Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report

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

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 diversion 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 Michael Flynn
Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer
Opportunity Green Opportunity Green

2


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.

3


Targets and Achievements for 2011
2011 TARGET (for 2011 conference) ACHIEVED? COMMENTS
Reduce transportation carbon emissions yes Carbon emissions per participant were
per participant. down by 11% (see 5.5)

Offset 100% CO2 emissions from power yes Our total CO2 emissions in 2011 were 343
consumption 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, six
period 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 the
framework 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 OG's no A synchronization error in our data
green policy in attendee's 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


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

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

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
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.
7

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.

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 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

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

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 the
United Nations and CERES.

Review complete infographic here

11

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

Tableware
Repurpose, their zip code is 90014

12

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.

13

Sustainability Strategy 5.2: BUY RIGHT

Eventually, all our materials will come from
Reclaimed, Repurposed, or Reused sources

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
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.

14

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.

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

The Gift Bag – A Materials Breakdown*
(in pounds) PRODUCED
FROM RECYCLED
ITEM WEIGHT CONTENT # OF USES END-OF-LIFE
Shoulder Bag .17 100% Reusable 100% recyclable
Water bottle .08 0% Reusable 0% recyclable
Spiral notebook .39 10% Single-use 100% recyclable
Hydropack .21 0% Single-use 0% recyclable
Notepad w/ Post-its n/a 70% Single- use 100% recyclable
Notepad n/a 20% Single- use 100% recyclable
Pen w/ hangcard n/a 0% Single- use 5% recyclable
Marketing 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 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 post-
consumer 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

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.
(1)
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.

16

Sustainability Strategy 5.3: ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Measuring energy consumption
is trickier than you’d think

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

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.

17

Sustainability Strategy 5.4: WATER CONSUMPTION

Participants hydrated using filtered water
and reusable water bottles

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

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.

18

Sustainability Strategy 5.5: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Working to cut our GHG output

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)

19

So,

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
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 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 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.

21

Sustainability Strategy 5.6: TRAVEL INITIATIVES

On the road to reducing our footprint

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

Look familiar?
Good! That means you probably filled out a Travel Survey.
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 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 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.

23

Sustainability Strategy 5.7: RESOURCE RECOVERY

Bottle caps are recyclable too!

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 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 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)

Resource Recovery, like so many corporate sustainability strategies,
is a team-based activity.

24

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 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% 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

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.

26

Sustainability Strategy 5.8: ACCESS FOR ALL

Creating solutions, removing limits

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

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.

27

Sustainability Strategy 5.9: GOOD FOOD

Fresh food tastes best

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

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).

28

Sustainability Strategy 5.10: OG SPEAKS

We’re advocating for a healthier tomorrow

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

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

29

Sustainability Strategy 5.11: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Engaged stakeholders (like you)
are key to our success

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

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.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - PARTNERS
This strategy was resourced and implemented without the support of partners or sponsors.
30

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.

31

Sustainability Strategy 5.12: MANAGING OUR REPORTING PROCESS

The better your team, the better your report.

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

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.

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 Schick
Sonia Amin Kalgi Desai Cory Johnson Carlyn Mills Sarah Dale Schwald
David Aronovitch Lauren Deviney Kori Joneson Andrew Montalvo Paula Simmons
Janetta Arzu Nick Dietz Thomas Junker Daniel Moreno Jimmy Siu
Isha Awasthi Mickey Dogra Christopher Kai Fabian Munoz Grace Song
Kimberly Barry Peri Donch Helen Kang Darren Murtha Nate Springer
Nima Behravan Alexander Duong Sheena Katai Christofer Nelson Terri Starkman
Alyse Beni Brianna Duran Jackie Kerns Chandler Neville Melissa Steach
Sheela Bhongir Supun Edirisinghe Alice Kim Sarah Newell Roxanna Stroska
Szilard Bodi Kate Elgin Esther Kim Phuoc Nguyen Salima Surani
Marina Borges Oscar Enriquez Joakim Kistensen Blaine O'Neill Wayne Thai
Nahima Borque Chanel Espiritu Lisa Kotecki Harold Pan Chris Thompson
Alex Brachfeld Anat Fellner Kimberly Kruse Riya Parikh Trevor Thorpe
Steve Braden angelo ferradas Donna Kwok Nicole Parisi Tara Ting
JayeLin Broussard Malika Finister Yi Yin Lam Maggie Pena Shivira Tomar
Cristina Chang Heather Finnegan Mike Lebow Sarah Powell Dominick Trajano
Michael Asa Firestone Kevin Lee Claudia Prada Keyla Treitman
Chapdelaine Andrew Fish Alison Lerner Lindon Pronto Nora Vincent
Terry Chen Cathy Flannagan Joey Leung Mary Qin Cesar Viramontes
Ingrid Cheng Ben Forman Matt Li Jayonit Raheja Jenifer Watson
Doris Cheng Gabby Galiani Lydia Lim Shana Rapoport Linda Weng
Angel Chiang Sanjay Gupta Andrea Limones Ann Rebentisch Samantha Westall
Jee Woo Choi Sandra Hambric Kamesha Amber Richane Ari Williams
Jayhee Chung Jessica Heyman Longsworth Sean Robbins Ashley Wright
Susan Clark elizabeth hiroyasu Gomati Madaiah Paola Rodriguez Di Wu
Liz Clark Khathy Hoang Joanna Madrid Roberta Romero Caitlin Yagher
Cyrus Colette Khathy Hoang Kyleen Marcella Kelly Russo Kelly Yee
Dennis Cruz Emily Hoyt Julianne Marshall Karen Saeki Julia Yu
Annemarie Curiel Oliver Hsiao Erin Masuda Vi San Juan Taylor Zisfain
Reshama Damle Kelly Huang Tom McGrath Harini Sarangapani
Andre De Melo Laura Huntington Ana Mendoza Jessica Savio
Katie Decker Melanie Mendoza

33

OPPORTUNITY GREEN SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 2012
GRI CONTENT INDEX
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 Level

2.0 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 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.

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 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 PROCESS

6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

35

Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report

Similar to Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Opportunity Green 2012 Sustainability Report