Opinion, by James Lancaster
Net Zero Carbon Events (NZCE) - the business events
industry’s attempt to tackle its carbon emissions – has galvanised companies and
associations to act on climate change.
But there is a growing sense of disquiet amongst event
professionals that the scheme
doesn’t go far enough and that its light-touch approach poses a challenge
to its credibility.
To make these claim is not to attribute dubious motives to those
behind the scheme.
Business events is not the fossil fuel industry. It hasn’t
spent billions on disinformation
campaigns, it doesn’t have an army of lobbyists fighting its corner, it can’t
‘buy’ prominent influencers. But like fossil fuels, or any other sector, it can
be accused of greenwashing.
And it does have a problem. According to a report in Nature, the
annual carbon footprint for the global events industry is of the same order of
magnitude as the yearly greenhouse gas emissions of the United States, responsible
for more than 10 per cent of global CO2 emissions.
One of the aims of NZCE was to unite a diffuse industry, and
with 700 signatories that goal has already been achieved. But this doesn’t change
the fact that signatories to the NCZE pledge have committed themselves to a project whose goals, at closer examination, look a little hazy.
I’ve written elsewhere
about the lack of demonstrable action more than three years into the scheme. Of the
hundred or so signatories who signed the pledge in 2021 only a handful produced
a roadmap by the end-of-2023 deadline. That might change now NZCE has promised
to remove from its website pledgees who fail to act. Or it might just result in
a mass culling.
But there is another, more pressing, question about NZCE,
which could leave it exposed to accusations of greenwashing. Those behind the
scheme trumpet the fact that it is ‘industry led’, but this is, potentially,
its weakest attribute. For ‘industry led’ could be seen as an industry
closing ranks, protecting its stakeholders, an industry deciding to mark its
own homework.
Without an independent review process, we must take it on
trust that a signatory is doing what they say they are doing and that their
actions are going to reduce carbon emissions. Even if a company fulfils its
pledge to ‘publish our metrics and progress every two years’ there appears
to be no third-party verification process to ensure the scientific validity of
what is being published.
There could be a way out of this cul-de-sac.
Race to Zero is a UN-backed scheme that seeks to add rigour
– and credibility - to sectoral or industry-wide initiatives like Net Zero
Carbon Events. Its science-based criteria for entry is tougher than NZCE,
requiring signatories to publish progress reports annually, and set robust near-term
targets to reduce emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 in line with the Paris
Agreement.
But arguably its best feature is the Expert Peer
Review Group (EPRG), which reviews Race to Zero Partner applications and
provides independent recommendations on whether initiatives meet the criteria for
participation. This group of experts – which includes scientists, academics, senior
project managers etc – works on a volunteer basis so there can be no conflict
of interest.
So how might NZCE align with Race to Zero? A source told me
it could be done in one of two ways. Either the individual signatures would
move from NZCE into the RTZ structure (one of the EPRG would check
their commitments annually and they would be ‘out of RTZ if they don’t stick to
them’). Or NZCE could apply to RTZ to become the ‘checking partner’. This would
mean NZCE would have to amend its criteria to match RTZ and it would have to
remove people if they did not meet the criteria. They would have to employ an
independent expert to verify the pathways produced by its members and they
would be checked by the EPRG on an annual basis to ensure the criteria are
applied in a consistent fashion.
It is likely such a move would reduce (perhaps greatly?) the
number of event-related organisations signed up to a net zero scheme. But it would
add credibility.
This is the kind of trade-off organisers of NZCE might have
to consider.
NZCE was approached for comment.
Send your thoughts to [email protected]
Written By
James Lancaster
AMI editor James
Lancaster is a familiar face in the meetings industry and international
association community. Since joining AMI in 2010, he has gained a reputation
for asking difficult questions and getting lost in convention centres. Proofer, podcaster, and panellist - in his spare time, James likes to walk,
read, listen to music, and drink beer.
