Umweltzeichen Tischfahne

Green Event vs. Standard - A comparison

Sustainable events are a trend - but what impact do the measures taken in the run-up to a Green Event have afterwards? A recent analysis compares a Green Meeting with a conventional meeting under similar conditions and provides some exciting findings!

Greenhouse gas emissions from visitor mobility

One aspect analysed was the mobility of participants. The analysis showed that significantly more people travelled to the certified event by train, while the proportion of people travelling by car was higher at the non-certified event. This resulted in a significant difference in CO2 emissions - almost 1.5 times as many CO2 emissions were caused by travelling to the non-certified event as to the certified event!

In more concrete words: Measures that force the communication of public travel options have a direct effect on travel behaviour! Incentives such as discounted train tickets can further increase the potential in this area.

Waste separation: significant differences in waste streams

The certified event had a well thought-out waste separation system, while at the non-certified event, most of the waste went into the residual waste. However, less waste separation also means a higher environmental impact, as materials cannot be recycled in this way.

Waste separation: certified event on the left, non-certified event on the right

For the separation system to work, it must be adapted to the people. In any case, potential waste hotspots should be considered before the event.
In more concrete words: Place separation zones at specific locations on the event site where an increased volume of waste is to be expected and size them accordingly depending on the expected waste fractions. Clear and easy-to-understand labelling makes it easy for participants to separate waste!

A detail: Coffee grounds were disposed of as food waste at the certified event, but as residual waste at the standard event. This may sound minor at first, but there is actually a significant difference. Biogenic waste can be composted or fermented and used to produce biogas, while residual waste is only sent for energy-intensive incineration.

What is particularly interesting is that only a quarter of the residual waste was generated at the certified event compared to the non-certified event! However, the total amount of waste produced was almost the same. The certified event focussed more on fresh, unpackaged food - with the result that, unfortunately, leftovers also ended up in the waste, as these could not be consumed during the breaks in the event. Raw food - such as fruit - does not necessarily go well with short breaks and can lead to unnecessary waste. However, active take-away offers with information on taking away leftovers can also help to reduce waste in this regard.

Conclusion: Sustainability requires well thought-out planning

Well thought-out planning is key! From catering to the mobility of guests, there are many things that can be adjusted. Comparing events is a difficult endeavour, as the environmental impact is influenced by many different factors, such as the length of time participants spend at the event or the number and duration of breaks.

The most important points:

  • The biggest source of CO2 is almost always the transport to the event - information and incentives for environmentally friendly mobility have an impact here.
  • Sustainable catering must be well thought out - fresh food is great, but not ideal for every type of event. Offering take-away solutions and actively pointing this out helps!
  • A clever waste separation system really makes a difference - placement and labelling are important!