UK and International sector leaders discussed five key themes:

1. Construction and Infrastructure – The ODA has proved that sustainable construction can be done at a reasonable cost so why aren’t commissioning organisations asking for it?
2. Food – Is it possible to replicate and improve on the London 2012 food vision objectives (to provide affordable, healthy and sustainably sourced food) for future major events?
3. Supply chain – How can those that commission major events contribute to improving labour standards in the supply chain?
4. Volunteering – How does the UK harness the appetite for volunteering for the benefit of sustainable communities?
5. Corporate Sponsorship – What does the ethical framework for sponsoring major events look like?

The outcome of the Beyond 2012 Series has been detailed in a report which can be found here

The IES journal, entitled London 2012 – Sustainable Legacy? offers a comprehensive look at the sustainability successes, challenges and learning from the Games in London. Featuring a range of articles covering topics from health and the environment to ethics and the sponsorship of major events, the majority of articles have been written by CSL Commissioners and Secretariat, experts in their respective fields.

Guest authors also include Kathryn Firth (Chief of Design at the London Legacy Development Corporation), Richard Jackson (former Principle Sustainability Manager at the Olympic Delivery Authority) and Jonathan Pauling (Senior Policy Officer for the Greater London Authority who specialises in food).

The journal has a special joint introduction from Jonathan Porritt CBE (Co-Founder of Forum for the Future) and the Commission’s own Chair, Shaun McCarthy.

The journal will be available for public access later in the year, accessed via the IES website.

Entitled Making a Difference, the report concludes that while there have been some excellent examples of action to embed the lessons learnt from the Games, for example, through the Government’s on-going support for the 2012 Learning Legacy web portal, there is still more to be done.

The Commission’s findings point to two main factors holding back widespread adoption of sustainable practice in the UK: firstly, slowness in government action in embedding sustainability in government procurement; and secondly, the need for more independent oversight to ensure that sustainability targets in all sectors are met. The Commission has recommended the Government revisit advice to embed sustainability into the construction sector, and that major projects open themselves up to independent scrutiny of their sustainability commitments.

Also examined are issues relating to corporate sponsorship, which raised some unresolved ethical concerns during London 2012. The use of forced labour and excessive working hours in supply chains remain a problem for many industries as a whole.

To combat this problem in the Olympic and Paralympic world, the Commission’s report recommends that the IOC and other sports bodies work together to develop an ethical framework as a means of encouraging sponsors to improve human rights in the supply chain.

Shaun McCarthy, Chair of the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012, said:

“London 2012 was the first games to be monitored by an independent sustainability body. It was a ground-breaking decision seven years ago when we were first established. We’ve proved that the concept works, and now we’re seeing evidence of Commission-style assurance being used on large-scale private developments around the world.’

“However there is some way to go before the model is embedded in the UK public sector. London and the UK is looking to host a number of high profile events in the coming years and are well placed to take advantage of London 2012’s sustainability successes and lessons learnt. Internationally, Rio 2016 and the 34th America’s Cup in San Francisco have already demonstrated a commitment to cutting edge sustainability goals and we look forward to even better sustainability outcomes from the UK into the future. So much good has come from the Games, it’s up to government and the private sector to adopt Olympic best practice and ensure the legacy lives on.”

The full report can be read here.

The project was completed in mid-March 2013.

To ensure that the evaluation was carried out with sufficient independence, the Commission asked its Key Funders to establish a Steering Group, and it established a Peer Review Group.  The role of the Peer Review Group (PRG) was to provide commentary on whether the project was carried out in accordance with the project methodology, and whether there were any issues which had not been addressed as part of the evaluation which were considered by the PRG to be of importance to the outcome.

The PRG delivered its commentary on the DRAFT report in February 2013.  The consultants addressed many of the points raised by the PRG in the final evaluation report.

The Independent Evaluation report (CAG Consultants) can be found here

The PRG statement can be found here

BP was appointed by London 2012 as the Olympic and Paralympic Games offset partner for official travel. In addition, BP established a voluntary programme which offered to offset travel related carbon emissions for spectators, London 2012 corporate partners and the wider ‘Olympic family’ such as athletes and country delegations.

The Target Neutral Programme:

“…is an initiative that provides information and tools primarily through a website (www.bptargetneutral.com) but also other channels such as Facebook, to support the reduction of carbon footprints. The information and tools are structured around three topic areas: ‘Reduce, Replace and Neutralise’. Participants are encouraged to reduce their travel emissions, for example by replacing car journeys with public transport, by driving ‘smarter’, driving less and maintaining vehicles better. Participants are also encouraged to consider new fuel-efficient vehicle technologies such as high efficiency engines and improved tyres, or products that may support vehicle efficiency such as “BP Ultimate Fuels” and BP’s “Castrol” lubricants. The ‘Neutralise’ stream encourages participants to offset the carbon emissions from unavoidable travel, and provides the facility to offset”[1]

The Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 (‘CSL’ / ‘The Commission’) decided to conduct assurance of the Target Neutral Programme in order to determine the robustness, efficacy and success of the programme in offsetting travel related carbon emissions and in influencing participants’ travel and offsetting behaviour.  To assist in its assurance CSL commissioned consultants Point Carbon to carry out a technical assessment of the Programme’s carbon offsets and the behaviour change elements.

The Commission is satisfied with the robustness of the Target Neutral Programme in respect of its treatment of carbon offsets.  The review found that BP has established a carbon offset programme which is innovative and which surpasses best available standards for the voluntary offset market in some respects, and met best available standards in all other respects.

The Commission believes that BP carefully researched and established a programme that could influence spectator and partner behaviour to make less carbon intensive travel choices and to consider offsetting their journeys to and from the Games. However, there is no evidence yet that longer term behaviour change has occurred although BP has put in place measures to engage participants over time through its ongoing carbon offsetting programme.

The Programme offset 99,027 tonnes of carbon and 501,412 journeys, which we estimate to be  between 3.88% and 7.76% of all spectator journeys[2] and 20% of the travel-related carbon originally estimated in LOCOG’s initial carbon footprint for the games[3].  This required over 500,000 people to actively engage with Park-based offset activities in order for their offset to be recognised under the programme which was a significant achievement. While the carbon offset was within expectations, the voluntary nature of the scheme meant that this was only a small proportion of all carbon emissions linked to travel for the Games.

The Commission recognises that offsetting carbon related to travel for major events can play an important role in reducing their overall carbon impact.  Previously we have been critical of moves to integrated carbon offsetting as a fundamental management strategy for addressing carbon as part of the London 2012 programme, as this can reduce the priority placed on reducing carbon impacts at source in favour of offsetting.  However, we supported the use of a travel related carbon offsetting strategy given that travel is largely unavoidable for international visitors.

As the Target Neutral Programme was voluntary, a key factor in the level of take-up for the programme was its visibility to spectators and partners and the level of public discourse and therefore awareness about climate change and carbon emission issues at the time.  The Commission has previously commented on the high level of press interest in local sustainability issues during the 2012 Games.  A notable exception to this was the general lack of media interest in global sustainability issues such as climate change or resource shortages (for example, water, or materials).  This may have played a part in the modest uptake by spectators of the offer to have their travel carbon offset.

The Commission believes that the BP Target Neutral Programme experience offers powerful lessons for future major events considering offsetting travel related carbon emissions and has a number of observations for future major event organisers.  The high standard of BP’s carbon offset programme sets a new bar for the major events industry and BP should be congratulated for its programme design in this regard.

It will be important for future events to try and establish a baseline of changed consumer preferences resulting from engagement in travel offset programmes so that learnings can be gathered about what works best and why during and after the programme has been implemented.  Early engagement by event organisers to determine a clear goal for a travel related carbon offset programme will be crucial in this regard. Defining parameters including behaviour change will assist delivery partners in designing a programme which best incentivises involvement, and which measures behaviour related impact.

Notwithstanding the very successful Park activation activity operated by BP, serious consideration should be given to ways in which spectators’ engagement with the programme could be even further strengthened, for example, by increasing the attractiveness of programme incentives or by stronger ties between event organisers and offset delivery partners.  We are aware that BP sought opportunities for greater connection with ticket holders but not all of these opportunities were given the go-ahead by games organisers.

There is merit in a globally standardised approach to calculating emissions from travel for international events. BP’s methodology would make an appropriate basis for this approach.  In communicating how an individual journey has been calculated, future programme design could optimize further the interest of the consumer and their engagement with ways to reduce emissions at source.

References: 

http://learninglegacy.independent.gov.uk/index.php

The Commission commends the hard work of the LOCOG sustainability team for making available such a wealth of useful information concerning the achievements and challenges around the sustainability of the Games, and in making the lessons available for industries, organisations or individuals to take forward.

Assurance Statement by the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012

This final sustainability report of London 2012 presents an unprecedented opportunity to consider how London 2012 performed against its stated sustainability commitments.  It has been the role of the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 to hold each of the London 2012 bodies formally to account throughout the life of the 2012 programme and, in this final sustainability report for London 2012, we provide here a summary of our view on the programme’s performance.

Over its life, the Commission has undertaken an extensive number of planned and responsive thematic and annual reviews, resulting in 235 recommendations.  Progress against these along with full reports can be found on the Commission’s website at www.cslondon.org. At the time of writing, over 70 per cent have been achieved or satisfactorily closed, while just 10 per cent have either not been achieved, show no progress yet, or are at significant risk of having not been achieved.  This demonstrates that London 2012 has been largely responsive to criticism to ensure that it remained on course in meeting its sustainability commitments.

This final report highlights in a commendably transparent manner London 2012’s successes and learnings from hosting the Games themselves.  The report is focussed on what lessons can be learnt by future Games organisers and associated industry players across themes most important to stakeholders.  It is supplemented by summary reporting against all sustainability related Games-time targets.

While we are not in a position to comment on the veracity of the data presented in this report, there is nothing that contradicts our own observations from the Games period which we reported in our post-Games report ‘London 2012 – From Vision to Reality’.

London 2012’s sustainability achievements surpass any other Games and have in many cases set new world best practice across development and events related sectors.  As the world economy struggles in a climate of austerity, it would be easy for governments and industry players alike to view London’s performance as an unrepeatable high-point, domestically and abroad.  This would be a mistake in our view.

The sustainability team within London 2012 ceases in mid December 2012, and our own Commission ends on 31 March 2013.  There is a limited window to ensure that London’s legacy is best applied and not simply a fond memory. The Commission has one final review to undertake before we close, entitled ‘Beyond 2012’. We will focus this review on the many ways in which London’s performance can be embedded into wider industry practice.

A key question in our final review will be how the UK government can keep London’s legacy alive. We are heartened by the creation of a legacy unit within the Cabinet Office and under the leadership of Lord Coe and we look forward to seeing plans that set out how London’s legacy will live on.

A legacy of change

The final London 2012 sustainability report can be downloaded here

London 2012 – from vision to reality 

The Commission’s post-Games report can be downloaded here

The post-Games report, entitled London 2012 – From Vision to Reality, presents the final conclusions through key sustainability themes, with information based on first-hand observations and data gathered by the Commission during Games-time.

The report concludes that the London 2012 Games broadly delivered against its sustainability objectives, and highlights several examples of leading practice which the Commission urges future Olympic and Paralympic organisers to follow.

Using today’s release of its post-Games report, the Commission has called on the UK to lead the charge in ensuring London’s lessons are firmly embedded into the events industry.

Ambitious sustainability targets such as zero waste to landfill and 70% waste to be re-used, recycled or composted are on track thanks to efforts such as meticulous attention to packaging and the effective use of the colour coded three-bin system.

The transport system delivered an excellent service, and London 2012 should be praised for being the first Games to offer a fully comprehensive mobility service. Comprehensive public transport options and effective planning meant that the logistical operation for the Games was delivered with minimal disruption to Londoners.

Another success story was the food, with a wide variety of healthy, sustainably sourced, affordable meals available at most London 2012 venues, driven from the start by the development of the impressive London 2012 ‘Food Vision’ – a first for major event catering.

Shaun McCarthy, Chair of the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012, said:

“I have no hesitation in confirming that London 2012 has delivered the most sustainable Games ever, and we congratulate the delivery bodies and all those who contributed to this excellent achievement. But we mustn’t rest on our laurels – more could be achieved if London’s lessons, both the good and the challenging, are heeded by others.

“London 2012 has raised the bar on sustainability, not just for future Olympic and Paralympic Games but for industry, and for the organisers of major events the world over – from music festivals to football World Cups. By being open to learning from these successes as well as the missed opportunities, future major projects could even out-perform London 2012’s sustainability achievements.

“Minister for Sport Hugh Robertson has said that Government is now ‘focused on delivering the legacy from the Games’. The UK is hosting the Commonwealth Games in 2014, the Rugby World Cup in 2015, and the Olympic Stadium hosting the World Athletics Championships in 2017 – what better way to deliver the legacy than by embedding leading sustainability practice in these events? I call on the organisers to pick up the sustainability baton and carry it forward, demonstrating to the UK public that we can rely on them to meet the spirit of London’s sustainability achievements.”

However, the Commission’s findings also point to some areas during the London 2012 Games where further improvements could have been made.

The Live Sites provided an excellent opportunity for the public to soak up the Games atmosphere for free, but the Commission was disappointed that many of the Live Sites refused to allow the public to bring in their own food; compromising affordability and the principle of creating an event for all budgets.

Although Games-time carbon savings are on track to be achieved, the Commission remains disappointed with LOCOG’s slow development of a comprehensive energy plan, which meant opportunities were missed for even further carbon reductions.

The opening and closing ceremonies provided a showcase for messages about sustainability, and elements such as the method of waste management on the Olympic Park and use of green space offered spectators an opportunity to observe sustainability in practice. However, the lack of information available about the venues, village buildings and infrastructure was a missed opportunity for communicating their sustainability credentials to visitors.

The post-Games report can be downloaded in PDF format here.  

The full press release about the report is available here.  

Background

The BBC had approached LOCOG several days before they contacted the Commission and were issued with a statement denying the allegations, saying that this was the action of one disgruntled ex-employee. There had been no communication between LOCOG and the Commission before being approached by the BBC. The Commission was presented with some of the evidence before the news item was broadcasted on 7^th September 2012. After the broadcast new evidence that was not used was presented to the Commission in confidence. These included photographs, additional video footage and transcripts of interviews. We were advised that 6 whistle blowers had made the allegations; their identity remains confidential to BBC London News. Given the evidence presented, this was investigated under our emerging issues procedure. LOCOG and Aramark have co-operated fully with this investigation.

Context

It is important to understand the scale of this operation. Catering for elite Olympic and Paralympic athletes requires meticulous attention to detail with respect to food hygiene, nutrition and the variety of food that must be available 24 hours per day for athletes from 204 competing nations. Approximately 52,000 meals were served during the Games each day and over 3,000 per day at the Royal Holloway facility alone. This requires very large quantities of food, for example 19,000 kilos of prawn skewers. We understand that Royal Holloway was particularly challenging, as athletes had catering services at the village but also at the Eton Dorney venue. This made consumption patterns much more difficult to predict. The majority of staff were Aramark employees but at Royal Holloway 27 staff were seconded from the university catering team.

Contractual position

LOCOG was responsible for providing catering to the athletes free of charge. LOCOG paid for this service from private funds generated from commercial activities. There was no public money involved. LOCOG appointed Aramark as the catering contractor for theAthletesVillageon the Olympic Park, and at Royal Holloway andWeymouth. Aramark is a major international business and has provided catering services to Olympic and Paralympic Games for over 40 years. All food was ordered by Aramark and paid for by LOCOG, which also arranged and paid for disposal of any waste. We have been advised that there were two relevant Key Performance Indicators in the contract, although we have not been shown a copy of the contract itself. No more than 5% of the food was to be wasted in production. This means that from the point of food being delivered to the premises, it is controlled by Aramark up to the point of serving food to athletes. Both the food that has been provided for the athletes’ but not consumed by them, and the food taken away by athletes but not eaten was not part of this scope.  Additionally, no more than 3% of food is to remain in inventory after the Games. Financial penalties apply if Aramark fails to achieve either of these performance indicators. We understand these levels of performance are typical for continuous catering contracts. They are significantly better than performance levels usually achieved for events.

Process

The Commission has viewed the back of house catering process at the Olympic Park Village, and Aramark has briefed us on the process controls. Aramark had a thorough process for managing food. Quantities of food were recorded throughout the process from receipt, through pre-cooking and final cooking. The number of meals served at each food serving station was recorded and aggregated on a daily basis. Every item of waste food was recorded manually on a daily sheet including the type of food, the weight and the reason for the waste. The financial value of the wastage was calculated every day and aggregated over the duration of the contract. There was no formal audit of this process by LOCOG or Aramark but the comparison of any gaps between food supplied, consumed and wasted was reviewed daily by both the operational and finance teams. If food was being thrown away and not recorded, Aramark is confident this would have been picked up. LOCOG did not audit this process but there was oversight by catering managers. LOCOG and Aramark endeavoured to re-distribute any un-used food that was safe to eat by operating a “Swap Shop” between caterers and by distributing food to staff and volunteers through the numerous workforce canteens. We have been advised by LOCOG that donations to charity proved to be difficult due to the very large quantities involved, short notice that food was available, the short shelf-life of food and the logistics of transporting food from areas operated under high security.

Review

The Commission was shown the output from this process including the file of daily waste logs, daily menus, food supply records and financial analysis of any food waste. We did not take copies due to the commercial confidentiality of the information. We did not conduct a detailed audit of the information supplied. However, the data tabled by Aramark and LOCOG indicates that Aramark has been performing well within its 5% target. The waste figures at Royal Holloway were relatively higher than those for the Olympic Village due to the dual locations used by the athletes, but this venue was still comfortably within target. Among the photographs presented by BBC London News, there was a large quantity of yoghurt being poured down a sink. The waste yoghurt was recorded and the reason for its disposal explained (food hygiene). It should have been composted and not poured down the sink.

Conclusions

Our review of the evidence presented by BBC London News and LOCOG suggests that there is reasonable consistency between the reports of the whistle blowers and Aramark’s records. While the quantities of waste may appear high in absolute terms, they appear to have been properly recorded and are well within the 5% target, which is very challenging compared to usual practice in the event industry. Aramark categorically denied the statement made by the whistle blowers that food was being cooked specifically for the purpose of disposal. We were unable to validate either statement directly although we recognise that it would not be in Aramark’s interests to risk reputational damage arising from manipulating its contractual conditions in this manner. The Commission had been advised by LOCOG that there will be a rigorous financial reconciliation as part of the contract closing-out period, which will be subject to standard financial audit procedures. We would expect that a cross-check of financial tallies with consumption and waste figures would occur as part of this reconciliation process.

September 2012 

The allegations were brought to the Commission’s attention by BBC London, which has broadcast what the BBC believes to be evidence that official London 2012 caterer ARAMARK Limited has been instructing employees to dispose of large quantities of food.

The Commission has viewed photographic and video evidence supplied by the BBC and has asked LOCOG to urgently investigate the allegations and report on the outcome.

Shaun McCarthy, Chair of the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012, said: “So far the picture on waste management has been positive, but as a result of these allegations we have asked LOCOG for detailed information relating to waste performance targets and the way these are measured and calculated. If true, the allegations are very serious and it is important that LOCOG conducts a formal investigation, which the Commission will assure.”

The Commission will report publicly on the outcomes of this assurance.