Meeting and event industry business and optimism is on the rise according to a group of North American buyers and suppliers surveyed in the latest IMEX America Index of Optimism.

Conducted in Q1, the Index asked 200 respondents to describe their mood over the previous six months and covered topics such as new business, levels of optimism, use of technology, professionalism and the expected effect of the presidential election on the meeting, event and incentive travel industry. Of the participants, 64 percent were buyers, with suppliers comprising the remaining 36 percent. 

Showing ongoing business improvement, a strong 88 percent of respondents say they had attracted new sources of business in the previous six month period (up from just over 77 percent in the previous July 2011 IMEX America Index of Optimism).

The survey showed optimism among U.S. buyers and suppliers to be on the rise, with a little over 79 percent reporting they felt more optimistic than in summer 2011. Nine percent remain less optimistic, and 12 percent were not sure. Compared to July 2011, when only 66 percent felt optimistic about the future, this 13 percent increase suggests a more positive outlook has returned, and buyers and suppliers are feeling slightly more bullish about business prospects for the remainder of 2012.

When asked whether there was evidence that large meetings and events were attracting higher or lower numbers of attendees over the past six months, just over 53 percent noted a rise in numbers—a slight, positive increase from the 50 percent indicated in the July 2011 Index. For 27 percent, there was no reported rise in delegate numbers and 20 percent remained unsure.

The survey also asked if spending per participant at these events was on the rise. Results were virtually split down the middle with 38 percent saying yes, nearly 40 percent saying no, and the remainder declaring they were not sure.

When asked the “crystal ball” question everyone wants the answer to, whether the industry had seen the worst of the market difficulties yet, results swung to more positive ground. Forty-nine percent said they felt the worst had passed. Thirty-one percent believe there is more uncertainty to come, and 20 percent can’t decide either way. These findings show less doubt and pessimism than in July 2011 when just 30 percent felt the worst had past and 34 percent felt there was more uncertainty around the corner.

Further, The IMEX America Index of Optimism also sought feedback on the importance of continued professional development and industry recognition, as well as hot technologies and the upcoming U.S. presidential election and its potential effect on the industry.

Just over 81 percent agreed that continued work is critical to build and reinforce the professionalism of the industry, acknowledging that this helps to impress the true value of the industry upon stakeholders and other influential groups.

In comment-format questions regarding use of social media and hot technologies, Twitter, Facebook, smartphones, tablets and apps continue to dominate industry professionals’ lives and habits. However, respondents emphasized their search for value rather than novelty, and only rate those technologies and devices that help them create better marketing programs and sponsorships, build stronger client relationships or deliver a richer attendee interaction or greater convenience.

Comments also suggest that appetite for greater network bandwidth in venues, more extensive Wi-Fi availability and more and better mobile apps to facilitate information access and interaction remains strong.

Further, interest in cloud-based CRM and database solutions was also expressed, and there continues to be much discussion around virtual and video conference formats and technologies—especially for smaller audiences. This said, the continuing value of face-to-face connections, networking and relationship development created at live events was consistently reinforced by survey respondents.

Finally, with the U.S. buzzing with presidential election news and speculation, the Index asked participants how the upcoming election is likely to affect the meetings industry. Many said not at all, although others indicated that election years typically lead to a more “wait and see” attitude on budgets and program decisions. However, some recent lengthening of lead times could help industry members get past the November 2012 bottleneck. Generally concerns over rising fuel prices, job creation and continued global economic instability created more concern than the specific outcome of the election. Those in the medical/healthcare and pharma sectors, however, did express some concerns about direct and potentially negative impacts based on who wins or loses the race to the Oval Office.

Many provided comment that no matter who wins, it’s essential to keep pushing for more understanding and pro-industry action on Capitol Hill.

“Last October, at IMEX America there was a tangible feeling of optimism among buyers and suppliers and our business figures reflected that," said Carina Bauer, CEO of the IMEX Group. "Our exit survey showed that hosted buyers placed total orders onsite of US$281 million and expected to place a further $1.9 billion worth of orders in the nine months afterwards. Interest in the next IMEX America is looking extremely strong with demand for booth space and for hosted buyer places all supporting the gentle upswing indicated by these findings.”

The only certainty for today’s business leaders: The current trade environment is here to stay, according to John Veihmeyer, chairman of KPMG Americas. Corporate leaders are fairly optimistic about their 12-15 months prospects, but they worry about their peers. Companies don’t have the luxury of waiting. 

Most are engaged in major transformations of business, rethinking decades-long practices and creating corporate responsibility practices, as opportunities to get ahead and see longer-term, sustained growth by applying a sustainability lens. Investors seek information about the impact of their funds and intensify responsible environmental behavior. 

CEOs are increasingly focused on sustainability, not just where risks are but where opportunities lie. His comments came during KPMG’s Business Perspective on Sustainable Growth: Preparing for Rio+20 event. 

Rio+20 in June, marking the 20th anniversary of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, will focus on (1) a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication and (2) the institutional framework for sustainable development. 

KPMG’s goal: bring a business perspective to the policy debate. The audit, tax and advisory services firm hosted its top global executives and prospective and current clients Feb. 13-16 at the Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers to discuss a number of corporate responsibility initiatives around energy security, transportation, green growth, CSR reporting and more. Dignitaries in attendance: U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and former U.S. President Bill Clinton. 

In his keynote speech, Ban noted the decline of ecosystems, the widening gaps between rich and poor, climate change, the deterioration of trust in government and business. He detailed a crisis of leadership and a lack of imagination and urgency looking at the world’s problems. And he hailed the 7,000+ signatories of the U.N. Global Compact (a strategic initiative for businesses that commit to align operations and strategies with 10 principles in the areas of human rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption.  

Twenty years ago (circa the first Rio summit), few companies had instituted sustainable business practices; today 95 percent of G250 companies report on their corporate responsibility efforts, and almost half of these report financial gains from their CSR programs (KPMG). But business still doesn’t properly value CSR with the right incentives. Instead, they use it for public relations. Ban called for businesses to place corporate responsibility at the core of their cultures and operations. “I’ve been urging the leaders of the world not to be a prisoner of their constituents,” he said. “If they have a vision, they need to carry it out.” 

The business leaders present agreed in large part, noting coming trends that will adversely affect business should it not act: food supply, climate change, energy, water, market volatility, a rapidly expanding middle class. 

“We need to be more courageous,” declared Paul Polman, chief executive of Unilever (Dove, Lux, Pond’s). “I don’t work for the shareholders; the shareholders will be rewarded if we please the consumer.” Polman called on his fellow business leaders to find shareholders who align with their beliefs, not the other way around, reminding his peers of the power of today’s consumer, who can bring down a regime in weeks and a company in “nanoseconds.” 

These consumers, part of the new mega-middle class, offer challenges and opportunities for companies. And they have placed climate change at the top of the agenda, the cause debate not withstanding. The price of risk must be transparent and visible, said Michel Lies, group CEO Swiss Reinsurance Co., who says more people have mobile phones than have insurance. 

Nevertheless, Rio+20 must address all these issues and more, said Jorma Ollila, chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, even in a time when governments are much more focused on debt crises. He called on business and government leaders to build trust through honest milestones, true incentives and stable regulatory frameworks that allow companies to invest in solutions.

____

Outcomes from KPMG's Business Perspective on Sustainable Growth: Preparing for Rio+20 will be shared at Rio+20. Both events aim to craft a forward-looking agenda to focus on global green growth. KPMG International is hosting the event, in cooperation with the UN Global Compact, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the United Nations Environment Programme.

Facing material scarcity, massive demand in emerging markets and quickly evolving technologies, this generation’s transportation titans look to address their newest challenge/opportunity: corporate responsibility. And like recent MPI research into CSR suggests for the meeting sector, the new millennium’s transport CEOs face the specter of self- and market-based change or the possibility of government regulation. 

With these and other issues in mind, several transportation executives joined Rio environmental secretary Suzana Kahn Ribeiro and Jogar Shah of nonprofit Carbon War Room in a frank discussion of their industry’s future on Feb. 14 during KPMG’s Business Perspective on Sustainably Growth: Preparing for Rio+20 event at the Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers. The conversation focused on transport trends, which will ultimately affect the lifeline of the meetings industry itself, from the health of air transit companies to the streamlining of shipping. 

And transport businesses have a responsibility to be sustainable, according to Chris Schroeder, head of sustainable development for Qatar Air, which didn’t exist in 1997 but now boasts more than 100 planes (and 200 on order). Three years ago, the airline invested in an alternative fuel project. It supports Qatar’s biofuel development program. 

To be a sustainable business, Schroeder says the company must have energy security, and move from a fuel taker to a fuel maker, independent of the vulnerable oil market. For Schroeder, government regulation isn’t the answer. He cites the E.U. carbon tax. The government’s intentions were good, he says, but its implementation was a mess—despite the fact that the aviation sector itself was first to tackle emission standards. 

Schroeder says policymakers are restricting movement, and impeding progress that businesses can and are willing to make, since they wouldn’t stay in business otherwise. Scott Wicker, chief sustainability officer for UPS, says corporate responsibility just makes business sense; fuel and carbon efficiencies drive profits. In his mind, any regulations on industry must be global, like the companies they regulate. 

Numerous standards impede business and create inefficiencies, and confuse consumers who can’t differentiate the competition. UPS has been a leader in efficiency and sustainability for years. Its “no left turn” policy was groundbreaking, and now driver clipboards leverage telematics that give each driver 200 data efficiency points. Drivers review their routes. They know when they braked too hard and when they drove efficiently. Supervisors use the points to help change driver habits and increase fuel savings. The company also uses rail transport and other intermodal shipping to create huge efficiency gains. 

In late March, UPS joined U.S. President Barack Obama’s Clean Fleets Program (together with rival FedEx), pledging to help develop new green vehicle technologies and taking our ideas and sharing with smaller companies but getting all of these technologies to work to scale. It also boasts a partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Way program that tracks emissions. During times of disaster, UPS offers logistics expertise—after Haiti earthquake, a team organized supply shipments for the Red Cross. Wicker says all these measures ultimately help UPS customers. 

The company’s next step is to encourage customers to take advantage of its programs, like carbon neutral shipping, which it offers without much consumer traction. Schroeder of Qatar Air sees this. The company offers voluntary carbon abatement for passengers, but he says it failed in the education campaign. When, the airline added a description to its onboard entertainment and magazine, conscription jumped form 2 percent to 12 percent. 

Meanwhile GM has seen the rise of its efficiency since bankruptcy in 2009. It now sells more vehicles in China than it does in the U.S., says David Tulauskas, the company’s director of sustainability. Since that time, GM has recognized the need to play a greater role in sustainable mobility—especially in research and development. 

It was the first auto company to complete Global Reporting Initiative guidelines, and now it looks to do so again. Tulauskas says the company is unifying under a holistic systems approach that requires collaboration with other transport and major cities. But regulation is also seen as a problem in the auto industry, which Tulauskas says has driven many manufacturers to over-engineering. 

He points to the success of the Chevrolet Volt electric car, which GM delivered in 2010 despite bankruptcy. It not only provides efficiency, but also encourages and challenges consumers to drive more resourcefully. GM has also teamed with RelayRide, which helps car owners make extra cash off their idle wheels by renting them out to neighbors—mad, or genius business decision?  Tulauskas even discusses the possibility of autonomous vehicles waiting take rail passengers the last mile to their destinations. 

For business leaders like Blair Wimbush (corporate sustainability officer for rail operator Norfolk Southern Co.), profitability is part of the sustainable equation. Norfolk is reducing energy wherever it’s used—from something as simple as lights to its HVAC operations to its locomotives. 

Several years ago, Norfolk adopted reforestation for carbon mitigation. It invests in a tree-growing project (6 million in the Mississippi delta) and the Longleaf Alliance. It recently launched a renewable fuel initiative that can pour directly into a diesel engine. Wimbrush says policymakers need to engage business to find cooperative answers. 

Norfolk has instituted efficiencies on its own as part of sustainable objectives and smart business decisions. Dashboards calculate starts and stops and give real-time information that helps optimize fuel economy. New private-public partnerships have moved shipping lanes from the highways to the railways. The government pays a percentage of costs, and Norfolk delivers ROI through tunnels and lines that can shave miles off routes. 

Schroeder of Qatar Air sees the benefit of working with government. After signing the U.N. Global Compact, the airline has been involved in sustainability roundtables with city governments, looking at direct and indirect ROI. He says the company invests in biofuels, not to save 1 percent in five years, but knowing the benefit in 10 years. 

For these businesses it’s not so much anti-regulation, as it is self-regulation. When government does write policy, which at times it must, these leaders ask for industry input—and above all, global rules that create consistency across the supply chain. All this and more will be discussed at RIO+20: The U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development this June, a conference designed to secure political commitment for sustainable development, assess progress and gaps and address new and emerging challenges. 

____

Outcomes from KPMG's Business Perspective on Sustainable Growth: Preparing for Rio+20 will be shared at Rio+20. Both events aim to craft a forward-looking agenda to focus on global green growth. KPMG International is hosting the event, in cooperation with the UN Global Compact, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the United Nations Environment Programme.

The following is a guest blog from meeting design expert John Nawn.

Since I started working on MPI’s Business Value of Meetings research with Bill Voegeli of Association Insights, I’ve been wracking my brain for an explanation as to why our industry has such an aversion to measurement. 

In 2011, The Economic Significance of Meetings to the U.S. Economy study found that the U.S. meeting industry directly supports 1.7 million jobs, $263 billion in spending, a $106 billion contribution to GDP, $60 billion in labor revenue, $14.3 billion in federal tax revenue and $11.3 billion in state and local tax revenue. 

Yet hardly a single conference or meeting owner can tell us what they’re getting for their “investments.” It boggles my mind. How can this be? 

It all makes me think of Dr. Brené Brown, who delivered a keynote presentation recently at IMEX America. Her message needs to be heard. It’s the kind of message that stops you in your tracks, makes you sit up and take notice, listen. Brown talks about the role emotions play, consciously and unconsciously, in the everyday decisions we make (think: emotions such as fear, shame and vulnerability, as well as characteristics such as courage, authenticity and integrity). It’s these darker emotions—these shadow emotions—that are at the root of why we as an industry haven't embraced measurement as a means of answering the question of why meetings matter. 

It’s like we’re living in a collective state of denial that undermines our professional credibility and handicaps our abilities to drive the change and innovation that organizations are so desperate for today. 

If we really want to change our behavior and begin measuring what’s worthy of being measured, we’re going to have to acknowledge these emotional barriers. The encouraging findings from MPI’s first white paper, The Business Value of Meetings: Perception vs. Reality, were that 1) organizations are defining the business “value” of meetings broadly, not just in financial terms and 2) organizations are finding a few key metrics to focus on that actually work for them. 

The broad definition of value is worth noting because meetings have a variety of tangible and intangible outcomes. “But just because it’s hard to quantify,” notes one CFO from our study, “doesn’t mean it can’t be measured.” The fact that some organizations are successfully measuring the business value of their meetings demonstrates that it’s actually possible. 

Perception vs. Reality identifies a number of false assumptions about measurement that meeting stakeholders and professionals make. 

• Because measurement is so complicated, we’re bound to fail at it.
• Because we can’t define objectives for why we’re meeting, we can’t really measure success.
• Because measurement costs too much in time and resources, we’re not going to even try. 

Now contrast these with the benefits of measurement cited by meeting professionals who have persevered under the same conditions. 

• Because we defined our objectives, we run much more efficient meetings.
• Because we measure meaningful outcomes, we can better defend our budgets.
• Because we focus on results, we contribute more value to our stakeholders. 

The difference in attitude couldn’t be any clearer. The decisions we make every day, such as the decision to measure the business value of a meeting or not, are driven by our emotions. We make excuses like those above based on our underlying emotions. The challenge is to make sure the right emotions are behind our decisions. 

Here’s an exercise that might help you understand your underlying emotions regarding measuring the business value of your meetings. Ask yourself the following question. 

“Why don’t I measure the business value of my meeting?” 

Keep asking yourself why to each answer you come up with until you get to the underlying emotion behind your decision. The more honest you are with yourself, the less time this takes. Let me know what you come up with. You see, it’s time meeting stakeholders, professionals and even attendees showed real courage and leadership when it comes to measuring the business value of meetings. 

After all, courage is simply the willingness to be afraid…and act anyway. 

___

JOHN NAWN is founder of experiential design firm, www.ThePerfectMeeting.com, which is focused on optimizing the meeting attendee experience. He is a leading authority on meeting design, the future of meetings and related topics.