A) Understand what information government leaders need to help them make informed choices. From local councils and town mayors to ministers of sustainability and heads of governments, there was a lack of understanding about the harm data centers can cause and an uncritical acceptance of companies’ narratives of economic and environmental advancement. In the rare cases where local government leaders grew skeptical of developments, companies redirected their efforts (eg, Meta’s relocation of Operation Tulip from Zeewolde to Spain). This highlights the broader need for cross-geographical support in information sharing.

B) Equip affected communities with credible counter arguments. In our case studies, it was often emboldened and doggedly informed community organizers who applied pressure to local governments. It should not be so difficult for communities to gain access to key information about what is going on, or to make clear arguments about the situation. Currently, due to the localized nature of data center developments, these corporate backdoor deals, non-disclosure agreements, and a lack of disclosure requirements, gaining access to even basic information about data center development is a recurring challenge. There is an opportunity for cross-movement coordination around both advocating for proactive disclosures and debunking greenwashing and economic-benefits narratives. This is organically happening on public Facebook groups sharing information about data center development across different counties, but more systematic information sharing would reduce barriers to advocating for community needs.

Climate activists, researchers, and communities have documented company greenwashing tactics promoting data center development; however, in response to the spreading information about the harmful impacts of data centers, companies and developers are now strategizing ways to pre-emptively curb community resistance (in line with broader patterns of ‘greenwashing’ and ‘participatory-washing’). Other tactics include: “bridging conversation with local communities” to “support a more amicable response”; education in K-12 classes; providing material support via donations; strategically forming community advisory boards, partnerships with local businesses, and local education initiatives; and holding community events on data center campuses. 

‍

While democratic consultation with community members is essential, public hearings and community consultation often happen after developments are secured or underway, if at all. Efforts to require community consultation should be co-created in collaboration with organizers.

Community organizers are often unpaid volunteers working with their neighbors. A little bit of resourcing would go a long way to help them in their fight. Future efforts could explore financial support through microgrants to grassroots organizations to help cover legal fees, commission research, and engage in public awareness campaigns. Additionally, access to specialized expertise – whether legal, environmental, or technical – strengthens community-led resistance by equipping organizers with credible arguments to challenge data center projects. 

‍

For instance, in Chile, MOSACAT hired an environmental lawyer to represent them with Google and the various government agencies; meanwhile, in the Netherlands, the Zeewolde community relied upon expertise from energy researchers, which debunked Meta’s claims of a sustainable residual heat model. While the material needs of communities vary by context (and should come from them directly), we highlight two key high-level areas for further exploration.

‍

A: Resource strategic litigation. Strategic litigation is essential to ensuring data center projects comply with environmental and regulatory standards, and to advancing jurisprudence related to data center development in a way that better serves the public interest. Our research highlights opportunities for legal intervention, particularly in early approval phases when projects are fast-tracked or exempted from environmental oversight. Community-led collaborations between national investigative journalists and environmental lawyers are one key way to create a collective research base useful for strategic litigation. Funding digital rights-focused litigation hubs, such as R3D in Mexico City, can enhance legal support for affected communities and hold both corporations and governments accountable.

B: Invest in research and investigative journalism. Sustained funding for independent research and investigative journalism is critical to addressing transparency gaps—not just around data centers, but across the entire supply chain. Our case studies highlight how investigative journalists play a key role in uncovering hidden information and exposing ‘greenwashing’ narratives. Their work provides communities with publicly accessible evidence and shapes informed advocacy. Funding independent journalists and researchers strengthens accountability mechanisms and ensures that critical information reaches both policymakers and the public.

Comprehensive frameworks would improve transparency around the operations of data centers at both the national and international levels. For example, the EU’s Energy Efficiency Directive will require stricter public reporting from data centers, in all EU countries, on energy consumption, water use, and carbon emissions. While not yet in force, this provides a promising example of how data centers can be monitored, putting the onus on the companies to produce the data and on the government to enforce the framework, thereby establishing distinct roles for the public and private sectors. 

‍

Another opportunity is to ensure environmental impact assessments are publicly available, as they are in many countries. Environmental impact assessments occur before breaking ground on a project and are a collective, consultative process, usually involving impacted communities, local environmental organizations, and Indigenous leaders. As seen in the Netherlands, environmental impact assessments can determine moratoria or caps on energy demand and water amount availability for data centers. Environmental impact assessments are necessary as data centers are defined as part of industry, not as service providers. More broadly:

• Data center companies should meet standards of transparency and make their information publicly accessible by communities, especially in areas with electricity and water shortages. They must also be transparent about their past interactions with local communities. 

• Publicly-owned utility companies should provide information about baseline community water and energy use to communities, and clear projections of what a new data center project would require for the lifespan of the project. If utility companies are unwilling to provide such information, then strategic policy, litigation, media attention, and activism may create the necessary pressure for change. 

• Local government officials and data center company representatives should be prepared to answer residents’ questions honestly and fully. And over time, information shared about the projects of hyperscaler companies should be compiled to cross-check claims and support local officials and communities to ask the right questions and demand answers.

Many communities resisting data centers do so with limited guidance or external support. The rural nature of data center developments is an important context when strategizing about convening– there is an opportunity for future cross-geographic and cross-movement learnings that address the lifecycle of harm across technological development (eg., human rights activists, environmentalists, critical data and security researchers, labor movement organizers, Indigenous activists, etc.)

‍

Facilitating convenings among stakeholders would help distribute a network of knowledge and connect local organizers with environmental lawyers, policy researchers, litigators, and Indigenous activists across the entire lifecycle of technological development. This would help to craft stronger legal cases and influence regulatory frameworks. 

‍

One example is the working group of local organizations that are collectively suing AWS. This group was initiated by Ecologistas en Acción and includes Tu Nube Seca Mi Río, an activist-led organization that collaborates with other data center resistance efforts across Europe. Supporting partnerships with energy researchers, environmental scientists, and investigative journalists to critically assess corporate sustainability claims would provide communities with credible counter arguments. More broadly, convenings provide a space for communities to generate visibility for movements and surface information.