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: 

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.  

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

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 

LOCOG has placed a great deal of emphasis on the diversity of the workforce, volunteers and their supply chain. Their aim to have 6-10% of these workforces made up of disabled people was well on track to be achieved when we checked before the Games and I am confident that the final analysis will show this to be a success. It was great to hear Terry’s story, how he was trained and supported by LOCOG and how inspiring he found his role as a Games Maker. He said that he couldn’t wait for the Paralympics to start and was heading off after the radio show was recorded to begin his first shift.

Robert’s experience was a little more mixed. He said he was enthusiastic about the Games but found facilities for visually impaired people confusing. When he asked for an audio headset he was bought a hearing loop on more than one occasion, which is for deaf people. His huge German Shepherd guide dog should have provided a clue here. Peter’s advice was to take a radio and follow the action on Radio 5. Although Radio 5 is excellent, it does not necessarily cover the sport you are watching. We all agreed that Games Makers are great and that they can’t be expected to know everything. However, the information should be available for them to find out. Our own visually impaired Commissioner, Andy Shipley, called the London 2012 customer helpline to enquire about this. After waiting 10 minutes he was told that audio descriptions are available at all venues and he should ask any Games Maker for help. This does not accord with Robert’s experience.

We talked about legacy too. The Olympic Park will clearly be a great place for disabled people to visit in legacy and possibly to live and work, but will the great work done by the ODA and LOCOG be replicated for other projects and other events? I hope so.

The ODA did a great job of creating an accessible built environment by engaging directly with disabled people, and LOCOG should be congratulated for their work in encouraging disabled people to get involved with the Games. There are clearly some operational improvements needed for the Paralympics though and it is not too late to act on Robert’s feedback.

During the warm up to the show we talked about guide dogs. Terry’s Labrador had tried to steal somebody’s sandwich while visiting the BBC. Robert’s German Shepherd does not steal food. It reminded me of a story Andy told me about his now retired dog Gabby sneaking across a train carriage to nick somebody’s Cornish Pasty. Gabby was particularly keen on raiding the buffet trolley at our Commission meetings too. This prompted Peter to suggest they should do a programme about the food guide dogs steal, which was instantly rejected by his producer… but producers, what do they know…..?

Shaun McCarthy

August 2012

Cycling gives you the full experience of the city, all the sights, sounds and smells and is the quickest way to travel over short journeys, along with walking. Travelling by car, bus or taxi is like observing the city through a TV screen. The subterranean experience of the Tube does not give you an experience of the city at all but it remains the fastest and most efficient way to travel for longer journeys.

London 2012 has made a great effort to promote cycling as a way of getting to the Games as part of the Active Travel programme. A total of 7,200 secure bike parking places have been provided, along with web-based maps and guides, led cycle tours and free cycle maintenance at the Olympic Park and Brands Hatch, the new venue for Paralympic road cycling.

There will be a legacy for cycling too; the city has invested £10m enhancing 75km of East London’s cycle paths, helping to make this part of the city a magnet for people wanting to enjoy healthy, sustainable lifestyles.

Our observations during the Olympics suggested that cycling may not have been as popular as it could have been London can be a difficult city to cycle in if you are not used to it. One of our team, Jonathan Turner, found central London quite challenging despite being an experienced cyclist and some temporary bike parks were not particularly easy to find.

The Paralympics provide an opportunity to continue promoting cycling as a healthy, affordable and sustainable form of transport, not just for the Games but as an enduring lifestyle choice.  I hope LOCOG, the ODA and TfL are able to make a collective effort to ensure that any glitches in way-finding for cyclists are resolved and that it matches up to the excellent provision made for public transport users. If this can be achieved I am sure cyclists will enjoy a great day out at the Paralympics and that it will help to enhance London’s reputation as a bike-friendly city.  

Shaun McCarthy 

August 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

Over the seven years I have been chair of the Commission I have met a wide variety of people from NGOs and also most of the corporate sponsors to talk about issues related to the sustainability of the Games and its legacy. Most of these relationships have been constructive and I think we have been helpful in providing neutral, unbiased assurance and fact based analysis of the issues within our scope of responsibility. Sir David Higgins once referred to the Commission as “the single source of the truth about sustainability and London 2012”. We have tried to live up to this challenge at all times.

However, there have been exceptions. Some corporations are inclined to demonstrate ultra-defensive behaviour and reach for their lawyers as a first reaction to any inconvenient truths we reveal that may be seen to damage their brand or reputation. In other instances I have been subjected to significant pressure from senior management within sponsor companies to accept their point of view.

Earlier in the year we met a group representing genuine concerns directly related to the supply chain of London 2012. We met on the understanding that this would be a private meeting to enable us to share views openly and that neither of us would quote the meeting to the media. What I did not know was they had a film crew outside the building, they had been filmed coming in and were interviewed immediately they left the meeting, making verbatim (but out of context) quotes from the discussion. I don’t consider this to be an ethical approach.

The roles of the organising committee LOCOG and the IOC are far from clear. They engage with the more business friendly stakeholders such as WWF but there has been a tendency to leap to the defence of their sponsors in the face of criticism. Sponsorship in sport at all levels is vitally important, there would be no sport as we know it without sponsors but it is necessary to have a balanced view.

Winston Churchill once said “Jaw jaw jaw is better than war war war”. I fully respect the right to peaceful protest and the right of corporations to use legal means to protect their shareholders but sometimes I wish both sides would talk a bit more. Maybe this can be achieved after the Games when there is less money and emotion involved. I plan to facilitate a series of open discussions for our final report “Beyond 2012” where we will try to evaluate the Olympic effect on more sustainable behaviour and explore ways in which future Games may harness all this energy in ingenuity in a more constructive way.

Shaun McCarthy

July 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  

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.