Blog

Data Centre Integration in managed services: how to reduce environmental impact

Our Head of Group ESG, Giulia Modolo, reflects on how Conscia’s rapid growth is driving an equally rapid ESG transformation – and the way ESG priorities are now shaping the way we do business.

If you follow the debate around AI and data centres, you’ve probably seen the headlines: emissions are up (exponentially), components are out of stock, and water is becoming a constraint. But beyond the headlines, this is the more useful question: what can we do about it?

At Conscia, a lot comes down to where and how we run our infrastructure. Cloud is still global, and so are its impacts, but most of our managed services sit in European data centres, where regulation is stricter, energy systems are cleaner, and customers expect more. That helps, but it is not enough on its own – the bigger lever is integration.

We have grown through M&A, especially within managed services. Every integration forces a set of choices, involving what stays, what moves, and what gets shut down. Although there was a time when those decisions were purely technical, now it is different. At Conscia, we look at how they shape energy use, resilience, and cost for years to come.

This is also one of the areas where we are fully in control. When we design customer networks, we advise, but with our own infrastructure, we decide. So the real question is: which levers have an impact on the environment and how can we use them to lower our footprint?

This is where environmental considerations need to be embedded in the IT organisation. Not in strategy decks, but in simple frameworks that guide the quiet choices about systems, locations, and designs that most people never see.

How we assess data centres during integration

When we bring environments together, the first step is not “what is the greenest option?” It is “what do we measure?”

Typically, that includes:

• multiple locations across countries with very different electricity grids
• different levels of utilisation, from stretched to barely used
• duplicated storage and processing capacity
• a mix of newer and older hardware
• and uneven visibility – do we really know what each environment consumes?

And then you start to see the differences:

• one site running on wind-backed power in the Nordics
• another more exposed to carbon-heavy grids and growing constraints

Consolidation can sound like an easy win, but this is not always the case. In some cases we are only reducing emissions by moving them somewhere less visible, improving efficiency in one part of the system while creating risks elsewhere. That is why the mapping matters, because if you do not understand the starting point in enough detail, it becomes very hard to say what exactly you are optimising.

Key levers for sustainable data centre integration 

Once the picture is clearer, a few levers tend to show up and, although not revolutionary changes, these can lead to better decisions. 

1. Choice of partner – who do we build on?

Before we optimise anything internally, there is a simpler question: who are we working with?

We don’t run our own data centres. We choose partners. And that choice carries weight.

These are the kinds of questions that we ask:

• what energy mix are they running on?
• how transparent are they about it?
• do they rely on certificates – or long-term commitments like PPAs?
• when demand spikes, what really happens?

Because here is the reality: they specify, but we influence.

We are not setting their infrastructure. But we are deciding who gets our business.
And with that comes leverage – if we use it.

So the question becomes: are we selecting partners based on price and performance alone – or are we factoring in how they operate under pressure?

2. Downsizing and termination – what can we simply stop?

The most effective lever is often the least glamorous.

What if the best optimisation is not optimisation at all – but removal?

• duplicate environments we no longer need
• workloads that no longer serve a clear purpose
• capacity we once needed but never revisited

It may sound obvious, but in practice the question is not asked nearly often enough: does this still need to exist, or are we continuing to carry environments and workloads simply because they have not been revisited? That matters, because when something disappears altogether, emissions do not improve – they stop, and in several integrations we have seen the retirement of unused IaaS environments deliver faster impact than any technical upgrade. The question, then, is whether we are looking closely enough at what can and should be switched off.

3. One platform instead of many – do we actually see what’s happening?

After an acquisition, visibility is often fragmented across different tools, metrics and assumptions, which makes consistent measurement difficult and meaningful optimisation harder still. Moving towards one management layer – OneNOC-type environments – begins to change that conversation by creating a clearer basis for comparison, prioritisation and decision-making:

• we see energy use across locations
• we can compare utilisation
• we can prioritise based on data, not instinct

This is how we can really see what is going on. 

4. Smarter use of energy – when do we run, not just how?

A data centre can run on renewable electricity and still waste energy.

So the question is not just what energy we use – but how we use it.

• how much equipment is sitting idle?
• what keeps running when demand is low?
• when do peaks actually happen?

Simple operational adjustments – such as shutting down unused capacity overnight or during weekends – can substantially reduce both power consumption and associated cooling demand, often to a greater extent than anticipated. Moreover, timing plays a more critical role than is commonly recognized. When workloads peak at suboptimal times, the energy used to support them may depend less on renewable sources and more on fossil-based backup systems. 

This raises an important consideration: are systems being designed primarily around availability, or with a focus on minimising environmental impact?

5. Hardware choices – when is new in fact better?

Most migrations lead to more efficient hardware. That part is straightforward.

But there is always a trade-off:

• better efficiency on one side
• embodied emissions and waste on the other

So how do you decide?

• when are the efficiency gains large enough to justify replacement?
• can existing hardware still be used elsewhere?
• are we upgrading out of need – or out of habit?

We try to strike a balance, and not always perfectly. But if sustainability is about decisions, not slogans – shouldn’t this be one of the more deliberate ones?

6. Location – does it really matter where it runs?

We know that not all electricity is equal, but that does not mean that we act on this knowledge consistently.

• Denmark offers a high share of renewables
• Germany is improving
• parts of the Netherlands face both carbon intensity and grid pressure

So when we consolidate, where do workloads land and what does that mean in practice?

• are we increasing exposure to constrained grids?
• are we pushing demand into systems that rely more on backup power?

A data centre can look green “on paper”. But what happens when demand rises?

That is usually where the differences show up.

7. Renewable energy – what sits behind the label?

“100% renewable” sounds reassuring, but there are questions that need to be asked to work out what this really means. 

• are we talking about Guarantees of Origin – or actual supply alignment?
• are PPAs in place, and do they reflect how energy is consumed over time?
• what happens when demand shifts – suddenly, or structurally?

Some operators are ahead here, especially in the Nordics, combining high renewable supply with PPAs and efficient cooling. But not all “renewable” claims are equal.

The real question is: are we looking beyond the label?

Why this matters (and why we share it)

We track this work, set targets, measure progress. Not because it makes for a great report, but because it tells us whether our choices are doing anything useful. And in all honesty we do not always get it right. However, if integration is one of the places where we have real control, it should be one of the places where we improve fastest. 

Sharing this is part of that, for customers who expect us to factor environmental impact into decisions, for colleagues making these choices day to day, and for investors trying to understand whether M&A leads to better operations (or just more of the same). 

Data centre integration will never be clean. It involves trade-offs, constraints, imperfect information.

But if we are making these decisions anyway – shouldn’t they be intentional? 

About the author