Vercel sustainability score: 26/100

Joint 64th of 70 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

Vercel publishes no Scope 1 or Scope 2 data and has explicitly stated it cannot calculate its own carbon footprint. The company's public 'Green Energy Policy' page acknowledges: 'Vercel's carbon footprint currently lies with multiple cloud providers' and in its community forum states 'use of servers around the world with multiple providers means we can't reliably calculate and prove our carbon footprint.' No national GHG registry filing found (US-based, not subject to French BEGES or UK SECR). With approximately 600 employees, $100M+ ARR, and global serverless infrastructure running across AWS and Microsoft Azure data centres, Vercel is not a negligible emitter — estimated Scope 1+2 likely in the range of a few hundred to a few thousand tonnes for offices, with material energy consumption embedded in cloud infrastructure use. The burden of disclosure applies: this is a mid-sized, well-funded technology company ($9.3B valuation, $863M raised) with no published emissions data.

Joint 60th of 70 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

No Scope 3 data has been published. Vercel's supply chain is dominated by cloud infrastructure procurement (AWS, Microsoft Azure, and other providers), which constitutes the overwhelming majority of its environmental impact. Independent technical analysis from Peerigon (2025) confirmed that Vercel's default compute region (Washington DC, IAD1) runs on a grid with approximately 400g CO₂/kWh and only 8% renewable energy, with significant variation across its 15+ global regions. Vercel defers entirely to its cloud providers' sustainability commitments and explicitly states it cannot quantify its own footprint. No supplier engagement programme, no Scope 3 categories assessed, no CDP disclosure found. For a rapidly scaling SaaS platform processing 30 billion requests weekly across a global edge network, the cloud-energy Scope 3 footprint is material and unquantified.

Joint 53rd of 70 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

No baseline emissions data exists, no multi-year tracking, and no trajectory can be established. Vercel is a rapidly growing company: ARR grew from an estimated $5M in 2020 to $100M by March 2024, and further to an estimated $200M–$600M by 2025–2026 (per aggregator sources, unverified). With significant revenue and infrastructure growth, and no emissions baseline or reduction commitments in place, there is no evidence that emissions are stable or declining — the strong growth trajectory makes an increase in absolute emissions highly likely. No proxy data (energy bills, server counts, region utilisation) has been published to allow trajectory assessment.

Joint 49th of 70 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

Vercel has no independent renewable energy strategy, no power purchase agreements, no on-site generation, and is not a member of RE100. It defers entirely to the renewable commitments of its cloud providers (AWS and Microsoft). Independent analysis (Peerigon, September 2025, using ElectricityMaps 2024 data) confirmed that Vercel's default compute region — Washington DC (IAD1) — runs on approximately 8% renewable energy with a carbon intensity of 400g CO₂/kWh. Vercel is not registered with the Green Web Foundation. The serverless architecture does provide genuine efficiency benefits (compute only on demand vs. always-on servers), and AWS has achieved 100% renewable energy matching as of 2023, but Vercel takes no ownership of this, has not verified it applies to its own workloads, and has not committed to routing traffic to lower-carbon regions by default. No formal energy strategy exists.

Joint 37th of 70 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

Vercel is a SaaS/cloud platform with no direct land use, deforestation, or ecosystem disruption in its own operations. As a software company running on third-party cloud infrastructure, its inherent nature exposure is low — no physical manufacturing, no raw material extraction, no agricultural supply chain. No TNFD disclosure, no nature policy, and no biodiversity commitments have been found. The absence of formal disclosure is noted, but the physical reality is that a software platform with no owned data centres and office-only direct operations has minimal direct nature impact. Score of 3 reflects low inherent exposure with no demonstrated awareness rather than penalising for a risk that is structurally negligible.

Joint 50th of 70 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

No waste data, recycling metrics, hardware lifecycle management policies, or circular economy commitments have been published by Vercel. For a SaaS company, the most material resource impacts are: (1) electronic hardware (laptops, servers — though Vercel does not own servers, its employees use hardware that creates e-waste), (2) office consumables. No information is available on hardware refresh cycles, device take-back schemes, or office waste management. The company publishes no sustainability report and no resource-use data of any kind. Score of 2 reflects basic awareness assumed at a well-funded technology company but with no evidence to support any higher rating.

Joint 42nd of 70 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

Vercel is a software company with office-based operations and no owned manufacturing or data centre facilities. Its direct water consumption is therefore minimal — primarily office sanitation and kitchen use. No water data is published. The indirect water impact through its cloud providers (data centre cooling) is a legitimate concern as AWS and other hyperscalers consume significant water for cooling, but Vercel takes no ownership of this impact in its disclosures. Score of 3 reflects that the company's own direct water use is genuinely low, consistent with an office-only SaaS operator, while noting the absence of any disclosure or awareness of indirect water impacts through cloud procurement.

Joint 51st of 70 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

No science-based targets, no SBTi commitment (confirmed: Vercel does not appear on the SBTi Target Dashboard), no self-set emissions reduction targets, no net-zero pledge, and no renewable energy targets have been found. The company's public sustainability position consists solely of a 'Green Energy Policy' page that describes serverless architecture efficiency and defers to cloud provider commitments — this does not constitute a target or commitment. No CDP disclosure found. For a company valued at $9.3 billion with $863M in venture funding and several hundred employees, the absence of any formal environmental target is a significant gap.

Joint 49th of 70 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

No sustainability report, no ESG report, no TCFD disclosure, no CSRD filing, no board-level sustainability governance structure, and no dedicated sustainability role has been identified. Vercel's only public sustainability-related output is a brief 'Green Energy Policy' knowledge-base page (last substantially updated February 2023 based on cached versions) and a Trust Center focused entirely on security compliance (SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001). The company explicitly admits in its own community forum that it cannot calculate its carbon footprint. No sustainability leadership, no independent assurance, and no public data are available. Score of 2 reflects that the company is privately held and its security governance infrastructure exists (SOC 2), but no sustainability governance is in evidence.

Joint 3rd of 70 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

No environmental controversies, regulatory actions, greenwashing findings, or climate-related lawsuits have been identified for Vercel Inc. No lobbying activity against climate policy has been found; Vercel does not appear in InfluenceMap's LobbyMap database. No misaligned trade association memberships identified. Vercel is a developer platform company with no fossil-fuel client exposure, no structural enablement of fossil sector commerce, and no documented pattern of environmental harm. The company starts at 8 and no deductions apply. The only mild flag is an unverified community-forum claim that Vercel 'operates on carbon-neutral infrastructure per your public commitments' — this claim is not supported by Vercel's own published policy page and cannot be verified, but it does not constitute a greenwashing finding severe enough to deduct points without further regulatory action.