The IOC and Host Cities have increasingly placed sustainability and legacy at the centre of their design and preparation of the Olympic Games. How Organising Committees translate these commitments into their delivery strategies is a complex, multi-faceted endeavour. This chapter offers insights, good practices and tools to mitigate several risks which would hamper the delivery of sustainable Games with a positive legacy. These risks include “white elephants”, “bridges to nowhere” or environmental harm caused by supply chains.
Guidelines on the Effective Delivery of Infrastructure and Associated Services for the Olympic Games
Report
Table of contents
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
3. Sustainability and legacy
Abstract
3.1. What are the risks?
The IOC, OCOGs and Host Cities have increasingly placed sustainability and legacy at the centre of their design and preparation of the Olympic Games. Sustainability and legacy were key elements of the Olympic Agenda 2020, which included recommendations to incorporate sustainability into all aspects of the Games
(International Olympic Committee, 2021[1]), and were carried forward in the Olympic Agenda 2020+5, which included recommendations to foster sustainable Games through measures such as supporting OCOGs in developing supply chain oversight and ensuring the delivery of lasting benefits for Host Cities (International Olympic Committee, 2021[2]).
This section examines risks to the Olympic Movement’s sustainability and legacy goals in the context of the procurement and delivery of Games infrastructure and associated services. As this report focuses on the delivery of Games infrastructure and associated services rather than the full extent of activities undertaken in the framework of the multi-year legacy programmes delivered by OCOGs and host cities, there is a specific focus on three key challenges:
Balancing the short-term goals of the Games with sustainability considerations and the long-term needs of Host Cities
Planning for the transition to post-Games uses
Addressing environmental and human rights risks across the supply chain
While OCOGs are only created after the Games are awarded and are focused on Games delivery, it is critical that governments incorporate legacy considerations such as the expected benefits and impacts, alignment with existing plans and strategies for urban and regional development, value capture, transport requirements, and tourism impacts during the pre-bidding and bidding stages (OECD, 2018[3]).
The Olympic Movement’s ambitious sustainability goals, including ensuring that all Games be climate positive from 2030, addressing climate change, the loss of biodiversity and the impact of COVID-19 on sport, and contributing to relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals (International Olympic Committee, 2021[4]), are closely tied to the delivery of infrastructure and associated services. The IOC Sustainability Strategy’s five areas of focus, infrastructure and natural sites, sourcing and resource management, mobility, workforce, and climate, all have direct relevance to infrastructure and service delivery.
Measures included in the IOC’s Sustainability Strategy include maximising the use of existing infrastructure and temporary venues; ensuring that new infrastructure is viable and has a minimal environmental footprint; sourcing products and services in a way that accounts for environmental and social impacts; ensuring working conditions comply with relevant legislation and with international agreements and protocols; and putting in place carbon reduction strategies (International Olympic Committee, 2017[5]). These measures are particularly relevant for OCOGs as Host City Contracts require that they develop a Games-specific strategy that addresses key issues such as infrastructure and sourcing and is aligned with the IOC’s Sustainability Strategy (International Olympic Committee, 2016[6]).
3.1.1. Focusing on the short-term goals of the Games can threaten sustainability and the long-term needs of Host Cities
In the Olympic context, large-scale sport facilities must be delivered over short periods and host very high numbers of guests, which can cause social and environmental disruptions in the local ecosystem that pose significant planning and design challenges (Dendura, 2019[7]). Certain events, such as alpine skiing, typically take place in environmentally sensitive areas (Chappelet, 2008[8]), while infrastructure construction in urban communities can result in the displacement of local residents. Short-term incentives can lead to the construction of facilities that are oversized for future use, for example to accommodate more spectators during the Games than will attend future events. OCOGs must balance their short-terms goals, maximising the impact and success of the Games, with the need to align with the local characteristics and long-term needs of the community (OECD, 2018[3]).
In order to ensure that infrastructure is sustainable and delivers long-term benefits to the population it serves, it is key to incorporate social, economic and environmental considerations during the early stages of planning and assessment (OECD, 2020[9]). as retrofitting or upgrading is less efficient than planning facilities that can operate sustainably from the outset (KPMG, 2015[10]). For example, the United Nations Development Programme worked with Sochi 2014 to produce a Greening Strategy and Action Plan to achieve carbon neutrality; however, a review found that the project was implemented after planning was largely finished and construction was underway, and therefore had only a negligible impact on the greening of Games facilities (Zeman, 2014[11]). Likewise, poor planning that does not address potential constraints in terms of urban development and existing infrastructure networks (e.g., transport, energy, water and sewage) could create long-term issues for Host Cities (Dendura, 2019[7]).
The importance of adequate planning to mitigate legacy and sustainability risks applies equally to the delivery of services required to host the Games. When OCOGs are responsible for implementing sustainable procurement strategies that would provide legacy benefits, planning and early market engagement are critical to ensure that the private sector has the capacity to realise those commitments.
Box 3.1. The legacy of the 1994 Lillehammer Winter Games
The 1994 Lillehammer Winter Games were widely regarded as the first green Games. The OCOG chose to make the Games a showcase for sustainability and environmental policies, including placing a greater emphasis on the post-Games use of venues.
All 10 venues purpose-built for the 1994 Games remain in use, and seven were used for the Winter Youth Olympic Games in 2016. Venues were designed with post-Games usage in mind, and have had continued community and commercial use, while the housing built for the Games hosts more than 4,000 students. Parts of the media village were built as modules and moved to other parts of the country for use as student dormitories after the Games and service buildings in the athletes’ village were converted into centre for the elderly and a church. Venues have also continued to host elite sporting events, including world championships for speed skating, track cycling, skeleton, luge, handball and ice hockey, World Cup events for biathlon and Nordic combined, and the 2016 Winter Youth Olympic Games.
Source: (Stoneman, 2016[12])
If not carefully planned for, the design and technical specifications of Games infrastructure can also lead to negative environmental and financial impacts for Host Cities. Previous Games have been criticized for the environmental damage associated with infrastructure construction (Cantelon and Letters, 2000[13]; McBride and Manno, 2021[14]) while concerns about the financial risks associated with hosting the Games have led to the withdrawal of a number of bids in recent years (Flyvbjerg, Budzier and Lunn, 2020[15]). Further, the omission of factors such as subsidies for land and supporting infrastructure and long-term operating costs, means that estimates of public subsidies for permanent sports infrastructure are often underestimated (Long, 2005[16]). Infrastructure assets are only part of a wider, more complex system, and need to be considered in their broader context. Decisions on the location, type, design and timing of infrastructure developments can have profound implications for the environment, with poor quality Games infrastructure contributing to air pollution, climate change, changes in water quality and quantity, biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystems (OECD, 2019[17]). The average footprint of the Games and associated infrastructure averages around 5% of the host city’s total area, a significant use of urban land, with sports venues the primary determinant of the size of this footprint (Long, 2013[18]). Temporary venues, which can be viewed as both infrastructure and a service, are often more sustainable in the long-term, but can also have negative environmental impacts, from high carbon intensity relative to their lifecycle (i.e. venues built for only a short period of use) to impacts on local ecosystems.
3.1.2. Failure to plan for the transition to post-Games uses can weaken the long-run performance of sport infrastructure
As opposed to the short duration of major sports events, infrastructure assets have a long lifespan and are the most tangible legacy of the Games, making their long-term viability a key challenge for OCOGs. Maximizing the legacy of the Games requires having appropriate institutional and governance arrangements in place to ensure infrastructure can continue delivering long-term benefits. Failure to plan for long-term financial viability can lead to underuse, as well as creating challenges around the sustainability of long-term infrastructure operations. It is important to avoid the duplication and overbuilding of sport facilities, for example by ensuring that Olympic infrastructure is integrated into the long-term strategic planning of national sporting bodies and of host regions more broadly. There is a need therefore to assess post-games demand for different types of venues and include retrofitting for change of use in early stage planning where appropriate.
Infrastructure is particularly vulnerable to external shocks, natural hazards and extreme weather events, vulnerabilities which can be further aggravated by poor maintenance and rehabilitation. With the growing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, infrastructure resilience is increasingly important, and a factor OCOGs must consider when planning for the long-term. Climate resilience needs to be integrated into project design to ensure that they are consistent with broader plans and future climate change scenarios. Through the implementation of climate change adaptation measures such as nature-based solutions, OCOGs can work with partners to develop infrastructure that is resilient to risks such as storms, floods, or extreme temperatures (OECD, 2021[19]). As weather and geographical conditions differ significantly across regions and countries, efforts to improve resilience need to be tailored to local circumstances (OECD, 2020[20]). Different resilience considerations may also apply at different phases of the infrastructure life-cycle: robustness and redundancies require investments in the design phase, while business continuity planning and maintenance relate to long-term operations (OECD, 2019[17]).
Box 3.2. Legacy planning good practice: Richmond Olympic Oval
The Richmond Olympic Oval hosted the speed skating events for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. As Canada had an established speed skating oval, a legacy of the 1988 Calgary Olympics, maintaining long-term use for long-track speed skating was considered impractical. Post-Games, the Oval instead supports a wide variety of sports and community functions, with two ice rinks, eight gymnasiums, a running track and a fitness centre.
Legacy design, financing and governance issues were considered well before the Games in 2010:
The Oval’s operating and maintenance costs are partially funded by a trust established in 2003 with contributions from two levels of government. The trust is governed by a board appointed by the federal, provincial and municipal governments and the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic Committees.
A municipal corporation with responsibility for operating the Oval and implementing and supporting a variety of long-term community services was established in 2008.
The Oval was designed to be reconfigured post-Games for a variety of different sports and community functions, with 1.1 million visits in 2019.
These risks are exacerbated if there is no involvement or discussion with potential long-term operators or users. OCOGs’ short-term nature makes addressing these types of legacy challenges particularly difficult. Maintaining venues and covering the associated operating costs is often challenging, and can ultimately impose a significant financial burden on local governments. The bodies or institutions ultimately responsible for Olympic legacy are often not part of the decision-making process during the planning and delivery stages, creating a vacuum of responsibility for long-term venue viability. Without these voices at the table, there is a risk that venues will not be responsive to their long term needs and capacity.
There are also opportunities should Games related sporting infrastructure be put to good use. By ensuring comprehensive legacy planning for each project, preferably from the initial planning stages, infrastructure can have a positive impact on the communities in which they are situated long after the Games have ended. To help achieve this impact, organisations can plan for and facilitate the repurposing of Games infrastructure.
Box 3.3. Establishing institutional structures to support long-term legacy
As OCOGs are dissolved shortly after the Games, creating institutions that can manage facilities and oversee the repurposing of infrastructure over the longer-term can help ensure a positive legacy.
The London Legacy Development Corporation
The London Legacy Development Corporation was formed to make the most of the opportunity presented by the 2012 London Olympics to transform East London. Charged with the task of managing the physical legacy of the Games, the Legacy Corporation set about developing the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park to serve east Londoners.
As the UK's first Mayoral Development Corporation, it is accountable to citizens through the Mayor of London. Along with the Mayor, the Corporation works with the greater London Authority, the central government, the East London Host Boroughs, residents in neighbouring local communities, local organisations, businesses and regeneration agencies and national and international sporting, cultural and leisure organisations.
The repurposing of the Olympic Park has created a host of new services and activities for the local community. Notably, it provides sporting facilities for public use and accommodates for fitness classes and sport associations. It also a venue for culture and entertainment events, hosting concerts, performances, expositions and festivals.
Another key objective of the Development Corporation was to provide employment and apprenticeship opportunities to local residents. Over 5 000 people were engaged in the transformation of the Park and the development of the surrounding area has led to the creation of many jobs, it is predicted that by 2025 over 40 000 new employment opportunities will be generated.
The Utah Sports Commission and Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation
The Utah Sports Commission and Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation were created before the 2002 Salt Lake City Games to lead Utah’s Games legacy efforts. The Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation manages the venues, while the Utah Sports Commission’s mission includes attracting and hosting regional, national and international sports events and encouraging the development of amateur athletics. Both are governed by boards made up of sports, business, community, and government leaders.
Since 2002, the Games venues have seen continual use, and the organisations seek to encourage both public recreational and high-performance athlete involvement. They offer sport programs for youth, serve as community recreation centres and have hosted over 50 international World Cup or World Championship events since 2002. Salt Lake City has been selected by the United States Olympic Committee to represent the United States in a potential bid to host the 2030 or 2034 Games.
Box 3.4. Product-specific sustainability guidelines for Rio 2016
Rio 2016 took steps to integrate sustainability criteria throughout the management cycle of the Games from design and planning to implementation, review, and post-event activities.
Rio 2016 developed specific plans for the procurement of infrastructure and related services. One such example is its "Sustainable Sports Flooring Guide" in which Rio 2016 lays out recommendations for sustainable practice and sourcing of four different floor types that are used for Games related infrastructure. As part of the broader Sustainable Supply Chain Programme, this guide aims to provide employees, partners, suppliers and affiliated organisations a road-map on how to source, construct and dispose of floors used in Games related infrastructure.
The Guide considers the environmental, social, ethical, and economic aspects that are present throughout the life cycle of the products and services that are related to the procurement and licensing processes. It has suggestions on how to use flooring materials in the post-Games context.
1. Natural Grass: Grass must adhere to standards set by the Ministry of Agriculture to ensure it is of high quality and that producers comply with relevant tax and labour policy. Additionally, the Guide calls for cut and disposed grass to be reused for compost, animal feed or production of renewable oil.
2. Synthetic Grass: The Guide states that synthetic grass should meet the standards approved by the FIFA in Quality Concept for football fields. It should be made from recyclable materials and plans put in place to direct the Grass to schools, NGOs or back to suppliers after its use in the Games.
3. Sand: as an important floor material for many Olympic events, Rio 2016 recognises that sourcing sand can have negative impacts on the environment by altering the geography and ecosystem from where it is taken. Therefore, all suppliers should have environmental licenses and perform ecological compensation to counter impacts on local environments.
4. Rubber Flooring: The Guide notes the good practice and viability of using old tires to as a source for rubber flooring. It suggests that material for flooring in Games related venues be sourced in this way and that after the Games it be placed into other venues such as school and NGOs.
3.1.3. Supply chains are a significant source of environmental and human rights risks
There is increasing awareness of environmental and human rights-related risks in global supply chains and increasing pressure on organisations to take greater responsibility to prevent and address these risks. Value in public procurement more frequently incorporates considerations beyond cost and quality, such as environmental objectives. Quality, sustainability and social considerations, if not taken into account during the procurement process, can diminish the value for money yielded by infrastructure assets and services, both in the short-term context of the Games and in terms of its long-term legacy. In particular, failure to shift from a purely cost-focused approach to the adoption of responsible business conduct (RBC) objectives (e.g. environmental, human rights, labour rights, inclusiveness and diversity, integrity) in procurement can lead to the selection of less optimal bids (OECD, 2020[27]).
These dimensions are significantly heightened in the context of delivering major events which attract the world’s attention. Associated reputational risks are considerably affecting the ability of OCOGs to effectively deliver the Games in conditions aligned with the spirit of the Olympic Movement.
Box 3.5. Sustainable building practices for London 2012
The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), the public body responsible for building the permanent venues and infrastructure for London 2012, engaged with its supply chain to develop more sustainable approaches to construction. The ODA set challenging sustainability targets for all projects, outlined in a Sustainable Development Strategy finalised five years before the Games.
In the case of concrete, a major contributor to CO2 emissions, suppliers were required to meet or exceed the following standards:
Construction materials (by value) be comprised of at least 20 percent recycled content
25% of aggregate used will be recycled
50% of materials (by weight) be transported to the site by sustainable means i.e. water or rail
Use energy-efficient, low-emissions vehicles on-site.
The ODA worked with the concrete supplier to develop sustainable concrete mixes with greater use of recycled and secondary aggregate, resulting in savings of approximately 30 000 tonnes (24%) of embodied carbon and the elimination of over 70 000 road vehicle movements. The reduction of concrete use through efficient design led to a further savings of 20 000 tonnes of embodied carbon.
Centralised procurement, early supply chain integration and extensive testing were key in reducing the overall environmental impact. A strong understanding of needs at the early design stage enabled the production of clear specifications and allowed designers and contractors to take a proactive approach to reach targets.
Box 3.6. Rio 2016: Sustainable Supply Chain Guide
Rio 2016’s objective was to deliver an Olympic and Paralympic Games that promoted the global image of Brazil, based on social and urban sustainable transformation through sport. A key pillar of this project was establishing sustainability criteria throughout the Games management cycle, from design and planning to implementation, review and post-event activities, especially through the adoption of the Sustainable Supply Chain Programme.
This programme sought to integrate the sustainability criteria into the procurement of Games related goods and services, specifically aimed at Rio 2016 employees, partners participating in Rio 2016 Supply Chain management or operation, suppliers, licensees, sponsors and organisations involved in the suppliers’ development.
The Programme consisted of the following steps:
Establishment of requirements: definition and disclosure of the evaluation criteria and minimum requirements to be considered in the analyses.
Development and qualification of suppliers and licensees: anticipated and intense communication about the needs until 2016, along with the specific requirements and guides for suppliers’ assistance. At this stage, the programme includes workshops and training for suppliers, sponsors and licensees, focusing on sectors considered critical.
Hiring: inclusion of sustainability requirements and evaluation criteria along the goods and services procurement process, especially in the total cost acquisition and life cycle analyses. This evaluation also includes audits on the information submitted to Rio 2016 Committee.
Supplier and licensee contract management and compliance monitoring: inclusion of sustainability aspects in the supplier management mechanisms such as supplier record management, audit review, reporting and corrective actions. These activities will be continuously applied after implementation of each contract.
Dissolution and products final disposal management: planning and control of the final destination of all products, packaging and waste, through comprehensive logistics planning.
Many goods and services purchased by OCOGs and their partners are produced through global supply chains which are often fragmented, opaque and complex. Activities throughout the supply chain of Games infrastructure and associated services can result in adverse impacts on people, society and the environment. Supply chains can originate in or pass through countries with a poor record of implementing global standards on human rights, labour rights, and environmental protection, creating a significant risk that OCOGs become linked to human rights abuses and environmental degradation (OECD, 2020[27]).
Services associated with Games infrastructure can also be reliant on complex global supply chains with negative human rights and environmental impacts. In addition, OCOGs may be at risk if they have limited line of sight into labour practices. Precarious employment can perpetuate poverty and gender inequity, and infrastructure-related services, such as food services and cleaning, often comprise sectors and types of work associated with precarity (Pósch et al., 2020[31]).
OCOGs’ broad range of operations and business relationships have the potential to negatively impact human rights. These human rights risks are greatest in OCOGs’ relationships with other stakeholders, including suppliers reliant on complex supply chains, which are often labour intensive and frequently outsourced. OCOGs must ensure they maintain sufficient oversight over the actions of a large number of actors, as well as implementing appropriate prevention and remedy mechanisms. As temporary organisations, OCOG may not have the skills and infrastructure to successfully address potentially complex labour rights or human rights grievances (International Olympic Committee, 2019[32]).
Box 3.7. Tokyo 2020’s partnership with the International Labour Organization
Tokyo 2020’s partnership with the ILO focused on advancing socially responsible labour practices amongst the Games’ delivery partners, including sponsors, suppliers, and licensees. Using the Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (MNE Declaration) as the guiding framework, the partnership included the following activities:
Raising awareness of the labour dimension of corporate and social responsibility
Collection and dissemination of good practices amongst delivery partners on socially responsible labour practices
Organization of technical seminars
Development and dissemination of tools to support Games’ delivery partners in implementing socially responsible labour practices
The Tokyo 2020 Sustainability Plan and accompanying Sustainable Procurement Code incorporated references to both the ILO MNE Declaration and the ILO Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
3.2. Experiences from Paris, Milano-Cortina and Los Angeles
Box 3.8. Reducing the footprint of temporary infrastructure: Paris 2024’s biodiversity tool
Tools, methods, and regulations already exist to evaluate and manage the biodiversity impacts of permanent venues. Paris 2024, however, created an innovative approach for managing the impact of temporary infrastructure. The approach involves defining and using an assessment tool to score each venue on five specific points:
Biodiversity and ecosystem
Scenery and heritage
Environmental health
Carbon footprint
Circular economy
The method was developed in line with the ambitions and methods of the IOC and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). It follows four steps:
Defining categories for analysis based on the content of environmental impact assessments, the various applicable regulations and local specifics;
Evaluating the identified environmental issues (presence of species, landscape, air and water quality, nearby public transport, etc.) using precise mapping tools consistently across all sectors;
Evaluating the venue’s potential effects on the environmental issues listed above;
Mapping out an action plan to mitigate those potential effects.
This iterative assessment tool measures the environmental effects of Games infrastructures and events over time, from the planning phase up until the end of 2024. It has supported decision making to take action aimed at recognising, protecting and regenerating biodiversity, including reducing the size of the shooting range on account of the presence of rare toads in the area and routing equestrian event trails to avoid altering oak tree lines, use less land, and avoid disrupting water birds.
Source: (Paris 2024, 2021[35])
Box 3.9. Leveraging the scale and time-horizon of the Games: Off-grid energy innovation in Paris
While procurement can be a powerful tool for fostering innovation, it can also be challenging to implement successfully. Challenges include risk aversion on the part of buyers and the time required to conduct an innovative procurement process. Particularly in high-stakes situations, buyers often favour fast results that they know will deliver over innovative solutions that take time. In the case of providing back-up power to venues, Paris 2024 overcame these challenges through a high-level commitment to ambitious goals and by beginning the procurement process well before the solution was required. The high visibility profile of the event and its scale provide favourable grounds to incentivise prospective suppliers to invest in innovative solutions.
Paris 2024 has committed to 100% renewable energy use during the Games. This commitment presents specific challenges in the context of a major sporting event; for example, large events such as sports competitions, concerts, and festivals, require large back-up generators in case of power outages. Today, these generators are generally diesel powered. Generators running on renewable energy sources that could be replicated on a large scale could bring about commensurate benefits for the environment and the climate.
To address this challenge, Paris 2024 is aiming to implement solutions that set new standards for temporary renewable energy supply. As a first step, the OCOG and the French government launched a call for proposals in 2019 to source innovative clean off-grid energy production solutions. As they emerge, the first solutions will be trialled in real-world conditions as soon as possible. Through this call for proposals, the French government expects to drive innovation in ecological solutions tailored to the requirements of the Paris 2024 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games and support projects that could power future sports venues with clean energy or replace traditional generators at large sporting events going forward.
Source: (Paris 2024, 2021[35]); (OECD, 2017[36])
Box 3.10. Concrete initiatives to implement sustainable sourcing at Paris 2024
A key tool for Paris 2024 to achieve its ambitious climate and sustainability goals is its sustainable sourcing strategy. Paris 2024 will purchase roughly EUR 2.5 billion worth of goods and services, increasing to EUR 5 billion including the contracts that Solideo, public contracting authorities and private partners will award in preparation for the Games. The OCOG has defined five key commitments linked to environmental and social concerns in its contracts.
1. Circular economy: suppliers should adhere to circular economy principles, maximising the reduction of waste and the use of non-renewable resources.
2. Carbon neutrality and environmental protection: a prioritisation of projects that are carbon neutral and respect the environment in which they are created, favouring projects that cultivate and protect local biodiversity.
3. Social innovation: projects that contribute to the overall well-being of society and support human rights objectives will be favoured. This includes projects that address issues such as gender inequality and cultivate social links in the local community.
4. Inclusion of people with disabilities: organising a Games that is accessible to all by providing infrastructure and services that permit the inclusion of people with disabilities.
5. Local value creation: initiatives should contribute to the overall economic, social and environmental value of the area in which they are situated by providing locals with employment or upskill opportunities and creating links within the community.
The implementation of sustainable sourcing is often more challenging than developing high-level strategies. In the case of Paris 2024, implementation includes the involvement of the sustainability function in developing tenders and bid evaluation and the development of sustainability guidelines for each category. Sustainability and environmental criteria are applied in 100% of the OCOG’s purchases, with a minimum weighting of 20%.
To ensure a level playing field Paris 2024 disseminates information that outlines how suppliers can integrate the sustainability commitments into their bids, including producing educational tools that allow potential bidders to understand the selection criteria. It has also launched “Coach climat”, an application developed to help its own employees understand and reduce their climate impact. This will contribute to establishing sustainability standards in French and international procurement that have a positive and lasting effect beyond the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
To go beyond environmental objectives in the implementation of the Games’ sustainable sourcing strategy, initiatives such as the “Fabrique des jeux”, launched in 2018 by the Seine-Saint-Denis departmental council, have already taken steps to mobilise local small to medium-sized businesses. They conducted workshops in late 2020 to advise on tenders and present the economic and environmental opportunities that Games infrastructure provided. In part as a result of this outreach, Paris 2024 has sourced over 10 000 companies.
Box 3.11. Milano-Cortina’s alignment with long-term local development plans
The Games will act as a catalyst for cities and regions’ long-term development plans, which include enhanced connections and cooperation between regional areas to improve the attractiveness of the mountains as a place to live. Sustainability and legacy programmes, which will be funded from both local authorities as well as private sector donors, ensure that projects related to the Games support and benefit from larger development projects in the region. Not only will the Games complement these plans, but also it will leave a lasting legacy by supporting them.
Specifically, the Games will support the following regional strategies:
The Milano 2030 Urban Development Plan
This plan aims to transform Milan into Italy's largest metropolitan hub, a green, liveable and resilient city. The Games will assist by enhancing connectivity between the City centre and outlying districts.
The Games is expected to support projects such as the development of abandoned railway yards into environmental regeneration areas that include housing and community infrastructure.
Lombardy Regional Development Programme
The Games will support and benefit from this plan that aims to invest in smart energy, sustainable urban mobility and socio-economic regeneration.
The regional intends to promote local culture, infrastructure and connectivity through the Games.
The Livingo Olympic Village that will be built for the Games in the region will remain as a permanent sports centre for training and preparation.
The Strategic Plan of the Veneto Region and the City of Cortina
The Games will support the Veneto region and City of Cortina in their long-term strategic objectives in their aspirations to increase tourism.
Local business will benefit from the platform that the Games will provide, an opportunity for worldwide recognition.
By integrating with and complimenting already existing regional development plans that Milano Cortina 2026 will ensure a long-lasting legacy in Italy. It will also benefit from these ongoing projects to facilitate the efficiency and sustainability of the Games.
Box 3.12. Milano-Cortina 2026: Working with partners to recover non-consumed food
Milano-Cortina 2026 is working across four regional entities and eight municipalities to deliver the Games in line with circular economic principles and the event-centric delivery model. The food recovery system is one example of how the OCOG will aim to reduce environmental impact, involve diverse stakeholders and make a positive contribution to local communities.
The system aims to recover 100% of food waste in venues. Local charities, businesses and public bodies will be mobilised to collect and manage food waste from all venues used in the Games, including testing events. In order to ensure maximum efficiency of the collection and management process, a bespoke approach. This involves adapting the method of waste management based on the specific circumstances of each venue and event, leveraging the expertise of different partners.
The OCOG has designated three spheres of organisation outlined below. This set-up will allow good practices established in the Games to be transferred locally resulting in the creation of permanent food recovery systems that benefit the regions hosting the Games in the long run.
Sphere one: direct involvement in venues
Local partners aid in directing operation control of food waste prevention in the competitive and non-competitive venues.
Manage unconsumed food waste by using non-edible materials for animal feed.
Involvement of local charities system and local authorities.
Sphere two: Integration of affiliated partners
Involvement of all hotels and hospitality operators affiliated with the Games to set up an efficient and permanent food recovery system.
Partners are encouraged to set-up food management systems in line with that developed by the OCOG and partners.
Sphere three: Regional legacy
Spread good practice beyond the Games to bring about structural change to local communities.
Create a permeant systems of food recovery leaving a long-term legacy.
Source: Information provided by Milano Cortina 2026 Foundation
3.3. Addressing sustainability and legacy risks
3.3.1. Key principles
Box 3.13. Key principles to mitigate sustainability and legacy risks
These key principles provide guidance to OCOGs on addressing the challenges of balancing short- and long-term goals, planning for transition, and managing supply chain risks.
1. Maximize the use of existing infrastructure and use temporary venues where there is no long-term need
Making use of existing and temporary facilities, where possible, is a key measure in mitigating sustainability risks related to environmental impacts and legacy. As articulated by Olympic Agenda 2020, Olympic Agenda 2020+5 and the IOC Sustainability Strategy, OCOGs should seek to use existing facilities and temporary venues where no long-term legacy needs exist. While a venues plan will exist from the bid phase, OCOGs should optimise planning as conditions change and new information becomes available.
2. Incorporate and prioritise legacy considerations into the planning stages of the Games
OCOGs should incorporate legacy considerations into all aspects of infrastructure planning. This can include engaging long-term operators and funders through the decision-making process, planning for the post-event transfer of assets, ensuring that sustainability expertise is embedded throughout the organisation, particularly in the procurement function, and integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations throughout the infrastructure lifecycle. It takes specific effort to sustain the legacy of the Games, and this may be best achieved through the work of a dedicated body.
3. Implement clear sustainability strategies when procuring infrastructure and associated services
Taking a strategic approach to procurement can help to mitigate adverse impacts on workers, human rights, and the environment. Setting policies early in the Games delivery process can provide clear guidance within OCOGs and with their partners, and help mitigate risks that are more challenging to address if they arise closer to the Games. OCOGs should set measurable sustainability targets, while ensuring appropriate prioritisation and reporting systems should be designed such that the information collected is accessible to all affected groups.
Given the complexity of the challenges, OCOGs may lack the institutional capacity to deal with the wide variety of risks. Where appropriate, they should seek out organisations with the expertise and experience to support them, both from inside and outside sports.
3.3.2. Checklist
Table 3.1. Sustainability and legacy checklist
|
Task |
Status (Yes/No) |
|---|---|
|
Maximize the use of existing infrastructure and use temporary venues where there is no long-term need |
|
|
Have you completed a full inventory and assessment of all existing venues in the area of the Games? |
|
|
Have you completed long-term business plans for all planned new or refurbished permanent venues to determine whether there is sufficient post-event demand and resourcing that investment in permanent venues is justified? Business plans should be adequately scoped for realistic legacy use and address ongoing operations and maintenance costs. Post-Games viability should be subject to a detailed assessment of costs and revenues, including of the market conditions in which the venue will operate in the long-term. |
|
|
Score: /4 |
|
|
Incorporate and prioritise legacy considerations into the planning stages of the Games |
|
|
Have you clearly assigned responsibility for legacy within the OCOG? |
|
|
Have you established legacy considerations as part of the OCOG’s decision-making processes? Resilience and maintenance criteria should be taken into account for project design, budgeting, selection and prioritisation and procurement processes should enable decision-makers to deliver in a way that maximises lifetime value. |
|
|
Has a dedicated body or organisation outside of the OCOG with responsibility for the longer-term legacy of the Games been established? |
|
|
If a specific body or organisation with responsibility for legacy exists (whether dedicated or not), is that organisation formally involved in relevant decision making? |
|
|
Score: /4 |
|
|
Implement clear sustainability policies strategies when procuring infrastructure and associated services |
|
|
Have you created a dedicated sustainability function and/or made a senior leader responsible for sustainability targets? |
|
|
Have you conducted an assessment and prioritisation exercise to identify areas where a sustainability lens should be applied? This may include (among others):
|
|
|
Have you developed robust policies for priority areas, and incorporated sustainability goals into broader policies (e.g. procurement policy)? This could include leveraging existing good practices and tools from inside and outside sport. |
|
|
Have you clearly defined standards and targets, and communicated them widely? Particular emphasis should be placed on communication with the supplier community. |
|
|
Have you established a framework to undertake monitoring and regular reporting on progress towards sustainability targets? This could include clearly identifying the data required for monitoring and evaluation and assigning responsibly for the collection and storage of that data. |
|
|
Have you conducted an evaluation of sustainability risks the OCOG does not or will not have the institutional capacity to adequately mitigate? For example, this might include workers’ rights and remedy mechanisms. |
|
|
Have you identified appropriate organisations to partner with to address these risks? Elements of these partnerships could include policy development and learning and the organisation of technical seminars. |
|
|
Score: /7 |
|
|
Total Score: /15 |
|
3.3.3. External resources
To address sustainability and legacy risks related to the delivery of Games infrastructure and related services, OCOGs can take advantage of a range of existing policies, tools and good practices from the world of sport and from broader infrastructure governance practice. These resources provide opportunities for OCOGs to assess their current practices and approaches, inform the development of their own strategies and policies, and serve as examples of good practice.
Many of these external tools do not pertain directly to sport; however, they may be useful to organisers of large-scale international sporting events as they detail relevant public procurement roles and functions. They have been selected on their pertinence, quality and usefulness in terms of ensuring sustainability and legacy. Specifically, they are divided into three groups: costing and cost-benefit analysis, self-assessment and sustainable procurement.
Table 3.2. External resources for sustainability and legacy
|
Tool |
Description |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Costing and cost-benefit tools: Fully evaluating the costs and benefits of options around the construction of new infrastructure, renovation of existing infrastructure or use of temporary infrastructure is critical to managing sustainability and legacy risks. These tools can help guide OCOGs’ evaluation of decisions around when to build new or temporary venues, or use upgrade existing venues. |
||
|
European Investment Bank: The Economic Appraisal of Investment Projects at the EIB |
The Guide illustrates how the Bank conducts economic appraisal of projects. It takes a broader view than standard financial appraisals that focus on private financial returns to include other benefits and costs to society, accounting for all resources used by the project, whether human, technological, or natural, and gauges the value the project generates to all stakeholders. The Guide includes methodology specific to the tourism sector, including venues, and a case study involving a multi-purpose sport, social and cultural arena. |
https://www.eib.org/attachments/thematic/economic_appraisal_of_investment_projects_en.pdf |
|
Asian Development Bank Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Projects |
The Guidelines set out a general approach to the economic analysis of projects. They include a financial evaluation of the project and financial analysis of the implementing entity, supported by detailed guidelines on the financial management and analysis of projects. |
https://www.adb.org/documents/guidelines-economic-analysis-projects |
|
OECD Infrastructure Toolkit: Value for Money |
Ensuring fiscal sustainability is an integral part of ensuring the success of infrastructure projects. This involves embedding evidence-based project appraisals, implementing an effective prioritisation process and ensuring affordability within public budgets. The OECD Infrastructure Toolkit is an online resource to guide the planning, financing and delivery of infrastructure. |
https://infrastructure-toolkit.oecd.org/governance/value-for-money/ |
|
Self-assessment tools: These tools provide guidelines for OCOGs to evaluate their progress in addressing sustainability and legacy risks in their planning for the delivery of Games infrastructure and associated services. |
||
|
Implementing the OECD Recommendation on Global Events and Local Development: A Toolkit |
The toolkit provides concrete guidance on the full life cycle of global events, including the pre-bidding, bidding, operational and delivery, and evaluation phases. It includes a detailed self-assessment checklist to track progress. Many elements of this checklist are applicable to full range of risks faced by OCOGs. |
https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/Implementing-the-OECD-Recommendation-on-Global-Events-Toolkit.pdf |
|
Fédération internationale de l'automobile’s (FIA) environmental accreditation programme |
The programme introduces a clear and consistent environmental management system, and includes a detailed self-assessment tool. While aimed at motor sport and mobility stakeholders, the Guidelines and Self-Assessment Tool can be a useful guide and tool for OCOGs. |
|
|
Nature-Based Solutions Tools Catalogue |
The catalogue provides an inventory and assessment of nature-based solutions tools (methodologies, software, catalogues, repositories, e-platforms, guidelines and handbook) to support climate resiliency. Aimed primarily at cities, a number of the tools can be useful for OCOGs and their partners. |
https://naturebasedcity.climate-kic.org/reports/nature-based-solutions-tools-catalogue/ |
|
Sustainable procurement tools and guidance: These tools provide approaches and guidance that can help OCOGs integrate sustainability considerations into their procurement and ensure their supply chains for infrastructure and associated services are sustainable. |
||
|
UNEP Sustainability-Weighted Procurement Portfolio Model |
The model supports organisations in identifying procurement categories that represent the highest sustainability risk exposure, and where interventions will yield the highest relative sustainability impact. |
https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/37039 |
|
European Commission Green Public Procurement (GPP) Criteria |
The GPP criteria provide a framework and examples to facilitate the inclusion of green requirements in tender documents for categories including catering and cleaning services. OCOGs could choose, according to their needs and priorities, to include all or only certain requirements in their tender documents. |
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/eu_gpp_criteria_en.htm |
|
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises – National Contact Point (NCP) |
The Guidelines provide non-binding principles and standards for responsible business conduct in a global context. Governments adhering to the Guidelines have set up NCPs whose role includes providing a mediation and conciliation platform for resolving practical issues that may arise with the implementation of the Guidelines. OCOGs operating in adherent countries could consider promoting the NCPs’ grievance process for the resolution of issues of alleged non-observance of the Guidelines throughout their supply chains. |
|
References
[13] Cantelon, H. and M. Letters (2000), “THE MAKING OF THE IOC ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AS THE THIRD DIMENSION OF THE OLYMPIC MOVEMENT”, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, Vol. 35/3, pp. 294-308, https://doi.org/10.1177/101269000035003004.
[8] Chappelet, J. (2008), “Olympic Environmental Concerns as a Legacy of the Winter Games”, The International Journal of the History of Sport, Vol. 25/14, pp. 1884-1902, https://doi.org/10.1080/09523360802438991.
[7] Dendura, B. (2019), “Olympic Infrastructure—Global Problems of Local Communities on the Example of Rio 2016, PyeongChang 2018, and Krakow 2023”, Sustainability, Vol. 12/1, p. 141, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010141.
[28] Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (2013), London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games The Legacy: Sustainable Procurement for Construction Projects, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224038/pb13977-sustainable-procurement-construction.PDF.
[15] Flyvbjerg, B., A. Budzier and D. Lunn (2020), “Regression to the tail: Why the Olympics blow up”, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, Vol. 53/2, pp. 233-260, https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518x20958724.
[29] Henson, K. (2011), The procurement and use of sustainable concrete on the Olympic Park, https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130228085355mp_/http://learninglegacy.london2012.com/documents/pdfs/procurement-and-supply-chain-management/01-concrete-pscm.pdf.
[33] International Labour Organization (n.d.), Partnership with Tokyo 2020, https://www.ilo.org/tokyo/helpdesk/WCMS_706812/lang--en/index.htm (accessed on 5 March 2022).
[4] International Olympic Committee (2021), IOC Sustainability Report 2021, https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/News/2021/12/IOC-Sustainability-Report-2021.pdf.
[1] International Olympic Committee (2021), Olympic Agenda 2020: Closing Report, https://stillmedab.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/IOC/What-We-Do/Olympic-agenda/Olympic-Agenda-2020-Closing-report.pdf.
[2] International Olympic Committee (2021), Olympic Agenda 2020+5: 15 Recommendations, https://stillmedab.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/IOC/What-We-Do/Olympic-agenda/Olympic-Agenda-2020-5-15-recommendations.pdf.
[22] International Olympic Committee (2020), The Richmond Olympic Oval, https://olympics.com/ioc/legacy/vancouver-2010/the-richmond-olympic-oval (accessed on 2 March 2022).
[32] International Olympic Committee (2019), Olympic Games Guide on Sustainable Sourcing, https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/IOC/What-We-Do/celebrate-olympic-games/Sustainability/Olympic-Games-Guide-on-Sustainable-Sourcing-2019.pdf.
[5] International Olympic Committee (2017), IOC Sustainability Strategy, http://extrassets.olympic.org/sustainability-strategy/.
[6] International Olympic Committee (2016), Host City Contract: Operational Requirements, https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/Documents/Host-City-Elections/XXXIII-Olympiad-2024/Host_City_Contract_Operational_Requirements_December_2016.pdf.
[10] KPMG (2015), Planning for a Sustainable Fututre, https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2015/11/planning-for-a-sustainable-future.pdf.
[18] Long, J. (2013), Rethinking Olympic Infrastructure, LSE Cities at the London School of Economics and the Alfred Herrhausen Gesellschaft, https://urbanage.lsecities.net/essays/rethinking-olympic-infrastructure.
[16] Long, J. (2005), “Full Count”, Journal of Sports Economics, Vol. 6/2, pp. 119-143, https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002504264614.
[14] McBride, J. and M. Manno (2021), The Economics of Hosting the Olympic Games, Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/economics-hosting-olympic-games (accessed on 7 February 2022).
[39] Milano Cortina 2026 Candidate City (2019), Milano Cortina 2026 Candidature Dossier, https://milanocortina2026.olympics.com/media/2x4k3zdt/2026-milano-cortina-eng_dossier-candidature.pdf.
[19] OECD (2021), “Building resilience: New strategies for strengthening infrastructure resilience and maintenance”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 05, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/354aa2aa-en.
[27] OECD (2020), Integrating Responsible Business Conduct in Public Procurement, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/02682b01-en.
[20] OECD (2020), OECD Compendium of Policy Good Practices for Quality Infrastructure Investment, https://www.oecd.org/finance/OECD-compendium-of-policy-good-practices-for-quality-infrastructure-investment.htm.
[9] OECD (2020), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Infrastructure, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0460.
[17] OECD (2019), “Policy Toolkit on Governance of Critical Infrastructure Resilience”, in Good Governance for Critical Infrastructure Resilience, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/fc4124df-en.
[3] OECD (2018), Recommendation of the Council on Global Events and Local Development, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0444.
[36] OECD (2017), Public Procurement for Innovation: Good Practices and Strategies, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264265820-en.
[37] Organising Committee for the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games (2021), The Legacy and Sustainability Plan for the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games, https://library.olympics.com/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/848876/the-legacy-and-sustainability-plan-for-the-paris-2024-olympic-and-paralympic-games-organising-commit?_lg=en-GB.
[38] Organising Committee for the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games (2020), Strategie responsable des achats de Paris 2024.
[35] Paris 2024 (2021), Sustainability and Legacy Report, https://medias.paris2024.org/uploads/2022/01/PARIS-2024-210831-Rapport-Durabilite-et-Heritage-VENG_compressed.pdf.
[31] Pósch, K. et al. (2020), Scale and nature of precarious work in the UK, Director of Labour Market Enforcement, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1040243/scale-and-nature-of-precarious-work-in-the-UK.pdf.
[25] Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park (n.d.), Legacy Corporation, https://www.queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/our-story (accessed on 14 February 2022).
[26] Rio 2016 Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games (2014), Sustainable Sport Flooring Guide: Version 1, https://library.olympics.com/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/44996/sustainable-sport-flooring-guide-version-1-date-11-2014-organising-committee-for-the-olympic-and-par.
[30] Rio 2016 Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games (2014), Sustainable Supply Chain Guide: Version 2, https://library.olympics.com/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/38411/sustainable-supply-chain-guide-version-2-september-2014-organising-committee-for-the-olympic-and-par.
[12] Stoneman, M. (2016), A Lasting Impact, pp. 46-57, https://library.olympics.com/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/171637/a-lasting-impact-michael-stoneman.
[34] The Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (2019), Sustainable Sourcing Code: Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralymic Games (3rd ed.), https://library.olympics.com/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/170818/sustainable-sourcing-code-tokyo-2020-olympic-and-paralympic-games-the-tokyo-organising-committee-of-?_lg=en-GB.
[23] Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation (n.d.), About the Living Legacy, https://utaholympiclegacy.org/about/ (accessed on 14 February 2022).
[24] Utah Sports Commission (n.d.), About the Utah Sports Commission, https://utahsportscommission.com/about/ (accessed on 14 February 2022).
[21] Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (2009), Staging the Olympic Winter Games Knowledge Report, http://digital.la84.org/digital/collection/p17103coll8/id/45339/rec/98.
[11] Zeman, J. (2014), Greening Sochi Olympic Games: A Strategy and Action Plan for the Greening Legacy, Independent Evaluation Office, United Nations Development Programme.