They think the London 2012 Olympic Games are all over but from a sustainability point of view this is the end of the beginning. Today sees the release of our report entitled “London 2012 – From vision to reality“. It documents the fantastic effort made by my team to get to practically every Olympic venue with the exception of the football stadia. Not bad for a team of four people in a few short weeks. We also visited live sites, logistics hubs, waste transfer stations and numerous other “back of house” activities that would not normally be experienced by the public who just need to expect this stuff to be done well while they have a good time. Somebody has to check this and I would like to thank the team for doing such a great job in some of the less glamorous areas of the Games.

We can conclude from our assurance work that London 2012 has indeed delivered the most sustainable Games ever. Of course there are some things that could have been done better; energy conservation was pretty poor and inconsistency in delivery between LOCOG venues and government Live Sites did not help but the overall package of a great green space, food vision, a very visible waste strategy, great public transport and access for most disabled people proved to be a gold medal winning combination.

The Commission has one more piece of work to do before we shut up shop in March 2013; this is a review we call “Beyond 2012” where we will look for evidence of an “Olympic effect” on more sustainable practices. The ODA and LOCOG have demonstrated to the construction, event management and catering industries respectively that it is possible to deliver a step change in sustainable practice. The challenge is now with those industries and the people who commission services from them to demand these standards as a minimum and for the sectors to kick on and raise the bar even higher. My observations of these sectors to date make me optimistic, there is a growing band of people and organisations who understand the business opportunities presented through more sustainable solutions.

In other areas London 2012 has exposed weaknesses. The merchandise industry served up the same old tat in slightly more sustainable packaging here or containing a small percentage of organic cotton there. This is not step change and question marks remain about ethical standards in the supply chains of some suppliers and licensees. Global brand owners such as the IOC and FIFA have the power to demand more and should use it more effectively in the future. Transparency is important too. I have to question why no other event or major project has submitted itself to scrutiny by a body such as the Commission. Instead they rely on “advisory committees”, talking shops with no real influence, accountability or added value.

The party has left town but has London 2012 inspired a generation to be more respectful to the planet and the people on it? Maybe some future commentator starting a blog with “I was 8 years old when Mo Farrah won his second gold medal” will provide the answer.

Shaun McCarthy

November 2012

LOCOG’s spectacular success in delivering a low carbon Olympic cauldron set the scene. London 2012 has demonstrated that it is possible to deliver a wonderful variety of sustainably sourced, competitively priced food and aim to dispose of the packaging with recycling and composting performance that should put the rest of the event industry to shame. Green spaces were well looked after. This was billed as the Games for everybody and ample access for people of all abilities was provided. It was great to see families, older people and disabled people enjoying the party too.

Unfortunately LOCOG’s energy conservation plan was developed too late to engage venue managers effectively and despite great efforts of the team on the ground it could have been so much better. The decision not to allow people to bring their own food into the Live Sites in Hyde Park and Victoria Park combined with inferior and expensive catering undermined the principle of “everybody’s Games”. The “no idling” message simply did not get through to bus drivers. Every transport hub we visited we saw stationary vehicles with engines running; polluting the environment, damaging health and haemorrhaging cash. It was a similar picture with many lights left on in broad daylight.

As I have observed over the course of these Games, I have been delighted to watch the new found popularity of East London as visitors have flocked to watch the sport and stayed to shop, socialise and experience the area. Whilst by contrast the West End has reportedly been adversely affected, I’m confident this part of London will bounce back and the important point is that we’re seeing encouraging signs that a sustainable legacy for the East is on its way.

The tremendous success of Team GB at these Games will not be enough to generate a step change for the rest of the nation in terms of health. An increase in sports participation is likely to be short lived and it will take investment in community and school sport and a clear plan to tackle the current obesity crisis.

London 2012 has set high standards but sustainability is not a fixed concept; other host cities need to make their own interpretation. However there are some global issues that must be tackled. The issue of aligning the Olympic values to consistent and improving ethical behaviour by sponsors cannot be ignored and constructive engagement will be necessary in future to improve this situation. Despite the best efforts of LOCOG it has not been possible to entirely eliminate abuses of workers’ rights in the supply chain. This issue goes beyond audits and requires engagement with factory owners, trade unions and the workers themselves. There is an opportunity to build on the good work done by LOCOG to ensure that the heirs to Wenlock and Mandeville are made in conditions where the workers are treated with the respect they deserve.

In the main, London’s sustainable Games have been a massive success but like the best sports teams there is a need to continuously improve. I wish the IOC and future host cities success in proving they can do better.

Now bring on the Paralympics.

Shaun McCarthy

August 2012

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

“LOCOG has had success in making standard merchandise more sustainable, but not in making sustainable merchandise standard. London 2012 has been successful in changing the behaviour of the industry, but needs to seize the opportunity to change the behaviour of the consumer.

“We recognise that there are some sustainability issues which LOCOG can’t solve on its own; however, we believe that by fully engaging with LOCOG’s sustainable and ethical sourcing codes, London 2012 licensees can adopt more sustainable behaviour on a permanent basis. This will create a lasting legacy for UK and international brands and will have commercial as well as environmental and social benefits.

“We recognise that labour standards are an issue for the industry, and welcome LOCOG’s efforts to address this. However, more can be done by licensees, particularly in the area of public disclosure of factory locations”.   

Download the review

The key findings of the review are:

1. LOCOG’s sustainable merchandising efforts are, to date, the best the Olympics and Paralympics have ever seen. LOCOG is setting new standards for the event and retail industries to follow. These standards include the Sustainable Sourcing Code and the Diversity and Inclusion Business Charter, which the Commission considers representative of best practice in the event industry. The application of these standards will be critical to the success of the programme.
2. LOCOG’s merchandising standards have already made a difference. Some licensees are already changing the way they make and package their products. For example, the Stella McCartney for adidas Team GB range includes 5% organic cotton; Hornby is removing PVC from their packaging, and Touch of Ginger is remodelling its packaging to make it easier to recycle.
3. The Commission recommends that LOCOG works with licensees to showcase improvements to sustainability. Traditionally, many of the industries involved in making merchandise have not sought to significantly address sustainability in their products and supply chain. Therefore we recommend that a series of case studies be developed using examples from London 2012 merchandise to help move these industries forward. These should demonstrate successes in areas such as ethical supply and environmental standards.
4. In principle, the Commission believes that companies should publically disclose all supply chain locations. However, in practice this may be complex and unmanageable for LOCOG to achieve with its limited lifespan. This is why the Commission congratulates adidas, the only partner to fully disclose the location of all factories in its direct supply chain supplying London 2012 merchandise and official sportswear. The Commission also urges LOCOG to encourage more partners and licensees to follow adidas’ lead and disclose their factory locations.
5. LOCOG must better communicate its sustainability standards to shoppers. While LOCOG’s efforts to make its merchandise more sustainable have been excellent, consumers may not realise this when they purchase products. For example, when a customer buys a product, it should be possible to tell them more about the sustainability story of that product.
6. The Commission believes companies which adapt to meet LOCOG’s sustainability requirements will operate more efficiently and will have a competitive advantage. Many event contracts now require companies to meet sustainability standards: companies which meet LOCOG’s criteria will therefore have an advantage. Changes such as reducing packaging can also make a company more cost-efficient as well as more environmentally friendly.
7. Their complaints and dispute resolution process for supply chain problems puts LOCOG amongst those at the forefront of action in this area. This sets an example for future Games, although the process must be actively publicised throughout the supply chain, right down to the workforce.

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

As we approach Games-time the push to sell London 2012 merchandise is hotting up. You can see the offers available on the London 2012 website at http://shop.london2012.com/  

When I was at the Beijing Games in 2008, I commented on these pages about the huge appetite Chinese people had for the Games and the cheap merchandise that went with it. I tried to describe the huge retail outlets piled high with all manner of stuff carrying the Beijing 2008 logo and the hot, tired shoppers queuing outside the door to get their hands on these items. At the time I expressed a desire that London 2012 would be different.

During the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, I commented on the horror stories coming from China about the labour and environmental standards employed at the factories making the mascots for the event. Claims of excessive profiteering were abundant, damaging the reputation of the event.

This was shortly before LOCOG gave the world Wenlock and Mandeville, the twin Olympic mascots for London 2012. I must say I was quite impressed with the way sustainability messages were weaved into the introductory video, that they were made from scrap metal and presented to the children in old shoe boxes. – http://www.london2012.com/mascots   

The Commission will review merchandise with LOCOG in 2011 but early signs are encouraging. For example, a London 2012 branded Hornby train set can light up the eyes of your offspring on Christmas morning for £150. This is an expensive gift but there is a great story behind it. We understand that as a result of engaging with LOCOG and needing to comply with their packaging requirements specified in the sustainable sourcing code, Hornby has revised its entire packaging strategy, minimising the amount of packaging used and maximising the recycled and recyclable content. We eagerly await more examples like this.

Such a high profile project will inevitably attract investigative journalists hungry for a story like the one for the World Cup mascots. We will be making sure LOCOG continue to pay great attention to labour standards in their supply chain. The role of adidas as apparel sponsor makes us more confident; I have been very impressed with their experience in this area.

There will even be attention paid to the way we take this stuff home. I have been assailed by various groups recently advocating the banning of single use plastic carrier bags. They want a “plastic bag free Games”. We are sympathetic to this cause and aware that LOCOG are working on it but you need to be careful what you wish for, especially at Christmas. Some of the alternatives can have very negative impacts. Our merchandise snapshot review will cover this and at the moment I am confident that LOCOG have the issue under control.

I wish you a merry Christmas and a prosperous but sustainable 2011.

Shaun McCarthy

December 2010