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 

We think of legacy in terms of the environmental, social and economic legacy, primarily for East London but also for the UK as a whole, we also think about the legacy of learning and how this is applied in a wider context. The track record of past Games is patchy, the Olympics helped to put Barcelona on the map as a world city and helped to regenerate the east dock area, the legacy of Athens is almost non-existent and Sydney has done well after a slow start. Beijing is emerging with a legacy of sorts but time will tell.

The time has come to consider London 2012 legacy in detail and I am grateful to my colleague Emma Synnott for an excellent and wide-ranging review which was published this week. In many ways the signs are good. There is clear evidence that the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) take their responsibility seriously. As the baton passes from ODA and LOCOG, their job is to adopt the high standards already set and build on ever higher performance. After a difficult start the plans being developed are looking positive.

However, it is not just about OPLC or the emerging London Legacy Development Corporation – they do not own the Velodrome, the Olympic Village or the Stratford City complex; the Host Boroughs have a big role, as do organisations on the ground who have done some amazing things at street level and working with communities. We believe that the Lea Valley needs to be seen as a total ecological and socio-economic system in order to reap the undoubted benefits and to live up to the promise of a “blueprint for sustainable living” which was set by the last Government. A community of practice needs to be established to knit together the various initiatives in the area to produce a whole scheme that will be greater than the sum of its parts. This does not mean yet another bureaucratic body or a complex masterplan drawn up by people who have never lived in the area. This requires vision and leadership to galvanise the good work that has been done and to solicit the support of the necessary authorities. There is already an All Party Parliamentary Committee focused on the Olympic legacy and there is a “WaterCity” vision created by the community. We think the time has come for leaders to step up and grasp this unique opportunity.

Shaun McCarthy 

March 2012 

As we move closer to the Games it is inevitable that the level of media attention directed towards the Commission will increase. It has been a great privilege to represent the commission at public events, to talk to the press and to take part in live TV and radio broadcasts. This week I was grateful to the organisers of Sustainability Now! for giving me my first experience of a live webinar.

It was a bit of a weird experience. The four delegates were squashed in a tiny room in Blackfriars glued to laptops and talking through a telephone. There was a time lag for the audio meaning that you heard the other speakers a second or so after you heard what they had to say in the room. It is not the same as a live conference where you get a lot of non-verbal feedback by making eye contact with the audience, neither is it the same as doing TV or radio. In this genre your audience could be doing anything, digging the garden, doing the ironing or grooming the dog. In a webinar you can be pretty sure you have an engaged audience because they taken the trouble and time to log in but you can’t see them or respond to their body language. Having said that, it is a very efficient and sustainable way to engage a large audience. I was advised that thousands of people registered and we had a live audience of over 350 people on the day. A wide range of questions came in during the session and we made an effort to answer online if we did not have time to cover the questions during the event.

One subject that was advertised but not covered due to time constraints was the issue of “green jobs”. This is a frequently used expression but it is never properly defined. What is a “green job” exactly? I don’t know. If a person does a 50 mile round trip in an old car to work in a Materials Recycling Facility for the minimum wage is that deemed a “green job” because it is not a landfill site? Is the young man in a cheap suit who turns up on your doorstep to sell you solar panels for your roof for commission only in a “green job” because he is not selling you replacement double glazing or offering to tarmac your driveway? It seems to me that giving things a “green” tag is in danger of being seen as simply re-packaging the same jobs that people have suffered for generations. Meet the new boss – same as the old boss.

In our review of skills and employment the commission offered up a definition of “sustainable job”. We said “A sustainable job is one that improves an individual’s life chances and benefits the community – environmentally, socially, and economically”. We have encouraged the delivery bodies for London 2012 to think in this way with some success. There have been some great schemes to encourage people out of unemployment and to learn new skills during the construction phase of the project. As we move towards Games-time, over 200,000 people will have a unique experience working to help deliver the “sustainable Games”.

I would encourage employers and policy-makers to think about our definition of “sustainable job” before the expression “green job” is dismissed as simply papering over the cracks.

Shaun McCarthy

May 2011