Home NEWS 57% less CO2 and 99% more PR

57% less CO2 and 99% more PR

PR that sounds 57% more green, yet has virtually no real-life effect

Oct 19, 2025

conventa_sustainability — Photo: Marko Delbello Ocepek

I felt as if I had returned to 2010 for a moment. A globally-renowned service provider for event registration and event management has announced that it will cut their carbon footprint by 57% at their elite European meeting. You read that correctly. Even I understood the sensationalistic title literally, until I realised that this breakthrough is about the implementation of eco-friendly name badges only.

In that second, I experienced a sustainability shock. Such PR tricks are often the prelude to a serious debate about greenwashing at events. Instead of systemic change, we are faced with a communication bubble filled with exaggerated numbers and certificates.

By the way, the message about a 57% cut on carbon footprint is a textbook example of relative greenwashing – the kind of PR stories that create the impression of tremendous environmental improvement, even though their actual impact on the environment is statistically negligible.

In theory, the claim can be realistic, but in practice, it is irrelevant and completely useless for attendees who wish to attend more responsibly and sustainably designed events.

Moreover, the same press release hides a slew of problematic elements:

– 57% sounds impressive until we realise it is a drop in the ocean compared to the total carbon footprint.
– Certificates and logos (FSCM EcoVadis, green print) create an illusion of advancement, yet tell nothing about the actual weight of emissions.
– Redirecting attention – often, trade shows talk about name badges, but omit the fact that 90% of an event’s carbon footprint still comes from travel, accommodation, food, energy use, and logistics.

The carbon footprint of name badges at the Conventa trade show amounts to 0,0156 % of the total event carbon footprint or 17.89 kg CO2e. The entire carbon footprint of Conventa amounted to 114.66 tonnes of CO2e in 2025.

A cosmetic correction

On the sustainable scale, we are thus referring to a cosmetic correction, not a systemic solution. It is a subtle form of greenwashing that oozes the impression that the event organisers work in accordance with sustainability principles, even though they are sharing a nominal milestone.

Under the proposed EU Directive on Green Claims (2023/0085 COD), such a PR message would be almost certainly treated as a misleading sustainability claim. The directive dictates that all green claims must be scientifically justified, credible, and clear, including the part stating which part of their event they refer to and what their percentage of the total carbon footprint is. Using relative numbers without context, such as 57% for name badges, represents only 0.0156% of the total generated emissions. According to the mentioned directive, this PR message would be a case of misleading by presenting an incorrect fact and only a facet of he total event impact. The directive also warns that certificates and sustainability labels (such as FSC and EcoVadis) are not proof of sustainability, unless they are officially verified and transparently justified. You can read more about the proposal of the Directive on the website of the European Parliament and the website EUR-Lex.

If we aspire to discuss sustainable events without greenwashing, we must focus our efforts on the fields where most emissions are generated:

Mobility of attendees: encouraging transport by rail, public transport, car sharing, and reducing short-haul flights.
Energy use of venues: venues should work with partners to use renewable energy sources and use lighting and AV systems efficiently.
Catering and gastronomy: event organisers should aspire to transition to environmentally friendly menus, work with local suppliers, and prevent food waste.
Exhibition and scenography: venues should reuse scenography elements, use modular constructions, and optimise logistics.
Digital footprint: event organisers should measure emissions that are generated by using websites, online servers, and transferring data.

Within these segments, event organisers will find real change that can actually change the percentage of the generated carbon footprint.

If we desire to keep our sustainable communication credible, it must always be based on promises, not feelings. A transparent, trustworthy, sustainable PR does not start with logos or green promises, but with transparency. The right order should be as follows:

1. The organisers should publicly share the total carbon footprint of the event, calculated according to the GHG Protocol and published as CO₂ (CO₂e). This is the foundation without which all subsequent claims are worthless.

2. Event organisers should compare different categories of carbon footprint to showcase which segments make up the most emissions. Every event has a few key segments that constitute 80% of the overall carbon footprint. Predominantly, these include mobility, energy use, catering and accommodation.

3. All events should communicate in absolute terms, not relative, vague claims. The general public can grasp the CO₂ tonnes more easily than the ambiguity of percentages. Instead of claiming “the emission of name badges was reduced by 57%”, the organisers should claim “the emissions of the event were reduced by 1.2 tonnes of CO₂ compared to last year”.

4. Event organisers should present a plan with milestones and goals, where they outline achievable goals and timeframes, not just empty promises and new partnerships. For instance, an event organising company can state: “by 2026, we wish to reduce attendee emissions by 2025% by implementing benefits for using train connections”.

5. Instead of sugarcoating facts, event organisers should back up their results with certificates, labels and accolades. However, these awards should not be a replacement for actual facts and figures.

6. Carbon offsetting should be a last resort, not the first step. First, event organisers must reduce their carbon footprint and then responsibly compensate for the rest of the emissions.

For illustration, let’s peruse the example of Conventa’s sustainability report.

A paper badge is not a problem in and of itself. Au contraire, it is rewarding to see less plastic at events, less waste, and even fewer vain visual eye candy. The problem arises when such an endeavour is proclaimed as a systematic breakthrough or “milestone”. In reality, it is a sustainable decoration – a welcoming aesthetic detail that appears great, but has no value or effect.

If we want to discuss a green transformation within the events industry, however, we must turn the spotlight from the form to the content – we must move away from percentages and PR boasting to actions. Sustainability is not an addition that can be added to an event, but a way of thinking, planning and doing.

I admit, I naively believed the times of greenwashing were consigned to the past. Yet, it seems we have not learned from our past mistakes.

In this respect, global policy is equally disheartening. There are too many compromises and not enough bravery. Hence, event organisers and stakeholders who craft experiences and influence thousands of attendees must take responsibility.

Even if some politicians still doubt climate change is real, we must trust science. Event organisers, who often promote science, should be the first to acknowledge this and put an end to misleading messages that sound great, but do not lead to actual change.

No offence to my colleagues, of course. They are masters of their trade. Their platform is flawless; in terms of digitalisation, they accomplished what some deemed impossible. Yet, in terms of sustainable event organising, they are complete novices. Once sustainability becomes a part of their algorithms, not just messages, everyone will profit -them, the events industry and the planet. Hope dies last, they say. As long as we nurture this hope, there is a possibility that we will become green because we want to, not because we need to.

For anyone who trusts credible sources, read the original PR message, exclusively for educational and analytical purposes, here.