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

Of course it is not perfect. We were critical of LOCOG and their energy partner last year for their failure to deliver their commitment to a “low carbon torch”. However I have been impressed with LOCOG’s efforts to reduce the size of the entourage following the torch around and subsequent number of vehicles they need, plus accommodation, food etc. The “austerity relay”? Possibly! I have also been impressed with some of the funky hybrid vehicles used by some of the sponsors involved in the event. They are eye catching and give all the right messages about sustainability. It is not about living in a cave or feeling guilty all the time. It can be bright, entertaining and fun.

My big concern about the torch relay is “premiums”. This is industry-speak for the useless tat that sponsors hand out at events that are supposed to make us feel better about their brand. They generally serve no useful purpose and most end up in the bin or littering the streets. Test events on the Park do not bode well. The cardboard “clackers” handed out to help the crowd make a noise are a typical example. Most of the crowds were school children and in my experience they need no help to make a noise. If I had my way they would be banned altogether but this is not going to happen. LOCOG has gone a long way to making sure all premiums are approved by the sustainability team to ensure that they are in accordance with the sustainable sourcing code and disposable in a way that does not go to landfill. At official venues this is OK because LOCOG’s “zero to landfill” process should take care of the waste. But across the length and breadth of the UK this is impossible to control, each local authority has a different waste policy and facilities for recycling vary widely across the country.

I hope the torch relay unites the country in celebration but I hope that the sponsors don’t turn streets of fire into rivers of tat.

Shaun McCarthy

May 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.

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

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