of these companies effectively utilize such outdoor spaces not only for leisure or showcasing, but also for offsetting the energy consumed during working hours. While the affordability of solar panels has significantly increased, and recycling processes have become more efficient, these environmentally conscious initiatives often take a backseat to prestigious investments and aesthetics.
Does the company actively invest in renewable energy sources to power its streaming infrastructure?
Examining the allocation of expenses between communication and actual investments in renewable energy provides valuable insights into the true commitment of a company. It is often telling that many companies allocate a significant portion of their budget to communication efforts while neglecting substantial investments in renewable energy. This discrepancy raises doubts about the credibility of their environmental commitments. In fact, some companies may not invest in renewable energy at all, further challenging the credibility of their communication claims.
Is train travel recommended for employees when the flight duration is less than 2 hours?
The travel policies of international companies often contradict their commitments to reducing their CO2 footprint. It is not uncommon for employees to be encouraged to fly, even when a more environmentally friendly and cost-effective train alternative is available. I personally experienced this during my seven-year tenure at a company that lacked such commitments, where flying was promoted even for short distances, sometimes necessitating crossing the ocean for brief in-person meetings.
Broadcasting and streaming companies have historically utilized travel and frequent flyer miles as perks. However, this approach contradicts the principles of a company that claims to be dedicated to reducing its CO2 emissions. It is imperative that companies align their travel policies with their environmental commitments to ensure consistency and genuine efforts towards reducing their carbon footprint.
Does the company sponsor and participate in green/sustainability-focused physical events or groups?
On the surface, it may appear beneficial for a company to participate in such events or align with sustainability-focused groups. However, it is crucial to look beyond the surface-level involvement. Many of these events are sponsored by companies, with speakers often representing these sponsors, creating a platform for their pseudo-commitments and serving as a marketing opportunity. Unfortunately, important questions, such as the ones posed here, are often left unasked and unanswered.
It becomes evident that (some of) these events primarily serve as business opportunities for the organizers and contribute to greenwashing operations for the sponsors. If you decide to attend such an event, it is vital to ensure that critical questions are addressed and that the answers provided can be publicly verified. It is essential to go beyond the surface-level marketing rhetoric and seek substantive and transparent discussions, rather than falling victim to mere marketing jargon.
How many tradeshows does the company attend every year?
The broadcasting-streaming industry operates in cyclical patterns, often spanning several years, with new product announcements occurring every 2-3 years. For instance, technologies like FAST and VOD2Live, which have gained recent popularity, have actually been feasible since 2012 following an update to the HLS specification. Despite this, there is an abundance of tradeshows held throughout the year, with dozens of events taking place on the same continent. It is not uncommon for companies to showcase redundant demos at these tradeshows.
Operations are geographically distributed across Europe, the Middle East, APAC, North America, and South America, suggesting that a single company should ideally attend no more than five tradeshows. There should be no need for employees to travel long distances to attend events like NAB in Las Vegas, IBC in Amsterdam, or MWC in Barcelona. However, attending tradeshows has often been viewed as a perk and a valuable opportunity within many companies.
In 2022, there were instances where employees from these companies, who could have chosen more sustainable train travel options, encountered challenges at Amsterdam Schipol Airport. It becomes challenging to justify showcasing attendance at multiple tradeshows in four out of five LinkedIn posts, with large teams present at events like NAB, while simultaneously claiming environmental commitment in the fifth post. Such discrepancies raise questions about the true dedication to environmental responsibility within these companies.
Does the company have a comprehensive strategy to minimize the environmental impact of data centers used for streaming services?
Over the past two decades, there have been notable advancements in energy-saving initiatives and cooling experiments within data center operations. As early as 2003, certain data center operators began exploring energy-efficient cooling methods. Additionally, since 2012, data centers have been constructed with a focus on utilizing renewable energy sources. Given these developments, streaming providers cannot simply rely on their suppliers to make sustainable choices. The options to minimize the environmental impact of data centers have been available for over a decade, and it is crucial for streaming providers to proactively adopt and implement them in their operations.
Does the company renew company phones more frequently than once every 2 years?
Many companies offer the latest smartphones, such as the iPhone (with 5G capabilities!), as a perk to their employees. However, frequently renewing company phones within a timeframe of 2 years or less is not only unnecessary but also goes against environmental commitments. It's important to note that iPhones typically receive software support for approximately 6 years, and there have been no significant additions to audio, video codecs, or transport protocols since 2017. This practice raises concerns and can be easily identified during tradeshows or meetings as a red flag indicating a potential disregard for environmental considerations.
Does the company provide cars for some employees?
As previously mentioned, employee commuting is a significant contributor to CO2 emissions, making it an area where streaming companies can exercise control (unlike viewers' devices). By implementing remote work policies or providing car-sharing options, a company can demonstrate a commitment to the environment. However, if the provision of a vehicle is considered a perk for individual employees, it is likely to have a negative impact, particularly if the company's standard is to offer recent and heavy cars, regardless of whether they are electric or conventional.
