Our supplier code of conduct requires ESG disclosures from vendors — emissions data, labour practices, governance. Most startups fail this. Will you?

The full executive answer

We will pass the honesty test, which for a vendor our size is the real test. Governance: strong story — the governance disciplines we sell are the ones we run, with append-only audit logging, published trust and AI-governance pages, a public subprocessor register, and a security-disclosure channel with committed response times. Labour practices: trivially clean at current headcount, and the code of conduct commitments are straightforward to sign.

Emissions: here is the honest position. We have no measured carbon baseline yet — I will not hand you an invented tonnage. What I can hand you is a credible profile and a measurement plan: we own no datacentres and no offices with server rooms — scope 1 is effectively nil, and our footprint is scope 3 through cloud suppliers: Vercel's serverless platform, managed Postgres, and AI inference at Anthropic and OpenAI. Serverless is genuinely material here: capacity scales to zero with demand rather than idling.

And we have an unusual credential: carbon accounting for AI workloads is literally a module we ship. Our green-AI module computes CO2-equivalent from kilowatt-hours times grid intensity, flags high-carbon regions, and recommends efficiency levers. The roadmap commitment is to run it on ourselves — publishing our own inference footprint using supplier emissions factors under the GHG Protocol — and I am happy to put a disclosure date in the vendor agreement. A vendor that builds carbon instrumentation and then dodges its own measurement would deserve your scepticism.