Image from the report

The Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 has today (20 March), launched its final report into the sustainability of the London Olympic Games. It argues that, despite some setbacks, ‘there is sufficient evidence to conclude that sustainable practices inspired by London 2012 should out-weigh the inevitable negative impacts of the Games over time’.

Although the report, ‘Making a Difference’, does praise many aspects of the Games’ legacy, it also contains a number of criticisms and recommendations for future action. In particular, the report concludes that the widespread adoption of sustainable practices in the UK was being held back by two factors: ‘slowness in government action in embedding sustainability in government procurement’, and ‘the need for more independent oversight to ensure that sustainability targets in all sectors are met’.

The report’s authors state that they are aware of ‘discussion within government about how to utilise sustainable procurement principles and a commitment to procure sustainably through embedding buying standards into centralised and departmental contracts, as well as supply chain monitoring, with a target date of 2015’.

‘No evidence of substantive action’

However, they go on to claim that ‘we can find no evidence of substantive action’, adding: ‘We believe that it is essential for government departments and agencies to set an example and this recommendation remains unresolved.’

The report cites the organisation of the Rio 2016 Olympic Games, where procurement is dependent on sustainability certification, as a positive example of a sustainable Olympics legacy.

Furthermore, the report criticises the Games’ ‘sustainability partner’ designation as merely a ‘revenue raising exercise’ for both the Games’ organisers and the designated partners, saying that it was ‘a good concept but there was no real evidence of collaborative initiatives between LOCOG [the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games] and the partners’.

It further argues that ‘the contribution of partners to the sustainability agenda was variable and in some cases partners without the label contributed significantly more’. BP, EDF and GE were among the companies controversially designated ‘sustainability partners’ for the London Olympic Games.

This criticism mirrors the overall tone of the report, which argues that although there is much to praise in terms of the sustainability of the Games, there is still much work to be done in order to make sustainability practices more widespread in industry.

For example, the report cites the large-scale construction of the various facilities used in the Olympic Games as being ‘recognised globally for best practice in sustainable construction’, and that large construction projects around the world are following London’s lead. However, it also claims that there is little evidence of this being reflected in small and medium-sized projects, blaming ‘Scepticism about the business case, inconsistent approaches to planning, lack of leadership and lack of competence in the supply chain’.

The report also expresses concerns over corporate ethics for ‘transgressions of workers’ rights’, for instance in the supply chain of various materials used in Olympics merchandise. It reads: ‘This has led to the conclusion that today’s best practice is not sufficiently robust to ensure transparent alignment between the Olympic Values and some of the partners delivering an event in a host city.’

‘Cutting-edge sustainability goals’

Commenting on the release of the report, Shaun McCarthy, Chair of the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012, said: “London 2012 was the first games to be monitored by an independent sustainability body. It was a groundbreaking decision seven years ago when we were first established. We’ve proved that the concept works, and now we’re seeing evidence of commission-style assurance being used on large-scale private developments around the world.

“However there is some way to go before the model is embedded in the UK public sector. London and the UK is looking to host a number of high-profile events in the coming years and are well placed to take advantage of London 2012’s sustainability successes and lessons learnt. Internationally, Rio 2016 and the 34th America’s Cup in San Francisco have already demonstrated a commitment to cutting-edge sustainability goals and we look forward to even better sustainability outcomes from the UK into the future. So much good has come from the Games, it’s up to government and the private sector to adopt Olympic best practice and ensure the legacy lives on.”

Future recommendations

The report contains four main recommendations for safeguarding the legacy of the Games:

• that the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills revisit the advice from the Chief Construction advisor and facilitate more co-ordinated research, dissemination and independent assurance of sustainability in construction projects;
• that future major developments and infrastructure projects subject themselves to independent strategic assurance and plan to leave a legacy of knowledge in a similar way to the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA);
• that the London Food Board consider a long-term legacy initiative built on the lessons from the Food Legacy Pledge, including waste commitments in partnership with WRAP;
• that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and other sport governing bodies engage constructively with independent bodies to develop an ethical framework and a process of engagement with sponsors and a shared service to consistently and continuously address human rights in the supply chain.

‘A legacy of change’

The report follows on from the London Organising Committee for the Olympics and Paralympic Games' (LOCOG) report ‘London 2012 Post-Games Sustainability Report: A legacy of change’, released in December of last year, which stated that 62 per cent of waste from the construction and running of the games was reused, recycled or composted, below the 70 per cent target.

However, LOCOG stated that, using more conventional waste reporting techniques, the figure would stand at 82 per cent. This higher figure is reached ‘by measuring the proportion of different streams leaving their sites or venues’, rather than the amount that is actually recycled. LOCOG criticised this commonly used method as ‘misleading’.

The report stated: ‘The bulk of commercial waste is normally co-mingled with waste from other producers at an intermediary site such as a transfer station or Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), so there is no way of knowing how much is truly recycled.’

However, since LOCOG had ‘exclusive use’ of SITA UK’s MRF in Barking for 78 days (from 1 July 2012) and a ‘contractual requirement’ to track all waste to its end processes, it was able to record a more accurate picture of the outcome of its waste, something which, the report’s authors add, ‘many businesses in the UK do not do’.

Read the 'Making the Difference' report.