Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report

1,816 views

Published on

Reporting our impacts, our reductions, and
our year-to-year performance, using the
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework.

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,816
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
70
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report

  1. 1. OPPORTUNITY GREEN 2012 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT Reporting our impacts, our reductions, and our year-to-year performance, using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework.This GRI Level C+ report has been externally assured 1
  2. 2. 1.1 STRATEGY AND ANALYSISLetter From Our Executives Beginning with the launch of our organization in 2007, we have focused all of our effortson providing our attendees and sponsors with a high-impact experience in a low-impact manner. To that end, we are very pleased to announce that this year’s sustainability report qualifiesfor a C+ Level under the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework, and perhaps moresignificantly we’re among the first conferences, of any type, to issue a sustainability report thatadheres to the GRI framework. We’re proud to continue making significant progress in implementing more sustainablepractices. At our 2011 conference we reached a material diversion rate of 91.2%, even whilelengthening the measurement timeframe from two days to two weeks. We set targets on reducingcarbon dioxide emissions from participant travel, and paper consumption per capita, and set agoal of offsetting 100% of our CO2 emissions from travel and energy consumption combined. As our sustainability program receives acknowledgement from the broader businesscommunity, our team gratefully accepts these accolades as a sure sign of our positive impacts andgrowing success. We look forward to making further contributions, both within our industry and also to thedevelopment of our society. We’ll continue sharing our experience and performance with you,hoping to inspire others, while providing people and businesses a forum to exchange sustainableand innovative ideas.Warmest regards,Karen Solomon Michael FlynnChief Executive Officer Chief Financial OfficerOpportunity Green Opportunity Green 2
  3. 3. 1.2 STRATEGY AND ANALYSISOpportunity Green’s Sustainability Strategy Opportunity Green’s ambition is to help companies innovate and become more sustainable,reduce their risk, improve their image and competitiveness, motivate their employees, reduce theircosts, and increase their profitability. We support the commitment of forward-thinking executives,managers and professionals who are actively moving their businesses towards the lofty goal ofleaving the world in a better place than they found it. Our goal is to be a thought-leader in the Events Industry. From a sustainability perspective,this means reducing our environmental footprint in both a meaningful and transparent manner. Inorder to achieve this goal, we implemented a sustainability program in 2009. This program looksfor waste-to-value opportunities in the operations at our venue, participant transportation, energy,water and waste management, catering and accommodation and stakeholder engagement. Achieving this goal in the long-term means several things: 1) maintaining the economicsustainability of our business, 2) raising the bar for what sustainability means in the context of ourorganization and our industry and re-setting internal accordingly, and 3) holding ourselves, ourvendors, and our partners to those standards. Item 3 is particularly challenging for an eventscompany, as those partnerships are a key source of our revenue, but we feel that collaboratingwith a partner who is not values-aligned is a bigger risk for us than not closing or losing a deal ortwo. We manage partnership risk by reviewing their policies and sustainability reporting beforecommitting to the partnership agreement. Because The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is aninternationally-recognized sustainability reporting framework, and favors transparency overcompliance, we view prospective partners who are reporting under GRI on one- or two-yearreporting cycles pose the lowest risk. In the medium-term (3-5 years), we will 1) continue reporting on a one-year cycle using theGRI framework, 2) consider adopting GRI’s Events Sector Supplement into our implementation andreporting processes beginning with our 2013 report 3) review and revise our own policies aroundenvironmental impact, purchasing, staff development and the influence of our public policyefforts, and 4) develop and implement strategies to grow our bottom line. Our sustainability program has established a basic pattern of design-implement-scale eachnew strategy from one year to the next. We scaled up considerably from the 2010 conference to2011 (reported in 2011 and 2012 respectively), so in the short term (2012 - 2013) our strategicfocus will be on refining the strategies already in place. We are excited to see how GRI’s Events Sector Supplement will influence sustainabilityactivity in the Events Industry and look forward to maintaining our leadership position. 3
  4. 4. 1.3 STRATEGY AND ANALYSIS Targets and Achievements for 20112011 TARGET (for 2011 conference) ACHIEVED? COMMENTSReduce transportation carbon emissions yes Carbon emissions per participant wereper participant. down by 11% (see 5.5)Offset 100% CO2 emissions from power yes Our total CO2 emissions in 2011 were 343consumption and attendees travel US tons or 311 metric tonnes (see 5.5)Reach 85% diversion rate during a 2 week yes We achieved a 91% diversion rate, sixperiod points higher than our target, even while expanding our time boundary (see 5.2)Reduce paper consumption per participant yes We reduced paper consumption by 25.5% per participant (see 5.2)Publish a sustainability report using GRI no This has been a target timeframe for theframework by 2/29/12 release of our report for the last three years. Each year we come closer to achieving it! (see 5.12)Get at least 80% satisfaction with OGs no A synchronization error in our datagreen policy in attendees quality survey collection process prevented us from collecting this data (see 5.11) Additionally, our report is the first to be issued by company in the Events Sector under the GRI framework to be externally assured. 4
  5. 5. 1.4 STRATEGY AND ANALYSISApplication Level Self-Declaration We are reporting at Application Level C+. We are reporting on 12 Performance Indicators. External assurance provided by The ISOS Group. External Assurance Statement for this report 5
  6. 6. 2.0 ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILEOrganizational Profile The registered name of the organization being reported on here is Opportunity Green Inc.We run an annual business conference and related events. Opportunity Green operates onedivision, our annual conference. We hold no subsidiaries. Our headquarters are in Los Angeles, California, and we operate solely in the United States.Opportunity Green is a privately-held S-Corp registered in California.Attendees are primarily from the U.S., with 70% coming from California. Attendees come frommany different industries, including: automotive, apparel, professional services, public agencies,design, technology, and consumer products. The breakdown by size looks rough like: 1/3 large,1/3 midsized, 1/3 small companies. As is the case with many privately held companies, it is not our company policy to makeour financials public. We operate with 7 employees and a rotating pool of contractors. We offer a single product,our annual business conference. There were no significant internal changes during this reportingperiod. In 2011 Opportunity Green and our executives were honored with: A Golden Arrow Award from the California Product Stewardship Council’s for Overall Excellence in Product Stewardship CFO Michael Flynn was awarded an Empact100 by the Kauffman Foundation, recognizing him as one of America’s top 100 Entrepreneurs Under 30 who are impacting America’s economy, in a ceremony held at the White House. We were a finalist for a West Event Style award from BizBash, in the “Best Green Initiative for an Event” category. We were ranked fourth in Worth Magazine’s Ten Best Conferences for Entrepreneurs & Ideas 6
  7. 7. 3.0 REPORT PARAMETERSReport Profile Each decision we make at Opportunity Green considers the impact that it will have on theenvironment, on our community, and on our economic performance. The content we’ve elected toinclude in this year’s report was included either because it correlates with our reporting inprevious years, or because we see it as a powerful leverage point to improve our corporateperformance. This report covers our fiscal year 2011. Our previous sustainability report wasreleased in August 2011. We are on an annual reporting cycle. This is Opportunity Green’s thirdsustainability report, but it is our first to use The Global Reporting Initiative framework. For moreinformation, contact Natacha Arnaud-Battandier, our Sustainability Director atsustdir@opportunitygreen.comReport Scope and Boundary Regarding scope, you’ll see that seven of our Performance Indicators are environmental,one is economic, two are social, and two are events-sector specific. In 2011 we scaled oursustainability reporting up considerably, from six Performance Indicators to twelve. We hope thatthe scope of future reports will be more balanced, including additional economic and socialindicators.We are reporting on the following Performance Indicators: EC6 - Policy, practices and proportion of spending on locally-based suppliers. EN1 – Materials used by weight or volume. EN2 – Percentage of materials used that are recycled input materials. EN3 – Direct energy consumption by primary energy source EN8 – Total water withdrawal by source. EN16 – Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight. EN18 – Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reductions achieved. EN22 – Total weight of waste by type and disposal method. EO6 – Type and impacts of initiatives to create an accessible environment. EO8 – Percentage of and access to food and beverage that meets the organizer’s policies or local, national or international standards. SO5 – Public policy positions and participation in public policy development and lobbying. PR5 – Practices related to customer satisfaction, including results of surveys measuring customer satisfaction. For details on our methodologies, analyses, results, and significant year-to-year changes,please see Section 5.0. While our report covers the fiscal year 2011, most of the time boundaries we set for oursustainability strategies are much shorter. Depending on the context, each strategy is given itsown time boundary; there are four time boundaries in all. The geographic boundary of Performance Indicator EN16 falls outside our organization.EN16 communicates our performance regarding carbon emissions that our attendees and otherparticipants produce. Other than EN16, the geographic boundary for this report is the campus ofour host venue, Los Angeles Center Studios. One advantage to being an SME is that the issues which could reduce comparability of ourreports from year to year are limited. We are currently running no joint ventures, subsidiaries, orother adjacent enterprises, and are not re-stating any information provided in earlier reports. Our sustainability reporting team used the guidelines provided by GRI to answer questionsof materiality. Prioritization of topics addressed in this report was based on prior reporting (2011& 2010) and our team’s internal capacity to report on new indicators. It was critical to us that wemaintained year-to-year continuity for our pre-existing sustainability measures. Based on ourteam’s reporting successes in 2009 and 2010, executive leadership greatly increased theresources allocated to our sustainability program in 2011. We have not run a base-line analysis to determine which stakeholder groups we can expectto use this report, but we have made an educated guess (see Section 4.0, StakeholderEngagement). We are very interested to have a clearer understanding of who our stakeholders are,and to learn their opinions of our reporting methodology and sustainability performance. 7
  8. 8. Assurance 2011 is the first year for us to request external assurance on our sustainability report.During Phase 1 of our next cycle we will calculate this cost/benefit, and will determine whether ornot we will continue requesting assurance. 8
  9. 9. 4.0 GOVERNANCE, COMMITMENTS, AND ENGAGEMENT Governance Opportunity Green is structured such that our executives report to our Board of Directors. Those two groups collaborate to define our strategic direction. Our committees (Marketing, Operations, Finance, and Sustainability) work directly with our executives to develop and implement programs and initiatives that serve our strategy. For information on the organizational structure of our sustainability program, please see Section 5.10. Our Board Chairman is not an executive with the company. Opportunity Green operates under a unitary board structure. All board members are independent. Opportunity Green is privately-held by a handful of shareholders, so our shareholder resolutions are few and are stated in broad terms. Our workforce is small with regular access to top management, so they’re able to make direct, face-to-face recommendations. We do not hold board-level meetings where employees, contractors or work council representatives are present. Stakeholder Engagement Opportunity Green is a member of or associated with the following industry/trade/advocacy organizations: Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce City of Los Angeles Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce US Green Building Council, Los Angeles US Green Chamber of Commerce Center for Sustainable Excellence United Nations Foundation The American Institute of Architects, Los Angeles Chapter American Society of Interior Designers American Institute of Graphic Arts Industrial Designers Society of America UCLA Anderson School of Business Art Center College of Design MIT Sloan Management Review Outside stakeholders are engaged primarily via our post-conference satisfaction survey, and they can also follow us via standard social media channels. Inside stakeholders are engaged more regularly, but also more informally. Our stakeholder engagement strategy and its implementation are still in the early stages. Our basis for prioritizing which stakeholders to engage with is a mixture of planned and organic. Each year we move closer to a strategic approach. These are the stakeholder groups that we engage at Opportunity Green:Outside Stakeholders Type & Frequency of contact Attendees Regular emails, OG Dashboard during conference, mobile app, conference presentation videos Sponsors Dedicated staff contact, proprietary sponsorship communications tools Vendors Regular emails, regular meetings, regular telecom Speakers Dedicated concierge, regular emails, speaker communications tools Exhibitors Dedicated staff contact Community & Media Partners Dedicated staff contact OG25 Dedicated staff contact Social Media Followers Regular facebook, twitter, linkedin, pinterest, blog postings Eco Maverick Award Nominees Dedicated staff contact 9
  10. 10. Inside Stakeholders Type & Frequency of contact Board of Advisers Monthly meetings, regular emails & telecom Staff Daily interaction Steering Committee Regular interaction Design Team Regular interaction Event Greening Team Regular interaction, team training Volunteers Regular interactions, training, post-event gathering Professional Services Firms Regular interactions The concerns we hear most often relate the carbon impacts our attendees incur by traveling to and from the conference. We’ve also received many inquiries into our local procurement policies. In 2010 we ran an online survey with the intention of capturing our attendee’s travel data, which in turn would let us calculate our overall carbon footprint. Unfortunately, the user-flow of the survey wasn’t clear and many respondents commented that they were unable to specify the alternate forms of transportation they actually took. That negative feedback helps us prioritize and resource strategies that focus on these three issues. For the 2011 conference, we set the goal of doubling our travel survey response rate and achieved it (see 5.6), and we also worked very hard to ensure that every possible type of transit was included as an option. 10
  11. 11. 5.0 SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY IN ACTION Our Sustainability Journey Corporate sustainability is a journey, not a destination. We’ve been on our journey since 2008. Our intention is to continue developing our sustainability program and to continue integrating the program with our business processes and broader efforts. While we’re proud of our performance so far, we also recognize that we’ve still got a long ways to go. This infographic offers a high-level overview of our journey, using the lens of the Global Reporting Initiative’s reporting framework.* These Performance Indicators were developed for The Global Reporting Initiative in collaboration with theUnited Nations and CERES. Review complete infographic here 11
  12. 12. Sustainability Strategy 5.1: LOCAL PURCHASING Building a stronger local economyGRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED EC6 - Policy, practices, and proportion of spending on locally-based suppliersLOCAL PURCHASING - METHODOLOGY This year we wrote a formal purchasing policy we call “Buy Right”. This policy defines a “localsupplier” for measurement purposes (see definition below) and specifies that we measure and report onthe percentage of local and non-local purchases. Our definition of a “local supplier” is one that is headquartered 200 miles or less from our officesat Los Angeles Center Studios. GRI Boundaries Geographic: 200 mile radius of Los Angeles Center Studios Time: January 1, 2011 thru December 31, 2011 (Fiscal Year)LOCAL PURCHASING - ANALYSIS Unfortunately, our purchasing policy was completed too late in our business cycle to beimplemented effectively. We will baseline and report the percentage of purchases that are local (per ourBuy Right policy) in our 2013 sustainability report.LOCAL PURCHASING - RESULTS Because of the complex and dynamic realities that come with running a conference, we decidedthat in 2011 EC6 would be a qualitative indicator for us. Even though we can’t provide hard data on thisindicator, a list our main vendors follows; with the location of their headquarters and any other pertinentinformation. As a point of reference, the zip code for both our venue and our offices is 90017.LOCAL PURCHASING – PARTNERS Catering Tender Greens, their zip code is 90232 Calamigos Ranch, their zip code is 90265 Printing Design Printing LA, their zip code is 90019 Stage’s lighting PRG, their zip code is 91352-2053 Furniture Various, primarily Los Angeles, CA T-shirts for volunteers American Apparel, their zip code is 90021 Headquarters and manufacturing located in Los Angeles Water bottle Vapur, their zip code is 91362 Tableware Repurpose, their zip code is 90014 12
  13. 13. The bulk of our expenditures are on labor, and a great majority of our labor force comes fromwithin 200 miles of our venue, so while we can’t strictly quantify how well we did, we are confident thatour performance on this indicator is very good.LOCAL PURCHASING - WHAT WENT WELL In 2012 we formally defined a purchasing policy.LOCAL PURCHASING - WHAT WE’LL DO DIFFERENTLY NEXT TIME While defining this policy is certainly an exciting first step, we understand that its implementationpresents our team with a new set of challenges in 2012, and look forward to reporting our progress in2013. 13
  14. 14. Sustainability Strategy 5.2: BUY RIGHT Eventually, all our materials will come from Reclaimed, Repurposed, or Reused sourcesGRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED EN1 - Materials used by weight or volume EN2 - Percentage of materials used that are recycled input materialsBUY RIGHT - METHODOLOGY Given our limited resources, and with such a variety of materials moving through the conference insuch a short time-frame, we had to carefully select the materials reviewed in this strategy. We set twotypes as high-priority: paper and tableware, and two at a lower priority: cleaning materials and thecontents of our gift bag. GRI Boundaries Geographic: Los Angeles Center Studios Time: Both days of the 2011 conferenceBUY RIGHT – ANALYSIS We reduced our paper-weight-per-participant by 25.5% in 2011 as compared to 2010, and met ourtarget (see Targets, above). When we compare the total weight of paper year-to-year (without usingparticipants as our denominator), we find that we reduced our consumption by 24.6%. We attribute mostof the decrease of total paper weight to using thinner paper in the 2011 program. 14
  15. 15. PAPER In 2011, OG put in place eco-design principles for our printed documents. Training provided tocommunications/marketing team. One of our major initiatives was to use thinner paper in the 2011program. Additionally, 2011 was the first year we provided an electronic version of our program, andexpect that this will help us reduce our paper consumption going forward. TABLEWARE Back in 2010 we used reusable tableware, but washing that on-site created some problems, so in2011 we switched to using compostable tableware made from PLA and sugarcane. 3% of the tableware wasmade from #5 plastic, which is recyclable but not compostable. CLEANING PRODUCTS We reviewed the green cleaning products in use at our venue, and found it to be surprisinglycomplete. We recommended several additional environmentally-friendly options.BUY RIGHT - RESULTS Paper types measured (for comparability): 2011: Program booklets, thank you cards & envelopes, postcards, press kits w/ folders PAPER 2010: Program booklets w/ map inserts, posters, postcards, press kits w/ folders Total paper weight consumed per participant 2011 = .33 pounds 2010 = .44 pounds Tableware types measured in 2011: TABLEWARE Cups, plates, bowls, napkins, stir sticks, forks, knives, spoons Total tableware sourced in 2011: 32,700 units Percentage of tableware that was compostable: 94% (estimate) Percentage of tableware that was recyclable: 3% (estimate) Percentage of tableware that went to landfill: 3% (estimate) Green (1) Multi-Surface Cleaner Peroxide Green by Royal Corporation. Eco Blue Booster by EcoBlue CLEANING Eco Blue Cube by EcoBlue Microfiber Mop and Microfiber Pad by Rubbermaid Non- Green NABC Non-Acid Disinfectant Bathroom Cleaner by Spartan Chemical Company. Best Bet Liquid Creme Cleanser by Betco Corporation All Might Degreaser by Royal Corporation Plus 5 Carpet Shampoo by Spartan Chemical Company ‘Weighing’ the impacts of our gift bag. 15
  16. 16. The Gift Bag – A Materials Breakdown* (in pounds) PRODUCED FROM RECYCLEDITEM WEIGHT CONTENT # OF USES END-OF-LIFEShoulder Bag .17 100% Reusable 100% recyclableWater bottle .08 0% Reusable 0% recyclableSpiral notebook .39 10% Single-use 100% recyclableHydropack .21 0% Single-use 0% recyclableNotepad w/ Post-its n/a 70% Single- use 100% recyclableNotepad n/a 20% Single- use 100% recyclablePen w/ hangcard n/a 0% Single- use 5% recyclableMarketing Collateral n/a ~15% Single- use 100% recyclable TOTAL 1.91 26.8%* 2012 was a benchmarking year for our gift bags, so no year-to-year comparisons can bemadeBUY RIGHT - PARTNERSCHICO BAG DOMTAR VAPUR EASTMANREPURPOSE ECOPRODUCTS PRESERVE TENDER GREENS CALAMIGOS RANCHBUY RIGHT – LESSONS LEARNED Our game-plan for this strategy was good, but production was so last-minute that some things fellthrough the cracks. Ex: postcard stock was coated and some paper in the program didnt entirely followour spec. We opted to not re-print, for obvious reasons. After the conference we did not manage to gather all of the data concerning unit weight for eachtype of tableware. This information would have allowed us calculate the total weight per type and providea deeper analysis. This will also make comparability in next year’s report slightly less relevant, but in thebig picture it’s only a small mistake.BUY RIGHT – WHAT WENT WELL Fun fact – Chico Bags sources their recycled yarn from a company that puts a tiny marker in thefabric itself during the yarn production process, and this allows third-party verifiers to identify it as post-consumer content, and that the components (carabineer, cord stop, etc) are made from recycledaluminum and rubber. For our printed material: 100% of our paper was FSC certified 84% was Rain Forest and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) certified. This was the paper we used for our program. 4% was Green Seal certified. While only 20% came from recycled fibers, nearly all recycled fibers came from Post-Consumer Waste. 100% use of vegetable inksBUY RIGHT – WHAT WE’LL DO DIFFERENTLY NEXT TIME We were hoping to include signage in our paper calculations. Unfortunately, producing oursignage happened at the very last minute. The experience reminded us that sustainability ideals are evenmore difficult to adhere to under the pressure of a tight deadline. Next year we’ll ask for earlier and morefeedback. With a closer working relationship we’ll be able to communicate our policies early and clearly. (1) This year we took the Operations Department at Los Angeles Center Studio’s word on the greencertification of cleaning products they use. Next year we’ll review the list of cleaning products ourselvesfor green certifications. 16
  17. 17. Sustainability Strategy 5.3: ENERGY CONSUMPTION Measuring energy consumption is trickier than you’d thinkGRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED EN3 - Direct energy consumption by primary sourceENERGY CONSUMPTION - METHODOLOGY Native Energy handled this calculation for our team. Their formula is based on an estimatedaverage consumption per square foot, per day (equal to .02 kilowatt hours (kWh)). Implementing this strategy has been a particularly vexing one for us. On the surface it seems sosimple - read the meters before the conference and again after the conference, and subtract to calculateour consumption. But due to a general lack of sub-metering inside of our venues, various security issuesrelated to accessing electrical meters, and the unique electricity co-generation system at our originalvenue (UCLA), we’ve decided to accept that fact that this is simply a much more difficult question toanswer than we originally thought. GRI Boundaries Geographic: Los Angeles Center Studios Time: Both days of the 2011 conferenceENERGY CONSUMPTION - ANALYSIS Because this was a benchmarking year we didn’t come into the conference with any goals or targets around energy consumption.ENERGY CONSUMPTION - RESULTS Our total estimated electricity consumption for the 2011 conference was 1,572 kWh, or 1.97 kWhper participant, with a footprint of 39,300 square feet, the event running two days.ENERGY CONSUMPTION - PARTNERS NATIVE ENERGY LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOSENERGY CONSUMPTION - WHAT WENT WELL In spite of last minute snafus we successfully benchmarked our energy consumption this year.ENERGY CONSUMPTION - LESSONS LEARNED We learned, once again, that even capable and well-intentioned people don’t always do what theysay they will. The Data Manager for this strategy disappeared after the conference without so much as a‘fare-thee-well’, taking key data with him, making a complicated process more difficult. In an effort toprevent this happening in the future, we’ll be asking our Data Managers to enter into formal agreementswith Opportunity Green. 17
  18. 18. Sustainability Strategy 5.4: WATER CONSUMPTION Participants hydrated using filtered water and reusable water bottlesGRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED EN8 - Total water withdrawal by sourceWATER CONSUMPTION - METHODOLOGY We looked at three inputs and outputs – toilets, faucets, and urinals - to measure waterconsumption at the 2011 conference. First, we collected gallons-per-use data for each source (A in theformula below) from three sources(2). Then we collected average usage data* (B in the formula below). Wemade our final calculation, thus: (A * B) * total number of participants = total gallons withdrawn. In 2011 no on-site water was used for cooking (all food was prepared off-site) or washing dishes(nearly all dishes used at the conference were compostable). And for simplicity’s sake, we ignoredongoing on-site activities that consume water, such as watering and maintenance. We did not measurewater drunk by participants at refilling stations or coffee booths. (2) Water consumption reference sources: CSG network (Desert Water Agency) St Johns River Water Management District AWWA Residential End Uses of Water (p. 94) GRI Boundaries Geographic: Los Angeles Center Studios Time: Both days of the 2011 conferenceWATER CONSUMPTION - ANALYSIS Because we have no practical ability to reduce water consumption, we don’t set any goals for thisstrategy. Because our measurement process has been so inaccurate, we consider 2011 to be ourbenchmarking year, even though we’ve been measuring water consumption since 2009.WATER CONSUMPTION - RESULTS Our total estimated water consumption for 2011 was 1,116.5 cubic feet, or slightly more than10.3 gallons per participant. Comparability – Our water consumption was apparently down 44% in 2011 compared with 2010.However, when executing this strategy in 2009 and 2010 we ran into limits and complications stemmingfrom using metered data rather than the more analysis-intensive approach we took in 2011. This in turnskewed our data, so while we’ve reported for three years, comparability is minimal. We consider the 2011conference to be our benchmark.WATER CONSUMPTION - PARTNERSVAPUR EVERPURE/PENTAIRWATER CONSUMPTION - WHAT WENT WELL At the suggestion of our new Sustainability Director the data collection process for this strategywas made much simpler in 2011. It was nice to finally see this strategy go off without a hitch. 18
  19. 19. Sustainability Strategy 5.5: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Working to cut our GHG outputGRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED EN16 - Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weightGREENHOUSE GASES - METHODOLOGY The GHG Protocol defines ‘direct emissions’ as “emissions from sources that are owned orcontrolled by the reporting entity.” While Opportunity Green the entity produces very few direct emissionsitself, a significant portion of the emissions we report here come from the trips that our participants maketo and from the conference. The calculation we use to quantify our emissions has three primary variables: our estimated orScope 1 emissions (S1), our estimated Scope 2 emissions (S2), and the CO2e offset provided by ourpartner (OFF). Calculating our Scope 1 emissions is a two-step process. During the event we ran a survey askingparticipants to share with us the miles they traveled per-mode (bike, car, plane) in getting to theconference. That mileage was converted tonnes of CO2, giving us a preliminary estimate. We assume thatparticipants return the same way, so we double that estimate, divide that sum by the number ofrespondents and multiply that by the total number of conference participants. S1 = ((preliminary estimate * 2) / # of respondents) * # of conference participants Scope 2 emissions come from consuming purchased electricity, heat, or steam. Our Scope 2emissions estimate was derived by multiplying the California average CO2-per-kWh by the estimated totalkWh we consumed (see EN3). kWh consumption came by multiplying the total square feet of the venuemultiplied by an average kWh per square foot, and multiplying that by the 2 days we were running theconference. This gives us the CO2 footprint for the venue New this year and again thanks to Native Energy, we included attendee accommodations (C in theformula below) and waste hauling (D in the formula below) in our CO2 calculation. The calculation forattendee accommodations is similar to the one used for calculating energy/emissions at the venue. S2 = ((CO2 per kWh) * (sq/ft * kWh per sq/ft * days of operations)) + (C) + (D) 19
  20. 20. So, C02 Emitted at 2011 Conference = S1 + S2 Based on the calculations above and the boundaries below, our Greenhouse Gas Emissions partneroffset 100% of our estimated CO2 emissions at the 2011 conference. During the assurance phase our vendor, The ISOS Group, spotted a decimal error made whilecalculating total CO2 emitted. When we brought this to the attention of our offsetting partner theyimmediately corrected it. GRI Boundaries Geographic, Direct Emissions: Global Geographic, Indirect Emissions: Los Angeles Center Studios Time: 4 days (1 day prior + 2 day conference + 1 day post)GREENHOUSE GASES - ANALYSIS While the methodology we use to capture this data is improving it’s still imperfect, and we don’texpect the data reported here to be completely accurate. What is important to us is: to continueimproving our data collection process, offer our participants ways to reduce their travel emissions, and‘own’ all the emissions that running our conference produces - even when they’re not under our directcontrol. While comparability is important and valuable, we choose to opt for including additional emissionssources rather than maintain year-to-year comparability. Interestingly, our apparent emissions decreasedafter including new sources of emissions. We attribute this to the inaccuracies inherent in our datacollection and calculation processes. In 2011 we switched to reporting our emissions in Tonnes rather than US tons (as we did in 2010). We met our 2011 target of offsetting 100% of the emissions produced, thanks in large part to thestrong support we received from our partner. Native Energy’s calculations are all based on the World Resources Institute’s GHG Protocol. Thecalculations utilize data from the following sources:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changehttp://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.shtml Publications and Datahttp://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/find_ef_ft.phpUS Energy Information Administrationhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/ Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Surveyhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html Fuel Coefficientshttp://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/excel/Fuel%20Emission%20Factors.xls Fuel Emission Factors Spreadsheet 20
  21. 21. World Resources Institutehttp://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/public/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf Accounting and Reporting Standardhttp://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools GHG Emissions ToolsEPAhttp://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/wastewise/carboncalc.htm the EPA’s carbon calculatorhttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/efpac/index.html Emissions Factors and Policy Applications Centerhttp://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/resources/cross-sector.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/documents/resources/mobilesource_guidance.pdfhttp://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/documents/resources/indirect_electricity_guidance.pdfAir Miles and Emissionshttp://www.faa.gov/ Federal Aviation AdministrationVehicle travelhttp://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/Fuel Economyhttp://fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_sbs.shtmlWaste emissionshttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.htmlThe EPA Waste Reduction Model (WARM) GREENHOUSE GASES - RESULTS (in Tonnes, n/m = ‘not measured’) TOTAL Offset Travel Energy Rooms Waste 2011 326.59 326.59 312.86 0.42 13.14 0.17 2010 420.6 33 420.6 n/m n/m n/m Before applying the offsets, .386 Tonnes of CO2 was emitted per participant at the 2011conference.GREENHOUSE GASES - PARTNERS NATIVE ENERGYWHAT WENT WELL We offset 100% of our estimated CO2 emissions.GREENHOUSE GASES - LESSONS LEARNED We’ll be sure to test the functionality and data quality of the data collection tools before‘actioning’ them. We ran out of time to test the survey before the conference started, and afterwards werealized that respondents starting zip code didn’t survive the data-crunching process, but since eachattendee has a unique code this information was easy for us to re-create.GREENHOUSE GASES - WHAT WE’LL DO DIFFERENTLY NEXT TIME We planned on applying data collected in our Energy Consumption strategy to calculate our carbonfootprint. Unfortunately, that Data Manager wasn’t able to provide us with the data we needed after theconference. Lucky for us, Native Energy is very experienced in making carbon calculations and that helpedus avert a near-disaster. What will we do differently next time? In 2013, we’ll be asking the Data Managersto sign formal agreements, with the intention of clarifying our expectations and deepening theircommitment to the team. 21
  22. 22. Sustainability Strategy 5.6: TRAVEL INITIATIVES On the road to reducing our footprintGRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED EN18 - Strategies to reduce greenhouse gasesTRAVEL INITIATIVES - METHODOLOGY Given that most of our carbon footprint comes from participant travel, from the beginning we’veseen this as the most important strategic element of our program. While reviewing stakeholder feedbackfrom the 2010 conference we found strong language about how poorly we execution on our intentions.Stakeholders criticized as being “inauthentic” and “under-resourcing a slam-dunk”. In 2010 we launched an online survey designed to capture our attendee’s travel data, in order tocalculate our carbon footprint. But the user-flow wasn’t clear and many respondents commented that theywere unable to specify the alternate forms of transportation they actually took. We took this criticism to heart, and in 2011 we allocated more resources to this particularstrategy. Making sure every participant was informed about low-carbon transit modes to and from theconference became a priority. We considered many approaches, and the actions we took included: Improving the content of our transit options web page with: o Green personal transit options, i.e. hybrid and CNG taxis and shuttles o Listing public transportation options available in downtown LA to/from the conference and LAX to attendees o Ride-sharing information Providing 15 spaces priority parking spaces to ridesharers Providing dedicated, on-site bike racks to encourage biking Offering 5 priority parking spaces to disabled individuals Creating a transportation booth on site to: o Conduct our travel survey o Encourage greater use of transit options and assist with further questions GRI Boundaries Geographic: Los Angeles Center Studios Time: Both days of the 2011 conference Look familiar? Good! That means you probably filled out a Travel Survey. 22
  23. 23. TRAVEL INITIATIVES - ANALYSIS Because we switched from emailing a request to fill out the travel survey after the conference torunning the survey on-site, we didn’t know what to expect. Needless to say, we are pleased with theoutcome. With the conference taking place in Los Angeles – a city notorious for being pro-car and anti-transit, we found the following statistics interesting: 58% of survey respondents did not ride in a private car (though they might have ridden in a taxi) 5% of survey respondents took the LA Metro (bus or subway) for some portion of their trip, totaling more than 900 miles. 9% of survey respondents walked for some portion of their trip 2% of survey respondents biked for some portion of their tripTRAVEL INITIATIVES - RESULTS This was the first year we’ve run our travel survey on-site at the conference. The data captureprocess went very smoothly, and we achieved our target (see Targets, above). 33% of participantsresponded in 2011, up from 16% in 2010.TRAVEL INITIATIVES – PARTNERS ZIMRIDETRAVEL INITIATIVES – WHAT WENT WELL The transportation survey triggered respondents to do some re-thinking and action-taking aroundusing local transportation. We found that we could boost the response rate considerably by walkingaround with iPads and asking attendees to take the survey. Sometimes wed even ask the questions andinput the data ourselves.TRAVEL INITIATIVES – LESSONS LEARNED The on-site internet stopped working, so we were very glad to have paper versions of the surveyon-hand. Even though we already have it, people were sometimes reluctant to share their info with us.Everyone was happy with how quick the survey was to take, thanks mostly to our "match return trip toarriving trip" checkbox. Having the phone/laptop charging booth next to transportation booth reallyboosted survey participation.TRAVEL INITIATIVES – WHAT WE’LL DO DIFFERENTLY NEXT TIME The shuttle pick-up and drop-off locations and schedules will be consistent in 2012. We’ll makeour signs bigger, so our drivers can easily figure out where they should park. We’ll allocate morevolunteers to monitor the shuttle service. We’ll consider capturing emissions data from the electricshuttles that are on-site. 23
  24. 24. Sustainability Strategy 5.7: RESOURCE RECOVERY Bottle caps are recyclable too!GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED EN22 - Total weight of waste by type and disposal methodRESOURCE RECOVERY - METHODOLOGY Our waste is sorted by four types, based on where it ends up: recyclable, compostable, liquid,landfill. We separate liquids so that we can bin our paper along with our bottles and cans (wet papercannot be recycled). The liquid we diverted represents an additional 375 pounds (42.25 gallons) of“saved” weight, which otherwise would have been included in our recycling, composting and landfillfigures, and that would have skewed our data. Our Bin partner provided the dedicated bins at resource recovery stations. Our Hauling partnersprovide dedicated dumpsters, and weigh the bins after conference, reporting those weights to us. Our diversion rate formula remains the same as previous years: (( A – B ) / A ), where A = Weight of all material collected B = Weight of material sent to landfill There are over 100 volunteers involved in executing this strategy, so this is where we focus thebulk of our man-hours, which include training our G-team, manning the resource recovery stations, andschlepping the waste from bins to dumpster. In spite of our training, in prior years there have been a fewuncomfortable moments when one of the team wasn’t sure where exactly to bin a material they hadn’tbeen previously briefed about. To solve this problem, in 2011 our Resource Recovery Manager created aspecial bin we called “When In Doubt Leave It Out”. That bin was sorted out after the conference bymaterials experts. This made our volunteer’s lives much easier! In 2011 we expanded our time boundary to 18 days - in prior years we’d only been reporting onthe two days of the conference. With that expansion we were able to measure the waste that wasgenerated during the load-in and load-out of our sponsors, vendors, and staff. GRI Boundaries Geographic: Los Angeles Center Studios (Confluence of Influence not included) Time: 18 days (October 31 thru November 18, 2011) Resource Recovery, like so many corporate sustainability strategies, is a team-based activity. 24
  25. 25. RESOURCE RECOVERY - ANALYSIS DIVERSION RATE Actual Target Target Achieved? 2011* 91% 85% Yes 2010 93% 90% Yes 2009 84% benchmarking year 2008 + * in 2011 we expanded our geographic and time boundaries + recyclables were stolen prior to weighingRESOURCE RECOVERY - RESULTS With support from our Resource Recovery volunteers, partners, and conference participants, weare pleased to report that we achieved a 91% diversion rate in 2011, beating our target. Rounded to the nearest 10 lbs. Recovery Material Weight (pounds) Method Organics (fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy, bread, food-soiled paper, compostable Composted 1,560 plates, cups and table ware) Mixed paper Recycled 1,200 Other mixed recyclables (cans, bottles, plastic) Recycled 350 Total Recovered 3,110 Garbage (e.g., floor and street sweepings, Landfilled 300 Styrofoam, other non-recyclable packaging) Total Produced 3,410 Total Recovered 3,110 Recovery Rate 91% The Tornado was composted after the conference 25
  26. 26. RESOURCE RECOVERY - PARTNERS RECYCLINGBIN.com ATHENS UPW LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOSRESOURCE RECOVERY - WHAT WENT WELL The quantity of material we sent to landfill this year was too small to register on our partner’sscale (!), so we asked them to make an eyeball estimate instead. They estimated the volume to be nomore than three cubic yards. Using a conservative conversion of 100 pounds/yard that means we sent200 pounds of material to the landfill over 18 days! It certainly would have been ideal to weigh thelandfilled material precisely, but nonetheless we consider this a great success. When participants or volunteers were unsure about where to bin a given material, our policy was“when in doubt, leave it out”, and we put it aside. This allowed us to research the best environmentaloptions for disposal or recovery. Only a few of these questions arose during the conference, but theytaught us valuable lessons – and that our first guess wasn’t always right (see Lessons Learned below) As they loaded-in, we let our vendors and exhibitors know that if they had good, reusablematerials such as cardboard boxes, pallets or other containers, they could dispose of them in a “swapshop” area where others could take and use it. We did not actively monitor or measure this amount ofreuse but it saw a lot of daily activity.RESOURCE RECOVERY - LESSONS LEARNED Bottle Caps – A very conscientious bartender asked one of our volunteers about the caps on liquorand beer bottles - are they trash or recyclable? The majority of metal caps and lids are made of steel,which is sorted from other recyclables with a magnet at the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). While mostmetal caps and lids are lined with a thin coating of polyethylene, the plastic is burned off during theprocessing and melting of the metal. Fortunately, this represents a relatively small weight and volume ofmaterial so the lids that didn’t make it into the recycling container won’t take up a significant amount oflandfill space or skew our data considerably. Yogurt Containers – Containers of Stonyfield Farms yogurt were marked “plant-based plastic.”Because of the reference to plastic, it wasn’t clear whether they were compostable or if they should go inthe recycling container with other plastics. We did some quick research on Stonyfield’s web site. TheStonyfield web site notes that they have converted all of their HDPE #2 plastic cup packaging topolypropylene (#5); however, this pertains to bigger, 1-quart containers. Stonyfield’s multipack cups, suchas those used at this year’s conference, are 93% made from PLA plastic, which is difficult to recycle but isbiodegradable under aerobic conditions. In our haste to find the answer, we incorrectly told attendees thecontainers were #5 plastic and to place them in the recycling bins. We’re confident that the containersthat slipped through will be sorted out at the MRF; however, it’s unfortunate that we missed anopportunity to compost them. Compostable Cups – The clear, compostable cups used at this year’s conference confused a fewpeople; they looked and felt a lot like plastic. We pulled quite a few cups out of the recycling containerson Day 1 of the conference, but our volunteers did a great job of getting the word out that they werecompostable. By Day 2, most people knew to place them in the compost bin. Those that made it into therecycling will be re-directed at the MRF. Forks – In addition to plates and cups, we intended to use 100% compostable forks, knives andspoons. Our food vendors this year did an outstanding job of helping us; out of all of the flatware theyprovided at the conference, only one of the forks was not compostable. Although this represents a smallvolume of material overall, it required a disproportionate amount of vigilance and effort by our ResourceRecovery volunteers. This highlights the importance of making recycling simple; in the case of flatware,by using a universal type – be it compostable, recyclable, or reusable. 26
  27. 27. Sustainability Strategy 5.8: ACCESS FOR ALL Creating solutions, removing limitsGRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED EO6 - Type and impacts of initiatives to create an accessible environment (Event Organizers SectorSupplement)ACCESS FOR ALL - METHODOLOGY One of Opportunity Green‘s 2011 targets was to make the conference entirely accessible todisabled people.To achieve this goal, we: Reserved five priority parking spaces for disabled attendees. Identified needs of additional access ramps and worked with Production Team to build a few. As our main stage moved last minute (see below), we eventually did not need to add temporary access ramps. Mapped the venue to indicate appropriate access Dedicated one volunteer to each disabled person to help him/her while at the conference. GRI Boundaries Geographic: Los Angeles Center Studios Time: Both days of the 2011 conferenceACCESS FOR ALL - ANALYSIS 2011 was a benchmarking year for this strategy.ACCESS FOR ALL - RESULTS In 2011, zero attendees were wheelchair users. Because of this we were unable to determine if themeasures we implemented were really effective. Despite this fact we are stating that we achieved ourtarget and successfully create an accessible environment.ACCESS FOR ALL - PARTNERS LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOSACCESS FOR ALL - WHAT WENT WELL Our venue is already very accessible to disabled people, making it easier for us to achieve ourtarget. We needed only to make sure that all the temporary spaces we created (booths, lunch area,stages…) were also accessible.ACCESS FOR ALL - LESSONS LEARNED A few weeks before the conference we relocated our main stage from a large tent next to the otherconference’s spaces to one of LACS’ permanent stages, located uphill and a fair distance from the rest ofthe conference. After we made sure that this stage was actually accessible to disabled people, we dedicated onevolunteer to support each disabled person attending the conference. 27
  28. 28. Sustainability Strategy 5.9: GOOD FOOD Fresh food tastes bestGRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED EO8 – Percentage of and access to food and beverage that meets the organizer’s policies or local, national or international standards.GOOD FOOD - METHODOLOGY We collected the data for this indicator by reviewing the invoices for each catering vendor and thentheir purchasing policy, when possible. Then, we multiplied the dollar amount spent on each vendor’s bytheir stated percentage of local purchasing, and added those ratios together. In cases where we wereunable to determine a local purchasing percentage we assigned that vendor a score of ‘0% LocalPurchasing’. In 2011, our Good Food focus was on our catering operations. Opportunity Green is committed toproviding healthy food from sustainable sources, including: Avoiding foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar. Requesting seasonal, fresh foods Looking for organic and fair-trade practices Favoring vegetarian or vegan food Favoring vendors that purchase in bulk Banning beef and veal Using the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Card to choose fish from sustainably managed sources and avoid selecting endangered fish species. GRI Boundaries Geographic: 200 mile radius of Los Angeles Center Studios Time: Both days of the 2011 conferenceGOOD FOOD - ANALYSIS This indicator was a new one for us in 2011, so we consider this to be a benchmarking year.GOOD FOOD - RESULTS Based on a qualitative review of our catering invoices for the 2011conference, we estimate that60% of the food served was grown within 200 miles of our conference.GOOD FOOD - PARTNERS This strategy was resourced and implemented without the support of partners or sponsors.GOOD FOOD - WHAT WE’LL DO DIFFERENTLY NEXT TIME The policy that directly impacts our data collection methodology for this strategy wasimplemented just before the conference itself. Because of the timelines involved, our data collection forthis indicator was quite shallow. The name of this policy is “Buy Right” and it directly influences one otherGRI Performance Indicator EC6 contained in this report (see Strategy 5.1: Local Purchasing). 28
  29. 29. Sustainability Strategy 5.10: OG SPEAKS We’re advocating for a healthier tomorrowGRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED SO5 - Public policy positions and participation in public policy development and lobbyingOG SPEAKS - METHODOLOGY In 2011 we set a formal policy that describes how our organization engages in public policydiscourse, and outlines our approach to deciding what we support. GRI Boundaries Geographic: United States of America Time: January 1, 2011 thru December 31, 2011 (Fiscal Year)OG SPEAKS - ANALYSIS This is the first year that we’ve taken an active role as policy advocates.OG SPEAKS - RESULTS Our CEO Karen Solomon and our Executive Strategist Sherry Simpson-Dean are both members ofthe Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. While serving as Co-Chair of the LA Chambers Environmental Energy & Sustainability PolicyCommittee, Karen Solomons priorities included: Reinitiate the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program Support the Better Buildings & Race to Green Initiatives Establish Incentives for Clean Construction Equipment in Los Angeles Sherry Simpson-Dean led Opportunity Green’s participation in 2011 ACCESS Washington, adelegation comprised of over 200 Southern California business Leaders, lawyers and elected officials,where we participated in a number of policy discussions and briefings on issues of energy andenvironment with some of our nations leaders: Bill Daley, White House Chief of Staff Steven Chu, U.S. Secretary of Energy Austan Goolsbee, Chair of White House Council of Economic Advisors Lisa Jackson, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Nancy Sutley, Chair of White House Council of Environmental Quality Gen. James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, US Senators from California. Talking points included: Support of the President’s proposal to create new tax incentives and financing opportunities for energy efficiency investments. Rising energy prices and the need for capital investments to spur economic recovery makes this the perfect time for a sustained commitment to helping building owners invest in retrofits and new equipment. Asking about the commitment to enacting these proposal and opportunities for more bipartisan collaborationOG SPEAKS - PARTNERS Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce 29
  30. 30. Sustainability Strategy 5.11: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Engaged stakeholders (like you) are key to our successGRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED PR5 - Practices related to customer satisfaction, including results of surveys measuring customer satisfactionSTAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - METHODOLOGIES STAKEHOLDER SURVEY: Opportunity Green sends an annual post-conference survey to getstakeholder feedback on topics such as quality of presentations, sustainability operations, andrecommendations for improvement. The responses help us identify where and how we can improve theconference, topics to program for the following year, and the success of non-presentation events duringthe conference. SIGNAGE: This year, for the first time, we were able to develop and publish signage thatspecifically described some of our sustainability strategies. Our team produced nine signs in all. TRAVEL SURVEY: see 5.6 G-TEAM: We developed a crash course on our sustainability program for our G-team members sothat they would understand our targets, methods, understand the basics of GRI, and be able to effectivelyengage attendees. GRI Boundaries Geographic: Los Angeles Center Studios Time: January 1, 2011 thru December 31, 2011 (Fiscal Year) Resource Recovery is one of our most powerful on-site stakeholder engagement tools.STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - ANALYSIS The G-team is pleased to report that, based on the post-conference satisfaction survey, our effortsat reducing the conference’s environmental impacts are rated very highly by attendees.STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - RESULTS The only quantifiable results for this strategy come from the two surveys we run: 34% of participants responded to the post-conference survey. 33% of participants responded to our on-site Attendee Travel survey, see 5.6 More than 80% of attendees gave our team a ‘Very’ or ’Somewhat Satisfied’ and less than .5% voicing any dissatisfaction about our program.STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - PARTNERS This strategy was resourced and implemented without the support of partners or sponsors. 30
  31. 31. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - LESSONS LEARNED We experience a bit of disconnect with our printing team this year, and our signs came out toosmall to be practical (so small that they were nearly invisible!). Our team was disappointed with the impactof our signage, but we joked that this must’ve been how Spinal Tap felt when they saw their Stonehengebackdrop. In 2011, our signage came out a little smaller than we’d expected.STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - WHAT WE’LL DO DIFFERENTLY NEXT TIME Next year we’ll start making our signs earlier, make them bigger, and position them so thatthey’re more accessible. We’ll also make it clear to everyone behind the scenes that Opportunity Greenmakes no claim to be a Zero-Waste event. We’ll also do more planning around our survey and captureeven more stakeholder input around our sustainability program. 31
  32. 32. Sustainability Strategy 5.12: MANAGING OUR REPORTING PROCESS The better your team, the better your report.GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED None, directly. All, indirectly.MANAGING OUR REPORTING PROCESS - METHODOLOGY Our 2011 program kicked in to high-gear earlier than usual when Jeff Hayes, our formerSustainability Director, was replaced by Natacha Arnaud-Battandier in May. Jeff stayed on, serving asIntegrated Reporting Manager while supporting Natacha as she took on the task of scaling up ourprogram (she added four strategies in 2011), training her managers and support staff, and getting up tospeed regarding GRI. With so many complex challenges inherent in putting on a conference of this size, we’veexperienced some frustrating ‘disconnects’ between our Sustainability team and the other teams. In 2012we want to involve the operational teams and top management in our program and goals earlier in thecycle than we’ve been able to previously. Our G-team trains more than 100 people each year, and many if not most of those are first-timevolunteers. Our team’s hierarchy looks like this: Executive Team Technical and Creative Advisors Director of Operations Sustainability Director Integrated Reporting Manager Data Managers Report Layout Design Day-of-Conference Team Members GRI Boundaries Geographic: None Time: NoneMANAGING OUR REPORTING PROCESS - ANALYSIS This is the fourth year that we’ve run a formal sustainability program, and it’s the first year thatwe’ve strictly followed the GRI reporting framework. We’re pleased that a trusted partner has run externalassurance on this report. This year, Opportunity Green executives quadrupled the resources allocated to our SustainabilityProgram, which the G-team used to enhance existing sustainability strategies, develop new strategies, andtrain our staff.MANAGING OUR REPORTING PROCESS - RESULTS 2011 stands as our team’s most effective execution and implementation of our sustainability program to date.MANAGING OUR REPORTING PROCESS - PARTNERS ISOS Group 32
  33. 33. 6.0: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IN GRATITUDE Successfully executing a project of this scope is a monumental effort. Completing this report simply wouldn’t have been possible without the efforts of the following wonderful people, and many more besides.ALL-STAR VOLUNTEERS PROJECT MANAGEMENT Steve Carroll Director of Operations: Kevin Lew Rachelle Caterson Sustainability Director:Natacha Arnaud-Battandier Fuyuan Chang Integrated Reporting Manager: Jeff Hayes Jean Cheng Clint Crowell Report Layout & Design: Jeff Hayes Dylan Gasperik Administrative Support: Suzi Clark Vedad Hasanovic Natalie Howard Tom Igner Clayton Du Josh Lazarus Green Team Leads: Joan Burns Joey Mendelsohn Anita Yu Easther Mulipola Rachel Winokur Charleen Mulipola Tanya Nelson Sean In Cera Oh Greening Advisor: Andrea Robinson WITH SPECIAL THANKS TO…Dennis Ahn Hailey Denenberg Jonathan Igner Brendan Miller Susana SchickSonia Amin Kalgi Desai Cory Johnson Carlyn Mills Sarah Dale SchwaldDavid Aronovitch Lauren Deviney Kori Joneson Andrew Montalvo Paula SimmonsJanetta Arzu Nick Dietz Thomas Junker Daniel Moreno Jimmy SiuIsha Awasthi Mickey Dogra Christopher Kai Fabian Munoz Grace SongKimberly Barry Peri Donch Helen Kang Darren Murtha Nate SpringerNima Behravan Alexander Duong Sheena Katai Christofer Nelson Terri StarkmanAlyse Beni Brianna Duran Jackie Kerns Chandler Neville Melissa SteachSheela Bhongir Supun Edirisinghe Alice Kim Sarah Newell Roxanna Stroska Szilard Bodi Kate Elgin Esther Kim Phuoc Nguyen Salima SuraniMarina Borges Oscar Enriquez Joakim Kistensen Blaine ONeill Wayne ThaiNahima Borque Chanel Espiritu Lisa Kotecki Harold Pan Chris ThompsonAlex Brachfeld Anat Fellner Kimberly Kruse Riya Parikh Trevor ThorpeSteve Braden angelo ferradas Donna Kwok Nicole Parisi Tara TingJayeLin Broussard Malika Finister Yi Yin Lam Maggie Pena Shivira TomarCristina Chang Heather Finnegan Mike Lebow Sarah Powell Dominick TrajanoMichael Asa Firestone Kevin Lee Claudia Prada Keyla TreitmanChapdelaine Andrew Fish Alison Lerner Lindon Pronto Nora VincentTerry Chen Cathy Flannagan Joey Leung Mary Qin Cesar ViramontesIngrid Cheng Ben Forman Matt Li Jayonit Raheja Jenifer WatsonDoris Cheng Gabby Galiani Lydia Lim Shana Rapoport Linda WengAngel Chiang Sanjay Gupta Andrea Limones Ann Rebentisch Samantha WestallJee Woo Choi Sandra Hambric Kamesha Amber Richane Ari WilliamsJayhee Chung Jessica Heyman Longsworth Sean Robbins Ashley WrightSusan Clark elizabeth hiroyasu Gomati Madaiah Paola Rodriguez Di WuLiz Clark Khathy Hoang Joanna Madrid Roberta Romero Caitlin YagherCyrus Colette Khathy Hoang Kyleen Marcella Kelly Russo Kelly YeeDennis Cruz Emily Hoyt Julianne Marshall Karen Saeki Julia YuAnnemarie Curiel Oliver Hsiao Erin Masuda Vi San Juan Taylor ZisfainReshama Damle Kelly Huang Tom McGrath Harini SarangapaniAndre De Melo Laura Huntington Ana Mendoza Jessica SavioKatie Decker Melanie Mendoza 33
  34. 34. OPPORTUNITY GREEN SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 2012 GRI CONTENT INDEX1.0 STRATEGY AND ANALYSIS 1.1 Statement from the most senior decision-maker of the organization (e.g., CEO, chair, or equivalent senior position) about the relevance of sustainability to the organization and its strategy. 1.2 Description of key impacts, risks, and opportunities 1.3 Achievements 1.4 Self-declaration of Reporting Level2.0 ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE 2.1 Name of the organization. 2.2 Primary brands, products, and/or services. 2.3 Operational structure of the organization, including main divisions, operating companies, subsidiaries, and joint ventures. 2.4 Location of organizations headquarters. 2.5 Number of countries where the organization operates, and names of countries with either major operations or that are specifically relevant to the sustainability issues covered in the report. 2.6 Nature of ownership and legal form. 2.7 Markets served (including geographic breakdown, sectors served, and types of customers/beneficiaries). 2.8 Scale of the reporting organization. 2.9 Significant changes during the reporting period regarding size, structure, or ownership. 2.10 Awards received in the reporting period.3.0 REPORT PARAMETERS Report Profile 3.1 Reporting period (e.g., fiscal/calendar year) for information provided. 3.2 Date of most recent previous report (if any). 3.3 Reporting cycle (annual, biennial, etc.). 3.4 Contact point for questions regarding the report or its contents. Report Scope and Boundary 3.5 Process for defining report content. 3.6 Boundary of the report. 3.7 State any specific limitations on the scope or boundary of the report. 3.8 Basis for reporting on joint ventures, subsidiaries, leased facilities, outsourced operations, and other entities that can significantly affect comparability from period to period and/or between organizations. 3.9 Data measurement techniques and the basis of calculations, including assumptions and techniques underlying estimations applied to the compilation of the Indicators and other information in the report. 3.10 Explanation of the effect of any re-statements of information provided in earlier reports, and the reasons for such re-statement (e.g., mergers/acquisitions, change of base years/periods, nature of business, measurement methods). 3.11 Significant changes from previous reporting periods in the scope, boundary, or measurement methods applied in the report. GRI Content Index 3.12 Table identifying the location of the Standard Disclosures in the report. Assurance 3.13 Policy and current practice with regard to seeking external assurance for the report. 34
  35. 35. 4.0 GOVERNANCE, COMMITMENTS AND ENGAGEMENT Governance 4.1 Governance structure of the organization, including committees under the highest governance body responsible for specific tasks, such as setting strategy or organizational oversight. 4.2 Indicate whether the Chair of the highest governance body is also an executive officer. 4.3 For organizations that have a unitary board structure, state the number of members of the highest governance body that are independent and/or non-executive members. 4.4 Mechanisms for shareholders and employees to provide recommendations or direction to the highest governance body. 4.5* Linkage between compensation for members of the highest governance body, senior managers, and executives (including departure arrangements), and the organizations performance (including social and environmental performance). 4.6* Processes in place for the highest governance body to ensure conflicts of interest are avoided. 4.7* Process for determining the qualifications and expertise of the members of the highest governance body for guiding the organizations strategy on economic, environmental, and social topics. 4.8* Internally developed statements of mission or values, codes of conduct, and principles relevant to economic, environmental, and social performance and the status of their implementation. 4.9* Procedures of the highest governance body for overseeing the organizations identification and management of economic, environmental, and social performance, including relevant risks and opportunities, and adherence or compliance with internationally agreed standards, codes of conduct, and principles. 4.10* Processes for evaluating the highest governance bodys own performance, particularly with respect to economic, environmental, and social performance. Commitments to External Initiatives 4.11* Explanation of whether and how the precautionary approach or principle is addressed by the organization. 4.12* Externally developed economic, environmental, and social charters, principles, or other initiatives to which the organization subscribes or endorses. * We have elected not to report on items 4.5 through 4.12 in this year’s report Stakeholder Engagement 4.13 Memberships in associations (such as industry associations) and/or national/international advocacy organizations. 4.14 List of stakeholder groups engaged by the organization. 4.15 Basis for identification and selection of stakeholders with whom to engage. 4.16 Approaches to stakeholder engagement, including frequency of engagement by type and by stakeholder group. 4.17 Key topics and concerns that have been raised through stakeholder engagement, and how the organization has responded to those key topics and concerns, including through its reporting.5.0 SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY IN ACTION (associated GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS) 5.1 LOCAL PURCHASING (EC6) 5.2 MATERIAL INPUTS (EN1, EN2) 5.3 ENERGY CONSUMPTION (EN3) 5.4 WATER CONSUMPTION (EN8) 5.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (EN16) 5.6 TRAVEL INITIATIVES (EN18) 5.7 RESOURCE RECOVERY (EN22) 5.8 ACCESS FOR ALL (EO) 5.9 GOOD FOOD (EO8) 5.10 OG SPEAKS (SO5) 5.11 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT (PR5) 5.12 MANAGING OUR REPORTING PROCESS6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 35

×