OPPORTUNITY GREEN 2012 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT Reporting our impacts, our reductions, and our year-to-year performance, using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework
The data in this report has been externally assured
1.1 STRATEGY AND ANALYSIS Letter From Our Executives Beginning with the launch of our organization in 2007, we have focused all of our efforts on 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 qualifies for a C+ Level under the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework, and perhaps more significantly we’re among the first conferences, of any type, to issue a sustainability report that adheres to the GRI framework. We’re proud to continue making significant progress in implementing more sustainable practices. At our 2011 conference we reached a material recovery rate of 91.2%, even while lengthening the measurement timeframe from two days to two weeks. We set targets on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from participant travel, and paper consumption per capita, and set a goal of offsetting 100% of our CO2 emissions from travel and energy consumption combined. As our sustainability program receives acknowledgement from the broader business community, our team gratefully accepts these accolades as a sure sign of our positive impacts and growing success. We look forward to making further contributions, both within our industry and also to the development 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 sustainable and innovative ideas. Warmest regards,
Karen Solomon Chief Executive Officer Opportunity Green
Michael Flynn Chief Financial Officer Opportunity Green
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 2
1.2 STRATEGY AND ANALYSIS Opportunity 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 their costs, 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 of leaving 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. In order to achieve this goal, we implemented a sustainability program in 2009. This program looks for 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 economic sustainability of our business, 2) raising the bar for what sustainability means in the context of our organization and our industry and re-setting internal accordingly, and 3) holding ourselves, our vendors, and our partners to those standards. Item 3 is particularly challenging for an events company, as those partnerships are a key source of our revenue, but we feel that collaborating with a partner who is not values-aligned is a bigger risk for us than not closing or losing a deal or two. We manage partnership risk by reviewing their policies and sustainability reporting before committing to the partnership agreement. Because The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is an internationally-recognized sustainability reporting framework, and favors transparency over compliance, we view prospective partners who are reporting under GRI on one- or two-year reporting cycles pose the lowest risk. In the medium-term (3-5 years), we will 1) continue reporting on a one-year cycle using the GRI framework, 2) consider adopting GRI’s Events Sector Supplement into our implementation and reporting processes beginning with our 2013 report 3) review and revise our own policies around environmental impact, purchasing, staff development and the influence of our public policy efforts, and 4) develop and implement strategies to grow our bottom line. Our sustainability program has established a basic pattern of design-implement-scale each new strategy from one year to the next. We scaled up considerably from the 2010 conference to 2011 (reported in 2011 and 2012 respectively), so in the short term (2012 - 2013) our strategic focus will be on refining the strategies already in place. We are excited to see how GRI’s Events Sector Supplement will influence sustainability activity in the Events Industry and look forward to maintaining our leadership position.
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 3
1.3 STRATEGY AND ANALYSIS
Targets and Achievements for 2011 2011 TARGET (for 2011 conference) Reduce transportation carbon emissions per participant.
ACHIEVED? yes
COMMENTS Carbon emissions per participant were down by 11% (see 5.5)
Offset 100% CO2 emissions from power consumption and attendees' travel
yes
Our total CO2 emissions in 2011 were 343 US tons or 311 metric tonnes (see 5.5)
Reach 85% recovery rate during a 2 week period
yes
We achieved a 91% recovery rate, six 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 framework by 2/29/12
no
This has been a target timeframe for the 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 OG's green policy in attendee's quality survey
no
A synchronization error in our data 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.
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 4
1.4 STRATEGY AND ANALYSIS Application 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
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 5
2.0 ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE Organizational 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 one division, 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 from many 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 make our 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 reporting period. 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
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 6
3.0 REPORT PARAMETERS Report Profile Each decision we make at Opportunity Green considers the impact that it will have on the environment, on our community, and on our economic performance. The content we’ve elected to include in this year’s report was included either because it correlates with our reporting in previous years, or because we see it as a powerful leverage point to improve our corporate performance. This report covers our fiscal year 2011. Our previous sustainability report was released in August 2011. We are on an annual reporting cycle. This is Opportunity Green’s third sustainability report, but it is our first to use The Global Reporting Initiative framework. For more information, contact Natacha Arnaud-Battandier, our Sustainability Director at sustdir@opportunitygreen.com Report 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 our sustainability reporting up considerably, from six Performance Indicators to twelve. We hope that the scope of future reports will be more balanced, including additional economic and social indicators. 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 our sustainability strategies are much shorter. Depending on the context, each strategy is given its own 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 other participants produce. Other than EN16, the geographic boundary for this report is the campus of our host venue, Los Angeles Center Studios. One advantage to being an SME is that the issues which could reduce comparability of our reports from year to year are limited. We are currently running no joint ventures, subsidiaries, or other 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 questions of 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 we maintained year-to-year continuity for our pre-existing sustainability measures. Based on our team’s reporting successes in 2009 and 2010, executive leadership greatly increased the resources allocated to our sustainability program in 2011. We have not run a base-line analysis to determine which stakeholder groups we can expect to use this report, but we have made an educated guess (see Section 4.0, Stakeholder
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 7
Engagement). 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. 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 or not we will continue requesting assurance.
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 8
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 Attendees Sponsors Vendors Speakers Exhibitors Community & Media Partners OG25 Social Media Followers Eco Maverick Award Nominees
Type & Frequency of contact Regular emails, OG Dashboard during conference, mobile app, conference presentation videos Dedicated staff contact, proprietary sponsorship communications tools Regular emails, regular meetings, regular telecom Dedicated concierge, regular emails, speaker communications tools Dedicated staff contact Dedicated staff contact Dedicated staff contact Regular facebook, twitter, linkedin, pinterest, blog postings Dedicated staff contact
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 9
5.0 SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY IN ACTION
Here’s a snapshot of our journey, using the lens of the Global Reporting Initiative’s framework:
* These Performance Indicators were developed for The Global Reporting Initiative in collaboration with the United Nations and CERES.
review the flipbook 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.
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 10
Sustainability Strategy 5.1: LOCAL PURCHASING
Building a stronger local economy
GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED EC6 - Policy, practices, and proportion of spending on locally-based suppliers LOCAL PURCHASING - METHODOLOGY This year we wrote a formal purchasing policy we call “Buy Right”. This policy defines a “local supplier” for measurement purposes (see definition below) and specifies that we measure and report on the percentage of local and non-local purchases. Our definition of a “local supplier” is one that is headquartered 200 miles or less from our offices at 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 be implemented effectively. We will baseline and report the percentage of purchases that are local (per our Buy Right policy) in our 2013 sustainability report. LOCAL PURCHASING - RESULTS Because of the complex and dynamic realities that come with running a conference, we decided that in 2011 EC6 would be a qualitative indicator for us. Even though we can’t provide hard data on this indicator, a list our main vendors follows; with the location of their headquarters and any other pertinent information. 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
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 11
Tableware Repurpose, their zip code is 90014 The bulk of our expenditures are on labor, and a great majority of our labor force comes from within 200 miles of our venue, so while we can’t strictly quantify how well we did, we are confident that our 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 implementation presents our team with a new set of challenges in 2012, and look forward to reporting our progress in 2013.
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 12
Sustainability Strategy 5.2: BUY RIGHT
Eventually, all our materials will come from Reclaimed, Repurposed, or Reused sources
GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED EN1 - Materials used by weight or volume EN2 - Percentage of materials used that are recycled input materials BUY RIGHT - METHODOLOGY Given our limited resources, and with such a variety of materials moving through the conference in such a short time-frame, we had to carefully select the materials reviewed in this strategy. We set two types as high-priority: paper and tableware, and two at a lower priority: cleaning materials and the contents of our gift bag. GRI Boundaries Geographic: Los Angeles Center Studios Time: Both days of the 2011 conference
BUY RIGHT – ANALYSIS
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 13
We reduced our paper-weight-per-participant by 25.5% in 2011 as compared to 2010, and met our target (see Targets, above). When we compare the total weight of paper year-to-year (without using participants as our denominator), we find that we reduced our consumption by 24.6%. We attribute most of the decrease of total paper weight to using thinner paper in the 2011 program.
PAPER In 2011, OG put in place eco-design principles for our printed documents. Training provided to communications/marketing team. One of our major initiatives was to use thinner paper in the 2011 program. Additionally, 2011 was the first year we provided an electronic version of our program, and expect 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 in 2011 we switched to using compostable tableware made from PLA and sugarcane. 3% of the tableware was made 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 surprisingly complete. We recommended several additional environmentally-friendly options.
CLEANING
TABLEWARE
PAPER
BUY RIGHT - RESULTS Paper types measured (for comparability): 2011: Program booklets, thank you cards & envelopes, postcards, press kits w/ folders 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: 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 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
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 14
‘Weighing’ the impacts of our gift bag.
The Gift Bag – A Materials Breakdown* (in pounds)
ITEM Shoulder Bag Water bottle Spiral notebook Hydropack Notepad w/ Post-its Notepad Pen w/ hangcard Marketing Collateral TOTAL
WEIGHT .17 .08 .39 .21 n/a n/a n/a n/a
PRODUCED FROM RECYCLED CONTENT 100% 0% 10% 0% 70% 20% 0% ~15%
1.91
26.8%
# OF USES Reusable Reusable Single-use Single-use Single- use Single- use Single- use Single- use
END-OF-LIFE 100% recyclable 0% recyclable 100% recyclable 0% recyclable 100% recyclable 100% recyclable 5% recyclable 100% recyclable
* 2012 was a benchmarking year for our gift bags, so no year-to-year comparisons can be made BUY RIGHT - PARTNERS CHICO BAG DOMTAR VAPUR EASTMAN REPURPOSE ECOPRODUCTS PRESERVE TENDER GREENS CALAMIGOS RANCH BUY RIGHT – LESSONS LEARNED Our game-plan for this strategy was good, but production was so last-minute that some things fell through the cracks. Ex: postcard stock was coated and some paper in the program didn't entirely follow our 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 each type of tableware. This information would have allowed us calculate the total weight per type and provide a deeper analysis. This will also make comparability in next year’s report slightly less relevant, but in the big 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 the fabric itself during the yarn production process, and this allows third-party verifiers to identify it as postconsumer content, and that the components (carabineer, cord stop, etc) are made from recycled aluminum 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 inks
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 15
BUY RIGHT – WHAT WE’LL DO DIFFERENTLY NEXT TIME We were hoping to include signage in our paper calculations. Unfortunately, producing our signage happened at the very last minute. The experience reminded us that sustainability ideals are even more difficult to adhere to under the pressure of a tight deadline. Next year we’ll ask for earlier and more feedback. With a closer working relationship we’ll be able to communicate our policies early and clearly. This year we took the Operations Department at Los Angeles Center Studio’s word on the green certification of cleaning products they use. Next year we’ll review the list of cleaning products ourselves for green certifications. (1)
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 16
Sustainability Strategy 5.3: ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Measuring energy consumption is trickier than you’d think GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED EN3 - Direct energy consumption by primary source ENERGY CONSUMPTION - METHODOLOGY Native Energy handled this calculation for our team. Their formula is based on an estimated average 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 so simple - read the meters before the conference and again after the conference, and subtract to calculate our consumption. But due to a general lack of sub-metering inside of our venues, various security issues related to accessing electrical meters, and the unique electricity co-generation system at our original venue (UCLA), we’ve decided to accept that fact that this is simply a much more difficult question to answer than we originally thought. GRI Boundaries Geographic: Los Angeles Center Studios Time: Both days of the 2011 conference ENERGY 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 kWh per participant, with a footprint of 39,300 square feet, the event running two days. ENERGY CONSUMPTION - PARTNERS NATIVE ENERGY LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOS ENERGY 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 they say 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 to prevent this happening in the future, we’ll be asking our Data Managers to enter into formal agreements with Opportunity Green.
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 17
Sustainability Strategy 5.4: WATER CONSUMPTION
Participants hydrated using filtered water and reusable water bottles GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED EN8 - Total water withdrawal by source WATER CONSUMPTION - METHODOLOGY We looked at three inputs and outputs – toilets, faucets, and urinals - to measure water consumption at the 2011 conference. First, we collected gallons-per-use data for each source (A in the formula below) from three sources(2). Then we collected average usage data* (B in the formula below). We made 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 ignored ongoing on-site activities that consume water, such as watering and maintenance. We did not measure water 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 conference WATER CONSUMPTION - ANALYSIS Because we have no practical ability to reduce water consumption, we don’t set any goals for this strategy. Because our measurement process has been so inaccurate, we consider 2011 to be our benchmarking 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 than 10.3 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 stemming from using metered data rather than the more analysis-intensive approach we took in 2011. This in turn skewed our data, so while we’ve reported for three years, comparability is minimal. We consider the 2011 conference to be our benchmark. WATER CONSUMPTION - PARTNERS VAPUR EVERPURE/PENTAIR WATER CONSUMPTION - WHAT WENT WELL At the suggestion of our new Sustainability Director the data collection process for this strategy was made much simpler in 2011. It was nice to finally see this strategy go off without a hitch.
Sustainability Strategy 5.5: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 18
Working to cut our GHG output
GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED EN16 - Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight GREENHOUSE GASES - METHODOLOGY The GHG Protocol defines ‘direct emissions’ as “emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the reporting entity.” While Opportunity Green the entity produces very few direct emissions itself, a significant portion of the emissions we report here come from the trips that our participants make to and from the conference. The calculation we use to quantify our emissions has three primary variables: our estimated or Scope 1 emissions (S1), our estimated Scope 2 emissions (S2), and the CO2e offset provided by our partner (OFF). Calculating our Scope 1 emissions is a two-step process. During the event we ran a survey asking participants to share with us the miles they traveled per-mode (bike, car, plane) in getting to the conference. That mileage was converted tonnes of CO2, giving us a preliminary estimate. We assume that participants return the same way, so we double that estimate, divide that sum by the number of respondents 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 2 emissions estimate was derived by multiplying the California average CO2-per-kWh by the estimated total kWh we consumed (see EN3). kWh consumption came by multiplying the total square feet of the venue multiplied by an average kWh per square foot, and multiplying that by the 2 days we were running the conference. This gives us the CO2 footprint for the venue
New this year and again thanks to Native Energy, we included attendee accommodations (C in the formula below) and waste hauling (D in the formula below) in our CO2 calculation. The calculation for attendee 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)
So, Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 19
C02 Emitted at 2011 Conference = S1 + S2 Based on the calculations above and the boundaries below, our Greenhouse Gas Emissions partner offset 100% of our estimated CO2 emissions at the 2011 conference. During the assurance phase our vendor, The ISOS Group, spotted a decimal error made while calculating total CO2 emitted. When we brought this to the attention of our offsetting partner they immediately 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’t expect the data reported here to be completely accurate. What is important to us is: to continue improving 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 direct control. While comparability is important and valuable, we choose to opt for including additional emissions sources rather than maintain year-to-year comparability. Interestingly, our apparent emissions decreased after including new sources of emissions. We attribute this to the inaccuracies inherent in our data collection 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 the strong support we received from our partner.
Native Energy’s calculations are all based on the World Resources Institute’s GHG Protocol. The calculations utilize data from the following sources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.shtml Publications and Data http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/find_ef_ft.php US Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.doe.gov/ http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/ Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html Fuel Coefficients http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/excel/Fuel%20Emission%20Factors.xls Fuel Emission Factors Spreadsheet Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 20
World Resources Institute
http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/public/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf Accounting and Reporting Standard http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools GHG Emissions Tools EPA
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/wastewise/carboncalc.htm the EPA’s carbon calculator http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/efpac/index.html Emissions Factors and Policy Applications Center http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/resources/cross-sector.html http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/documents/resources/mobilesource_guidance.pdf http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/documents/resources/indirect_electricity_guidance.pdf Air Miles and Emissions http://www.faa.gov/ Federal Aviation Administration Vehicle travel
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/ Fuel Economy
http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_sbs.shtml Waste emissions
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html The EPA Waste Reduction Model (WARM)
GREENHOUSE GASES - RESULTS (in Tonnes, n/m = ‘not measured’) TOTAL OFFSET 2011 326.59 326.59 2010 420.6 33
from Travel 312.86 420.6
from Energy 0.42 n/m
from Rooms 13.14 n/m
from Waste 0.17 n/m
Before applying offsets, .386 Tonnes of CO2 was emitted per participant at the 2011 conference. GREENHOUSE GASES - PARTNERS NATIVE ENERGY WHAT 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 we realized that respondents starting zip code didn’t survive the data-crunching process, but since each attendee 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 carbon footprint. Unfortunately, that Data Manager wasn’t able to provide us with the data we needed after the conference. Lucky for us, Native Energy is very experienced in making carbon calculations and that helped us avert a near-disaster. What will we do differently next time? In 2013, we’ll be asking the Data Managers to sign formal agreements, with the intention of clarifying our expectations and deepening their commitment to the team.
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 21
Sustainability Strategy 5.6: TRAVEL INITIATIVES
On the road to reducing our footprint
GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED EN18 - Strategies to reduce greenhouse gases TRAVEL INITIATIVES - METHODOLOGY Given that most of our carbon footprint comes from participant travel, from the beginning we’ve seen this as the most important strategic element of our program. While reviewing stakeholder feedback from 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 to calculate our carbon footprint. But the user-flow wasn’t clear and many respondents commented that they were 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 particular strategy. Making sure every participant was informed about low-carbon transit modes to and from the conference 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.
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 22
TRAVEL INITIATIVES - ANALYSIS Because we switched from emailing a request to fill out the travel survey after the conference to running the survey on-site, we didn’t know what to expect. Needless to say, we are pleased with the outcome. With the conference taking place in Los Angeles – a city notorious for being pro-car and antitransit, 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 trip TRAVEL INITIATIVES - RESULTS This was the first year we’ve run our travel survey on-site at the conference. The data capture process went very smoothly, and we achieved our target (see Targets, above). 33% of participants responded in 2011, up from 16% in 2010. TRAVEL INITIATIVES – PARTNERS ZIMRIDE TRAVEL INITIATIVES – WHAT WENT WELL The transportation survey triggered respondents to do some re-thinking and action-taking around using local transportation. We found that we could boost the response rate considerably by walking around with iPads and asking attendees to take the survey. Sometimes we'd even ask the questions and input the data ourselves. TRAVEL INITIATIVES – LESSONS LEARNED The on-site internet stopped working, so we were very glad to have paper versions of the survey on-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 to arriving trip" checkbox. Having the phone/laptop charging booth next to transportation booth really boosted 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 make our signs bigger, so our drivers can easily figure out where they should park. We’ll allocate more volunteers to monitor the shuttle service. We’ll consider capturing emissions data from the electric shuttles that are on-site.
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 23
Sustainability Strategy 5.7: RESOURCE RECOVERY
Bottle caps are recyclable too! GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED EN22 - Total weight of waste by type and disposal method RESOURCE 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 paper cannot 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 landfill figures, and that would have skewed our data. Our Bin partner provided the dedicated bins at resource recovery stations. Our Hauling partners provide dedicated dumpsters, and weigh the bins after conference, reporting those weights to us. Our recovery 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 the bulk of our man-hours, which include training our G-team, manning the resource recovery stations, and schlepping the waste from bins to dumpster. In spite of our training, in prior years there have been a few uncomfortable moments when one of the team wasn’t sure where exactly to bin a material they hadn’t been previously briefed about. To solve this problem, in 2011 our Resource Recovery Manager created a special bin we called “When In Doubt Leave It Out”. That bin was sorted out after the conference by materials 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 on the two days of the conference. With that expansion we were able to measure the waste that was generated 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)
Most corporate sustainability strategies are team-based activities. Resource Recovery is no exception.
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 24
RESOURCE RECOVERY - ANALYSIS RECOVERY RATE 2011* 2010 2009 2008
Actual 91% 93% 84% +
Target 85% 90%
Target Achieved? Yes Yes benchmarking year +
+
* in 2011 we expanded our geographic and time boundaries + recyclables were stolen prior to weighing RESOURCE RECOVERY - RESULTS With support from our Resource Recovery volunteers, partners, and conference participants, we are pleased to report that we achieved a 91% recovery rate in 2011, beating our target. Rounded to the nearest 10 lbs. Material Organics (fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy, bread, food-soiled paper, compostable plates, cups and table ware) Mixed paper Other mixed recyclables (cans, bottles, plastic)
Garbage (e.g., floor and street sweepings, Styrofoam, other non-recyclable packaging)
Recovery Method
Weight (pounds)
Composted
1,560
Recycled
1,200
Recycled
350
Total Recovered
3,110
Landfilled
300
Total Produced
3,410
Total Recovered
3,110
Recovery Rate
91%
The Tornado was composted after the conference
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 25
RESOURCE RECOVERY - PARTNERS RECYCLINGBIN.com ATHENS UPW LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOS RESOURCE RECOVERY - WHAT WENT WELL The quantity of material we sent to landfill this year was too small to register on our partner’s scale (!), so we asked them to make an eyeball estimate instead. They estimated the volume to be no more than three cubic yards. Using a conservative conversion of 100 pounds/yard that means we sent 200 pounds of material to the landfill over 18 days! It certainly would have been ideal to weigh the landfilled 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 environmental options for disposal or recovery. Only a few of these questions arose during the conference, but they taught 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, reusable materials such as cardboard boxes, pallets or other containers, they could dispose of them in a “swap shop” area where others could take and use it. We did not actively monitor or measure this amount of reuse 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 liquor and 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 most metal caps and lids are lined with a thin coating of polyethylene, the plastic is burned off during the processing and melting of the metal. Fortunately, this represents a relatively small weight and volume of material so the lids that didn’t make it into the recycling container won’t take up a significant amount of landfill 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 in the recycling container with other plastics. We did some quick research on Stonyfield’s web site. The Stonyfield web site notes that they have converted all of their HDPE #2 plastic cup packaging to polypropylene (#5); however, this pertains to bigger, 1-quart containers. Stonyfield’s multipack cups, such as those used at this year’s conference, are 93% made from PLA plastic, which is difficult to recycle but is biodegradable under aerobic conditions. In our haste to find the answer, we incorrectly told attendees the containers were #5 plastic and to place them in the recycling bins. We’re confident that the containers that slipped through will be sorted out at the MRF; however, it’s unfortunate that we missed an opportunity to compost them. Compostable Cups – The clear, compostable cups used at this year’s conference confused a few people; they looked and felt a lot like plastic. We pulled quite a few cups out of the recycling containers on Day 1 of the conference, but our volunteers did a great job of getting the word out that they were compostable. By Day 2, most people knew to place them in the compost bin. Those that made it into the recycling will be re-directed at the MRF. Forks – In addition to plates and cups, we intended to use 100% compostable forks, knives and spoons. Our food vendors this year did an outstanding job of helping us; out of all of the flatware they provided at the conference, only one of the forks was not compostable. Although this represents a small volume of material overall, it required a disproportionate amount of vigilance and effort by our Resource Recovery 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.
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 26
Sustainability Strategy 5.8: ACCESS FOR ALL
Creating solutions, removing limits
GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED
EO6 - Type and impacts of initiatives to create an accessible environment (Event Organizers Sector Supplement) ACCESS FOR ALL - METHODOLOGY One of Opportunity Green‘s 2011 targets was to make the conference entirely accessible to disabled 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 conference ACCESS 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 the measures we implemented were really effective. Despite this fact we are stating that we achieved our target and successfully create an accessible environment. ACCESS FOR ALL - PARTNERS LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOS ACCESS FOR ALL - WHAT WENT WELL Our venue is already very accessible to disabled people, making it easier for us to achieve our target. 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 other conference’s spaces to one of LACS’ permanent stages, located uphill and a fair distance from the rest of the conference. After we made sure that this stage was actually accessible to disabled people, we dedicated one volunteer to support each disabled person attending the conference.
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 27
Sustainability Strategy 5.9: GOOD FOOD
Fresh food tastes best
GRI 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 then their purchasing policy, when possible. Then, we multiplied the dollar amount spent on each vendor’s by their stated percentage of local purchasing, and added those ratios together. In cases where we were unable to determine a local purchasing percentage we assigned that vendor a score of ‘0% Local Purchasing’. In 2011, our Good Food focus was on our catering operations. Opportunity Green is committed to providing 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 conference GOOD 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 that 60% 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 was implemented just before the conference itself. Because of the timelines involved, our data collection for this indicator was quite shallow. The name of this policy is “Buy Right” and it directly influences one other GRI Performance Indicator EC6 contained in this report (see Strategy 5.1: Local Purchasing).
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 28
Sustainability Strategy 5.10: OG SPEAKS
We’re advocating for a healthier tomorrow
GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED SO5 - Public policy positions and participation in public policy development and lobbying OG SPEAKS - METHODOLOGY In 2011 we set a formal policy that describes how our organization engages in public policy discourse, 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 of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. While serving as Co-Chair of the LA Chamber's Environmental Energy & Sustainability Policy Committee, Karen Solomon's 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, a delegation 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 and environment with some of our nation's 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 collaboration OG SPEAKS - PARTNERS Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 29
Sustainability Strategy 5.11: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Engaged stakeholders (like you) are key to our success GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED PR5 - Practices related to customer satisfaction, including results of surveys measuring customer satisfaction STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - METHODOLOGIES STAKEHOLDER SURVEY Opportunity Green sends an annual post-conference survey to get stakeholder feedback on topics such as quality of presentations, sustainability operations, and recommendations for improvement. The responses help us identify where and how we can improve the conference, topics to program for the following year, and the success of non-presentation events during the conference. SIGNAGE This year, for the first time, we were able to develop and publish signage that specifically 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 so that they would understand our targets, methods, understand the basics of GRI, and be able to effectively engage 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 efforts at 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.
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 30
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - PARTNERS This strategy was resourced and implemented without the support of partners or sponsors. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - LESSONS LEARNED We experience a bit of disconnect with our printing team this year, and our signs came out too small to be practical (so small that they were nearly invisible!). Our team was disappointed with the impact of our signage, but we joked that this must’ve been how Spinal Tap felt when they saw their Stonehenge backdrop.
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 that they’re more accessible. We’ll also make it clear to everyone behind the scenes that Opportunity Green makes no claim to be a Zero-Waste event. We’ll also do more planning around our survey and capture even more stakeholder input around our sustainability program.
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 31
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 former Sustainability Director, was replaced by Natacha Arnaud-Battandier in May. Jeff stayed on, serving as Integrated Reporting Manager while supporting Natacha as she took on the task of scaling up our program (she added four strategies in 2011), training her managers and support staff, and getting up to speed regarding GRI. With so many complex challenges inherent in putting on a conference of this size, we’ve experienced some frustrating ‘disconnects’ between our Sustainability team and the other teams. In 2012 we want to involve the operational teams and top management in our program and goals earlier in the cycle 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-time volunteers. 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: None MANAGING OUR REPORTING PROCESS - ANALYSIS This is the fourth year that we’ve run a formal sustainability program, and it’s the first year that we’ve strictly followed the GRI reporting framework. We’re pleased that a trusted partner has run external assurance on this report. This year, Opportunity Green executives quadrupled the resources allocated to our Sustainability Program, which the G-team used to enhance existing sustainability strategies, develop new strategies, and train 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
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 32
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. PROJECT Director of Operations: Sustainability Director: Integrated Reporting Manager: Report Layout & Design: Administrative Support:
MANAGEMENT Kevin Lew Natacha Arnaud-Battandier Jeff Hayes Jeff Hayes Suzi Clark Natalie Howard Clayton Du Green Team Leads: Joan Burns Anita Yu Rachel Winokur Sean In Greening Advisor: Andrea Robinson
ALL-STAR VOLUNTEERS Steve Carroll Rachelle Caterson Fuyuan Chang Jean Cheng Clint Crowell Dylan Gasperik Vedad Hasanovic Tom Igner Josh Lazarus Joey Mendelsohn Easther Mulipola Charleen Mulipola Tanya Nelson Cera Oh
WITH SPECIAL THANKS TO‌ Dennis Ahn Sonia Amin David Aronovitch Janetta Arzu Isha Awasthi Kimberly Barry Nima Behravan Alyse Beni Sheela Bhongir Szilard Bodi Marina Borges Nahima Borque Alex Brachfeld Steve Braden JayeLin Broussard Cristina Chang Michael Chapdelaine Terry Chen Ingrid Cheng Doris Cheng Angel Chiang Jee Woo Choi Jayhee Chung Susan Clark Liz Clark Cyrus Colette Dennis Cruz Annemarie Curiel Reshama Damle Andre De Melo Katie Decker
Hailey Denenberg Kalgi Desai Lauren Deviney Nick Dietz Mickey Dogra Peri Donch Alexander Duong Brianna Duran Supun Edirisinghe Kate Elgin Oscar Enriquez Chanel Espiritu Anat Fellner angelo ferradas Malika Finister Heather Finnegan Asa Firestone Andrew Fish Cathy Flannagan Ben Forman Gabby Galiani Sanjay Gupta Sandra Hambric Jessica Heyman elizabeth hiroyasu Khathy Hoang Khathy Hoang Emily Hoyt Oliver Hsiao Kelly Huang Laura Huntington
Jonathan Igner Cory Johnson Kori Joneson Thomas Junker Christopher Kai Helen Kang Sheena Katai Jackie Kerns Alice Kim Esther Kim Joakim Kistensen Lisa Kotecki Kimberly Kruse Donna Kwok Yi Yin Lam Mike Lebow Kevin Lee Alison Lerner Joey Leung Matt Li Lydia Lim Andrea Limones Kamesha Longsworth Gomati Madaiah Joanna Madrid Kyleen Marcella Julianne Marshall Erin Masuda Tom McGrath Ana Mendoza Melanie Mendoza
Brendan Miller Carlyn Mills Andrew Montalvo Daniel Moreno Fabian Munoz Darren Murtha Christofer Nelson Chandler Neville Sarah Newell Phuoc Nguyen Blaine O'Neill Harold Pan Riya Parikh Nicole Parisi Maggie Pena Sarah Powell Claudia Prada Lindon Pronto Mary Qin Jayonit Raheja Shana Rapoport Ann Rebentisch Amber Richane Sean Robbins Paola Rodriguez Roberta Romero Kelly Russo Karen Saeki Vi San Juan Harini Sarangapani Jessica Savio
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 33
Susana Schick Sarah Dale Schwald Paula Simmons Jimmy Siu Grace Song Nate Springer Terri Starkman Melissa Steach Roxanna Stroska Salima Surani Wayne Thai Chris Thompson Trevor Thorpe Tara Ting Shivira Tomar Dominick Trajano Keyla Treitman Nora Vincent Cesar Viramontes Jenifer Watson Linda Weng Samantha Westall Ari Williams Ashley Wright Di Wu Caitlin Yagher Kelly Yee Julia Yu Taylor Zisfain
OPPORTUNITY GREEN SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 2012 GRI CONTENT INDEX 1.0 STRATEGY AND ANALYSIS 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
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. Description of key impacts, risks, and opportunities Achievements Self-declaration of Reporting Level
2.0 ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE 2.1 2.2 2.3
Name of the organization. Primary brands, products, and/or services. Operational structure of the organization, including main divisions, operating companies, subsidiaries, and joint ventures. 2.4 Location of organization's 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.
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 34
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 organization's 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 organization's 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 organization's 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 body's 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 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12
LOCAL PURCHASING (EC6) MATERIAL INPUTS (EN1, EN2) ENERGY CONSUMPTION (EN3) WATER CONSUMPTION (EN8) GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (EN16) TRAVEL INITIATIVES (EN18) RESOURCE RECOVERY (EN22) ACCESS FOR ALL (EO) GOOD FOOD (EO8) OG SPEAKS (SO5) STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT (PR5) MANAGING OUR REPORTING PROCESS
6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report 35