In the context of the Olympic Games, stakeholders can include a wide range of interested or affected parties, including the IOC and its national counterpart, international sports federations, athletes, spectators, local and national governments, local communities and civic groups, media, sponsors and suppliers. This chapter shares insights, good practices and tools on how to effectively manage the stakeholder engagement necessary to efficiently deliver the required infrastructure and associated services.
Guidelines on the Effective Delivery of Infrastructure and Associated Services for the Olympic Games
Report
Table of contents
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
4. Stakeholder and citizen participation
Abstract
4.1. What are the risks?
Stakeholder participation can enhance the delivery of infrastructure and associated services by supporting the identification of needs and promoting transparency (OECD, 2017[1]). Weak participation can reduce the perceived legitimacy of infrastructure projects and major events and negatively impact trust and shared ownership of planning and delivery (OECD, 2021[2]).
The OECD Recommendation on Open Government defines stakeholder participation as all the ways in which stakeholders can be involved in service design and delivery, including (OECD, 2017[3]):
Information: an initial level of participation characterised by a one-way relationship in which information is produced and delivered to stakeholders. It covers both on-demand provision of information and proactive measures to disseminate information.
Consultation: a more advanced level of participation that entails a two-way relationship in which stakeholders provide feedback. It is based on the prior definition of the issue for which views are being sought and requires the provision of relevant information, in addition to feedback on the outcomes of the process.
Engagement: when stakeholders are given the opportunity and the necessary resources (e.g. information, data and digital tools) to collaborate during all phases of service design and delivery.
While the Recommendation groups together citizens and any interested and/or affected party, the OECD’s Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes make the following distinction when referring to these groups (OECD, 2022[4]):
Stakeholders: any interested and/or affected party, including institutions and organisations, whether governmental or non-governmental, from civil society, academia, the media or the private sector.
Citizens: individuals, meant in the larger sense of ‘an inhabitant of a particular place’, which can be in reference to a city, region, state, or country, and is not meant in the more restrictive sense of ‘a legally recognised national.
Citizen and stakeholder participation are not mutually exclusive and can often overlap. However, stakeholders and individual citizens require different conditions to participate and produce different inputs. For example, stakeholders can provide expertise and more specific input than citizens through mechanisms such as advisory bodies or experts’ panels, whereas citizen participation requires providing the public with time, information, and resources to produce quality inputs.
Stakeholder and citizen participation can also help to ensure that the benefits of hosting the Games are distributed equitably. The OECD Recommendation on Global Events and Local Development advises employment and skills strategies should be implemented to create local job opportunities and develop local residents’ skills. The Recommendation also advises that the design and planning of major events like the Games should consider how they can support gender equality and the inclusion of people with disabilities, as well as increase the labour market participation of disadvantaged groups (OECD, 2018[5]). Achieving these goals requires that relevant groups are included in the planning, decision making and oversight of infrastructure and associated services.
In the Games context, infrastructure stakeholders can include a diverse range of interested or affected parties, including the IOC, the National Olympic Committee, international sports federations, athletes, spectators, local and national governments, local communities and civic groups (e.g. residents, local businesses, activist groups, trade unions), media, sponsors and suppliers, (Chappelet, 2021[6]; Parent, 2013[7]). As outsourcing entities embedded in a complex institutional environment, OCOGs need strong relationships with stakeholders and citizens to ensure successful delivery (Parent, 2013[7]). This section examines risks related to OCOG’s engagement with stakeholders and citizens in the context of the procurement and delivery of Games infrastructure and associated services, with a specific focus on the following key challenges:
The number of stakeholders and the complexity of the stakeholder environment faced by OCOGs;
The risk that a lack of citizen participation will threaten public trust and engagement with the Games; and,
The risk that a failure to meaningfully engage with vulnerable communities will result in disproportionate impacts.
4.1.1. The multiplicity of stakeholders impacted by sport infrastructure delivery demands additional efforts to map and target interested parties
The OECD Recommendation on the Governance of Infrastructure highlights the need for an upfront stakeholder mapping and analysis to ensure engagement efforts are effective in including relevant groups in decision making. The diversity and number of Games stakeholders creates challenges for OCOGs, as these diverse stakeholders will necessarily have different and sometimes competing priorities. For example, in developing the Olympic Village, London 2012 faced challenges reconciling the priorities of developers focused on long-term use and legacy and the need to ensure Games operations were accommodated (London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, 2013[8]).
In addition, for some infrastructure stakeholders, the full impact of the Games will only be realised years after the Games have finished and venues have transitioned to their long-term use. OCOGs must be aware of the diversity of stakeholder groups, who vary in the degree to which they need to be actively engaged in decision making and to which they may be positively or negatively impacted by the Games. OCOGs may have limited ability to modify scope and requirements specified in the host city contract (signed before the OCOG existed), as changes require time-consuming negotiations with other actors. This can be particularly challenging for OCOGs in the face of immovable deadlines and significant scrutiny of their expenditures.
Multiple stakeholders have a direct stake in the short- and long-term impacts of Games infrastructure delivery. From end-users and civil society organisations to sports federations to local residents, all require extensive engagement. For London 2012, the use of landmark settings, venues and locations across the region required extensive, long-term communication with businesses, residents, and service providers to ensure services such as traffic management, security, and transport could continue to operate (London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, 2013[8]). Without a strong upfront understanding and analysis of relevant stakeholders, OCOGs will struggle to ensure engagement efforts are effective in informing and including relevant groups in decision making. If stakeholders are not properly identified and targeted, mechanisms to actively engage them during the planning and delivery stages can be fruitless.
Box 4.1. Stakeholder mapping to promote large infrastructure projects: Crossrail, United Kingdom
Crossrail, Europe's largest infrastructure project and among the most significant infrastructure projects ever undertaken in the UK, involves a network of railways mainly in central London. In 2001, Cross London Rail Links (CLRL) was established to oversee project appraisal and design. From the outset, CLRL recognised the sheer scale of the project and the need for buy-in from stakeholders in national and local government, the transport sector, local businesses and residents. CLRL created a consultation strategy based on principles of transparency, accessibility and inclusivity. The strategy provided clear objectives: to identify and contact stakeholders; to record positive comments; to identify areas of concern; and to deliver mitigations.
To achieve this, CLRL developed a well-resourced and empowered Public Affairs department team. Their first task was to undertake a significant stakeholder mapping exercise to identify all bodies with a consent-granting function, or a geographic or functional interest. To facilitate an effective and open dialogue during the consultation, a major awareness campaign was conducted. A stakeholder database was created to track stakeholder interactions and record feedback and comments.
Targeted communications were directed to the most impacted stakeholders to encourage participation in the dialogue. Land-owners that would be directly impacted by the project were contacted and provided with access to the project team to field any queries or concerns.
CLRL developed “information papers” which provided brief, plain-language explanations on items expected to raise concerns along with publishing relevant information in newspapers. CRLR also set up a 24/7 helpdesk as a first point of contact for enquiries, operated by well-briefed in-house staff that did not use scripts to provide responses. By providing access to knowledgeable project representatives, full answers could be given to questions, and the project team gained a better understanding of stakeholders’ concerns. CLRL also wrote to relevant statutory bodies and representative groups to offer meetings to discuss the project. The awareness campaign developed familiarity with the project and the perception of Crossrail as a transparent and inclusive project helped promote buy-in among stakeholders. As a result, the initial consultation saw good levels of participation with high-quality responses. A summary report of the results of the consultation was made publicly available and formed the basis for ongoing communications. A second consultation was then carried out, which allowed feedback to be provided to stakeholders on concerns raised in the initial consultation.
By placing such emphasis on stakeholder participation at the outset of the project, the delivery body was able to foresee those areas of most critical concern and, in a number of cases, introduce mitigations or changes to the project in response.
Source: (Bennett, 2018[9])
4.1.2. Lack of participation can threaten public trust and engagement
Facilitating public access to information, open debate, and participation in planning is a precondition for good infrastructure governance. A lack of participation and transparency in the delivery of infrastructure and associated services can undermine public trust and citizen engagement with the Games. Successful Games rely on support from an engaged public, and failure to engage citizens and be transparent about Games delivery creates significant reputational and delivery risks. Late or insufficient stakeholder and citizen involvement can prevent the Games from achieving transformative and long-term impacts if end-users’ priorities are left out of the infrastructure planning and design process. Weak engagement during planning and design can reduce the scope of benefits from sport infrastructure, while proactively informing, consulting, and engaging with stakeholders and citizens at all stages can facilitate the incorporation of their perspectives and expertise (OECD, 2021[2]).
Box 4.2. Mapping employment opportunities to promote development in Dakar
As host of the 2026 Summer Youth Olympic Games, Dakar will become the first African city to host an Olympic event. Dakar 2026 has a vision to use the Games as a catalyst to spur economic and social development and seeks to promote the Games as a platform through which young Senegalese take centre stage in sporting, economic and social activities.
The Games will offer significant employment opportunities for young people in Senegal. Dakar 2026 undertook a study in 2022 to identify the potential jobs linked to the Youth Olympic Games and to identify key sectors, such as construction, transport and tourism, where employment opportunities would be generated. Training programs are then being introduced to equip young people with relevant skills to match the opportunities.
The mapping of employment opportunities generated by the Games also aims to address capacity gaps in the local economy. For example, in exploring the transport sector and needs for the Games, the report identifies issues such as a dilapidated taxi fleet, lack of bus routes and the need for more cycle or footpaths. It suggests that by addressing these issues for the Games, and thus developing the local transport system, Dakar can generate over 2000 local jobs.
The process of the mapping study was as follows:
Identified and listed 27 activities and services linked to the Games, including operation of ceremonies, medical services, transport, and security.
Established the timeline of mobilisation with four broad periods; planning and mobilisation of local youth, follow up and finalisation of infrastructure, operation and opening of Games and legacy and heritage.
Identification of employment that should be mobilised for the Games, in terms of both the sectors and specific skills needed.
Provision of formal training related to the specific needs of the Games.
Prioritisation based on the economic potential and sustainability of the employment. It analysed the economic benefit of each sector and job type and allocated resources to them accordingly.
Provided a final list of the employment opportunities associated with the Games by sector so as to provide information to those seeking employment and to Dakar 2026. Approximately 140 types of employment were identified.
Source: (PROMAN, 2022[10])
The OECD’s Principles of Good Practice for Public Communication Responses to Mis- and Disinformation highlight how changing media and information ecosystems provide unprecedented opportunities for engagement, while also presenting challenges related to the consumption and sharing of information. Communication technologies like social media platforms have amplified the volume and reach of mis- and disinformation about the impacts of infrastructure and about the Games more broadly. If it is not appropriately anticipated and countered, misleading or malicious content can work against OCOGs’ goals, undermining public trust and the OCOG’s legitimacy. OCOGs can seek to build capacity for proactive, responsive and effective public communication that provides factual information, fills information voids and counters mis- and disinformation. Interventions should be designed to reach all groups, delivered in plain language that is relevant and easily understood. Channels, messages and messengers should be appropriate for intended audiences, and communication initiatives conducted with respect for cultural and linguistic differences and with attention paid to reaching disengaged, underrepresented or marginalised groups (OECD, 2022[11]) (OECD, 2022[12]). By contrast, empowering citizens through participatory processes helps to build relationships based on mutual trust and prevent conflict situations that might arise from not taking into account needs of all relevant groups (OECD, 2022[4]).
Box 4.3. Engaging with indigenous peoples in Chile
Chile has faced challenges with economic development infrastructure projects due to its history of territorial conflict with indigenous communities. To address the need for greater territorial integration and social inclusion, the Chilean government has introduced specific mechanisms for transparency and consultation, including infrastructure monitoring platforms, the creation of sub-national institutions to improve indigenous participation, and adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007.
To ensure citizens are aware of their rights and to minimise corruption, a Council for Transparency was introduced in 2009 to help combat corruption, ensure citizens' access to information and monitor lawful conduct. Chile’s “National Investment System” was also introduced and provides information relating to the status and cost of public investments across all sectors and regions. The Ministry of Social Development and Family provides information to civil society through its online “Integrated Project Database”, particularly aimed at those affected by infrastructure investments such as indigenous communities.
Consultation was the next step. The Ministry of Public Works established specific participation mechanisms through Resolution 315 in 2015. This resolution stipulates that public participation must be guaranteed throughout the whole infrastructure life-cycle. This means engaging with involved stakeholders, including indigenous communities, from the very beginning of the planning stages of infrastructure projects. Citizen consultation is carried out by selecting participants that are representative of the entire community with special attention given to gender, disabilities and indigenous identities.
The Official Document from the Public Works General Directorate 539 further ensures consultation of indigenous people in infrastructure. Under this directorate infrastructure projects delivered by the Ministry of Works, require consultation with indigenous communities conducted by the Ministry of Social Development and Family. The latter Ministry consults directly with indigenous communities and draws up recommendations based on this. The Ministry of Works must then integrate these recommendations into its projects. There are thus multiple legal and institutional frameworks that ensure indigenous stakeholder participation in infrastructure projects in Chile.
A lack of transparency in the delivery of infrastructure and associated services risks undermining the Olympic Agenda 2020+5’s commitment to good governance, while transparency about success and failure supports accountability and promotes public engagement and trust. The OECD Recommendation on Global Events and Local Development stresses the importance of transparency throughout the event lifecycle (OECD, 2018[5]). It can be promoted during all phases of event delivery, as well as embedded in overarching governance structures, through transparent stakeholder consultation, procurement and tendering, supply chains, monitoring and reporting and decision-making processes.
Involving citizens supports the public’s understanding of outcomes and the legitimacy of decision making. OCOGs face challenging trade-offs between the objectives of delivering the Games within budget and providing an extraordinary experience, which often manifest in decisions about infrastructure and associated service levels. A lack of citizen participation can reduce the public’s ability to follow and understand the processes leading to these decisions, undermining the legitimacy of the hard choices inherent to Games delivery (OECD, 2022[4]). On a practical level, citizen support is central to the successful delivery of Games services, which rely heavily on large numbers of volunteers to perform critical roles. For example, Paris 2024 will mobilise 35 000 to 45 000 volunteers in six categories: greetings, orientation and assistance; operational support (sporting events); operational support (organisation); transport; medical services; and at ceremonies (Paris 2024 Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, n.d.[15]). Failing to meaningfully engage citizens in decision making can undermine the public trust and support OCOGs need to mobilise communities for successful delivery.
4.1.3. Without strong stakeholder and citizen participation, the delivery of infrastructure can disproportionately impact vulnerable communities, and exclude them from the benefits of the Games
The OECD Recommendation on the Governance of Infrastructure emphasises the importance of considering the needs of users and impacted communities throughout the project life cycle, through the assessment, debate and oversight of economic, fiscal, environmental, and social impacts (OECD, 2020[16]). Without a clear vision to guide the integration of inclusiveness and diversity considerations during planning and delivery, there is a risk that the Games will not address the needs of Host Cities and fail to reach the goals of the Olympic Movement. Decisions will not respond to the needs of the entire population in an exclusive and sustainable way without a thorough needs assessment and participation process (OECD, 2021[2]).
OCOGs face the challenge of working with partners to quickly implement an extensive infrastructure programme while avoiding or appropriately mitigating the displacement of residents and businesses and associated human rights impacts (Heerdt, 2020[17]). They must also be careful to ensure that Games infrastructure and related development do not result in the exploitation of vulnerable communities, including impacts on archaeological and built heritage or on indigenous sacred sites and monuments (International Olympic Committee, 2021[18]). Lack of participation can lead to venues that are not useful to communities after the Games, or to missed opportunities for creative reuse.
Box 4.4. Ensuring inclusivity in the U.S. Bank Stadium workforce
The State of Minnesota has set ambitious goals for the inclusion of women, ethnic minorities, veterans and lower income residents in large infrastructure developments. They are aimed at ensuring all members of the community have access to procurement opportunities during the design, construction and operation phases.
One government-led program encouraged women and minorities to pursue employment opportunities that were created by the construction of the U.S. Bank Stadium in Minnesota. The Stadium is owned and operated by the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority (the Authority), which was also responsible for its design and build. Completed in 2016, a key objective for the Stadium was to maximise benefits for local communities. Several initiatives that aimed to promote an inclusive agenda were implemented throughout its design, construction and operation. Of note is the Equity Plan which was developed under state mandate to ensure social inclusion.
Initially set up in the design and construction phase and since extended to the operations phase, the Equity Plan includes pragmatic goals to integrate women, minorities and low-income residents into the workforce and to involve women- and minority-owned businesses in design and construction activities. The Equity Plan outlines how to provide employment and equal access to labour market opportunities, and establishes goals for contracts to be awarded to capable, available and willing women- and minority-owned businesses. Veterans and low-income residents were also included in employment initiatives, with much of the engagement led by specialised employment assistance firms.
A robust monitoring approach with a web-based database was established and contractors, subcontractors and vendors were required to submit data in an electronic format. A member of the Authority visited the Stadium’s construction site on a weekly basis to supervise and randomly check on the accuracy of the data provided through the web-based tool. During the construction phase alone, 36% of the jobs were positions held by minorities, 9% by women, and 4% by veterans. In addition, 90% of the construction budget (a total of USD 400 million) was allocated to local businesses, of which 16% were owned by women, 12% were minority-owned and 1 % were businesses owned by veterans. This was above the threshold set by the original Equality Plan of 32% minority and 6% women for the workforce and 9% minority owned and 11% women owned business.
Key success factors included strong leadership and a robust governance structure, as well as a collaborative approach and transparent web-based reporting that allowed for continuous monitoring. Identified challenges included the time required to familiarise contractors, subcontractors and vendors with the new approach to monitoring and reporting progress, along with the need to create a culture supportive of the Equity Plan’s inclusive approach to avoid a return to former practices.
Inadequate participation can also undermine OCOGs’ commitments to accessibility, particularly with respect to the Paralympic Games. Under the practice of “one bid, one city”, OCOGs are responsible for delivering both the Olympic and Paralympic Games, including the provision of venues scaled to the needs of the Paralympics. It is important to ensure infrastructure and associated services appropriately serve both events, and that services such as websites and apps, ticketing, and transport are accessible. For example, different mobility needs to be accommodated, both at Games sites and in accessing venues. This can be challenging in urban environments that may not be fully accessible, but where the OCOG has limited control outside of venues and other Games areas. If planning for the Paralympics is not integrated from the early stages of the Games and included at all levels of the OCOG’s organisation, OCOGs risk failing to deliver an accessible event or incurring additional costs to incorporate accessibility requirements late in the delivery process.
Failure to consider inclusiveness and diversity considerations in the procurement and delivery of infrastructure and associated services can also hinder the prevention and mitigation of risks specific to certain population groups. Failure to assess impacts on minority or under-represented populations, and to incorporate these considerations in areas such as technical specifications or sourcing strategies, can threaten an equal and fair distribution of the benefits of the Games. This is particularly true of marginalised communities such as migrant workers, people with disabilities, minorities, the less affluent, and LGTBQI+ people, who may have less access to decision makers. Local communities negatively impacted by a project often mobilize to ensure their interests are protected (Denicol, Davies and Krystallis, 2020[20]), creating additional challenges for OCOGs. Involving citizen through targeted outreach and meaningful opportunities to contribute to decision making can improve the social sustainability of infrastructure projects by helping ensure that all voices are taken into account.
Box 4.5. Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games Reconciliation Action Plan
The 2018 Commonwealth Games, held in Gold Coast, Australia, implemented a Reconciliation Action Plan to guide efforts to acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander values, culture and heritage and advance outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The community engagement process began more than three years before the Games and also included a commitment to continue to engage and provide updates on the implementation of the Reconciliation Action Plan.
Based on a commitment to respectful engagement with local stakeholders and the development of key relationships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the Plan included efforts to provide employment and procurement opportunities. The state government and Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games Corporation committed to:
Support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to secure employment and training outcomes on the Commonwealth Games Village.
Promote supply chain strategies to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment through contract opportunities.
Develop at least six commercial relationships (either directly or via sub contract) with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander businesses each year.
Strategies and initiatives undertaken during the procurement and tendering process included workshops, mentoring opportunities and platforms for Indigenous businesses to meet with prime contractors to showcase their businesses and capabilities and receive support on key contractual priorities. The Games generated more than AUD 14 million in contracts and other additional revenue for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander businesses, with procurement activities involving recycling and waste management, civil works, design services, and workforce-related categories.
The Olympic Movement aims to support sustainable development, and opportunities for businesses led by under-represented groups in the delivery of infrastructure-related services can play a significant role in achieving those goals. However, without early development and engagement with these stakeholders, the success of these measures can be put at risk. Businesses led by people from marginalized or under-represented groups can be smaller and less experienced, and may struggle to respond to large and complex tender processes, while it can be challenging for OCOGs and their sub-contractors to shift procurement from known and regular suppliers with extensive experience, particularly given the time pressures of the Games. SMEs are often unable to compete for or deliver large or comprehensive contracts, and OCOGs should be conscious of the risks of developing uniformly large work packages, whether for infrastructure or associated services.
4.2. Experiences from Paris, Milano-Cortina and Los Angeles
Box 4.6. Maximising the impact of the 2024 Games by supporting social enterprises
The Games bring significant economic and social potential to the host city. Paris 2024 is making the most of this potential by offering a platform to socially engaged enterprises. Économie Sociale et Solidaire 2024 (ESS 2024) is an online platform that aims to inform, support, recognise and promote businesses engaged in the social and solidarity economy by placing them at the heart of the organisation of the Games.
The OCOG and the Société de Livraison des Ouvrages Olympiques (Solideo) joined forces with Les Canaux and the Yunus Centre to develop ESS 2024 and contribute to the realisation of the first sustainable, inclusive and solidarity-based Olympic and Paralympic Games. Les Canaux is an association created the City of Paris which supports actors in the social and solidarity economy, while the Yunus Centre is a resource centre for social business in France.
ESS provides the following online services:
1. Information: ESS 2024 provides an overview of strategic information on markets, employment opportunities and requirements of Game organisers for the benefit of businesses. It organises frequent meetings, newsletters, and other supports to increase the participation of the social and solidarity economy in the Games. This engagement also provides opportunities for two-way communication with Paris 2024, with feedback from Les Canaux informing the development of tender documents.
2. Certification: Interested businesses have access to a site where they can register to be certified as a social and solidarity economy company and be made known to the organisers of the Games.
3. Support: ESS 2024 is conducting a series of workshops and providing tools to support companies to find new ways of working. It connects social and solidarity economy actors and those in the traditional economy with a view to making the most of the opportunities provided by the Games.
4. Inspire and promote: ESS 2024 promotes international good practices to create the conditions for their replication in France, as well as promoting examples of good practice in France that can be replicated internationally.
The implementation of ESS and other engagement efforts have helped lead to approximately 65% of contracts being awarded to SMEs and 15% to social enterprises.
Source: Information provided by Paris 2024
Box 4.7. Increasing local access to sports facilities and activities in Los Angeles before the Games
In the lead-up to the Games, LA28 is engaging with communities to enhance affordable access to youth sports programs. Partnering with the Los Angeles Department of Parks, the OCOG is delivering the PlayLA programme to ensure youth of all abilities have access to quality sports facilities and activities in their local neighbourhood.
The PlayLA programme is made possible by a USD 160 million (approx. EUR 150 million) commitment from LA28 and the IOC to youth sports in Los Angeles. The programme will:
Provide sporting programs, classes and clinics throughout the school year. This will include Olympic sports to be featured in the Games such as surfing, skateboarding, football, judo, and tennis, as well as measures such as extended pool hours.
Adaptive programs will be provided to include children of all abilities.
Subsidise fees for low-income families.
Provide training and tools to ensure the safety of all youth participants in sports and fitness programs.
Donate sports and outdoor safety equipment to kids and childcare centres across the city.
PlayLA launched in November 2021, with sporting activities offered across the city. As of 2022, 90 000 children have enrolled in the program and increasing numbers of programmes are being made available. For example, in the 2022-23 school year PlayLA added several adaptive sports to its programming, including para-swim, wheelchair tennis, wheelchair basketball, visually impaired and blind soccer, para-equestrian, sitting volleyball, adaptive skateboarding and para-surfing.
Source: Information provided by LA28
Box 4.8. Building institutional structures to connect with local communities in Los Angeles
LA28 is establishing Working Groups and a Youth Council to provide a platform for diverse community voices to be represented in the delivery of the Games. They will provide advice and guidance relating to community and business procurement, local hire and sustainability. Members will ensure the Games reflect Los Angeles, including those with diverse backgrounds and interests.
Working groups set up to support the delivery of the Games include:
Local Hire Working Group: will advise LA28 in its program development to ensure the Games’ workforce represents the diversity of Los Angeles, including programs for youth and transitional workers and a volunteer program to maximize public benefit in connection with the 2028 Games.
Sustainability Working Group: will advise LA28 as it develops and implements a Sustainability Plan for the 2028 Games that is consistent with the International Organization for Standardization 20121 standards and supports the advancement of the City’s applicable sustainability goals.
Community and Business Procurement Working Group: will advise the LA28 Games in program development that seeks to ensure small, local and underrepresented businesses have access to and can participate in contract opportunities associated with the 2028 Games. Procurement and collaboration with local LA business is critical to the success of the LA28 Games.
Working Group members come from organisations across Los Angeles that are actively engaged in their local communities and interested in shaping the future of the city and the Games. They will be expected to have a credible track record for serving greater Los Angeles, experience with educational institutions and other community organisations, extensive networks, and significant subject matter knowledge. The Working Groups will be established more than five years before the Games, providing the opportunity to meaningfully impact delivery.
The Youth Council brings together a diverse group of young people to discuss topics critical to hosting the Games, including environmental impact, accessibility, and inclusion. Comprised of Angelenos ages 18 to 24, the Youth Council will also ensure the Games engage the next generation of fans and reflect the Los Angeles community. The inaugural Youth Council was launched in 2021 with members nominated by community-based organisations. New members will be welcomed every year leading up to the Games.
Source: Information provided by LA28
4.3. Addressing stakeholder and citizen participation risks
4.3.1. Key principles
Box 4.9. Key principles to address stakeholder and citizen participation risks
1. Detailed and ongoing mapping is required to understand the stakeholder landscape
OCOGs should undertake stakeholder mapping to identify key infrastructure delivery stakeholders and inform the development of stakeholder participation strategies. Recognising that Games infrastructure and associated services can have both positive and negative impacts on a range of groups and understanding the impacts of specific measures is key to anticipating and mitigating risks.
Stakeholder interest and prioritisation may change through the Games delivery cycle, and requires ongoing attention. OCOGs should ensure that efforts to understand the stakeholder landscape and the impact of the Games are not static and confined solely to the initial planning phases of the delivery of infrastructure and associated services.
2. Ensure access for all stakeholders and citizens with an interest in Games infrastructure and associated services
The successful delivery of Games infrastructure, as well as the long-term achievement of positive economic, social and environmental outcomes, is contingent on transparent information sharing, meaningful consultation and inclusive decision making with affected communities throughout the project life cycle. It requires significant engagement and consultation with local communities to encourage early buy-in and to ensure that infrastructure actually meets the needs of local users post-games. Public communication should be conducted transparently, use inclusive messages and channels, and promote two-way dialogue with stakeholders and the broader public. OCOGs should promote systematic and effective stakeholder participation, which can include producing and delivering information, seeking feedback through consultation, and looking for opportunities to promote collaborative processes.
Participation can help to build legitimacy and inform infrastructure design, delivery and operations. OCOGs should seek opportunities from early stages to bring all relevant stakeholders and citizens into the decision-making process to increase trust and ownership of planning and delivery. This could include measures such as making available clear, complete and relevant data and information that is free of cost, as well as providing stakeholders and citizens with the opportunity and resources (e.g. information, data and digital tools) required for impactful participation.
3. Stakeholder participation strategies should promote inclusive collaboration
Infrastructure stakeholders are diverse and require different approaches and processes to help ensure that decisions respond to the needs of the entire population in an inclusive and sustainable way. Inclusive participation can help OCOGs ensure that Games infrastructure and related development do not result in the exploitation of vulnerable communities and that sustainable development goals are met. The public nature of the Games increases the importance of fostering this participation and leveraging it into concrete outcomes.
OCOGs should consider how governance structures can be designed to not only include the OCOG, the IOC, national and international federations, and governments, but other Olympic stakeholders such as athletes and civil society groups as well as vulnerable communities.
4.3.2. Checklist
Table 4.1. Stakeholder and citizen participation checklist
|
Task |
Status (Yes/No) |
|---|---|
|
Stakeholder mapping |
|
|
Have you undertaken a stakeholder mapping for the delivery of infrastructure and associated services, or a broader stakeholder mapping which includes the delivery of infrastructure and associated services? Determining who the relevant stakeholders are, their interests, how they will be affected by the Games, and the influence they could have on the delivery of infrastructure and associated services is a key step to managing risks around stakeholder participation. |
|
|
Have you identified any legal requirements for stakeholder participation? Depending on the local context, there may be legal obligations to undertake some forms of stakeholder participation or to engage with certain groups. |
|
|
Is there a plan to maintain and update the stakeholder mapping throughout the delivery cycle? |
|
|
Score: /3 |
|
|
Ensure access for all stakeholders and citizens |
|
|
Are there measures to disseminate information on infrastructure projects and associated services, including their potential short and long-term effects? This should include the on-demand provision of information and proactive measures to disseminate information. |
|
|
Is information being disclosed in a standardised, accessible, reusable, understandable and machine-readable format, in a periodic and timely fashion? |
|
|
Are there opportunities for stakeholders and citizens to provide feedback on the planning and delivery of Games infrastructure and associated services? Are there processes and measures to incorporate stakeholder and citizen perspectives, concerns, and recommendations into decision making? This could include open meetings and town halls (online and in-person), public consultations, or deliberative assemblies. |
|
|
Have you considered mechanisms and processes that would involve citizens and stakeholders in decision making, co-creation, or ongoing monitoring related to infrastructure and associated services? This could include crowdsourcing, hackathons or public challenges, civic monitoring, or the co-design of solutions. |
|
|
Is there a strategy to address mis- and disinformation? By building capacity for timely and preventive efforts to respond to problematic content, OCOGs can position themselves to counter the spread and effects of mis- and disinformation. |
|
|
Score: /5 |
|
|
Inclusive participation |
|
|
Has a stakeholder participation plan been developed and published? The plan should include details of how the OCOG will engage with different groups, such as how to provide meaningful information, what venues or formats to use, and how input from stakeholders will be incorporated into decision making. |
|
|
Are there specific and tailored tools to remove potential barriers to participation for vulnerable, underrepresented, or marginalised groups in society? Are there incentives in place to foster the participation of these groups? |
|
|
Have you identified specific measures and policies required for disadvantaged groups to benefit from the delivery of Games infrastructure and associated services? |
|
|
Score: /3 |
|
|
Total Score: /11 |
|
4.3.3. External resources
To maximise stakeholder and citizen participation, 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, could 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 enabling stakeholder and citizen participation. Table 4.2 outlines mechanisms that can be used to enhance citizen participation by integrating them into the planning process, stakeholder engagement with private partners and creating platforms to support active participation from all those who may be impacted by projects.
Table 4.2. External resources for stakeholder and citizen participation
|
Tool |
Description |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Stakeholder and citizen participation tools and guidelines: Stakeholder participation is critical to successful delivery of Games infrastructure and associated services. These tools and guidelines can help OCOGs conceptualise their approach to stakeholders, including the development of stakeholder participation plans. |
||
|
OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes |
Guidelines for organisations designing, planning, and implementing a citizen participation process. The guidelines describe ten steps for designing, planning, implementing and evaluating a citizen participation process, and discuss eight different methods for involving citizens: information and data, open meetings, public consultations, open innovation, citizen science, civic monitoring, participatory budgeting and representative deliberative processes. |
|
|
Meaningful stakeholder engagement: A joint publication of the Multilateral Financial Institutions Group on Environmental and Social Standards |
Based on lessons learned and evolving standards, this technical note summarizes key objectives, principles and elements of stakeholder engagement with an emphasis on integrating stakeholder engagement into project design and implementation. The note proposes ten elements that ought to be present in a systematic and meaningful stakeholder engagement process. |
|
|
Stakeholder engagement: A good practice handbook for companies doing business in emerging markets |
The handbook aims to provide good practice “essentials” for managing stakeholder relationships, with a dedicated focus on stakeholder groups that are external to the core operation of the business, such as affected communities, local government authorities, non-governmental and other civil society organisations, local institutions and other interested or affected parties. Part One of the handbook contains the key concepts and principles of stakeholder engagement, the practices that are known to work, and the tools to support the delivery of effective stakeholder engagement. Part Two shows how these principles, practices and tools fit with the different phases of the project cycle, from initial concept, through construction and operations, to divestment and/or decommissioning. |
|
|
OECD Good practice principles for deliberative processes for public decision making |
This guide presents common principles and good practices on the establishment of deliberative processes. Deliberative processes convene groups of people representing a wide cross-section of society to learn, deliberate, and develop collective recommendations, and can provide an innovative approach to engaging with citizens. |
https://www.oecd.org/gov/open-government/good-practice-principles-for-deliberative-processes-for-public-decision-making.pdf |
|
Inclusive infrastructure and social equity: Practical guidance for increasing the positive social outcomes of large infrastructure projects |
This Reference Tool on Inclusive Infrastructure and Social Equity provides an actionable framework for an inclusive approach to infrastructure and is designed to provide guidance that is practical and based on global lessons learned. It presents the key pillars of inclusive infrastructure and their related practices in detail, as well as a number of case studies. |
https://cdn.gihub.org/umbraco/media/2437/gih_inclusiveinfrastructure_full-document_web_art_hr.pdf |
|
Open Policy Making toolkit |
This manual from the UK Cabinet Office includes information about using collaborative approaches and applying analytical techniques to create more open and user-led policy. |
|
|
EPA Public Participation Guide |
This guide from the American Environmental Protection Agency provides tools for public participation and public outreach in environmental decision making; however, many of the tools and insights are widely applicable where public input is important to decision making. |
https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/public-participation-guide-introduction-guide |
|
How to design and plan public engagement processes: a handbook |
This handbook provides guidance for designing and planning effective and empowering public engagement processes. It includes a structured framework with concrete stages to map strategic considerations, identify requirements, develop a process design and elaborate a detailed plan. |
https://policyscotland.gla.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/WWSPublicEngagementHandbook.pdf |
|
Guide to Digital Participation Platforms |
This guide explains how digital participation platforms can engage citizens in all types and stages of participatory processes. It also includes guidance for selecting and setting up a platform, and using it to run a participation process. |
|
References
[9] Bennett, S. (2018), Organising the Crossrail Consultation Programme, Crossrail Ltd., https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/organising-crossrail-consultation-programme/.
[6] Chappelet, J. (2021), “The Governance of the Olympic System: From One to Many Stakeholders”, Journal of Global Sport Management, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.1080/24704067.2021.1899767.
[22] Cultural and Indigenous Research Centre Australia (2019), Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games Reconciliation Action Plan Evaluation Report, https://www.publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/cee7221f-a885-4f43-b505-92fb36679b3f/resource/4b2dfd5d-3181-4510-a93d-44616f79929c/download/gold-coast-2018-commonwealth-games-reconciliation-action-plan-evaluation-report.pdf.
[20] Denicol, J., A. Davies and I. Krystallis (2020), “What Are the Causes and Cures of Poor Megaproject Performance? A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 51/3, pp. 328-345, https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819896113.
[19] Global Infrastructure Hub (n.d.), Case Studies: U.S. Bank Stadium, https://inclusiveinfra.gihub.org/case-studies/united-states-of-america-us-bank-stadium/ (accessed on 13 February 2023).
[21] Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games Corporation (2017), Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games Elevate Reconciliation Action Plan, https://gc2018.com/sites/default/files/2017-11/GC2018_RAP_FINAL%20VERSION.pdf.
[17] Heerdt, D. (2020), “A Rights-Holder View on Human Rights Provisions in Olympic Bidding and Hosting Regulations”, AJIL Unbound, Vol. 114, pp. 356-361, https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2020.70.
[18] International Olympic Committee (2021), IOC Sustainability Report 2021, https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/News/2021/12/IOC-Sustainability-Report-2021.pdf.
[8] London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (2013), London 2012 Olympic Games Official Report Volume 3.
[11] OECD (2022), Good Practice Principles for Public Communication Responses to Mis- and Disinformation, https://www.oecd.org/gov/open-government/good-practice-principles-public-communication-responses-to-mis-and-disinformation.pdf.
[12] OECD (2022), “Media freedoms and civic space in the digital age for transparency, accountability and citizen participation”, in The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dd537fc0-en.
[4] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.
[2] OECD (2021), OECD Implementation Handbook for Quality Infrastructure Investment: Supporting a Sustainable Recovery from the COVID-19 Crisis, https://www.oecd.org/finance/OECD-Implementation-Handbook-for-Quality-Infrastructure-Investment-EN.pdf.
[16] OECD (2020), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Infrastructure, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0460.
[5] OECD (2018), Recommendation of the Council on Global Events and Local Development, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0444.
[13] OECD (2017), Gaps and Governance Standards of Public Infrastructure in Chile: Infrastructure Governance Review, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264278875-en.
[1] OECD (2017), Getting Infrastructure Right: A framework for better governance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264272453-en.
[3] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438.
[7] Parent, M. (2013), “Olympic Games Stakeholder Governance and Management”, in Managing the Olympics, Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230389588_2.
[15] Paris 2024 Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games (n.d.), Volunteers at the Games, https://www.paris2024.org/en/volunteers/ (accessed on 8 September 2022).
[10] PROMAN (2022), Etude sur les métiers liés aux JOJ 2026.
[14] UN Envrionment Programme (2021), Integrated Approaches in Action: A Companion to the International Good Practice Principles for Sustainable Infrastructure, https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34854/IAASI.pdf.