1

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

2

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

3

1.2 STRATEGY AND ANALYSIS

Opportunity Green’s Sustainability Strategy

Opportunity Green’s ambition is to help companies innovate and become more sustainable,

reduce their risk, improve their image and competitiveness, motivate their employees, reduce their

costs, and increase their profitability. We support the commitment of forward-thinking executives,

managers and professionals who are actively moving their businesses towards the lofty goal of

leaving the world in a better place than they found it.

Our goal is to be a thought-leader in the Events Industry. From a sustainability perspective,

this means reducing our environmental footprint in both a meaningful and transparent manner. In

order to achieve this goal, we implemented a sustainability program in 2009. This program looks

for waste-to-value opportunities in the operations at our venue, participant transportation, energy,

water and waste management, catering and accommodation and stakeholder engagement.

Achieving this goal in the long-term means several things: 1) maintaining the economic

sustainability of our business, 2) raising the bar for what sustainability means in the context of our

organization and our industry and re-setting internal accordingly, and 3) holding ourselves, our

vendors, and our partners to those standards. Item 3 is particularly challenging for an events

company, as those partnerships are a key source of our revenue, but we feel that collaborating

with a partner who is not values-aligned is a bigger risk for us than not closing or losing a deal or

two. We manage partnership risk by reviewing their policies and sustainability reporting before

committing to the partnership agreement. Because The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is an

internationally-recognized sustainability reporting framework, and favors transparency over

compliance, we view prospective partners who are reporting under GRI on one- or two-year

reporting cycles pose the lowest risk.

In the medium-term (3-5 years), we will 1) continue reporting on a one-year cycle using the

GRI framework, 2) consider adopting GRI’s Events Sector Supplement into our implementation and

reporting processes beginning with our 2013 report 3) review and revise our own policies around

environmental impact, purchasing, staff development and the influence of our public policy

efforts, and 4) develop and implement strategies to grow our bottom line.

Our sustainability program has established a basic pattern of design-implement-scale each

new strategy from one year to the next. We scaled up considerably from the 2010 conference to

2011 (reported in 2011 and 2012 respectively), so in the short term (2012 - 2013) our strategic

focus will be on refining the strategies already in place.

We are excited to see how GRI’s Events Sector Supplement will influence sustainability

activity in the Events Industry and look forward to maintaining our leadership position.

4

1.3 STRATEGY AND ANALYSIS

Targets and Achievements for 2011

2011 TARGET (for 2011 conference) ACHIEVED? COMMENTS

Reduce transportation carbon emissions

per participant.

yes Carbon emissions per participant were

down by 11% (see 5.5)

Offset 100% CO2 emissions from power

consumption and attendees' travel

yes Our total CO2 emissions in 2011 were 343

US tons or 311 metric tonnes (see 5.5)

Reach 85% diversion rate during a 2 week

period

yes We achieved a 91% diversion rate, six

points higher than our target, even while

expanding our time boundary (see 5.2)

Reduce paper consumption per participant

yes We reduced paper consumption by 25.5%

per participant (see 5.2)

Publish a sustainability report using GRI

framework by 2/29/12

no This has been a target timeframe for the

release of our report for the last three

years. Each year we come closer to

achieving it! (see 5.12)

Get at least 80% satisfaction with OG's

green policy in attendee's quality survey

no A synchronization error in our data

collection process prevented us from

collecting this data (see 5.11)

Additionally, our report is the first to be issued by company in the Events Sector under the GRI framework

to be externally assured.

5

1.4 STRATEGY AND ANALYSIS

Application Level Self-Declaration

We are reporting at Application Level C+.

We are reporting on 12 Performance Indicators.

External assurance provided by The ISOS Group.

External Assurance Statement for this report

6

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

7

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.

8

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.

9

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

10

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.

11

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

12

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

13

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.

14

Sustainability Strategy 5.2: BUY RIGHT

Eventually, all our materials will come from

Reclaimed, Repurposed, or Reused sources

GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED

EN1 - Materials used by weight or volume

EN2 - Percentage of materials used that are recycled input materials

BUY RIGHT - METHODOLOGY

Given our limited resources, and with such a variety of materials moving through the conference in

such a short time-frame, we had to carefully select the materials reviewed in this strategy. We set two

types as high-priority: paper and tableware, and two at a lower priority: cleaning materials and the

contents of our gift bag.

GRI Boundaries

Geographic: Los Angeles Center Studios

Time: Both days of the 2011 conference

BUY RIGHT – ANALYSIS

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.

15

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

PA

PER

Paper types measured (for comparability):

2011: Program booklets, thank you cards & envelopes, postcards, press kits w/ folders

2010: Program booklets w/ map inserts, posters, postcards, press kits w/ folders

Total paper weight consumed per participant

2011 = .33 pounds

2010 = .44 pounds

TA

BLEW

AR

E

Tableware types measured in 2011:

Cups, plates, bowls, napkins, stir sticks, forks, knives, spoons

Total tableware sourced in 2011: 32,700 units

Percentage of tableware that was compostable: 94% (estimate)

Percentage of tableware that was recyclable: 3% (estimate)

Percentage of tableware that went to landfill: 3% (estimate)

CLEA

NIN

G

Green (1)

Multi-Surface Cleaner Peroxide Green by Royal Corporation.

Eco Blue Booster by EcoBlue

Eco Blue Cube by EcoBlue

Microfiber Mop and Microfiber Pad by Rubbermaid

Non- Green

NABC Non-Acid Disinfectant Bathroom Cleaner by Spartan Chemical Company.

Best Bet Liquid Creme Cleanser by Betco Corporation

All Might Degreaser by Royal Corporation

Plus 5 Carpet Shampoo by Spartan Chemical Company

‘Weighing’ the impacts of our gift bag.

16

The Gift Bag – A Materials Breakdown*

ITEM

Shoulder Bag

Water bottle

Spiral notebook

Hydropack

Notepad w/ Post-its

Notepad

Pen w/ hangcard

Marketing Collateral

TOTAL

(in pounds)

WEIGHT

.17

.08

.39

.21

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1.91

PRODUCED

FROM RECYCLED

CONTENT

100%

0%

10%

0%

70%

20%

0%

~15%

26.8%

# OF USES

Reusable

Reusable

Single-use

Single-use

Single- use

Single- use

Single- use

Single- use

END-OF-LIFE

100% recyclable

0% recyclable

100% recyclable

0% recyclable

100% recyclable

100% recyclable

5% recyclable

100% recyclable

* 2012 was a benchmarking year for our gift bags, so no year-to-year comparisons can be

made

BUY RIGHT - PARTNERS

CHICO BAG DOMTAR VAPUR EASTMAN

REPURPOSE ECOPRODUCTS PRESERVE TENDER GREENS CALAMIGOS RANCH

BUY RIGHT – LESSONS LEARNED

Our game-plan for this strategy was good, but production was so last-minute that some things fell

through the cracks. Ex: postcard stock was coated and some paper in the program didn't entirely follow

our spec. We opted to not re-print, for obvious reasons.

After the conference we did not manage to gather all of the data concerning unit weight for each

type of tableware. This information would have allowed us calculate the total weight per type and provide

a deeper analysis. This will also make comparability in next year’s report slightly less relevant, but in the

big picture it’s only a small mistake.

BUY RIGHT – WHAT WENT WELL

Fun fact – Chico Bags sources their recycled yarn from a company that puts a tiny marker in the

fabric itself during the yarn production process, and this allows third-party verifiers to identify it as 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.

17

Sustainability Strategy 5.3: ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Measuring energy consumption

is trickier than you’d think

GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED

EN3 - Direct energy consumption by primary source

ENERGY CONSUMPTION - METHODOLOGY

Native Energy handled this calculation for our team. Their formula is based on an estimated

average consumption per square foot, per day (equal to .02 kilowatt hours (kWh)).

Implementing this strategy has been a particularly vexing one for us. On the surface it seems so

simple - read the meters before the conference and again after the conference, and subtract to calculate

our consumption. But due to a general lack of sub-metering inside of our venues, various security issues

related to accessing electrical meters, and the unique electricity co-generation system at our original

venue (UCLA), we’ve decided to accept that fact that this is simply a much more difficult question to

answer than we originally thought.

GRI Boundaries

Geographic: Los Angeles Center Studios

Time: Both days of the 2011 conference

ENERGY CONSUMPTION - ANALYSIS

Because this was a benchmarking year we didn’t come into the conference with any goals or

targets around energy consumption.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION - RESULTS

Our total estimated electricity consumption for the 2011 conference was 1,572 kWh, or 1.97 kWh

per participant, with a footprint of 39,300 square feet, the event running two days.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION - PARTNERS

NATIVE ENERGY LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOS

ENERGY CONSUMPTION - WHAT WENT WELL

In spite of last minute snafus we successfully benchmarked our energy consumption this year.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION - LESSONS LEARNED

We learned, once again, that even capable and well-intentioned people don’t always do what they

say they will. The Data Manager for this strategy disappeared after the conference without so much as a

‘fare-thee-well’, taking key data with him, making a complicated process more difficult. In an effort to

prevent this happening in the future, we’ll be asking our Data Managers to enter into formal agreements

with Opportunity Green.

18

Sustainability Strategy 5.4: WATER CONSUMPTION

Participants hydrated using filtered water

and reusable water bottles

GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED

EN8 - Total water withdrawal by source

WATER CONSUMPTION - METHODOLOGY

We looked at three inputs and outputs – toilets, faucets, and urinals - to measure water

consumption at the 2011 conference. First, we collected gallons-per-use data for each source (A in the

formula below) from three sources(2)

. Then we collected average usage data*

(B in the formula below). We

made our final calculation, thus:

(A * B) * total number of participants = total gallons withdrawn.

In 2011 no on-site water was used for cooking (all food was prepared off-site) or washing dishes

(nearly all dishes used at the conference were compostable). And for simplicity’s sake, we ignored

ongoing on-site activities that consume water, such as watering and maintenance. We did not measure

water drunk by participants at refilling stations or coffee booths.

(2)

Water consumption reference sources:

CSG network (Desert Water Agency)

St Johns River Water Management District

AWWA Residential End Uses of Water (p. 94)

GRI Boundaries

Geographic: Los Angeles Center Studios

Time: Both days of the 2011 conference

WATER CONSUMPTION - ANALYSIS

Because we have no practical ability to reduce water consumption, we don’t set any goals for this

strategy. Because our measurement process has been so inaccurate, we consider 2011 to be our

benchmarking year, even though we’ve been measuring water consumption since 2009.

WATER CONSUMPTION - RESULTS

Our total estimated water consumption for 2011 was 1,116.5 cubic feet, or slightly more than

10.3 gallons per participant.

Comparability – Our water consumption was apparently down 44% in 2011 compared with 2010.

However, when executing this strategy in 2009 and 2010 we ran into limits and complications stemming

from using metered data rather than the more analysis-intensive approach we took in 2011. This in turn

skewed our data, so while we’ve reported for three years, comparability is minimal. We consider the 2011

conference to be our benchmark.

WATER CONSUMPTION - PARTNERS

VAPUR EVERPURE/PENTAIR

WATER CONSUMPTION - WHAT WENT WELL

At the suggestion of our new Sustainability Director the data collection process for this strategy

was made much simpler in 2011. It was nice to finally see this strategy go off without a hitch.

19

Sustainability Strategy 5.5: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Working to cut our GHG output

GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED

EN16 - Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight

GREENHOUSE GASES - METHODOLOGY

The GHG Protocol defines ‘direct emissions’ as “emissions from sources that are owned or

controlled by the reporting entity.” While Opportunity Green the entity produces very few direct emissions

itself, a significant portion of the emissions we report here come from the trips that our participants make

to and from the conference.

The calculation we use to quantify our emissions has three primary variables: our estimated or

Scope 1 emissions (S1), our estimated Scope 2 emissions (S2), and the CO2

e 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)

20

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

21

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.

22

Sustainability Strategy 5.6: TRAVEL INITIATIVES

On the road to reducing our footprint

GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED

EN18 - Strategies to reduce greenhouse gases

TRAVEL INITIATIVES - METHODOLOGY

Given that most of our carbon footprint comes from participant travel, from the beginning we’ve

seen this as the most important strategic element of our program. While reviewing stakeholder feedback

from the 2010 conference we found strong language about how poorly we execution on our intentions.

Stakeholders criticized as being “inauthentic” and “under-resourcing a slam-dunk”.

In 2010 we launched an online survey designed to capture our attendee’s travel data, in order to

calculate our carbon footprint. But the user-flow wasn’t clear and many respondents commented that they

were unable to specify the alternate forms of transportation they actually took.

We took this criticism to heart, and in 2011 we allocated more resources to this particular

strategy. Making sure every participant was informed about low-carbon transit modes to and from the

conference became a priority. We considered many approaches, and the actions we took included:

Improving the content of our transit options web page with:

o Green personal transit options, i.e. hybrid and CNG taxis and shuttles

o Listing public transportation options available in downtown LA to/from the conference and

LAX to attendees

o Ride-sharing information

Providing 15 spaces priority parking spaces to ridesharers

Providing dedicated, on-site bike racks to encourage biking

Offering 5 priority parking spaces to disabled individuals

Creating a transportation booth on site to:

o Conduct our travel survey

o Encourage greater use of transit options and assist with further questions

GRI Boundaries

Geographic: Los Angeles Center Studios

Time: Both days of the 2011 conference

Look familiar?

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

23

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.

24

Sustainability Strategy 5.7: RESOURCE RECOVERY

Bottle caps are recyclable too!

GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED

EN22 - Total weight of waste by type and disposal method

RESOURCE RECOVERY - METHODOLOGY

Our waste is sorted by four types, based on where it ends up: recyclable, compostable, liquid,

landfill. We separate liquids so that we can bin our paper along with our bottles and cans (wet paper

cannot be recycled). The liquid we diverted represents an additional 375 pounds (42.25 gallons) of

“saved” weight, which otherwise would have been included in our recycling, composting and landfill

figures, and that would have skewed our data.

Our Bin partner provided the dedicated bins at resource recovery stations. Our Hauling partners

provide dedicated dumpsters, and weigh the bins after conference, reporting those weights to us.

Our 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.

25

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.

The Tornado was composted after the conference

Material Recovery Method

Weight (pounds)

Organics (fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy, bread, food-soiled paper, compostable plates, cups and table ware)

Composted 1,560

Mixed paper Recycled 1,200

Other mixed recyclables (cans, bottles, plastic) Recycled 350

Total Recovered 3,110

Garbage (e.g., floor and street sweepings, Styrofoam, other non-recyclable packaging)

Landfilled 300

Total Produced 3,410

Total Recovered 3,110

Recovery Rate 91%

26

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.

27

Sustainability Strategy 5.8: ACCESS FOR ALL

Creating solutions, removing limits

GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED

EO6 - Type and impacts of initiatives to create an accessible environment (Event Organizers Sector

Supplement)

ACCESS FOR ALL - METHODOLOGY

One of Opportunity Green‘s 2011 targets was to make the conference entirely accessible to

disabled people.

To achieve this goal, we:

Reserved five priority parking spaces for disabled attendees.

Identified needs of additional access ramps and worked with Production Team to build a few. As

our main stage moved last minute (see below), we eventually did not need to add temporary

access ramps.

Mapped the venue to indicate appropriate access

Dedicated one volunteer to each disabled person to help him/her while at the conference.

GRI Boundaries

Geographic: Los Angeles Center Studios

Time: Both days of the 2011 conference

ACCESS FOR ALL - ANALYSIS

2011 was a benchmarking year for this strategy.

ACCESS FOR ALL - RESULTS

In 2011, zero attendees were wheelchair users. Because of this we were unable to determine if the

measures we implemented were really effective. Despite this fact we are stating that we achieved our

target and successfully create an accessible environment.

ACCESS FOR ALL - PARTNERS

LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOS

ACCESS FOR ALL - WHAT WENT WELL

Our venue is already very accessible to disabled people, making it easier for us to achieve our

target. We needed only to make sure that all the temporary spaces we created (booths, lunch area,

stages…) were also accessible.

ACCESS FOR ALL - LESSONS LEARNED

A few weeks before the conference we relocated our main stage from a large tent next to the other

conference’s spaces to one of LACS’ permanent stages, located uphill and a fair distance from the rest of

the conference.

After we made sure that this stage was actually accessible to disabled people, we dedicated one

volunteer to support each disabled person attending the conference.

28

Sustainability Strategy 5.9: GOOD FOOD

Fresh food tastes best

GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED

EO8 – Percentage of and access to food and beverage that meets the organizer’s policies or local,

national or international standards.

GOOD FOOD - METHODOLOGY

We collected the data for this indicator by reviewing the invoices for each catering vendor and then

their purchasing policy, when possible. Then, we multiplied the dollar amount spent on each vendor’s by

their stated percentage of local purchasing, and added those ratios together. In cases where we were

unable to determine a local purchasing percentage we assigned that vendor a score of ‘0% Local

Purchasing’.

In 2011, our Good Food focus was on our catering operations. Opportunity Green is committed to

providing healthy food from sustainable sources, including:

Avoiding foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar.

Requesting seasonal, fresh foods

Looking for organic and fair-trade practices

Favoring vegetarian or vegan food

Favoring vendors that purchase in bulk

Banning beef and veal

Using the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Card to choose fish from sustainably

managed sources and avoid selecting endangered fish species.

GRI Boundaries

Geographic: 200 mile radius of Los Angeles Center Studios

Time: Both days of the 2011 conference

GOOD FOOD - ANALYSIS

This indicator was a new one for us in 2011, so we consider this to be a benchmarking year.

GOOD FOOD - RESULTS

Based on a qualitative review of our catering invoices for the 2011conference, we estimate that

60% of the food served was grown within 200 miles of our conference.

GOOD FOOD - PARTNERS

This strategy was resourced and implemented without the support of partners or sponsors.

GOOD FOOD - WHAT WE’LL DO DIFFERENTLY NEXT TIME

The policy that directly impacts our data collection methodology for this strategy was

implemented just before the conference itself. Because of the timelines involved, our data collection for

this indicator was quite shallow. The name of this policy is “Buy Right” and it directly influences one other

GRI Performance Indicator EC6 contained in this report (see Strategy 5.1: Local Purchasing).

29

Sustainability Strategy 5.10: OG SPEAKS

We’re advocating for a healthier tomorrow

GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED

SO5 - Public policy positions and participation in public policy development and lobbying

OG SPEAKS - METHODOLOGY

In 2011 we set a formal policy that describes how our organization engages in public policy

discourse, and outlines our approach to deciding what we support.

GRI Boundaries

Geographic: United States of America

Time: January 1, 2011 thru December 31, 2011 (Fiscal Year)

OG SPEAKS - ANALYSIS

This is the first year that we’ve taken an active role as policy advocates.

OG SPEAKS - RESULTS

Our CEO Karen Solomon and our Executive Strategist Sherry Simpson-Dean are both members of

the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

While serving as Co-Chair of the LA Chamber's Environmental Energy & Sustainability Policy

Committee, Karen Solomon's priorities included:

Reinitiate the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program

Support the Better Buildings & Race to Green Initiatives

Establish Incentives for Clean Construction Equipment in Los Angeles

Sherry Simpson-Dean led Opportunity Green’s participation in 2011 ACCESS Washington, a

delegation comprised of over 200 Southern California business Leaders, lawyers and elected officials,

where we participated in a number of policy discussions and briefings on issues of energy and

environment with some of our nation's leaders:

Bill Daley, White House Chief of Staff

Steven Chu, U.S. Secretary of Energy

Austan Goolsbee, Chair of White House Council of Economic Advisors

Lisa Jackson, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator

Nancy Sutley, Chair of White House Council of Environmental Quality

Gen. James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, US Senators from California.

Talking points included:

Support of the President’s proposal to create new tax incentives and financing opportunities for

energy efficiency investments.

Rising energy prices and the need for capital investments to spur economic recovery makes this

the perfect time for a sustained commitment to helping building owners invest in retrofits and new

equipment.

Asking about the commitment to enacting these proposal and opportunities for more bipartisan

collaboration

OG SPEAKS - PARTNERS

Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

30

Sustainability Strategy 5.11: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Engaged stakeholders (like you)

are key to our success

GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED

PR5 - Practices related to customer satisfaction, including results of surveys measuring customer

satisfaction

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - METHODOLOGIES

STAKEHOLDER SURVEY: Opportunity Green sends an annual post-conference survey to get

stakeholder feedback on topics such as quality of presentations, sustainability operations, and

recommendations for improvement. The responses help us identify where and how we can improve the

conference, topics to program for the following year, and the success of non-presentation events during

the conference.

SIGNAGE: This year, for the first time, we were able to develop and publish signage that

specifically described some of our sustainability strategies. Our team produced nine signs in all.

TRAVEL SURVEY: see 5.6

G-TEAM: We developed a crash course on our sustainability program for our G-team members so

that they would understand our targets, methods, understand the basics of GRI, and be able to effectively

engage attendees.

GRI Boundaries

Geographic: Los Angeles Center Studios

Time: January 1, 2011 thru December 31, 2011 (Fiscal Year)

Resource Recovery is one of our most powerful on-site stakeholder engagement tools.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - ANALYSIS

The G-team is pleased to report that, based on the post-conference satisfaction survey, our efforts

at reducing the conference’s environmental impacts are rated very highly by attendees.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - RESULTS

The only quantifiable results for this strategy come from the two surveys we run:

34% of participants responded to the post-conference survey.

33% of participants responded to our on-site Attendee Travel survey, see 5.6

More than 80% of attendees gave our team a ‘Very’ or ’Somewhat Satisfied’ and less than .5%

voicing any dissatisfaction about our program.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - PARTNERS

This strategy was resourced and implemented without the support of partners or sponsors.

31

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.

32

Sustainability Strategy 5.12: MANAGING OUR REPORTING PROCESS

The better your team, the better your report.

GRI PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INFORMED

None, directly. All, indirectly.

MANAGING OUR REPORTING PROCESS - METHODOLOGY

Our 2011 program kicked in to high-gear earlier than usual when Jeff Hayes, our former

Sustainability Director, was replaced by Natacha Arnaud-Battandier in May. Jeff stayed on, serving as

Integrated Reporting Manager while supporting Natacha as she took on the task of scaling up our

program (she added four strategies in 2011), training her managers and support staff, and getting up to

speed regarding GRI.

With so many complex challenges inherent in putting on a conference of this size, we’ve

experienced some frustrating ‘disconnects’ between our Sustainability team and the other teams. In 2012

we want to involve the operational teams and top management in our program and goals earlier in the

cycle than we’ve been able to previously.

Our G-team trains more than 100 people each year, and many if not most of those are first-time

volunteers. Our team’s hierarchy looks like this:

Executive Team Technical and Creative Advisors

Director of Operations

Sustainability Director

Integrated Reporting Manager

Data Managers Report Layout Design

Day-of-Conference Team Members

GRI Boundaries

Geographic: None

Time: None

MANAGING OUR REPORTING PROCESS - ANALYSIS

This is the fourth year that we’ve run a formal sustainability program, and it’s the first year that

we’ve strictly followed the GRI reporting framework. We’re pleased that a trusted partner has run external

assurance on this report.

This year, Opportunity Green executives quadrupled the resources allocated to our Sustainability

Program, which the G-team used to enhance existing sustainability strategies, develop new strategies, and

train our staff.

MANAGING OUR REPORTING PROCESS - RESULTS

2011 stands as our team’s most effective execution and implementation of our sustainability

program to date.

MANAGING OUR REPORTING PROCESS - PARTNERS

ISOS Group

33

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

Steve Carroll

Rachelle Caterson

Fuyuan Chang

Jean Cheng

Clint Crowell

Dylan Gasperik

Vedad Hasanovic

Tom Igner

Josh Lazarus

Joey Mendelsohn

Easther Mulipola

Charleen Mulipola

Tanya Nelson

Cera Oh

PROJECT

Director of Operations:

Sustainability Director:

Integrated Reporting Manager:

Report Layout & Design:

Administrative Support:

Green Team Leads:

Greening Advisor:

MANAGEMENT

Kevin Lew

Natacha Arnaud-Battandier

Jeff Hayes

Jeff Hayes

Suzi Clark

Natalie Howard

Clayton Du

Joan Burns

Anita Yu

Rachel Winokur

Sean In

Andrea Robinson

WITH SPECIAL THANKS TO…

Dennis Ahn

Sonia Amin

David Aronovitch

Janetta Arzu

Isha Awasthi

Kimberly Barry

Nima Behravan

Alyse Beni

Sheela Bhongir

Szilard Bodi

Marina Borges

Nahima Borque

Alex Brachfeld

Steve Braden

JayeLin Broussard

Cristina Chang

Michael

Chapdelaine

Terry Chen

Ingrid Cheng

Doris Cheng

Angel Chiang

Jee Woo Choi

Jayhee Chung

Susan Clark

Liz Clark

Cyrus Colette

Dennis Cruz

Annemarie Curiel

Reshama Damle

Andre De Melo

Katie Decker

Hailey Denenberg

Kalgi Desai

Lauren Deviney

Nick Dietz

Mickey Dogra

Peri Donch

Alexander Duong

Brianna Duran

Supun Edirisinghe

Kate Elgin

Oscar Enriquez

Chanel Espiritu

Anat Fellner

angelo ferradas

Malika Finister

Heather Finnegan

Asa Firestone

Andrew Fish

Cathy Flannagan

Ben Forman

Gabby Galiani

Sanjay Gupta

Sandra Hambric

Jessica Heyman

elizabeth hiroyasu

Khathy Hoang

Khathy Hoang

Emily Hoyt

Oliver Hsiao

Kelly Huang

Laura Huntington

Jonathan Igner

Cory Johnson

Kori Joneson

Thomas Junker

Christopher Kai

Helen Kang

Sheena Katai

Jackie Kerns

Alice Kim

Esther Kim

Joakim Kistensen

Lisa Kotecki

Kimberly Kruse

Donna Kwok

Yi Yin Lam

Mike Lebow

Kevin Lee

Alison Lerner

Joey Leung

Matt Li

Lydia Lim

Andrea Limones

Kamesha

Longsworth

Gomati Madaiah

Joanna Madrid

Kyleen Marcella

Julianne Marshall

Erin Masuda

Tom McGrath

Ana Mendoza

Melanie Mendoza

Brendan Miller

Carlyn Mills

Andrew Montalvo

Daniel Moreno

Fabian Munoz

Darren Murtha

Christofer Nelson

Chandler Neville

Sarah Newell

Phuoc Nguyen

Blaine O'Neill

Harold Pan

Riya Parikh

Nicole Parisi

Maggie Pena

Sarah Powell

Claudia Prada

Lindon Pronto

Mary Qin

Jayonit Raheja

Shana Rapoport

Ann Rebentisch

Amber Richane

Sean Robbins

Paola Rodriguez

Roberta Romero

Kelly Russo

Karen Saeki

Vi San Juan

Harini Sarangapani

Jessica Savio

Susana Schick

Sarah Dale Schwald

Paula Simmons

Jimmy Siu

Grace Song

Nate Springer

Terri Starkman

Melissa Steach

Roxanna Stroska

Salima Surani

Wayne Thai

Chris Thompson

Trevor Thorpe

Tara Ting

Shivira Tomar

Dominick Trajano

Keyla Treitman

Nora Vincent

Cesar Viramontes

Jenifer Watson

Linda Weng

Samantha Westall

Ari Williams

Ashley Wright

Di Wu

Caitlin Yagher

Kelly Yee

Julia Yu

Taylor Zisfain

34

OPPORTUNITY GREEN SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 2012

GRI CONTENT INDEX

1.0 STRATEGY AND ANALYSIS

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.

35

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