Introduction
Mega-Events such as the World Cups and Olympics are so huge that it requires almost creating a temporary city for the massive event, with power, toilets, waste, water, and transport, among a host of other things. Such an event is inherently environmentally unsustainable, as it produces masses of waste and consumes unnecessary resources. While having no event is the most environmentally friendly event, there are many reasons countries hold why mega-events. However, it is beyond a doubt that those conducting the event have a social and environmental responsibility to reduce their impacts. This is true for all events, whether small are big. Organisers can ensure the sustainability of an event in many ways, such as recycling material, using material that creates biodegradable waste, counting all the emissions and then offsetting them, and so on. The organiser must consider the following questions
If the path taken by the organiser is to count all emissions and then offset them, what projects does the organiser support and how can the organiser make sure they are effective?
If event uses a biodegradable material such as plates and cups to serve food and drink, the organiser has a choice to buy material made from genetically modified corn grown in own country or buy plates that have travelled halfway across the world but are made from fallen palm leaves. In the latter case, the production may be helping support the sustainable development of a third world country’s rural poor.
If the event uses biofuel to get away from relying on fossil fuels to power the event, how can the organiser justify using biofuel grown from crops that could really have been food?
How does the organiser propose to dispose of all the sewage and wastewater?
The paper focuses on the sustainability efforts of London Olympics and the extent to which they were successful. In section 1.1, the paper discusses the origin and development of BS901 as well as ISO 20121 standards and briefly explains the requirements of the standards. Section 2 discusses the sustainability of London 2012 Olympics, the manner in which LOCOG implemented it, who the stakeholders were, and what the targets were for the organisers. Section 3, it analyses the successes and failures of the implementation. It then concludes with recommendations.
ISO 20121 and BS 8901
BS 8901
All events have an environmental, social, and economic impact on the local communities. They strain the local resources such as water and energy. They generate significant amounts of waste and carbon emissions. As the event grows bigger, the impact also grows bigger. Most event organisers had become aware of this fact by 2005. When London bid for Olympics 2012, the head of sustainability was aware of this. Therefore, David Stubbs, the sustainability head for London 2012 Olympic and Paralympics games made a radical proposal to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) titled “Towards a One Planet Olympics” which stated their commitment to not only stage the biggest event but also the most sustainable Olympic and Paralympic Games ever.
David Stubbs consulted British Standards Institute (BSI) and requested them to develop guidelines for sustainable event management. This resulted in BSI creating the BS8901:2007 Specification for a sustainable event management system with guidance for use. After a review, BSI published the final standards in 2009 as BS8901:2009. These standards provide guidelines to assist the event organisers to operate the events in a more sustainable manner. They provide guidance in implementing processes that help balance between the economic activity and environmental responsibility. Organisers who seek BS8901:2009 certification must understand and identify the effects that their events have on the environment and put in place measure that will nullify or reduce their impact on the environment. Some of the controls that the BS8901:2009 has are:
A Sustainability Policy
A process to identify and evaluate the issues
A process to identify and engage the stakeholder's
Document the targets, objectives, and plans
Setup the controls, and provide training required for the operation
Ensure that the suitable supply chain management is available
Ensure that the right communication is available
Ensure a mechanism for monitoring and measuring and take actions to correct and prevent as necessary
Conduct periodic audits and management reviews
The organisation that wants to implement the BS8901:2009 can do it in three phases, which include planning their commitments, integrating these commitments into their operations, and periodically check or review these to enable appropriate corrections and preventive actions. Another important aspect of these standards is that it allows for the identification of key stakeholders and allows or the discovery of the key issues that affect the sustainability so that the organisation can decide on the key performance indicators that the organisation can measure to improve sustainability. In fact, the organisation can apply these measures to the entire supply chain. The advantage of using the BS8901:2009 is the systematic manner that the standards provide the organisation and the clear direction it provides all the stakeholders.
ISO 20121
The BS8901:2009 received a positive reaction from various organisations such as the United Nations Conference on Climate Change, 2009 Microsoft Convergence, and others that used it. Due to this, the International Standards Organisation and Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT) proposed developing a new international standard for sustainable event management. Twenty-five countries participated in developing the standard while ten countries acted as observers. Stakeholder organisations, which included the members of sustainability team of the London 2012 Olympics, interested in sustainability, also participated in developing the standards. This resulted in the ISO developing and publishing the ISO 20121:2012 standards for “Event sustainability management systems –- Requirements with guidance for use” in June 2012. BS ISO20121:2012 is the British Standards’ implementation of the ISO 20121:2012, which superseded BS8901:2009 and hence lead to its withdrawal in December 2012.
The ISO 20121 is applicable to all types and sizes of organisations. It specifies the sustainability requirements for event management. These organisations those involved in design and delivery of the event and could be diverse socially, geographically, and culturally. It is a management system standard and is not a checklist, reporting framework, or evaluation method. It is flexible and allows an organisation that is new to sustainability efforts to start implementation for an event and for organisations that already have existing management systems, will be able to integrate the ISO 20121 requirements into them. They can then take the path of continual improvement to benefit from the systems.
The system follows the sequential process of the familiar Denning Cycle - Plan, Do, Check, Act as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: ISO 20121 – Model for event sustainability management (the figures in brackets refer to clauses and sub-clauses in the standard)
Source:
Sustainability of 2012 London Olympics and Paralympics Games
The London’s bid for 2012 Olympics had sustainability embedded in it. The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Ltd (LOCOG) in partnership with BioRegional and World Wide Fund (WWF) for Nature proposed the concept of ‘Towards a One Planet Olympics’, which stated that the world should live within its means. The sustainability effort addressed five themes:
Climate change: Most building and hosting activities for an event have a carbon cost associated with it. The London 2012 Olympics analysed to understand these activities, the emissions that arise, costs associated, and methods to mitigate them so that the infrastructure is fit for long-term.
Waste: By optimising the design to reduce waste, while maximising reuse and recycling of material obtained during the games as well as demolition, remodelling, and construction activities, the games follow sustainable waste management practices.
Biodiversity: By taking a responsible attitude towards ecology, the London 2012 wants to protect and manage the ecology of Lea Valley and other games venues across the UK. They also want to promote conservation and the importance of natural environment throughout the UK and other sports sectors
Inclusion Considers the event as a unique opportunity to demonstrate UKs diversity and wants to ensure that everyone can participate.
Healthy living: Wants to promote healthy lifestyles and living within the planet’s means. One can improve the quality of the life by eating well, engaging in physical activity and living in a healthy environment, so London 2012 wants to maximise the health benefits to the to the spectators, employees and the population of the of the UK.
How London 2012 Implemented ISO 20121
London 2012
For most cases, LOCOG used one single company to promote efficient use of resources. Therefore, there was one company for managing all the ceremonies such as the opening and closing ceremonies for both Olympics and Paralympics, one company for transportation, and so on. All partners had to undergo third-party certification to BS8901:2009 initially and then transition to ISO20121. Sustainability targets were set for all departments and vendors and a Sustainability Working Group were set up to oversee the delivery of the strategy. Major areas targeted were educating staff and suppliers, sustainable sourcing, waste management, energy use, and diversity and inclusion. Staff in key areas such as procurement received relevant job-specific training and potential suppliers received education with respect to sustainability. Working with suppliers to ensure sustainable sourcing resulted in innovative ideas such as replacing the PVC in fireworks with cardboard, creating costumes using old bottle plastic bottles and bags, and replacing cable wraps with sisal ties, making artificial grass using recycled content. For example, LOCOG returned to the suppliers the looms, book float, abacus, plant float, telescope, full lighting system, full audio system, track protection system, communications system, and the carousel that it used for the opening and closing ceremonies. It recycled the newspaper costumes, distributed the cauldron staging material to charities, and the cauldrons to the participating countries. Table 1 shows how it disposed of the waste arising out the ceremonies.
Source:
LOCOG and the ODA achieved ISO 20121 certification and some of the venues achieved ISO 20121 independently, not as a part of the London 2012. It achieved zero-waste-to-landfill targets by proper design, hiring rather than buying, refurbishment and recycling, composting waste, and recovering 99 percent of energy from waste incineration. Construction waste and food waste was recovered through colour coded recyclable or compostable packaging. Cable-net built over the Velodrome saved steel and therefore embodied carbon savings of 27 percent. Renewable energy was generated using biomass and solar energy generators.
Stakeholders
The Olympic Delivery Authority and LOCOG were the delivery organisations for London 2012. ODA was responsible for building and maintaining the infrastructure while LOCOG was responsible for planning and conducting the games. Other governmental organisations and stakeholders included Transport for London (TfL) and other transport organisations, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), Olympic Security Directorate (OSD), The Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority (GLA), The Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC), The Royal Parks. Sustainability partners included BMW, British Petroleum (BP), British Telecom (BT), Cisco (which replaced Nortel in 2009), EDF Energy, and General Electric (GE). Commercial partners included Coca-Cola, Acer, Atos Origin, Dow, GE, McDonalds, Omega, Panasonic, P&G, Samsung, and Visa. All these partners signed an agreement with the LOCOG. These agreements ensured that they were committed to complying with the specific requirements and sustainability policies with respect to the social, environmental, and ethical issues, which the LOCOG made a part of the tender invitations.
For example, the event needed 17,500 mattresses, which the games sourced from local manufacturers. After the games, the organisers re-used them at other places and the spoilt ones would be recycled. The Olympic Torch Relay (OTR) was a mobile event that had 8,000 participants along 8,000 miles and more than a 15 million spectators, which highlighted the sustainability efforts. This included participation of commercial partners such as Coca-Cola, Lloyds TSB and Samsung for marketing, as well as Adidas (sportswear), Aggreko (temporary power), BA (flights), BP (oil and gas), BMW (vehicles), BT (communications), EDF Energy (fuel for the Flame), Intercontinental Hotel Group, IHG (hotels), Nature Valley (cereal bars), P&G (household products) and Visa (payment services). The sustainable strategy developed was in line with the principles of ISO 20121. The LOCOG developed a community-planning guide and waste management guidance for the local authorities. They targeted measures to minimise carbon footprint, minimise waste through maximisation of recycling, maximise geographical reach to increase inclusivity, and adopted a zero harm principle regarding the vegetation and wildlife along the route. The impact expected was 998 tCO2e for LOCOG and 3957 tCO2e for partners. BP supplied advanced fuel and engine oil and vehicles used were compliant with London Low Emission Zone, integrated transport planning to reduce vehicle use, and other methods. Table 2 shows the use of recycling to reduce carbon footprint further.
Source:
Analysis of the Efforts
The most common framework for sustainability is the three-pronged diagram (Figure 2) that combines the economic, social, and environmental factors for planning and decision-making.
Figure 2: The sustainability triangle
Source:
Most argue that isolating the economics from the other two legs is the best operational method for achieving sustainability. This theory considers all the three facets in isolation, which is no longer possible. Policies developed earlier caused development in isolation of these two factors, but now they are catching up to the requirement that these three are interrelated and hence we have to treat them as such.
Negative Consequences of London 2012
The Lea Valley, the location of one of the venues, consists of a wasteland as well as some patches of wooded area. It had areas that contained derelict buildings and industrialist waste that was toxic. It had petrol, tar, arsenic and other toxins getting into the soil and water and had poisonous giant hogweed, Japanese knotweed, and Chinese mitten crab. The contaminated soil washed before construction began and vegetation transplanted back after construction. However, the local population was not happy that the ODA was concretising these grounds. The original plan of the London 2012 was to halve the carbon emissions and sourcing 25 percent of every project material from recycled sources, but as days progressed, the organisers distanced themselves from the originals targets and started talking about reducing and mitigating the carbon footprint. The London games officials did not have concrete estimates about emissions and hence the plans to reduce emissions were vague. While the games plan to use 90 percent recycled material for constructions, 50 percent of the emissions will result from construction activity, which the Games proposes to handle by carbon offsetting. This pay-to-pollute scheme has drawn a lot of criticism from ecologists. The metals in the Medals were from Rio Tinto mines, which have a poor environmental record. Due to the traffic congestion expected from the Games, regular Londoners had to stay off the roads.
Another criticism about the games was due to its selection of sponsors. With a theme such as healthy living, having McDonalds and Coca-Cola as sponsors were not the best choice, as the companies are known to be the major cause of obesity, diabetes, metabolic disorders, and unhealthy eating habits worldwide. Dow, another sponsor, had caused a large chemical explosion in India resulting in 25,000 deaths but denied responsibility whereas BP was responsible for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Conclusions
Olympic events are huge events with major impacts on the economic, social, and environmental aspects of the locality and the country where they are celebrated. For the past few editions of these Olympics, the organisers had realised this and have focused on sustainability as one of the aspects of conducting Olympics. However, London 2012 Olympics was the first Olympics that focused on sustainability as the main aspect right from the bidding stage. London 2012 Olympics began with the ideals of environmental sustainability. However, Olympics have become a commercial venture, though they are supposed to be events for amateurs. The environmental sustainability of the London 2012 was definitely a success; however, some critics feel that the success is not in line with the targets that the event had estimated. This report discussed some of the reasons in the foregoing.
Recommendations
When an event proposes to be an environmentally sustainable event, they organisers must assess the impact of the event on the environment properly. The London 2012 failed to do. Instead of vague targets, the event must have concrete targets.
Though it is commendable that all partners had agreed to commitments of environmental sustainability, the organisers must be careful in selecting the partners. Businesses who have a spotless record in pursuing sustainable environment practices must be given priority rather than focusing solely on the commercial aspects.
Conducting Olympics can result in a lot of construction activity and the only way to mitigate the carbon emissions may be by carbon offsetting. However, instead of pay-to-pollute attitude and buying carbon credits from a third world country, the organisers must sponsor activities that would offset the carbon emissions in those same locations where the event is held so that the net result of the Games in that particular region is negligible.
References
BioRegional, 2013. One planet sport, part 1: Beyond London 2012, London, UK: BioRegional.
BSI, 2010. BS 8901. [Online] Available at: http://sustainable-event-alliance.org/how-to-guides/projects/bs-8901/[Accessed 1 January 2017].
Buchanan, S., Kiely, A. & Young, R., 2012. Learning legacy: Lessons learned from planning and staging the London 2012 Games, London, UK: LOCOG.
Coe, S., 2011. London 2012 sustainability report: A blueprint for change, London, UK: London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Ltd (LOCOG).
Frost, R., 2012. New ISO 20121 standard for sustainable events management. [Online] Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/news.htm?refid=Ref1598[Accessed 11 January 2017].
Fulton, L., 2007. BSI British Standards launches new standard for managing a more sustainable event. [Online] Available at: https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/about-bsi/media-centre/press-releases/2007/11/BSI-British-Standards-launches-new-standard-for-managing-a-more-sustainable-event/[Accessed 11 January 2017].
greenfutures, 2012. Beyond the finish: Can London 2012 give sustainability a sporting chance?, London, UK: forum for future.
Hartnett, F. & Stubbs, D., 2012. London 2012: Sustainability partners, London, UK: LOCOG.
ISO Central Secretariat, 2012. Sustainable events with ISO 20121, Geneva, Switzerland: ISO International Standard.
ISO, 2012. ISO 20121: Event sustainability management systems - requirements with guidance for use. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO copyright office.
Jones, M., 2009. Sustainable event management: a practical guide. London, UK: Earthscan.
Kiely, A., 2012. London 2012 Olympic Torch Relay - sustainability lessons learned, London, UK: LOCOG.
Kim, H.-D., 2013. The 2012 London Olympics: Commercial partners, environmental sustainability, corporate social responsibility and outlining the implications. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 30(18), p. 2197–2208.
Lambert, G., 2013. Event sustainability management - ISO 20121 passes 2012 Olympic Games test. [Online] Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/news.htm?refid=Ref1690[Accessed 12 January 2017].
Lewis, M. & Conaty, P., 2012. The resilience imperative: Cooperative transitions to a steady-state economy. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Nastu, P., 2009. Microsoft eyes first sustainable events management certification. [Online] Available at: http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/02/microsoft-eyes-first-sustainable-events-management-certification/[Accessed 11 January 2017].
Singh, T., 2012. 6 ways in which London 2012 has failed to be ‘The Green Olympics’. [Online] Available at: http://inhabitat.com/6-ways-in-which-london-2012-has-failed-to-be-the-green-olympics/[Accessed 12 January 2017].
Smythe, K. R., 2014. An sistorian’s critique of sustainability. Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research, Volume 6, p. 913–929.
Tanner, D., 2011. The sustainability of the Cop15 Copenhagen meeting. [Online] Available at: http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/The-Sustainability-of-the-COP15-Copenhagen-Meeting/1312307[Accessed 11 January 2017].
Thorley, C., 2009. BS8901 made easier to understand. [Online] Available at: http://www.eventmagazine.co.uk/bs8901-made-easier-understand/event-suppliers/article/901701[Accessed 11 January 2017].
