Was it asking too much to get the meetings and events industry to wipe out its carbon emissions by relying on good faith, some supporting literature, and the occasional hard stare? I fear that - without a decisive change in tack - the architects of Net Zero Carbon
Events (NZCE) will discover that it was.
Launched three years ago at COP26, in Glasgow, NZCE emerged from
an organising task force led by the Joint Meetings Industry Council with the aim
of ‘addressing climate change’ and ‘connecting the events industry to the
rapidly growing movement towards net zero by 2050’.
From the start, organisers were cautious not to set the bar
too high or to appear too rigid in their approach. Instead, to win the support of a
hugely diverse sector scattered all over the world, they chose an inclusive - arguably
‘soft touch’ - modus operandi over something more demanding.
It was an approach that worked spectacularly well.
Today around 700 organisations have signed the NZCE pledge -
ranging from academic venue finders to brand experience designers, major hotel groups
to industry associations, convention bureaux to exhibition operators. Every constituent
part of this sprawling industry has signed up to NZCE in some capacity and - praise
where it’s due - that is no small achievement.
But could this be where everything begins to unravel?
In signing the pledge, organisations have committed
to producing their own roadmap (or pathway) to net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050,
with an interim target to
reduce emissions by 50 per cent by 2030. They have also committed to ‘measure
and track’ their Scope 1, 2 and 3 GHG emissions and, crucially, report on their
progress every two years.
But what are those commitments worth?
Of the original 200+ signatories who signed the pledge soon after its launch in
2021, only a ‘handful’ have produced a pathway so
far, the vast majority having missed the end-of-2023 deadline. While some have said theirs will be
published imminently, from everyone else ... zilch.
More recent signatories have been given until the end of 2024 to come up with the goods. But the question remains
the same: what happens if they don’t?
It looks like they could be saved by something of a fudge.
NZCE says that 'more than 100' of the original signatories have fulfilled their commitment to 'report on their progress', (even if for most of them 'progress' didn't involve producing a pathway, one of the key requirements of the pledge).
It has also confirmed that, 'the names of those who fail to report every two years taking tangible actions to reduce their emissions will be removed from the list of signatories on the website'. This is something, at least, the first sign that NZCE is willing to ratchet up the pressure on signatories.
But 'tangible actions to reduce emissions' could simply mean turning the central heating down a notch. And while every little helps, what we really need to see are organisations coming good on their commitments by producing credible pathways to net zero - and then reporting on those.
Critics of NZCE have long pointed to its lack of rigour, claiming
the absence of clear penalties for signatories who fail to act make the
pledge itself meaningless. And they have questioned why NZCE was not linked to existing UN-backed and science-aligned frameworks like Race to Zero.
NZCE says it was responding to industry calls for action on
climate change and that its main aim was to provide a framework for the events eco-system
to get behind. It was trying to produce something that could be useful to a
multi-million-dollar enterprise and a two-person start-up.
But while it is probably true that NZCE would have failed to garner
the same level of cross-industry support had it taken a more rigid approach, there
comes a point when that support must translate into something more substantive.
The seriousness of the crisis demands action.
The amount of work involved in producing a robust roadmap
has no doubt taken some by surprise – even well-resourced organisations
have struggled to meet the deadline. So a little bit of wriggle room now might be desirable to keep
as many people onboard as possible.
But looking ahead, the answer must surely
involve building into NZCE a mechanism that recognises those who make good on
their commitment to produce a pathway – and, ultimately, expels those who don’t. Without that, it will be impossible to measure the progress the industry is making
toward net zero and, despite its best intentions, NZCE could simple fizzle
out.
____________________________
Disclosure: the author previously had an advisory role on the NZCE
communications committee.
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.
