Rising East Essays

Introduction: the ‘Greenest Games’

London 2012 has branded itself “the greenest games to date",1 and “the greenest games of the modern era”,2 aiming to set the “highest standards in sustainability and legacy for other games to follow”3 (Weaver, 2007). But the aspiration to create the “greenest games in history” (Brierley, 2008) is now under scrutiny, and London 2012 has been accused of failing to meet environmental targets. Increased flights from the nearest airport (London City),4 proposals to lift the ban on night flights into London Heathrow, delays in releasing reports on carbon emissions, and a row over an environmentally focused campaign by a major sponsor – all of these mean that London 2012’s green credentials are already in question.

The British media soon became sceptical about the ‘greenest games’ claim. A series of financial miscalculations, escalating costs during the global economic downturn, and the curtailing of venues, have fostered negative reporting on a variety of fronts; and this includes accusations of ‘greenwashing’. Such reports, taken together with the not-so eco-friendly reputation of some collaborative partners from the TOPS scheme (coordinated by the International Olympic Committee [IOC] and the National Olympic Committee [NOC]), suggest that London may fail in its goal to go green.

Not that such problems are unique to London 2012. It seems that any brand which makes declarations on the environment, runs the risk of either ‘green fatigue’ (De Bois, 2008) or ‘greenwashing’ accusations (Beder, 2000).

Top Previous Next

Higher Priority

Sustainability has come to prominence in the Olympic movement only recently. Increasing concerns over the environmental impact of mega-events, from the construction of Olympic venues and villages to the volume of spectators and media people travelling to the Games, have pushed the IOC to react. The Earth Summit of 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, meant that the UN “adopted the first draft of the ‘Earth Charter’, a vision for an environmentally sustainable planet” (Cox, 2006:78). The Charter put international pressure on large organisations to adopt an environmentally friendly position. At the summit, the United Nation’s Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), passed a motion on Agenda 21, which “propelled and justified the term ‘sustainable development’ into common currency” (Buckingham and Turner, 2008:50).

Agenda 21 included the “importance of the involvement of women, children and young people, trade unions, and indigenous people” (Buckingham and Turner, 2008:50) into the Olympic Games. Three years after the Rio Summit, the IOC “formally adopted an environmental position” (Toyne, 2009: 232-3) announcing after the Atlanta Games of 1996 that “environment and sustainability would have to be part of any future bids” (Toyne, 2009:232). Since the validation of Agenda 21, Sydney, Vancouver and London have emphasised the social and economic inclusion of young and indigenous people within their sustainability programmes.5

Thus environment and sustainability have become key terms in Olympics discourse. Olympic values are said to blend sports, culture and education, and, in turn, sustainability has now been blended into all three. Its inclusion is a condition of the bidding process, which shows the importance that the IOC gives to environmentalism. In 1995, the IOC confirmed that “the environment joined sport and culture to make up the ‘three pillars’ of the Olympic Charter” (Toyne, 2009:233), and post-1996 any team preparing to bid for the Games must include sustainability in its planning. However, as early indications show with London, this may leave organising committees open to accusations of ‘greenwashing’.

Top Previous Next

What is Greenwashing?

Sharon Beder coined the term ‘greenwashing’ to describe “public relations efforts to portray an organisation, activity or product as environmentally friendly”, when in reality such organisations are “trying to cover up environmentally and/or socially damaging activities” (2001). Sydney was the first host city to announce sustainability as a central theme. However, as latterly in London, ‘greenwashing’ accusations were soon levelled against the Sydney Games. There are similarities between the two host cities and their preparations for the Olympiad. The Homebush Bay site in Sydney and the Stratford site in East London are both former landfill sites. They both have a history of hazardous chemical waste being left to seep into the ground over time. Homebush Bay, to the west of Sydney, formerly housed a Union Carbide factory – manufacturers of the herbicide ‘Agent Orange’. Homebush Bay had suffered “years of unregulated waste dumping …it is the worst toxic dump waste in Australia, and the bay into which the waste leeches is so contaminated that fishing in it is banned” (Beder, 2002:247).

The Sydney Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (SOCOG) was accused of manipulating the data for PR purposes to ensure they secured the bid. Greenpeace, although initially a supporter of the bid, felt obliged to “denounce the government’s failure to keep to the environmental guidelines” (Beder, 2002:251). Once Sydney had secured the 2000 Olympic Games, Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the New South Wales Nature Conservation Council agreed that the Australian government had misrepresented their support, claiming that “individuals affiliated with those organisations had joined the bid committee’s environmental task force”, while “the groups themselves emphatically denied their support” (Beder, 2002: 250). In the years up to the Games, Greenpeace took direct action to highlight the level of dioxin contamination around Homebush Bay and the Olympic site.

In East London, the land at Stratford was previously owned by the London and Continental Railway Company. The London Development Agency (LDA) agreed to buy the land from London and Continental in November 2005 to “deliver the Olympics and the wider regeneration of Lower Lea Valley”.6 The ground was contaminated with chemicals from the railway company, and from the results of years of neglect (some of it had become a dumping ground for abandoned vehicles). The LDA set aside a budget of £364 million “to remediate what …was one of Europe’s most heavily contaminated sites” (Jeory, 2010), compared to the estimated cost for cleaning up Homebush Bay of AUS$190 million (Beder, 2002:256).

However, accusations of a reduction in the remediation programme emerged around the depth of soil that was cleaned. The Sunday Express newspaper accused the LDA of camouflaging, not fixing, the contaminated soil, claiming “London 2012 chiefs have covered up land that is possibly contaminated with asbestos and radioactive materials with a huge, bright orange sheet …while clean soil and debris have been placed above the sheet, anything below it is has to be considered hazardous unless proven otherwise” (Jeory, 2010). The London Evening Standard newspaper accused London 2012 of greenwashing, whereby the release of a report on carbon emissions connected to the site was delayed. However, the newspaper claimed “green campaigners have told the Standard that organisers have watered down their carbon emissions target to make it easier to hit the key objectives …these include the massive emissions from spectators and media travelling to and from the Olympics …campaigners say without these emissions the measuring exercise would be cosmetic greenwashing” (Brierley, 2008).

In a society where sustainability has been incorporated or co-opted into various discourses of politics and economic development, sport also comes under closer scrutiny. The building and development of infrastructures to hold mega-events, new venues, transport links, the Olympic Village and use of contaminated land, have left Olympics organisers vulnerable to accusations of greenwashing and environmental mismanagement.

Top Previous Next

Flights of Fantasy?

An Olympic Games Impact Study7 (2005) suggests any environmental damage from the London Games would only be “slightly negative”, up to, and during the Games. This negativity comes centrally from the construction and pre-event phase. The greatest impact will be in the Lower Lea Valley Area, with the rise of dust and increase in road transport impacting on the air quality. The report also identifies contamination of soil and groundwater, and “damage to the built environment and cultural heritage from the demolition process” (PWC, 2005:18) as other key negative environmental factors. Whilst the report indentifies increases in road and rail transport, and loss of cultural heritage as key environmental impacts, it excludes the impact of aviation. Yet, aviation, and its expansion is increasingly being conflated with the 2012 Games. The London City Airport is just two miles from the Stratford site and is expected to play a central transport role during the Games. It is estimated a million extra people will be in London during the Games (Carmichael, 2009). The ODA have set a target for “100% of spectators to use sustainable ways to get to the Games” 8. Participants and spectators are encouraged to travel around the venues by rail, and coach and river systems surrounding the Olympic village, but getting to and from the host city appears to have been excluded from any studies. To date the only plan comes from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) which proposes to increase flights into and out of London during the Games.

Aviation is often seen as a contributing factor to global warming and air passenger numbers in Britain have increased five fold over the over the past 30 years (Shaikh, 2007). To manage the influx of people during the Games, the CAA has set up the Olympic and Paralympics Steering Group (COPSG) .  COPSG’s role is to evaluate the demand on UK airspace during the Games which may lead to “an increase in both scheduled and charter operations [to]…support the demands of the flying public”9 . Moreover, the CAA steering group anticipate that “in the lead up to, and during, the Olympics Games in 2012 there may be an increase in aircraft movements” (CAA website). The CAA also raises the possibility of using military bases as public airports up to and during the Games, which in turn creates new flight paths. These proposals fly in the face of the ‘greenest games’ claim; and they are a major cause of concern among those opposed to airport expansion.

In July 2009, the London Borough of Newham, which is the local authority for London City Airport, approved an expansion of flight numbers from 80,000 to 120,000 a year. Anti-airport expansion activists, Flight the Flights and the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (HACAN) believe this is the thin end of the wedge, which could lead to flights day and night. HACAN Chairman, John Stewart thinks the lifting of night flight restrictions will “be a big incentive to introduce night flights at London City Airport in particular as it’s so near to Stratford…Industry could push to keep new air routes after the Olympics” (Carmichael, 2009).

ODA rhetoric is at odds with CAA plans and the likelihood of more flights coming in and out of City airport; furthermore, the discrepancy between them can only reinforce accusations of greenwashing. The whole issue of aviation and global warming shows that the validity of London’s claim to be the greenest games depends not only on the Olympic venues themselves but also on what happens in wider urban areas.

Accusations of greenwashing extend beyond new infrastructures and increased transport links. Along with its impact on the logistics of staging a global sporting event, the principle of sustainability has repercussions for the complex arrangements entailed in financing the Games.

Top Previous Next

Sponsorship, Sustainability and Sports

The inclusion of environmentalism as one of the three pillars of the Olympic Charter, I suggest, creates potential problems around sustainability and the practicalities of staging an Olympiad. Environmentalism and sustainability are increasingly crossing numerous social and economic boundaries. Energy companies, high street supermarkets, car manufacturers, airlines and so on are all using green rhetoric to promote their businesses. With sponsorship central to generating income for the Games, this too is yet another field open to accusations of greenwashing. Sponsorship generates an “income for corporate promotional activities” (Macrury, 2009:134) through television rights and partnership schemes. Potential sponsors can “buy into different kinds of relationships with the ‘Olympic family’ in return for their financial input” (op. cit., 135). Sponsorship is crucial to the success of the games, not only to support the “staging of the Olympic Games and operations of the Olympic movement” (op. cit., 144), but also for future investment in the training and development of athletes. The Olympiad offers two forms of official sponsors – global sponsors affiliated to the IOC, and local/national sponsors allocated by the NOC.

The official NOC sponsors for the London 2012 Games are Adidas, British Airways, British Petroleum, BMW, Lloyds TSB and EDF.

A quick glance at the list of official partners shows a diverse collection of national and international organisations aligning themselves with the Olympic movement. A closer look reveals a questionable choice of sponsors in the light of London’s claim to be the greenest games to date. The list of sponsorship partners includes the airline British Airways who have a strong presence at London City Airport, and two energy corporations, British Petroleum (BP) and EDF, both of whom are judged in some circles to have poor environmental records.

In 2008, BP invested 93 per cent ($20bn) of its funding into the continual expansion in extracting the Worlds oil, gas and other fossil fuels. In comparison, investment in alternative energy – solar, wind power, wave, tidal, and biofuels and even including some "efficient" natural gas projects was 6.8 per cent of their total investment, contradicting their branding ‘Beyond Petroleum’. (Greenpeace, 2008)10

In July 2000, BP rebranded itself with a slogan changing from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum. The advertising campaign utilised a new rhetoric to present the organisation as pro-environmental. The advertisements co-opted the environmental movement through linguistic traits more commonly associated with the discourse of sustainability. BP claimed that oil companies would “aid in the bettering of air quality” and be “looking after our future”.11 The expressions “better the quality of the earth” and “alternative forms of fuels” were an attempt to align BP with sustainability. Regardless of the discourse, “BP’s rhetoric is about social responsibility: profits count most. An oil company might invest in solar energy and admit that global warming should be prevented, but it will do all it can to ensure it can go on drilling for fossil fuels and expanding its markets for them” (Beder, 2002:28). Indeed, events involving BP after the corporation’s re-branding makes its commitment to sustainability questionable.

Furthermore, having already connected with BA , then BP and what some see as its empty environmental rhetoric, the organisers of London 2012 seem to have made another miscalculation in aligning the Games with EDF.

EDF (Energy de France) is the major sustainability partner of the London 2012 Games.  As a sustainability partner, EDF planned to run a wind-turbine on the Stratford site. Following a feasibility study, EDF withdrew its support for the turbine, on the grounds that limited income from wind energy meant it “would not be able to sell enough wind energy from the 2012 Olympic site into the national grid in future years to justify the turbine's £2 million start-up costs” (Beard, M).  Under this proposal, the turbine's output would have been fed into the national grid and counted towards 2012's target of supplying 20 per cent of the Olympic Park's power through green energy. When EDF withdrew from the turbine project, the ODA reduced the sustainability target set in 2006 by 15 per cent, and awarded the turbine contract to a company called Ecotricity. The first of these moves shows a conveniently pragmatic attitude to the principle of sustainability; the second, after complications arose in relations between EDF and Ecotricity, now appears oddly arduous.

In July 2009, EDF launched their ‘Green Britain Day’ campaign as part of their association with the London Olympics. The campaign aimed to show EDF’s commitment “to reduce emissions by 60% by 2020” (Mitchell and Inkster, 2008). The idea behind the campaign was to “bolster its green credentials, with a heavyweight advertising campaign, majoring on its status as the ‘sustainability’ partner for the 2012 Olympics” (McCallister, 2009). The advertising campaign was carried over television, radio and print, backed by British Olympian James Cracknell and the Olympics Minister, Tessa Jowell.

The television advert begins with footage of the 1948 London Olympic Games. The narrative equates the struggle of post-war Britain with contemporary struggles against climate change. The viewer is presented with a series of images ranging from the Royal Family and London smog to a child in a doorway. The final shot is of a green Union flag. The same image of a green Union flag is used in newspaper and billboard campaigns.

However, this flag was already the logo of Ecotricity, an alternative energy company providing electricity from renewables such as wind and wave. Since 1996 it had been using a green union jack to signal green power. The co-opting of an already established image opens EDF and, by proxy, the London Olympic Organising Committee (LOGOC) to accusations of greenwashing. The logic of the accusation is as follows: any organisation which borrows another’s icon may also be just borrowing its values for the sake of a strong image.

The Founder of Ecotricity, Dale Vince, has accused EDF of hijacking not just his company’s logo, but also the British identity. He claims “to most people, a green union jack represents something or someone green and British. And to most people, EDF are neither, being both nuclear and French” (Murray, 2009b). EDF refutes accusations of logo-jacking, and maintains that its strong UK base locates the company in Britain, despite French ownership.

Top Previous Next

High Stakes

Britishness, and the overcoming of adversity in the manner of ‘the Blitz spirit’, were central to EDF’s campaign. This is powerful stuff but also potentially dangerous, especially if claims to it are thought to be false.

Nationalism is often associated with mega-events such as the Olympics. The politics behind the Games is partly about a show of national identity and pride. Nationalism is central to the shaping of any Olympiad, from De Coubertin’s idea of using the Olympic Games to promote the physical prowess of a nation, to the show of strength seen in the opening ceremony of the Beijing Games in 2008.

The co-opting of the green Union flag invokes themes of nationalism, patriotism and identity. EDF are articulating environmentalism to reaffirm their position of Britishness, through patriotic discourse, under the slogan ‘Team Green Britain’, or Team GB as it can also be read. Utilising their status as a sustainability partner, EDF asked “schools and others to join Team Green Britain” (Murray, 2009a), drawing upon the other key theme of London 2012, legacy. However, some support the use of the Union flag and its symbolism, and “turning it green is a good way to draw people’s attention to focus on action needed to tackle global warming” (McCalister, 2009).

There are many positive sustainability projects around the London 2012 Game. For example, the seats from the curling arena at Vancouver’s Winter Olympics will be dismantled and recycled for re-use during the London Games. Vancouver is knowledge transferring with London to help overcome problems it encountered with the “Olympic regeneration-development challenges associated with “legacy”, facing economic conditions” (Macrury, 2009 b:9). Other schemes involve the temporary installation of 50,000 seats at the Olympic Stadium, with 25,000 permanent seats being given leave to remain after the Games.

Official sponsors are very important to the success of any Olympic Games. However, organising committees are responsible for affirming their own core values, as set out in the original bids, when choosing official partners. Given the controversial records of these companies, the choice of BP and EDF does not sit easily with the idea of setting the “highest standards in sustainability and legacy for other games to follow”12 (Weaver, 2007), or aspiring to turn 2012 into the “greenest games to date”. Host cities need to be transparent in their choice of partners. Even the choice of an airline, car manufacturer or financial company has the potential to raise ethical questions about lucrative sponsorship and the value of sustainability.

Top Previous Next

Conclusion

The IOC’s decision to include environmentalism as the third pillar of the Olympics Charter has brought problems as well as opportunities. There are many factors to think about when making claims around sustainability, and the Olympic movement needs to be cautious when choosing its official partners. To be meaningful, the sustainability agenda must encompass the building of Olympic venues and villages, good transport links, the regeneration of disused and contaminated land, and long-term economic investments, as well as sponsorship. What is clear is that the inclusion of environment into the 1995 Olympic Charter indicates the importance of sustainability and sport, and of trying to find the right solution to a complex and multifaceted problem. Future host cities need to ensure their choice of partners, design and planning engages with “increasingly savvy audiences …to find a new kind of language and avoid the risk of green fatigue” (De Bois, 2008). Without this, they are unlikely to circumvent accusations of greenwashing.

Maxine Newlands is a senior lecturer in journalism and sports journalism at UEL. Her research centres on sports media and the environment.

Top Previous Next

Bibliography

• Beard,M. (2010) Energy firm EDF abandons 2012 Olympics turbine due to ‘lack of wind’, London Evening Standard, 21st January (accessed 12/03/2010)
• Beder, S. (2001) 'Greenwash'. In: Barry, J. & Frankland, G. (eds.), International Encyclopaedia of Environmental Politics, London, Routledge
• Beder, S. (2002) Global Spin: the Corporate Assault on Environmentalism, Glasgow, Green Books
• Brierley, D. (2008) “London 2012 ‘not as green as advertised’”, London Evening Standard, 5 August (accessed 31 January 2010)
• Buckingham, S. & Turner, M. (2008). Understanding Environmental Issues, London, Sage
• Carmichael, S.(2009) ‘Night flights over London to be allowed during Games’, London Evening Standard , 11th November (accessed 22/03/2010).
• Cox, R. (2006) Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere, California, Sage.
• De Bois, M. (2008) “Environmental ads: greenwash or green communication?”, Ad Map, December, 500
• Jeory, T. (2010) “London 2012: Radioactive waste? No problem, we’ve got plastic sheet”, Sunday Express, 14 February (accessed 14 February 2010)
• Macrury, I. (2009) Sponsorship, advertising and the Olympic Games  in Powell, H et al, The Advertising Handbook. London, Routledge
• Macrury, I. (2009b) A Tale of Two Villages: London, Vancouver and ‘Sustainability’, Renew, Regeneration in the Thames Gateway (Thames Gateway Partnership Newsletter), Winter 2009
• McCallister, T. (2009) “Energy companies fight for green crown”, The Guardian, 9 July (accessed 21 November 2009)
• Murray, J. (2009a) “Legal action casts shadow over EDF’s Green Britain Day”, Business Green, 10 July
• Murray, J. (2009b) “ASA gives thumbs up to EDF green ads, but Ecotricity row rumbles on”, Business Green, 28 October
• Mitchell, W. & Inkster, C. (2008). “Lead with consumers benefit to get green participation and buy-in”, Ad Map, December, 500 (accessed 20 July 2009)
• Shaikh, T (2007) Britons named world's biggest emitters of CO2 from air travel, The Guardian on-line. Retrieved  March 2010
• Toyne, P. (2009) “London 2012 – winning the Olympic ‘green’ medal”,  in Poynter, G & Macrury, I Olympic Cities: 2012 and the Remaking of London, Farnham, Ashgate, pp231-243.
• Weaver, M. (2007) “London 2012 organisers plan greenest games ever”, The Guardian, 23 January

Notes

1. 1Olympic Delivery Authority Chief Executive, David Higgins, speaking at a press launch.
2. 2Prime Minster, Tony Blair, speaking in 2007, at the same event as Higgins and Lord Coe.
3. 3Lord Sebastian Coe, speaking at the same event as Prime Minister Tony Blair and reported by Weaver in The Guardian newspaper, guardian.co.uk
4. 4In July 2009, the London Borough of Newham, which is the local authority for London City Airport, approved an expansion of flight numbers from 80,000 to 120,000 a year. London City airport is six kilometres from the Olympic Site (londoncityairport.com, accessed 12 January 2010).
5. 5The twelve ways that the Vancouver Organising Committee (VANCOG) built sustainability into the games. Point two identifies the partnership between the Olympic Organising Committee and the indigenous community. A protocol with the Four Host First Nations (FHFN) ensured consultation between the organisers and indigenous communities. Further information can be found from VANCOG
6. 6From lda.gov.uk
7. 7 Five months after London successfully won the bid to host the 2012 Games, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) commissioned Pricewaterhouse Cooper LLP to undertake a multi-tier analysis of the likely impacts of the Games on local, regional and national areas (culture.gov.uk).
8. 8From london2012.com
9. 9From caa.co.uk (accessed March 2010)
10. 10From greenpeace.org.uk (accessed March 2010)
11. 11From bp.com
12. 12Lord Sebastian Coe speaking at the same event and reported by Weaver in The Guardian newspaper, guardian.co.uk

Top Previous Next