Your association picks Greenhost: Amsterdam, green hosting, privacy-first, open-source cloud, ecology score 9.8/10 — near record in our directory. The CSR committee applauds. The choice looks coherent: the Dutch host ticks the ethical boxes your charter requires.
Three months later an auditor asks: PUE? Carbon footprint? Verifiable renewable share? And you only have the "about us" page and a logo sheet. The CSR committee, which approved on positioning alone, has nothing to hand over. This is not bad faith from Greenhost — it is the gap between brand narrative and measurable proof.
Greenhost is credible on positioning. The investigation is separating measurable commitment from green storytelling — exactly as we did for Infomaniak or Manitu.
What Greenhost documents — and what to complete
The Greenhost profile: shared plus VPS, Amsterdam NL, overall 8.8/10, ecology 9.8/10, editorial choice. Public messaging is clear: ecological hosting, privacy respect, open-source cloud, GDPR compliance. These four pillars form a coherent positioning, rare in a market where "green" sometimes means "marketing page without numbers".
What you must complete yourself, before presenting Greenhost to a client or committee, follows a due diligence grid inspired by our Infomaniak investigation:
| Indicator | Question for Greenhost |
|---|---|
| DC PUE | Figure and source? |
| Energy mix | Guarantees of origin, local production, offset? |
| Carbon footprint | Dated public report? |
| Hardware | Lifespan, refurbishment? |
| Scope | DC only or scope 3 included? |
A high directory score guides the short list; it does not replace a downloadable document you could attach to a CSR dossier.
Ask for these items in writing. A host serious about ecology responds — sometimes with delay, sometimes with a partial report, but with numbers. No response after follow-up is itself a signal.
Open source and privacy: real commitment or marketing angle?
Greenhost relies on open-source technologies — a credible argument against opaque proprietary lock-in. In practice, the underlying stack (Linux, virtualisation tools, admin panel) is not a black box: you can audit, migrate, and understand what runs under your site.
On privacy, NL hosting under GDPR is solid; it does not automatically anonymise your app if you integrate Google Analytics, Meta Pixel or a US CRM. The distinction matters for CSR audit: Greenhost infra → under Greenhost control; your application stack → your responsibility. A "privacy-first" badge on the host does not cover trackers you install yourself.
Also compare Greenhost vs TransIP ethics if you hesitate between two Dutch actors with similar positioning.
Performance and ecology: two criteria, not one
Performance is rated 8.1/10 in our directory — correct, not extreme. A green host need not be the fastest on the market; if SEO or user experience are critical, check time-to-first-byte from your main audience (France, Belgium, Netherlands).
Application optimisation matters as much as a green datacenter: uncompressed images, no cache, heavy WordPress plugins — all carbon footprint outside host scope that you can reduce regardless of Greenhost choice. See green hosting indicators for a full grid.
The climax: top ecology score does not finish the CSR audit
Brand narrative opens the door; numbers keep it open. A CSR committee that approves on positioning alone without numeric documents repeats exactly the error an external auditor will flag six months later.
Decide and move forward without blind spots
Before presenting Greenhost to a CSR committee, ask in writing for PUE, energy mix and carbon report from the Amsterdam datacenter — with date and source. Then map third-party services (CDN, analytics, forms) outside the Dutch scope that inflate your real footprint. Optimise your application (images, cache, scripts) because the host does not control what you deploy on it. Finally, compare Greenhost in the directory on the same criteria as Infomaniak or Manitu, not just the ecology score.
Frequently asked questions
Among the greenest?
Our directory gives 9.8/10 ecology — a very high level, among the best European scores. This reflects coherent positioning and green hosting in the Netherlands. Still require dated figures beyond the badge: an editorial score guides the short list, it does not replace a downloadable impact report.
What to verify?
Start with the Amsterdam datacenter energy mix, hardware policy (lifespan, refurbishment) and exact scope of "green" talk — datacenter only or wider scope. Also measure your own application impact: heavy plugins, third-party CDN, unoptimised assets. Finally, ask for transparency on carbon offset versus real reduction: they are not equivalent before a demanding auditor.
Greenhost vs Infomaniak?
Infomaniak publishes a detailed impact report with PUE around 1.085 and 200% offset. Greenhost shows a higher ecology score in our directory but documents differently. Compare on the same indicators — PUE, energy mix, carbon scope, hardware — rather than positioning alone.
Application footprint covered?
No — and this is not specific to Greenhost. The host controls its Dutch infrastructure; your heavy assets, third-party SaaS and unoptimised code add footprint outside host scope. A serious CSR audit includes both layers: datacenter and application stack.
Choose Greenhost for the ethical heading — keep the habit of asking show me the footprint as with any "green" host.