Credibility can’t be bought. But you can earn it.

/in , ,

 

Buy the badge. Join the scheme. Add the logo to the deck. Sponsor the award. Put “passionate about sustainability” in the bio and let the halo do the rest.

It doesn’t work like that. Credibility isn’t a purchase. It’s a balance you build up slowly and lose in an afternoon. And the only currency that pays into it is evidence.

LinkedIn’s 2025 B2B Marketing Benchmark found that 94% agree that trust is the most important factor in achieving B2B brand success.

The good news is that evidence is earnable. Here’s how.

The say-do gap

Ask almost any organisation whether sustainability is a top priority, and the answer is yes. Survey after survey says the same thing: it’s on the board agenda, it’s in the values statement, it’s “central to how we operate.” Stated intent has never been higher.

Then look at what actually gets measured.

That’s where the gap appears. Across the events we’ve measured and benchmarked with Impact and Track, the pattern is stubbornly consistent: the thing everyone says matters most is the thing fewest people can put a number against.

In carbon terms it’s Travel, that much is well-known. Travel is by far the largest slice of nearly every event footprint we calculate, routinely 70% and not rarely above 90% – is the category most often left unmeasured, unmanaged and unmentioned in the post-event report. Organisations declare the priority; the data shows the priority hasn’t reached the events floor yet.

This isn’t an accusation. It’s an opportunity. Because the gap between what organisations say and what they can show is precisely the space where credibility is won.

If everyone is claiming priority and almost no one is producing proof, then proof is the differentiator.

Credibility is a metric, not a mood

A pledge is…well ask any politician how many pledges are kept. A score is a fact. The difference matters because your clients have stopped accepting words and are looking for deeds.

The questions coming down the line are harder than they were even two years ago. Not “are you sustainable?” -mwhich invites a yes – but “show me.” Show me the number. Show me how this event compares to my last one. Show me how it compares to everyone else’s. Show me what you’d change, and by how much it would move.

You cannot answer those questions with a badge. You can answer them with metrics and outputs. That’s what Impact was built to produce.

What Impact actually puts on the table

Impact assesses an event against 30 defined criteria spanning all three ESG pillars – environmental, social and governance – and turns them into things you can hand to a client without flinching:

A benchmark, because a score in isolation is meaningless. Impact compares your event against the wider event industry, against your sector, against your event type – so “good” stops being a self-assessment and starts being a relative, defensible position.

A gap analysis, because credibility isn’t claiming you’re perfect; it’s knowing exactly where you aren’t, and saying so first. The highest-priority improvements, named and ranked.

An SDG view, with every factor now mapped to the UN Sustainable Development Goals and shown by event – so you can tell a client not just how you scored, but which of the world’s seventeen agreed goals each choice advanced. That’s the language their board and their delegates already use.

And increasingly, a Social Value Yield – a real number against the “S”  in ESG that most events leave entirely unclaimed, where credible programmes are generating value worth 10–30% of budget and simply not counting it.

Those are outputs. They’re comparable, repeatable and external. They survive scrutiny because they were built to be scrutinised.

Outputs beat intentions, every time

Here’s the quiet test of whether something earns credibility: could a sceptic check it?

Intent fails that test instantly. A logo fails it. A certificate that describes how a building was constructed tells you nothing about how your event ran inside it. But a per-event score, benchmarked against peers and traced back to source data, holds up – because the sceptic can check it, and it still stands.

That’s also why measurement beats accreditation as a credibility strategy. Accreditation tells the world you cleared a bar once. Measurement tells the world what happened this time, and the next, and the time after that. Credibility compounds through repetition, and only measurement repeats.

Track keeps the carbon side honest

On the environmental pillar, Track is the reality check. It produces the carbon footprint without the data-entry burden that stops most agencies before they start – which matters, because the say-do gap is, more than anything, a measurement-effort gap. People don’t avoid the number because they don’t care. They avoid it because it’s been hard.

Remove the friction and the evidence appears. And the evidence Track produces tends to tell organisations the uncomfortable, useful truth: that the footprint they assumed was about materials and waste is actually about travel, and that the lever they’ve been pulling isn’t the one that moves the number. That’s not a comfortable finding. It is a credible one – and credible beats comfortable every time you’re in front of a client who’s done their homework.

Earn it, one measured event at a time

Credibility can’t be bought because it was never for sale. It’s the accumulated weight of evidence you’ve been willing to produce, publish and be judged against – event after event, score after score, gap honestly named and then closed.

So if sustainability really is a top priority, prove it the only way that counts.

Measure the event. Benchmark it. Show the gaps. Put a number on the value. Then do it again.

That’s not a badge. That’s a track record. And a track record is the one thing nobody can buy out from under you.

The Impact: suite now aligns every event decision with the UN SDGs

/in ,

For years, the conversation around sustainable events has been stuck at a single question: what was the footprint? Useful, but backward-looking. It tells you what already happened. It rarely changes the decision you are about to make.

That is the gap the Impact: suite was built to close – and it is why we have now aligned all three Impact: products with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

Not as a badge on the cover of a report, but as something built into the review itself and shown back to you per event. Every question you are scored against now carries an SDG. So when the results come in, you do not just see how you performed – you see which of the world’s seventeen agreed goals each of your choices advanced, and where the gaps are.

Alignment that lives inside the tool, not alongside it

The important phrase is built in. SDG alignment is not a separate exercise you run after the event, or a mapping a consultant bolts on at the end. It sits inside the question set, across the whole Impact: suite – the organiser-level review in Impact: Event, the technical production review in Impact: AdVantage, and the venue review in Impact: VenueLens.

All review questions now carry an SDG assignment: each one has a primary goal it most directly serves, plus the secondary goals that are materially relevant. Those questions span all three ESG pillars – environmental, social and governance – and between them they touch the full set of seventeen goals.

This matters because sustainability in events has never been only about carbon. A question about supplier conditions speaks to decent work. A question about accessibility speaks to reduced inequalities. A question about how decisions are documented and governed speaks to strong institutions. The SDGs already hold all of that in one framework; aligning to them lets a single review tell the whole story rather than just the climate chapter of it.

Unsurprisingly, some goals come up more than others. Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG 12) is the most frequently touched across Impact – it is the goal most events move most often, through what they buy, build, ship and throw away. Climate Action (SDG 13), Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG 8) and the governance goals around transparent, accountable practice are close behind. But the breadth is the point: an Impact: review now reads an event against the goals it genuinely affects, not a token two or three.

Shown per event, where the decision is

Because the alignment lives in the questions, it surfaces automatically at the level that matters – the individual event. Each review now displays how that specific programme contributes to the SDGs: which goals its choices advance, which it touches only lightly, and where a “no” reveals a gap worth closing before the next one.

That changes what the output is for. A footprint number tells you how you did. An SDG view tells you what to do next – and it does so in language your clients, your board and increasingly your delegates already use to judge whether an event was worth its impact. For an organiser comparing two concepts, a production team responding to a brief, or a venue being assessed, the question stops being “is this lower-carbon?” and becomes the sharper “what does this choice actually contribute, and to which goals?”

Three vantage points, one shared language

The three Impact: products look at an event from three different seats – the organiser planning the whole programme, the technical production partner specifying power, kit, freight and crew, and the venue or M&E hotel hosting it all. Each sees impacts the others cannot.

What the SDG alignment adds is a shared language across those seats. When an organiser’s review, a supplier’s review and a venue’s review all speak in the same seventeen goals, they stop being three separate sustainability initiatives and become one aligned effort, measured the same way and visible to each other. An organiser reducing freight, a production partner switching to cleaner power and a venue cutting food waste are no longer doing three unrelated things – they are advancing the same goals, and the suite shows it.

What this changes in practice

Nothing about the rigour of an Impact: review changes – the data discipline, benchmarking and gap analysis are exactly as they were. What changes is the lens the results are shown through. Findings now arrive pre-translated into the framework the wider world already uses, and they arrive per event, at the moment decisions are still live.

Sustainability in events was never really a reporting problem. It was a decision problem. Aligning the Impact: suite to the UN SDGs – inside every question, displayed on every event – is how we make the goals part of the decision, while the decision is still yours to make.

Want to see how your next event scores against the SDGs? Talk to us at hello@eventdecision.com 

The Average Event Leaves 100% of Social Value Unclaimed

/in , ,

| event:decision | June 2026

Here’s a claim that sounds like an exaggeration and isn’t: the average event leaves 100% of its social value unclaimed.

Not uncreated. Unclaimed. The distinction matters, and it’s worth £tens of thousands per event.

Created everywhere, claimed nowhere

Every event you delivered last year generated social value. The relationships built face-to-face – the outcome 70% of the EIC’s own survey respondents named as the hardest thing to replace. The training delivered, the knowledge transferred, the local jobs supported, the spend that landed in the host city’s cafés, crews and communities. That value was real. It happened.

And then it evaporated – at least as far as anyone can prove. No number, no record, no line in the post-event report, no mention in the client’s board paper, no credit in the next pitch. Created in full. Claimed at zero.

We’ve put a number on what that’s worth: events can generate 10–30% of their budget in Social Value. Scale that across the sector’s $1.3 trillion of direct spending and you reach the $260bn blind-spot – value the industry’s own flagship economic study concedes “goes unmeasured, unreported, and therefore undervalued.”

That’s the industry’s loss. Yours is more personal: on a £500k event programme, somewhere between £50k and £150k of demonstrable value you delivered – and never once put on the table.

Why nobody claims it

Three reasons, and none of them is “I can’t be bothered.”

First, the client never asks. No brief has ever opened with “please quantify the social value of our conference.” The demand arrives later, through a different door – a CSRD obligation, a procurement matrix, a sustainability report deadline – by which point the event is over and the value is unrecoverable. You can’t manufacture history at deadline.

Second, the industry doesn’t define success that way. When the EIC survey asked how operators measure event success, all eight available answers were commercial: leads, revenue, awareness, deal size. Not one social metric. If success is defined entirely commercially, nobody is incentivised to claim anything else – even the value they actually created.

Third, until recently, there was no unit of account. Carbon got tCO₂e, and look what happened: measurement, targets, league tables, budgets. Social value had warm anecdotes. You cannot claim what you cannot count.

“The social value was real – the relationships, the skills, the local spend all happened. But unmeasured value is unclaimed value.”

What claiming looks like

This is exactly why we built SaVY — Social Value Yield. It does for social value what tCO₂e did for carbon: converts the social performance of an event into a single financial figure – in £ or as a % of budget — covering your event, your supply chain and your organisation.

Claimed value behaves completely differently from created value. It compounds. It goes in the client’s board paper with your name attached. It answers the procurement question before it’s asked. It turns “we’re committed to making a difference” – a sentence every competitor also owns – into “our last programme for you generated £83,000 in measurable social value,” a sentence only you can say.

And here’s the part agencies consistently miss: when you claim the value, a lot of it stays with you. The client gets the proof; you keep the intelligence – the benchmarks, the year-on-year story, the pitch evidence that wins the next three RFPs.

“We’d been creating social value on every event for years. SaVY was the first time we could put a number on it – and the first time a client put it in their Board Report with our agency name next to it.”

The cheapest value you’ll ever add

Most ways of adding value to an event programme cost money: better venues, bigger production, more content. Claiming social value is the rare exception – the value already exists, because you already created it. The only thing missing is the measurement.

One hundred percent unclaimed is the current industry average. It’s also the easiest number in events to improve on.

Put a number on your next event’s social value — talk to us about SaVY and Impact: Event at hello@eventdecision.com

Exhibitor Benchmarking – recognise real effort.

/in ,

By Matt Grey | event:decision | June 2026

Walk any exhibition floor and you’ll hear the same claim on repeat: “we take sustainability seriously.” Walk the same floor with a question set in your hand, and you find out who actually does.

That’s the idea behind the Exhibition Partner Recognition Scheme, which event:decision ran recently at The BIBA Conference 2026 and this month at NHS ConfedExpo 2026, both hosted by Manchester Central. Every exhibiting brand was invited to answer a short, structured set of questions about their stand: carbon measurement, stand reuse, modular structures, local sourcing, waste, travel, living wage policies, and provisions for the wellbeing of the team working the stand. Not a pledge. Not a logo for the bottom of an email. Questions – scored, compared and recognised on the show floor.

What the data said

The gap was striking. Submissions scored widely, with the recognised brands averaging around 40% higher than the rest of the field. The leaders weren’t the biggest names or the biggest budgets. The top score went to an SME with ISO14001 accreditation and a carbon reduction plan that treats every event as a data point. A charity scored highly by measuring its footprint with a named calculator and planning a legacy beyond the show. A health-tech startup arrived with a fully reusable stand, built it themselves, and handed out merchandise made from recycled materials.

The pattern across every high scorer: specifics. A named measurement tool. A stand that has a life beyond three days in Manchester. A living wage policy that covers contractors, not just staff. Wellbeing provisions for the people standing on carpet for eight hours a day. The lower-scoring submissions weren’t bad actors – they simply hadn’t been asked these questions before. Several told us exactly that, and two committed on the spot to changes for their next show.

Which is rather the point.

Recognition, not certification

We’ve written before about the badge trap: certifications that describe the organisation but say nothing about the event in front of you. Recognition works differently. It measures what a brand actually did, at this show, this day – and it makes the answers visible. The recognised brands received their plaques (sustainably sourced, naturally) at their stands, in front of their teams and their visitors. Responsible exhibiting became something you could see on the show floor, not something buried in a procurement annexe.

And the commercial logic is hard to ignore. Exhibitors invest heavily to stand out. A recognition scheme lets them stand out for how they showed up, not just how loudly. For organisers, it lifts the responsibility performance of the whole show without a single mandate.

The question is the intervention

The biggest lesson from The BIBA Conference and NHS ConfedExpo isn’t in the scores. It’s that asking the question changes the answer. Brands that had never measured a stand footprint started. Brands reusing stands realised it was worth saying so. The floor got measurably better because somebody asked.

If you organise an exhibition and you’re not asking, you’re leaving that improvement on the table.

Want to run a recognition scheme at your show? Talk to us: hello@eventdecision.com

The client never asks….(which is why you should)

/in ,

The client will never ask. That’s exactly why you should.

There is a comfortable lie the events industry tells itself about sustainability measurement, and it goes like this:

“We’ll do it properly when a client asks for it.”

It sounds responsible. Commercially sensible, even – why carry a cost the market hasn’t demanded yet? But it rests on a prediction that almost never comes true. The client, in the form you’re imagining, doesn’t call. There is no inbound brief that opens with “before we go further, can you measure and independently verify the impact of our event programme?” That conversation, in that order, initiated by them, is not coming.

And once you accept that – really accept it – the logic flips entirely. If you wait for the question, you wait forever.

The agencies pulling ahead aren’t the ones who answered the question. They’re the ones who walked in already holding the answer.

Why the question never arrives

It’s worth being precise about why clients don’t ask, because the reasons are structural, not temporary.

Clients assume you’ve handled it. To a corporate buyer, “responsible delivery” sits in the same mental bucket as health and safety, insurance and AV that works – table stakes they expect a competent agency to have sorted, not a line item they need to specify.

Clients don’t know what to ask for. Environmental measurement is a specialist field with its own boundaries, scopes and verification standards. Social Value another ballpark entirely. A marketing or procurement lead commissioning an event knows they’re under pressure on sustainability; they very rarely know that “an independently verified Impact review” is the thing that would solve it. You can’t request a tool you don’t know exists.

The pressure reaches them through a different door. When the demand does land, it doesn’t arrive as a polite question to their agency. It arrives as a CSRD reporting obligation, a Scope 3 disclosure that pulls suppliers into the client’s own reporting boundary, or an RFP scoring matrix that now weights ESG and gates on supplier credentials. By the time it reaches the agency, it’s not a question – it’s a deadline. And a deadline is the worst possible moment to start measuring, because the data you need is retrospective and you don’t have it.

The agencies pulling ahead aren’t the ones who answered the question. They’re the ones who walked in already holding the answer.

What early adoption actually changes

Bringing Impact: Event (agency) or Impact: AdVantage (AV/production) into your business before anyone demands it isn’t an act of faith. It changes your commercial position in concrete ways, none of which depend on a single client ever formally buying a review.

You hold the baseline. Measure your book of work once and you have something you cannot retrofit: a defensible, independently verified position on the events you already deliver. When ESG appears in a tender – increasingly scored at a meaningful share of the total, sometimes as a pass/fail gate – you answer from data you already own. The competitor scrambling to estimate something credible in the week before submission simply loses (‘show your working’  they say at school). You can’t manufacture history at deadline.

You own an independent voice. The value of an Impact review isn’t the number.

Any agency can put “committed to sustainability” on a capabilities deck; most seem to.  It’s worth almost nothing precisely because everyone does.

An independently verified review is the thing a marketing department cannot manufacture – and clients, regulators and procurement teams know the difference. That independence is the asset. The agency that holds it has a credential its rivals can only hope for.

You turn delivery into reusable intelligence. Once measured, the data doesn’t expire with the event. It becomes sector benchmarks, year-on-year movement, pitch evidence and board-paper material you reuse for years – across clients, including clients who never commission a review of their own. One measured portfolio feeds every future conversation. That’s the compounding asset most agencies leave on the table by waiting.

You get to lead the conversation instead of survive it. This is the quiet one, and arguably the biggest. When you already hold the data, you introduce sustainability into the client relationship – on your terms, framed as value, positioned as leadership. You walk in and say “here’s what we measured, here’s how your programme compares, here’s where we’d improve it.” That is a categorically stronger position than receiving a procurement request and trying to look like you saw it coming. Adopting first doesn’t just prepare you for the question. It means you never have to be asked.

The agencies pulling ahead aren’t the ones who answered the question. They’re the ones who walked in already holding the answer.

The sequence that’s already working

This isn’t theoretical. The agencies moving on it are following the same sequence: the sustainability lead places the tool in front of commercial and board roles, the business adopts it across the portfolio, and the data then becomes the thing that opens client conversations rather than the thing that answers them. They commissioned the measurement themselves, treated it as a capability they own rather than a cost a client approves, and used it to demonstrate strategic value upward and outward. In every case the trigger was an internal decision, not a client request – because the client request was never going to come.

The agencies pulling ahead aren’t the ones who answered the question. They’re the ones who walked in already holding the answer.

The actual choice

Strip away the framing, and the decision in front of every agency is simple.

You can wait – and wake up one day to a client deadline, a tender gate or a disclosure obligation you have no historical data to meet, scrambling to produce in a fortnight what should have been accumulating for two years.

Or you can decide now, as a modest investment relative to a single won pitch – to hold the baseline yourself, own the independent voice, and lead the conversation before anyone forces it.

The comfortable lie says there’s no rush, because the client will ask when they’re ready.

They won’t. And that is the single best reason to move first.

event:decision is the responsible event performance platform for the global events industry – ESG measurement, benchmarking, independent verification and advisory. To talk about an Impact baseline across your portfolio, get in touch at hello@eventdecision.com.

Zurich Convention Bureau partners with event:decision

/in ,

Zurich advances responsible event delivery with event:decision’s Impact

Zurich Convention Bureau today announces its partnership with event:decision as part of the destination’s ongoing commitment to driving a more sustainable visitor economy. The initiative supports Zurich’s wider strategy focused on decarbonisation, strengthening local supply chains, investing in people and communities, and preserving the region’s natural and cultural heritage.

Through this partnership, Zurich Convention Bureau and event:decision have developed a bespoke version of the Impact: Event platform. This tailored solution will provide event organisers with actionable insights on how to enhance the sustainability and social impact of their events in Zurich.

The platform offers a comprehensive framework for evaluating events beyond carbon emissions alone. Event organisers will be able to benchmark their performance against industry standards while gaining destination-specific guidance.

Organisers hosting events in Zurich will be able to input event data and receive tailored recommendations, including opportunities to collaborate with local institutions, engage in community initiatives, support food redistribution programmes, and explore local carbon reduction and offsetting options.

“We are delighted to partner with event:decision to provide our event organisers with deeper insights into the impact of their events in Zurich. This collaboration strengthens our commitment to sustainability and offers access to a trusted framework alongside connections to a strong local, responsible supply chain.”

Gregory Bauer of the Zurich Convention Bureau

“Together, we aim to showcase Zurich’s ability to deliver not only exceptional events, but experiences that create meaningful environmental and social value for organisers, delegates, and the local community”

Matt Grey, at event:decision.

This partnership further supports buyers as part of an already sustainable proposition offered by Zurich as a business event destination.

Bishop-McCann and event:decision to partner on making an Impact on US corporate events

/in ,

Bishop-McCann and event:decision to partner on making an Impact on US corporate events

A new transatlantic alliance forms. UK consultancy to benchmark Bishop-McCann’s sustainability performance.

UK-based event:decision, the specialist impact consultancy for the event sector, ha announced a strategic partnership with US full-service corporate event and meeting agency Bishop-McCann. The partnership establishes a structured programme to evaluate, evidence and advance the responsible event delivery performance of Bishop-McCann across its US and international portfolio.

Under the Impact: Event – event:decision’s proprietary RFP, benchmarking and gap-analysis framework designed specifically for the live events supply chain – Bishop-McCann will assess each event project against 30 defined criteria spanning environmental impact, social responsibility, and governance standards. The results will be used to benchmark performance against industry peers, identify the highest-priority areas for improvement, and build a credible, data-led narrative that Bishop-McCann can share with its clients, prospective partners and stakeholders.

“The events industry is at an inflection point. Clients are asking harder questions about the responsibility of the programmes they commission, and the agencies who can answer those questions with evidence – not just intent – will define the next decade of our industry. This partnership gives Bishop-McCann exactly that capability,” said event:decision CEO Matt Grey,

For Bishop-McCann, the partnership reflects recognition that the demand for verified performance is accelerating among its Fortune 500 and blue-chip client base.

The agency manages corporate meetings, incentive programmes, conferences, roadshows and experiential events across North America and globally, and Rob Adams, CEO, Bishop-McCann said the new partnership “gives us the tools, the rigour and the independent voice to demonstrate that commitment in a way our clients can trust and act on”.

The Impact programme will generate project-level scores for each Bishop-McCann event, benchmarked against the wider Impact partner network. Quarterly reporting will provide Bishop-McCann with a clear view of its performance trajectory and priority improvement actions.

The $260bn blind-spot

/in , ,

An event:decision analysis of the 2026 EIC / Oxford Economics Global Economic Significance of Business Events Study.

The sector itself acknowledges its biggest sources of value go unmeasured.

The 2026 Events Industry Council Oxford Economics study is the flagship economic significance report for the global business events sector. It is rigorously researched, carefully sourced, and quantifies the industry’s scale to a degree that makes it the standard reference any operator can point a finance director or a policy team towards. 1.65 billion participants. US$1.3 trillion in direct spending. US$1.8 trillion in total GDP impact. 24.2 million jobs. If the business events sector were a country, it would rank 16th globally – bigger than Turkey, Indonesia, or the Netherlands. Impressive stuff, #EventProfs.

It is also, from a sustainability and responsibility perspective, almost entirely silent. No issue, that’s not the main purpose of the report, but perhaps missed a significant chunk of what can only be termed ‘value’.

If events can generate 10-30% of budgets in Social Value – that’s a $260bn value-add right there. A big number. That we don’t measure and don’t shout about.

What the study tells us about scale

Three numbers in the report are worth holding alongside each other – both for the value they represent and for the responsibility scale they imply.

First, the participant figure of 1.65 billion. These are individual attendances at business events – predominantly involving the kind of human contact the report’s own survey identifies as the single most valuable outcome of in-person gathering. 70% of respondents named building relationships through face-to-face interaction as the result most difficult to replace; a further 12% named community, trust, and emotional engagement. That’s the social-value side of the equation, and this can credibly reach 10–30% of total event value – alongside the direct economic contribution.

There is, of course, a carbon implication: moving 1.65 billion people predominantly by travel runs into the order of hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO₂e per year on standard DEFRA and ICAO factors. The opportunity for the sector is not to do fewer events – the value generated is too high – but to do them progressively better, with measured and reduced travel and energy intensity per participant.

Second, the direct-spending figure of US$1.3 trillion. The report compares this directly to other global sectors and finds the business events sector is now larger than the global air transport industry ($1.292T vs $1.285T). That is a meaningful milestone – for an industry that twenty years ago was treated as discretionary marketing spend by most boards, reaching air-transport scale on economic contribution is a maturing moment. Air transport, of course, is one of the most heavily emissions-regulated industries in the world; business events does not yet have the equivalent industry-level reporting infrastructure. That is not a failing – it is the next maturity step. The sector that has reached air-transport scale on economic contribution will, over the next decade, reach comparable expectations on disclosure. The window between now and that point is the window in which voluntary, structured measurement becomes competitive advantage.

Third, the workforce figure of 24.2 million jobs across nine ecosystem categories. Planners, exhibition contractors, venues, hotels, AV, transport, F&B, destination partners, specialised support. That is a substantial livelihoods footprint – broadly comparable in scale to the global automotive workforce – and one the report shows is growing in productivity rather than headcount as the sector matures, with direct spending forecast to grow 22% by 2028 against a 7% workforce uplift over the same period.

That productivity story is genuinely positive: more events delivered, more participants served, more value generated per employee. The responsibility question that sits alongside it – who that workforce is, how it is paid, how accessible the entry routes are, what wellbeing provisions are in place – is the kind of question a 24.2-million-person industry can credibly start to answer at scale. It is the maturity question, not the deficit one.

What the study does not measure

A word-frequency check across the 38-page executive summary returns the following:

Term Mentions in 38-page exec summary Context
Carbon / emissions / net zero 0 No reference to climate impact of an industry that moves 1.65 billion people internationally
Sustainability 0 The word itself does not appear once
Inclusion / diversity / equity / DEIA 0 24.2M-person workforce; no analysis of who that workforce is
Accessibility 0 1.65bn participants; no measure of who can or can’t attend
Fair pay / living wage / wellbeing 0 Jobs counted only as economic units, not as people
Waste 0 F&B, materials, freight quantified by spend only
Responsibility 0 No environmental, social & governance framing of the sector at all
Legacy 0 ‘Catalytic effects’ covered – but only economic ones
Environment 1 Used metaphorically – ‘in this environment’ – not in ecological sense

 

This is not a criticism of methodology – the report was commissioned to measure economic significance, and it does that very well. It is an observation that the industry’s most authoritative annual self-portrait still treats environmental and social impact as outside the frame. For an audience of policymakers, investors, and community stakeholders – the report’s named audience – the absence of sustainability data is a meaningful gap. A reader could finish the study believing the only material question about the business events sector is what it adds to GDP.

The ‘catalytic effects’ opening

The closest the report gets to non-economic value is its section on catalytic effects – defined as ‘the broader impacts that occur as the result of business events’. It lists: new business opportunities, partnerships, customer leads, training, health and technical advances, R&D, innovation, knowledge transfer, productivity gains, human and organisational capital.

Critically, the report concedes – verbatim – that ‘many catalytic effects are difficult to measure and quantify. This presents the key risk that much of the true significance of business events goes unmeasured, unreported, and therefore undervalued.’

This is the exact gap the event:decision Impact suite was built to close. The factors the report flags as ‘difficult to measure’ – partnerships, knowledge transfer, training, legacy, community impact, skills transfer – are named, structured factors inside the framework. So are the absent ones – carbon, accessibility, fair pay, wellbeing, waste, governance, public reporting.

The EIC report is, inadvertently, the strongest articulation of why a structured impact framework matters: the sector itself acknowledges its biggest sources of value go unmeasured.

Sector composition – where the responsibility sits

The report’s ecosystem map identifies four broad groups of organisations behind business events. Each maps cleanly onto one of the three event:decision Impact lenses.

Planners and organisers (event organisers, DMCs, corporate agencies) plus exhibitions and events organisations – these are the 67% of survey respondents and the buyers of the show. They sit inside the Impact: Event scope.

Specialised support, tech and production, transport and travel, food and beverage – AV companies, event management systems, network and connectivity, ground transport, catering, security, translation. These are the 12% supplier respondents in the report’s survey, and the suppliers building, powering and feeding the show. They sit inside the Impact: AdVantage scope.

Venues and lodging, destination partners – convention centres, hotels, resorts, banquet halls, DMOs, CVBs, national tourism boards. These are the 15% of venue / hotel respondents and the 6% of DMO respondents in the report’s survey. They sit inside the Impact: VenueLens scope.

Between them, those three groups represent 100% of the report’s surveyed audience – and approximately 98% of where the sector’s spend actually flows. The report tells us how much is being spent in each group; it doesn’t tell us what the sustainability or responsibility footprint of that spend looks like.

Two methodological observations worth flagging

First, the survey base. 1,605 respondents, of whom 86% are based in North America. The global figures are anchored to a respondent base that under-represents the regions – Europe, parts of Asia Pacific – where sustainability regulation and disclosure expectations are most advanced. The qualitative survey responses around ‘what matters’ in events should be read with that geographic skew in mind.

Second, the survey question set. The ‘ways of measuring the success of events’ question lists eight options. All eight are commercial: relationship management, awareness, new customers, sales leads, incremental revenue, cost-versus-revenue, lost revenue, average deal size. None of the eight is a sustainability, accessibility, inclusion or legacy metric. If ‘success’ is defined entirely commercially in the industry’s flagship survey, no operator has an incentive to optimise – or even report – against any other dimension.

The 2025 → 2028 forecast – and the responsibility pressure it implies

The report forecasts direct spending to grow from US$1.3 trillion in 2025 to US$1.6 trillion in 2028 – a 22% nominal increase over three years, or a 6.7% CAGR. Direct jobs grow by only 7% over the same window (9.7M to 10.4M), with the report attributing the gap to productivity gains, skills uplift, and technology integration (we all know what that means).

Translated into responsibility terms, that forecast says: more events, more participants, more spend, broadly the same workforce, no decline in resource intensity per event implied by the data. Without explicit decarbonisation, accessibility, and fair-pay targets across the sector, the trajectory the report describes is one in which the absolute footprint of the industry grows faster than its workforce.

That is a structural challenge that no individual operator can solve alone.

So what?

The EIC has produced the definitive answer to ‘what is the business events sector worth?’ US$1.8 trillion of GDP, 24.2 million jobs, the 16th-largest economy on earth. The question the report does not address – and which the next phase of industry credibility depends on answering – is what is the business events sector responsible for?

Is event planning a science or an art?

/in , ,

Is event planning a science or an art?

There’s a long-running discussion in the industry that splits neatly down the middle. One camp insists event planning is an art – that the people who do it best work on instinct, simply create emotions within the room and craft moments of magic from a feel for narrative, design, and human energy. The other camp insists it’s a science – that great events come from logistics, measurement, frameworks, and discipline, and that the people who do them best are operations professionals who happen to work in marketing.

Both camps are right, of course. But neither is enough on its own.

The art case

The art is real, and it matters. A good event opens with a precisely judged silence; a great one ends with a moment guests are still talking about, perhaps years later. That doesn’t come from a checklist. It comes from creative direction, narrative instinct, an eye for room dynamics, and the kind of taste that takes a decade to develop. Events that win awards win them on these grounds.

Without the art, you have a meeting.

The science case

But art alone doesn’t get you to smooth, engaging events. Art alone doesn’t tell you whether your suppliers pay a living wage, whether your delegate travel mix is improving year-on-year, or whether your sustainability narrative is something you can defend in front of a client’s ESG team. Art alone doesn’t survive a Freedom of Information request from a sustainability journalist or a procurement question from a Fortune 500 buyer. For that, you need science: measurement, evidence, frameworks, repeatable methods.

We had a bit of fun recently – laying all of our responsible-delivery factors out in the style of the periodic table of elements. Ninety factors, three rows of thirty, colour-coded against the three ESG pillars. It looks the part. It is also, deliberately, a joke at our own expense – nobody is going to use a wall chart to plan a conference. But the chart makes a point that’s harder to argue with once you see it written out: there are ninety different things that quietly underpin a single sentence in a sustainability report. Carbon and travel. Power and lighting. Local supply chain and food approach. Locality and accessibility, wellbeing and fair pay. KPIs and risk assessment and named accountability and lessons learned. That’s the size of the science problem – across the whole event ecosystem.

Now both the art and the science can be measured.

But here’s the relief: no single person is running ninety decisions. The ninety divide cleanly into three sets of thirty, and which thirty you own depends on your role. An event planner owns one set. An AV or production supplier owns another. A venue operations or sales planner owns the third. If you’re any one of those people, you’re running thirty small decisions, not ninety. Which is a much more manageable science problem to start with.

Three lenses on the same event

The ninety factors don’t all sit with one team. They sit with three. event:decision’s Impact suite is structured as three lenses on the same event – each tool covering one of those three sets of thirty factors, each pointed at one function:

Impact: Event is the lens for the event itself. Carbon, attendee and crew travel, waste, food approach, biodiversity, locality and inclusion, wellbeing, legacy, KPIs and ROI, sustainability leadership, governance and accreditations. This is the tool for event organisers, in-house event teams, brand experience leads, and the agencies running events on their behalf. If you commission, design, or run the event, Impact: Event is for you.

Impact: AdVantage is the lens for the Technical Production and AV chain. Power and lighting specification, project carbon, vehicle movements, reusable build, subcontractor briefing, welfare provisions, local crew, fair pay, working hours, RAMS, compliance documentation, named accountability. This is the tool for production agencies, exhibition contractors, AV suppliers, stand builders, freight and logistics partners – the people who turn the brief into a physical reality. It gives suppliers a structured way to evidence what they’ve done, and gives organisers a clear standard to procure against.

Impact: VenueLens is the tool for the venue. Mass transport access, renewable energy, water management, single-use plastics, F&B approach, delegate accessibility, venue fair pay, inclusion hiring, community projects, surplus distribution, public reporting, supplier due diligence, ESG targets. This is the tool for venues themselves – operators, conference centres, hotels, stadiums, exhibition halls. It lets venues show with evidence what they actually deliver, and gives organisers a like-for-like way to compare venues at the procurement stage.

Why three tools, not one

Because both spend and responsibility in events don’t sit just with one party. The event organiser commissions and pays for the show. The suppliers and agencies deliver it. The venue hosts it. Each controls a different slice of the impact picture, and a single tool aimed at any one of them would miss most of the footprint.

Between them, the Impact suite covers approximately 98% of event spend – the client commission, the supplier delivery, and the venue cost together account for nearly every pound that flows through an event. The remaining 2% is the long tail of incidental costs that, even if measured, would not materially change the conclusion.

So — science or art?

Both. Always both.

The art is what makes an event worth attending. The science is what makes it responsible and sustainable. The art delivers the moment of magic in the keynote, the goosebump from a perfectly cued lighting state, the gasp at the reveal. The science delivers the carbon report your client’s CFO can put in their annual filings, the accessibility statement your delegate community can trust, the legacy figure your sponsor can quote to their board.

You don’t choose between them. You do both – or you fall behind the audiences, the clients, and the regulators who increasingly expect both.

And it turns out that both looks a lot like thirty small decisions for the planner, thirty for the supplier, thirty for the venue – and ninety in total across an event that used to run on instinct alone.

Get in touch at hello@eventdecision.com.

Answers to your own questions (yes, really…)

/in , ,

At the Event Industry News Sustainability Breakfast, in April 2026, as expected, the panel ran short of time answering audience questions.

As promised, we asked panel to come back with their thoughts to every question posed.

Here are the panel’s responses.

  • Matt Grey Founder & Director at of event:decision
  • Chrissie Beck, Founder & Sustainability Director at Worlds Better
  • Aarron Mcgurk, Culture & Operations Lead at agency Chorus, now part of Brands At Work.

 

What if your client isn’t really interested in sustainability?

Matt:    If the commercial sense, optics and audience engagement metrics on a sustainable experience are not enough, it’s entirely your choice as to whether you want to work with that client?

Chrissie: Try to understand your client’s goals and objectives and then tweak your response to speak their language. Try to influence their decision by explaining the strategic importance of sustainability (whether that’s brand differentiation, reputation management, risk mitigation, ROI, cost efficiencies) – depending on their role and goals. Explain that there’s an expectation now that events are delivered sustainably. This isn’t a ‘nice to have’ anymore, it’s a strategic necessity.

Aarron: Sustainability doesn’t have to be an add on, you and your business can still operate sustainably. This would mean the operations in Scope 1 and 2 (which are controlled by you) can still be done sustainably with out needing client buy in.

 

What’s your take on “greenwashing”? Too many people act to look good in public, but have very little or no positive impact.

Matt:    I think this is a valid point, and applies to all channels, not just events. Legislation is coming on Green Claims, but I suspect despite a lot of noise, that few events will be impacted.

Chrissie: Like Matt has said there’s a new piece of legislation coming in September 2026 (Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive/ECGTD) that has been developed to eliminate greenwashing. You won’t be able to claim you have ‘delivered a sustainable event’ or are a ‘sustainable supplier’ without having robust data or (audited) certifications to back it up.

Aarron: I don’t come across greenwashing that much to comment. Which could be positive?

 

For venues with low budgets where there isn’t resource for measurement, consultancy, certification, training & where management say no due to cost. What do you do?

Matt:    Measurement or certification by an external party will cost money, of course. But you could start by simply counting the number of meetings & events at which you deliver sustainability service a, b or c, and demonstrate this as a % of your portfolio?

Chrissie: There are a lot of (free) resources and tools available online that you can investigate (SDG’s, SME Climate Hub, event:decision, Greengage, isla, Sustainable Event Guide etc) – these might include industry white papers, toolkits, webinars – educate yourself to understand what makes sense for you to focus on first and start there. Also keep coming to events like the Sustainable Events Lounge to meet others in your position and hear what they’ve done! Worth noting to management that you’re likely losing business to other venues that have solid sustainability strategies/credentials.

Aarron: This sounds like there is not much wriggle room. It might be that your only choose is to make some positive steps independently which could be small for now. Things like a roster of equipment and energy ratings, how often appliances like dishwashers run and how much water is used and start to build these things as a business case to take to management eventually and try and get buy in then.

 

You asked before who was responsible for calling out supplier claims that may not be true. My question is how we can do that robust verification as an agency?

Chrissie: As part of your procurement process you should be conducting supplier assessments when you start working with them (check their documentation & commitments). When you work with them conduct regular reviews of their services and progress towards their targets – this may need to include on site audits of their facilities, or of them delivering services for you on site to check they are doing what they claim. The reality is; as an agency you are responsible for your supply chain. You should have processes in place to assure your suppliers are verified.

Aarron: Less about calling out and more about bringing in and alongside. Work closely with procurement and specifically obtain evidence of claims e.g. full policy or certificate. After review of these which can be a bi monthly cadence you can either rank suppliers and change approach or meet with them to see how things are developing.

Matt:    Some agencies we work with deliver just this. Gathering certifications and metrics on delivery at project-by-project level. If you’re a client or agency, using Impact: AdVantage and (shortly) Impact: VENUEmark will aid this process greatly.

 

What do you think is the best way to educate clients about sustainability before starting event planning?

Aarron: Use their orgs ESG statement and create approach to helping the marketing or other department align with the overarching goals, include in pitches etc. Explain how you are solving their problem with the event you are producing at the same time how the way you work aligns them with their own ESG. Sort of flipping it on the head a bit.

Matt:    Embed a measurement, benchmark or certification within your process. Likely you won’t have time to deliver education to clients on each & every project?

 

Would love to hear panel’s thoughts on getting the ‘badge’ and progress then slowing down. Is that true?

Matt:    I mentioned this in the keynote. There is evidence that the achievement of higher-level accreditations (gold, silver, bronze level etc.) is not increasing amongst the agency sector. See the Most Sustainable Agencies 2026 campaign. I would say there is evidence of increasing numbers of accreditation across the agency sector, yet less evidence of associated behavioural change in event outcomes.

 

What do you think is the biggest current challenge in the events industry regarding sustainability?

Matt:    Understanding that sustainability is a growth and resilience driver, not a cost-center

 

The problem is you all assume everyone thinks like you. Insulting everyone who doesn’t won’t help your cause.

Matt: I’m sorry if you feel insulted. If you would like to put forward an alternative view of sector behaviour in sustainability please get in touch separately & we’ll be glad to give you a platform?

Aarron: I hear you, the session was a little less 101 this time around – with some more advanced thinking. Our intention was to shake things up a little to make the sessions more engaging and offer more value, please do reach out to us for more help and resources that could match where you are on your journey.

 

What’s happening with recycling? It seems hotels and venues have regressed since Covid. Shouldn’t guests have multi-colored bins in their rooms.

Matt:    Not an area of expertise for me, but one hopes that bedroom waste is streamed at contractor level within the process & that separation of streams at a bedroom level is not cost effective.

Aarron: Recycling is a bite archaic now and invisible. As Matt said its happening at service level, e.g. first mile sorting center. Its quite hard to know exactly what makes it through the process especially when some types of packaging are not washed or bagged incorrectly.

 

If you had a magic wand, what is one thing you would like to see change, or be implemented in 2026/2027?

Matt:    Opening the eyes of event sales and account directors that they can use existing tools to drive new and retain business.

Aarron: Slow down! Making travel part of an experience.

 

Where does human sustainability stand in your business and for your clients?

Matt:    A vital part of the responsible event mix, I believe the S in ESG is hugely underplayed and under-reported.

Aarron: Front and centre. Its People, Planet, Partners & Profitability. People kind of top of the hierarchy but it is a blend. We can do anything if the people aren’t trained, rested or understood.

 

Is [the above] in conversations and being actioned for clients and your internal teams?

Matt:    Not as much as it should be, suspect it is an expected function of event supply. The tools are ready for you to start quantifying Social Value.

 

In a smaller company it can be harder to make sustainable choices when you’re working on tight financial boundaries, esp from Senior management.. any advice?

Matt:    There’s always an easier and cheaper way to do things. Ultimately it’s up to you to be accountable for the product you want to deliver. I would challenge whether margins are necessarily tighter in a smaller company than a larger one – overheads can be fewer in smaller entities.

 

Is it wise to assume everyone shares your perspective on sustainability or what it looks the same to them? If prescription doesn’t work, what would you suggest?

Matt:    Sustainability perspectives differ as much as views on any subject, but there does appear to be a direction of travel.  If prescription doesn’t work, probably best to engage in constructive dialogue. Not all suppliers and clients are meant for each other? That said, many of the decisions in event sustainability align strongly with commercial decisions, so you may be delivering some pretty good outcomes already?

 

Sustainability is a matter of culture. How can we influence decision makers to see sustainability as an added to our offer?

Matt:    I think sustainability and responsibility is more than culture, it’s a proposition and a function of the service or product you offer. It’s hard to argue against delivering a responsible product and demonstrating so, with tools such event:decision’s Impact.

 

You mentioned food leftovers during the events. Many clients don’t allow bringing food to anyone due to potential issues. Is there any way to work around this?

Matt:    Yes. Professional (whether charity or for profit) organisations that deliver food redistribution service should have indemnity policies, ask them, this hurdle has been overcome many times.

 

As a venue, especially without budget for formal tools or consultancy, how do you realistically measure sustainability and track progress?

Matt:    Measurement or certification by an nexternal party will cost money, of course. But you could start by simply counting the number of meetings & events at which you deliver sustainability service a or b and demonstrate this as a % of your portfolio?

 

The new 20211encourages us to align our goals with the UNSDG that we can support. Do you align your offerings accordingly? What has been the client response?

Matt:    Yes. event:decision’s Impact: Event directly references UNSDGs.

 

The menu thing is annoying. Loads of places have decided to impose vegan menus on clients who are paying. Have the option but don’t force it on people.

Matt: Exactly, forcing choices is not a choice at all.

 

Any ideas for sustainable event gifts/ swag?

Matt:    There are many options and suppliers who offer them – but a popular one is to give away digital memberships, publications or donations to a cause the user can choose, rather than physical items that may (or not) have a use and a lifecycle.