Access First, Not Last

In the era of sustainable branding, the events industry proudly promotes its eco-credentials—plastic-free pledges, zero-waste commitments, and carbon neutrality. But in the midst of these green declarations, one question too often remains unasked: sustainable for whom?

This blog explores how sustainability in events must go beyond environmental responsibility to embrace accessibility as a foundation of justice. In particular, it calls attention to people with disabilities and other marginalised groups, who are often excluded not by intent, but by design. It questions whether the so-called “inclusive” events truly create enduring social change—or merely perform symbolic inclusion under the banner of sustainability.

Access is Not Just Entry: The Right to Full Participation

There is a tendency in event management to view accessibility as a technical checkbox: “Is there a ramp? Are there captions?” But access is not just about entry—it is about meaningful and dignified participation.

According to the World Health Organization (2023), over 1.3 billion people globally live with some form of disability, representing approximately 16% of the population. Yet a survey by Eventbrite (2022) found that only 23% of event organisers had accessibility as a top priority when planning their events.

As Sins Invalid (2016) explains, accessibility is not a favour—it is a right. A person who enters a room but cannot understand the content, navigate the layout, or engage socially is not truly included. Accessibility must therefore be seen not as compliance, but as an ethical and creative practice.

Sustainability vs Inclusion: A False Trade-off?

An uncomfortable truth persists in many event designs: inclusion is often sacrificed for the optics of sustainability. Some green venues reduce built infrastructure to minimise environmental impact, but in doing so remove essential elements such as wheelchair-accessible paths or sensory-friendly rooms. 

Likewise, digital-only events—while lowering carbon footprints—may inadvertently exclude neurodiverse users, individuals with sensory sensitivities, or those without access to assistive technologies. This contradiction reveals a deeper conflict between environmental branding and inclusive design. 

Research by Darcy and Buhalis (2011) identifies this tension as “eco-ableism,” where green standards clash with the realities of access for disabled individuals. One of the most telling examples is the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games. Although globally celebrated for highlighting disability sport, many of its venues lacked adequate signage, wayfinding, and staff trained in accessibility support (Nakamura and Kokudo, 2021). Even in one of the world’s most disability-centered events, operational gaps were evident.

Inclusion or Illusion? The Limits of Symbolic Accessibility

Many large-scale events display a surface level of inclusivity through sign language interpreters or one-off disability awareness panels. However, the absence of disabled voices in planning processes, decision-making, and post-event benefits indicates that such efforts often remain performative. 

Finkel et al. (2019) argue that inclusion without structural redistribution of power results in tokenism. This is further supported by Bostock and Pritchard (2020), whose qualitative study revealed that disabled attendees frequently perceive these “inclusive events” as alienating. Rather than eliminating barriers, such symbolic gestures reinforce feelings of marginalisation. 

More importantly, inclusion should not be viewed as an ethical obligation alone, but also a strategic advantage. A global report by Darcy (2012) demonstrates that organisations integrating inclusion at their core experience 19% higher innovation revenue and 25% improved team performance. This underlines that inclusive design isn’t just a moral choice—it drives tangible value.

Inclusive Event Design: A Blueprint for Structural Change

Building truly accessible events requires embedding inclusion into every layer of planning, from budgeting and venue selection to communication and evaluation. According to the UK Government’s “Inclusive Communication in Events” report (2021), organisations that prioritised accessibility from the beginning saw a 32% increase in participant satisfaction and enhanced audience retention. 

The first step toward transformation is co-creation. Organisers must engage people with disabilities not just as consultants, but as equal partners with decision-making power. Intersectionality must also guide event planning. Disability does not exist in a vacuum; it intersects with gender, race, class, and geography. Designing for this complexity ensures broader impact. Transparent accountability is another essential aspect. Publishing social impact and accessibility audits—just like carbon reports—signals institutional integrity. 

Finally, the adoption of universal design principles enables the creation of spaces that are usable and enjoyable for everyone, without the need for adaptation or special accommodations. Instead of being a logistical constraint, inclusive design fosters more dynamic, innovative and socially responsive events.

Conclusion: Sustainability with Justice at the Core

Sustainability in the events industry is not only about reducing waste or emissions—it's about creating experiences that welcome, include, and empower all individuals. Accessibility, particularly for people with disabilities, must be a proactive, foundational element of every stage of event planning.

Rather than viewing inclusion and environmental sustainability as competing goals, we should see them as mutually reinforcing pillars of a truly just and resilient future. When we embed accessibility into design—not as an add-on, but as a principle—we create events that are not only greener, but fairer, more meaningful, and more enduring.

By asking who is included, how they participate, and what impact the event leaves behind, we ensure that our work contributes to a more equitable and inclusive world. Sustainable events should not just reflect best practices—they should reflect our best values.