John's View: Why Sustainability Evidence Needs an Owner

When a client asks for the sustainability evidence behind an event, the answer depends on more than whether the organisation has collected some data. It depends on whether somebody has taken responsibility for bringing that information together and making it useful.

For me, that responsibility starts at the top. Ultimately, it sits with senior leadership and the board. But the work itself is a cross-functional process. The people closest to the operation have to be involved, and the information has to make its way upwards.

That distinction matters. Leadership can be accountable for sustainability without personally collecting every data point. Equally, an operational team can collect information without being able to take responsibility for the organisation's overall approach. We need both parts to work together.

Start where the evidence is created

At ground level, I think operations should lead the collection of sustainability evidence. They are closest to the contractors and suppliers, and closest to what is actually happening at a venue.

They can see where electricity is being used, what is happening to water, and which waste is being taken away. They are also close to the practical questions behind the figures: what is going to landfill, and what is being recycled?

Those are operational questions before they become reporting questions. If we want useful evidence, we need to involve the people who understand the activity behind it.

That does not mean everything belongs to operations. Sustainability and ESG extend across the organisation. Environmental management, finance and HR all have a part to play. When the discussion includes diversity or labour standards, HR needs to be involved too.

The challenge is to connect those contributions. Responsibility can be shared across departments, but the information still needs to come together. It cannot remain a collection of separate pieces that nobody uses.

Collected information needs a purpose

When nobody owns the evidence, the problem is that the information is not brought together. Data points can remain unused and redundant, even though people have spent time collecting them.

That is the difference I would draw between holding data and taking responsibility for it. Holding data gives you individual pieces of information. Taking responsibility means making sure those pieces contribute to an ongoing process, rather than simply sitting there.

A venue may have information about energy in one place and waste in another. Bringing it together is part of making that information useful. The operational work needs a route into the wider organisation, with ultimate responsibility at senior leadership level.

If we lose that connection, collecting more data on its own will not solve the problem. We also have to make use of what we already have.

Move beyond a claim

For a client, a clear owner helps move the conversation beyond claiming that an organisation is doing the right things environmentally or through its ESG processes.

There is a difference between saying that work is happening and having a process behind it that people can recognise and take seriously. Ownership helps give that process credibility. The evidence becomes part of how the organisation works, rather than something it tries to assemble only when asked.

Make a manageable start

My advice to a venue manager is to choose a simple, reliable way to collect and bring together the information.

Do not try to boil the ocean in one go. Start with something manageable, measure it and report it. Then build from there.

The first step does not have to achieve everything. It does need to establish a process that the organisation can continue: operations collecting the information, the relevant departments contributing, and leadership accepting responsibility for the result.

That is how evidence becomes useful. Someone needs to own the work of turning it into something the organisation can act on.