Reducing food waste is by no means a new concept. Yet, many industry professionals who have interest in saving money while reducing the environmental impact of their events employ only a minimum of tactics to reduce food waste.

Every event is different and it’s difficult to identify a single list which applies to all. Still, we try. Here’s a hardly-exhaustive list of tactics planners might consider when creating an event which offers food and beverage:

The supplier: Caterer success has much to do with how effectively they eliminate waste. Established processes and team trainings can help. Effective purchasing and storage and rotation can all reduce food spoilage or breakage. Menu design, as well, can influence rates of waste. There are some software solutions that have proven helpful in some cases, such as LeanPath. Planners should ask prospective suppliers about their practices and how their practices can support the no waste agenda.

The venue: The type of venue selected may influence how effective is the support for food waste reduction. Hotels, because they serve many meals in many different outlets, can often re-allocate safe, un-served food completely. Ask. If the supplier advises that no waste is experienced, then this should inform the negotiation for how they’ll charge if the planner doesn’t meet the guaranteed number (savings opportunity). Exhibition halls often have no food and beverage service of their own and contract with local providers. They may have suggestions for who can perform best to help reduce food waste, so planners should ask.

The counts: Old news, perhaps but still a challenge. Many hotel venues require planners to commit to a number 72 hours in advance and then charge the planner that minimum, even if fewer people attend (see ‘venue’ above for the disconnect) Large events have benefitted from requiring delegates to indicate meals they’ll attend during the online registration process.

Donations: For the recent EWEC 2010 conference in Warsaw, planners worked hard to successfully overcome the barriers to donate food to the regional Food Bank. Concerns about food safety were mitigated with written agreements between parties and participation from Food Bank representatives whose equipment and on-site presence allowed them to immediately collect safe food product for same day distribution. Their efforts resulted in 2,900 meals being donated to a ready infrastructure in need, rather than discarding them as waste. Note: the Iceland volcano eruption caused attendance reductions and food count challenges the first few days of the conference, making the Food Bank initiative especially important in this case

Type of service: plated meals are more labor intensive and more costly but can mean less waste under most circumstances. Effectively monitored buffets can control waste but, in most cases, everything left on the table gets discarded. Bold suggestion: invite staff, volunteers and even visitors to grab a plate before the catering team clears the room. Box lunches are normally a big waste but sealed beverages, whole fruit and packaged snacks can all be re-used if not consumed, but only if they’re not left in a heap on top of the tables. Consider placing a separate receptacle for such re-usable items at the service location.

For planners that are looking for specific actions and practical steps to improve sustainable event performance, can the above actions be a place to start? Who knows? You might just help cool the planet.

What examples have you seen be effective? What are some solutions for different kinds of events?

Never heard of APEX/ASTM? You will.  By some accounts, the APEX standards are the answer meeting planners wanted before wandering down the path of BS8901. With its prescriptive, ‘checklist’ approach to defining what makes a green meeting, it aligns nicely with how many industry professionals work and measure performance.  Recently, Marlene Goldman of Meetings Media, posed a few questions for

a just released article The Green Standard? In the responses below, I provide some perspective on what APEX is all about.

The debut of the APEX standards is the highlight of the season!  Please attend the event in Vancouver, and make a point to participate in the APEX session.  Then come back and share some feedback regarding the experience.

As promised, the question and answer section of the program:

At what stage is the rollout of the APEX Standards for green/sustainable meetings?

After 2 years of planning, discussions, workgroup, region meetings and review by more than 200 industry volunteers and professional standards writers, the APEX standard is scheduled for release in the summer of 2010.

APEX standards for green/sustainable meetings, are in effect 9 standards covering 9 areas unique to the meetings industry

• Accommodations
• Audio/Visual and Production
• Communications & Marketing
• Destinations
• Exhibits
• Food & Beverage
• Meeting Venue
• On-Site Offices
• Transportation

Because each of the 9 areas have been subject to a separate committee of professionals and have different degrees of complexity, each section has taken a different amount of time to complete.  This highly complex process produced different formats which had to be unified and reviewed by technical writers for consistency before review by ASTM, the American Standards body.

How will the standards change and shape the green meetings industry?

Because the standards were written by a cross-disciplinary group of buyers and suppliers, and because they spell out specific actions/specific steps (as opposed to strategic philosophy), environmentally responsible actions become accessible.  APEX has the potential to activate players in the market who are not yet engaged.  Among the sparks which have led to the inception of the standards was a stated need by the EPA for a way to determine what travel-and-event-related products were environmentally responsible.  If there becomes a requirement for hotels, venues, caterers, etc to meet a minimum standard for green practices to win government contracts, it could have profound influence on the market.

How are they different/similar to the British standards and other green standards from other countries?

There are similarities amongst all the standards but APEX and BS8901 are markedly different in how they are formatted and what they require for compliance.  In simple terms, BS8901 is a way of working or a defined ‘process’. APEX is a specific checklist of tactics and expectations which define ‘what to do’.  In addition to the CSMP, the BS8901 presentation at this link explores the way the two standards are similar and different: http://www.slideshare.net/michaelluehrs

Are planners still eager for the standards? How about suppliers?

A select group of planners are very eager for the standards and for a clear way to identify suppliers who will support their agenda for creating sustainable events.  A larger, less engaged group of planners are not even aware that the standards are about to be released.  There remains a large gap between the industry players who are working to better integrate sustainability and those that perhaps are not interested in changing the way they currently do business.  Like television, which eventually offered buyers no option but color, APEX may have the effect of encouraging suppliers to adopt sustainable practices to the degree that, eventually, even without asking, planners will be organizing events which are by current thinking, ‘green’.

Will the added work that goes into creating an APEX standard meeting be a deterrent to planners?

For some, without question, yes.  For the resisters mentioned above and perhaps others, the time to get educated about the standards and the time to ensure compliance with the standard will likely be reason to defer their compliance.  The hope is that the market will reward those suppliers and planners who adopt the standard.  In time, the laggards will comply even though a time investment may be necessary.

How will the standards change how MCI produces a sustainable event?

The APEX standards, as well as BS8901/ISO 20121 and the Global Reporting Initiative meetings sector supplement, are all influencing how we evolve as a company on our quest for quality, of which sustainability is a cornerstone.  We currently use the standards to inform the Standard Operating Procedures for our project teams, and for the reports we issue our clients.  With guidance from the standards, and ongoing innovation, we will continue the pursuit of sustainable event management for each MCI project.

There’s something missing from the conversation, however. These observations of BP (and the many companies who are very glad they are not BP), don’t seem to make the link between company displays of sustainability and the utter lack of a corporate culture of sustainability in so many companies.  No community investment, eco-certification or annual report can replace a culture of sustainability which would have prevented the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the first place.

The recent intense focus on ‘the business case for sustainability’ retards, perhaps, business leadership (CEOs, COOs, CFOs) understanding and acceptance of the potential sustainability can have for a business.  Beyond the savings which result from eco-efficiency initiatives, beyond the increased stock value from consumers who trust the brand, beyond the practical benefits of recycling or supporting community, sustainability for business is more about philosophy and spirit that it is about any series of actions or stated commitments.

This philosophy of sustainability guides responsible actions and sparks innovation for better practices.  In a culture of sustainable business, certain decisions don’t get made because they violate the fundamental tenets on which the business-and the greater natural order– are based.  Reward systems are created to inspire greater commitment to the philosophy of balance and restoration than short term profit and exploitation.

Have you ever known (or been?) an absent parent or lover who substituted emotional investment with monetary investment?  The purchase of a new bicycle after a family argument, or the buying of flowers for the forgotten anniversary might serve as familiar examples.  But what would most people rather have?  Most would choose to have the heart, spirit and trust-affirming emotional presence of the loved one, rather than a material surrogate.

BP invested heavily in Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives. Yet, in spite of their focus on the Carbon Disclosure Project, or their annual reports compliant with Global Reporting Initiative criteria, or their contributions in support of communities struck by natural disaster they, like so many companies, missed the larger point.  It might be said that The Deepwater Horizon tragedy was the result of a lack of corporate culture—an emotional investment in sustainability as a core value and business philosophy and way of working that would have prevented the disaster in the first place.

· In spite of the recent economic downturn, an overwhelming majority of corporate CEOs – 93 percent – say that sustainability will be critical to the future success of their companies.

· Furthermore, CEOs believe that, within a decade, a tipping point could be reached that fully meshes sustainability with core business – its capabilities, processes and systems, and throughout global supply chains and subsidiaries.

According to the survey, A New Era of Sustainability: UN Global Compact-Accenture CEO Study 2010, the global economic downturn did little to dampen corporate commitment to sustainability. In fact it seems to have done the opposite: 80 percent of the CEOs say the downturn has raised the importance of sustainability. As businesses address the challenges of the financial crisis, sustainability is being recognized as a source of cost efficiencies and revenue growth.

The survey results indicate that businesses are taking sustainability more seriously. In a similar survey conducted in 2007, 50 percent of the CEO respondents said that sustainability issues had become part of their company’s strategy and operations. In the 2010 survey, that number jumped to 81 per cent.

Three corporate attributes – brand, trust and reputation – were by far the primary considerations CEOs cited for acting on sustainability. They were identified by 72 percent of the respondents as one of their biggest motivators, followed in descending order by: the potential for revenue growth and cost reduction (cited by 44 percent), personal motivation (42 percent), consumer and customer demand (39 percent) and employee engagement and retention (31 percent).

You can follow the UNGC Summit on Live Webcast: http://www.un.org/webcast/globalcompact/leaderssummit2010/

By participating at the summit Roger and I are coming to network with other members, seek opportunities for collaboration and to learn from other organizations best practices. As Roger said to me today, “I know sustainability is important, but we have to get much more knowledgeable about the subject and how we integrate it into MCIs future”

It’s great to see that real progress is being made globally, and that the movement toward a more sustainable economy and business context is clearly gaining momentum. Its even more rewarding to see that by integrating sustainability into our business strategy, MCI has developed the skills and content knowledge that can help organizations such as the Global Compact strategically improve in the deliver of their messaging, and their ability to engage and inspire their members to go the next level in developing value for their businesses.

You can follow the UNGC Summit on Live Webcast: http://www.un.org/webcast/globalcompact/leaderssummit2010/

The sustainability section makes for some good reading: You can read it here:

deloite_2015_sustainability.pdf

Meetings industry response to the interest in sustainability has been a rodeo of disconnected initiatives and convoluted standards.  The ‘how’, so often, is coded in dense ‘whitepapers’ or a wearying array of nuance related to carbon responsibility (VERs, CERs, CDM, etc).

With the possible exception of the emerging APEX standards , these documents are often a tangle of stilted language and complex processes.  During the resulting training sessions about these standards, the response so often is more “What what that again’” rather than “I can hardly wait to put these standards to use!”

During an enlightening conversation with Joe Oliver he touched on something rather important.  “Make the information accessible for the user”.  What a concept.  Can it be that part of the meetings industry challenge to act on BS89o1 is because we’ve not made it accessible?

There are many examples of new, complex concepts which have not been saddled with the same barriers to acceptance sustainability standards have faced.  How about automobiles?  The makers of the car didn’t start with showing potential drivers the electrical system and combustion theory.  The user was, instead, inspired by the thought of speed, status, efficiency.  Sure, they had to learn to drive, but this was a minor inconvenience. Sustainability for the meetings industry, if it is to become mainstream, needs different messaging.  Sustainability made simple? Consider this brilliant example from RealEyes:

We’ll be hard at work to make messages more accessible, more relevant for users with the hope of accelerating needed change.  Help us get there with your ideas and communication innovations!

Today, in corporate reporting circles, such an approach is called “Transparency” and it occurred to me as I read this article shared by MeetGreen’s twitter feed.  The rest of this post will make more sense of you read the actual article, but at issue is a hotel who earned uncomfortable attention for their ‘green’ initiative to reduce the total guest rooms cleaned each day, thereby ostensibly reducing the energy and water required to support the cleaning.  This initiative has also had the effect of reducing the weekly earning of the housekeeping team, which is where the drama begins.

I feel this train wreck can be a nice example for how organizations often get sustainable business wrong

(in no particular order)

• Stakeholder Engagement. (on a limb here) The organization likely did not engage affected audiences before rolling out the program.  By not providing some background and/or getting their ownership (or at least a notice), they more readily open themselves up to employee backlash.  Perhaps theirs is not a culture where such a discussion/presentation would have been deemed welcome but, as has been proven elsewhere,  employee groups more easily support tough or smart business decisions when they understand the bigger picture or feel a part of the process
• Lack of transparency:  Consumers are more educated/more jaded than ever and when a plan like this gets communicated as being all about the environment it is, to many, offensive.  Is it an important and creative method to partner with customers to reduce costs for mutual benefit? Say that.  Let it be ok that it’s a smart business move which has measurable benefit to eco-efficiency goals if that’s the case.  The biggest benefit to the property, one might gather, is the reduced labor cost.   How that pencils with the reduced room rate would take some study, but it appears to be a successful program to reduce costs.  Why not let that be part of what is measured and reported?  Transparent reporting/communication would have helped to build trust and might even have made this article read differently
• Green. This article raises social responsibility issues which cannot be addressed through the green lens alone.  Businesses which successfully integrate a balanced approach to sustainability, with a measured eye on social and economic indicators as well as those of eco-efficiency, will sooner prosper with a healthy corporate culture in tact.

Many guests are comfortable with the idea of going without getting their sheets and towels changed everyday and might well appreciate a reduced rate as their part of the deal.  Initiatives like these are example of the sort of innovations which bring needed improvement to reducing our impacts on our natural resources.  It’s important that, in pursuit of such initiatives, organizations have clear plans based on triple bottom line considerations, including social elements of the business, and provide transparent reporting on the results of their decisions.  Call a spade a spade and avoid messes like these.