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 first impression of the experience is high security, we had 3 separate ID checks to get into the Village and for specific buildings. Nigel is the director responsible for the Village and many other aspects of the Games, his pass did not have the correct date so he was refused entry until the error had been corrected. I appreciate that a large amount of additional security is necessary to ensure the Games are safe but our Commissioners have expressed concern that  additional scrutiny may continue in wider society after the Games and infringe the civil liberties of the most watched nation on earth. There has to be a balance after the Games.

The Village is the first to be located within walking distance of the main competition venues and the excellent public transport links to central London will provide a great experience for athletes of the 208 nations who will descend on us in less than 100 days. The facilities are first class, each of the apartment blocks has a green courtyard and there is high quality green space to give the Village an open, refreshing feel. We noted, however, that one area of green space is allocated for a high rise development in legacy which will detract from the ambience of the development and restrict light for residents.

A great deal of thought has been given to legacy. The operations centre will become a school and the sports fields for athletes’ entertainment will be part of the school experience. The Polyclinic will remain as a medical facility for the new residents and the ground floor will be developed with retail facilities to create a new piece of city.

This is the first major development to comply with Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4. I wondered “what would a Code 4 development feel like?”  The answer was; very little different to any other modern apartment block. The accommodation is of high quality with high levels of insulation, there are plenty of doors opening on to the balconies to provide ventilation in summer, lighting is by LEDs not bulbs but unless you are an energy geek you probably would not know the difference, neither would you know that the heating is supplied by a district heating system connected to CCHP. The only noticeable difference was the heating control system which our energy expert thought looked a little complicated, which is worrying – the systems must be useable to be effective. The future school is a great building with abundant natural light, but the transparent roof was a little noisy when the English weather did its best to disrupt our visit.

The Village has demonstrated that it is possible to live in comfortable, modern accommodation and be more sustainable. We don’t have to go back to living in caves or build houses made of straw. For London 2012 to establish this milestone for sustainable living is a major achievement to be celebrated.

Shaun McCarthy

April 2012  

The early evening event, well organised by the ODA, was very different. 1,600 guests were invited to celebrate one year to go with the first dive into the pool by Tom Daley and a unique swimming race featuring medal winning athletes, but most of them not for swimming. All I can say about that is that as a swimmer, Tessa Sanderson throws a mean javelin. From a sustainability standpoint it was mixed. The audience was very inclusive, lots of local school kids and local residents who responded to advertising in the local media. All races, colours and abilities seemed to be there and very few white blokes in suits (like me). However I was disappointed to see naff plastic flags on every seat which served no useful purpose at all and just littered the venue after the event. I have no idea what they were made of, where they were made and where they will go when somebody has swept them off the floor. Our commissioner Neil Taylor took a load home for his kids so I suppose that is re-use of a sort. The food was healthy and fresh (and free), served on cardboard platters with wooden forks. However there was far too much and much was wasted. I was not impressed with what I saw of the waste management either, all waste in one bin with no evidence of segregation. All lessons to be learned for The Big One next year.

A final word for the Aquatic Centre. We have been very rude about this building and have been unstinting in our criticism of its relative lack of sustainability. I still think 3,000 tonnes is too much metal to put a roof over a swimming pool but the building is stunning inside. The atmosphere created by 17,000 spectators will be an inspiration. However, I still prefer the velodrome!

Shaun McCarthy

July 2011

It is a great privilege to be Chair of CSL. I see all aspects of sustainability for the Games and meet everybody involved with the agenda. This is quite a unique perspective and gets me involved with many different government bodies, NGOs, political leaders and more. This has been a steep learning curve for me as I come from a mostly corporate background and I have had to learn several new cultures and ways of working over the past four years. It is always good to return to my roots and meet with LOCOG’s commercial partners to understand what they are doing. It must be a bit like doing a job in a second language that you speak fluently and then returning home to converse in your mother tongue.

I met recently with Coca-Cola to understand what they are doing to reduce the carbon footprint of their product and operation, including their plans for recycling and HFC free cooling. This is the first time they have invested substantial resources into using their brand value and sponsorship of the Games to really push sustainability hard and it is very impressive. The project that most intrigued me was the development of a “One Planet Pavilion” in the Athletes’ Village. This brings together an unusual group with some funding from Defra under their “inspiring sustainable living” programme, delivery by BioRegional, an organisation deeply involved with the sustainability standards of the bid, and elite sport bodies such as the BOA, and the marketing and brand savvy of Coca-Cola. The idea is to create an interactive space in the Athletes’ Village where athletes can meet and learn more about sustainability. This is expected to help them be more sustainable in their behaviour but also to help use their image and influence to inspire young people to lead healthier and more sustainable lives.

This sounds great, but it could be whole lot better if we can think outside the box and engage other sponsors. For example, LOCOG are working with sponsors to put state of the art smart metering technology into the Village, and are also planning to display real time energy information at every venue and online. So why can’t we combine this with a bit of innovative software and create a real time display of the energy efficiency of each team within the Village? We have the technology and the One Planet Pavilion to showcase it. We could have an alternative medal table for the most energy efficient teams. This could be a talking point for athletes, a story for the media, good PR for sponsors and a photo opportunity for politicians. It would also do some good for the environment!

I have spoken to lots of people about this and I really hope they can make it happen. No disrespect to our friends over the Atlantic but I look forward to seeing the US team coming last for once!

Shaun McCarthy

March 2011