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: 

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 scheme aims to create awareness of the environmental impact of their journeys, and will invite ticketholders to sign up to have their travel carbon footprint offset at no cost to themselves.

As London 2012′s official Carbon Offset Partner, BP Target Neutral will be providing the administration and funding to offset carbon emissions from the Games-related travel of ticketholders.

LOCOG will be emailing all ticketholders on Monday 3rd October with a personal invitation to participate in the world record attempt.

Further information can be found via this link

Artists Impression of Stadium Wrap (Credit: AP Photo/Dow Chemical)

The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) has confirmed that their Worldwide Olympic Partner, Dow Chemical Company, will be producing a sustainable, fabric ‘wrap’ that will encircle the Olympic Stadium during the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Shaun McCarthy, Chair of the Commission for a Sustainable London, said “We welcome this addition to the Games experience and the great emphasis that has been placed on sustainability. The combination of light weight low energy design, use of alternatives to PVC and consideration to transportation is impressive. We value re-use over recycling and other forms of waste disposal and will follow up with LOCOG regarding the plans for re-use, to avoid landfill waste and potentially support humanitarian work.”

Further information on London 2012′s annoucement can be found here

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