Sustainable Event Management - Article Example

Sustainable Event Management ABSTRACT Sustainable event management is the process of conducting an event in a responsible and environmentally friendly manner. Thus, policies, which promote the preservation of resources, improve the environment, and reduce the negative impacts of highly resource intensive events on the economy, are implemented when planning for sustainable events. This paper’s focus is upon the sustainability policy of the London Olympics 2012 and the way the sustainability initiative was in line with the components of the Triple-Bottom Line Theory. While analyzing the components of people, place, and profit, this report analyzes the policies of the London Olympics 2012 and comments upon their level of success. Table of Contents ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 3 Purpose 3 Sustainable Event Management 3 London Olympics 2012 5 Triple-Bottom Line Theory 6 Structure 7 ANALYSIS OF LONDON OLYMPICS SUSTAINABILITY POLICY 8 RECOMMENDATIONS 11 CONCLUSION 11 REFERENCES 12 APPENDIX A: 14 INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of this report is to critically assess and analyze the sustainability policy of an events business and compare it with Triple-Bottom Line Theory. Thereby, the report then aims to make recommendations with regard to the organization’s sustainability plan and according to the theory mentioned above. The specific events business that this report aims to analyze is the London Olympics 2012, which was organized by the International Olympics Committee. The report aims to particularly comment upon and critically analyze the sustainability policy implemented by the UK government and the International Olympics Committee. Appropriate theories including the Triple-Bottom Line Theory will be analyzed in relation to the sustainability plan implemented by the UK for this extravagant event. Sustainable Event Management The main concern of this report is upon sustainable event management, which refers to producing and/ or organizing an event with particular emphasis upon maintaining concern for the environment, economy, and other societal issues. Hence, while planning, managing, and organizing the event, environmental and other such concerns are a main area of consideration. Thus, environment friendly practices and other sustainable practices are incorporated into the planning of the event and it is ensured that the event is hosted and conducted with the utmost responsibility. Sustainable event management may be referred to as event greening and involves the participation of all the key players in the planning process which includes sponsors, organizers, suppliers, participants, clients, and many other players. All of the strategies incorporated are incorporated according to an integrated plan and should begin as soon as preparations for the event are begun (Coalter, 2007). Large events such as the Olympics are highly resource intensive and may be a cause of harm to the host population and the host country. Thus, this makes it essential for such large events to be conducted in an ethically and environmentally responsible manner and aim to reduce the negativity inflicted upon the host environment. The main benefits of sustainable event management include cost saving as less consumption is equal to larger savings and conserving resources, energy, reducing waste, and other such practices are also a cause for cost-saving. Another benefit of the practice of sustainable event management is gaining a positive reputation for the organization as it shows that the organization is responsible and has concern for the global impact of the event. Due to research conducted upon innovative ways to conserve resources and use resources efficiently, environmental innovation takes place thus improving the use of resources ever more. While such practices are implemented, awareness regarding sustainable living and the best practice of such concepts is increased and more likely to be implemented regularly in society. Such large events are also very likely to provide high social benefits to the public in the form of providing jobs, adding to business, improving supply chains, and generally benefiting the social environment of the host country. As one organization implements sustainable strategies into its planning tactics, this can influence the decision making policies of other organizations who may be tempted to act in the same manner. Thus, the use of sustainable policies can become widespread and common in the environment (Raco & Tunney, 2010). Moreover, sustainable event management not only has a positive impact upon the environment but can also benefit the organization by improving its profitability and return on investment as costs will be lower and strategic opportunities more prevalent (Blake, 2005). Practices included in sustainable event management include economical procurement and/or green purchasing, energy efficiency, reduction of harmful emissions, conservation of bio-waste, the minimization and proper management of waste, conservation of water, and economic development (Blake, 2005). However, implementing such policies requires extensive planning, effective decision making, the cooperation and participation of all participants in the event, and support from the government and the public. Thus, properly achieving sustainability in an event can be quite difficult for many organizers, especially events on such a large scale as the Olympics. In order to determine whether sustainability can be and was efficiently implemented in the event, it is essential to analyze the sustainability policy of the event and compare it to relevant theories (Imrie, 2009). London Olympics 2012 The beginning of environmental concern and sustainable event management practices was at the Olympics in 1992 that took place in Albertville, France. Thus, this led to the planning for a “Green Olympics” event in 1994 in Norway. This effort was recognized with the UNEP Global 500 Award as this was the first time that environmentally sustainable practices were implemented in the Olympics games (Imrie, 2009). Thus, the International Olympics Committee recognized the importance of implementing sustainable event practices and environmentally friendly procedures in the Olympics and made this a rule in the Olympics Charter. Thereon, the Olympics Committee made this a responsibility to be implemented in all Olympics events and developed the IOC Sports and Environment Commission. The games in Sydney in 2000 were acknowledged as one of the greenest games ever and other host countries have thus aimed to follow suit (Newman, 1999). The recognition for the fact that consumption is increasing on a wide scale in current times and that as a society, people today are consuming away the Earth’s capital rather than simply consuming additional resources, has raised an increasing cause for concern of the environment. The level of consumption in the UK itself was a cause of concern for the country and in accordance with the Olympic Agenda of sustainable development in the Olympic Games, the London Olympics 2012 aimed to create a One Planet Olympics (Newman, 1999). The main emphasis of the One Planet Olympics was to eliminate the negative impact of the event and thus increasing awareness and recognition of the relationship between sports, a healthy lifestyle, and the environment. Triple-Bottom Line Theory There are many ways of managerial accounting and determining the costs and revenues of a certain project. The Triple-Bottom Line Theory emphasizes three different aspects of costs which include people, planet, and profit as the full criteria to measure the success of an organization or an event. Thus, costs are not only accounted as financial costs but are accounted as economic, environmental, and social costs (Glasson & Wood, 2009). In order to fulfill the requirements of public sector full-cost accounting, the triple-bottom line theory is the dominant and most acceptable approach used in large organizations, such as the UN. Hence, in order to show a commitment to corporate social responsibility, some forms of triple-bottom line reporting are necessary for organizations. Reporting on resources used, top level involvement in operations, investments, and other principles can be incorporated as an aspect of triple-bottom line reporting. The factors of people, planet, and profit are explained as follows. The aspect of people refer to ensuring that all practices towards labor, the community, and all players involved in the production and business process are fair. Thus, workers receive fair pay, suppliers receive a fair portion of the profits, and all working conditions are proper and safe (Glasson & Wood, 2009). The aspect of planet refers to ensuring that sustainable environmental practices are implemented in the business and the ecological impact or consequences of the practice are minimized or terminated (Glasson & Wood, 2009). The aspect of profit describes the economic value of the activity after deducting the costs of all the inputs. Thus, it is not only a measure of financial profit but is a measure of full environmental impact of the activity and not only financial or monetary values (Glasson & Wood, 2009). Thus, triple-bottom line theory promotes the use of different standards to measure and critically analyze the success and planning of an event or an organization from the traditional standards of accounting for monetary benefits and costs. Thereby, the approach encourages the consideration of numerous aspects instead of just a single aspect when assessing the performance of an organization in sustainable event management (Holden et al, 2008). Structure After providing an overview of the concept of sustainable event management, the London Olympics 2012, and the Triple-Bottom Line Theory, the paper will continue by critically analyzing the sustainable policy of the London Olympics 2012 and thus commenting upon it in light of the Triple-Bottom Line Theory. The paper will then continue to give recommendations in light of how improvements could have been made in terms of the sustainable policy of the Olympics and conclude by mentioning an overview of the report and any limitations, which may exist within the analysis. ANALYSIS OF LONDON OLYMPICS SUSTAINABILITY POLICY In order to implement the London Olympics One Planet goal, a number of themes and steps were taken to ensure that the plan was implemented properly. The following themes were implemented in the London Olympics sustainability program: Water Conservation Energy Conservation Zero Carbon and Zero Waste Equity and Fair Trade According to the above mentioned principles and strategies, the London Olympics 2012 aimed to be the “greenest” Olympics ever. Hence, the main themes of the One Planet Olympics plan as highlighted above include the reduction in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, minimizing or eliminating waste material, an efficient and effective transport system, use of recyclable raw materials, water conservation, and the use of appropriate food products. The International Olympics Committee also aimed to preserve natural habitats and wildlife, preserve culture and heritage, encourage equity and fair trade, and promote health and happiness (Smith & Stevenson, 2009). The success report of the London Olympics Sustainability policy reported that the London Olympics 2012 had indeed been the ‘greenest’ Olympics ever and had successfully implemented most of its sustainability policies within the system (Smith & Stevenson, 2009). The recycling and regeneration processes had been a success and waste was minimized throughout London during the course of the Games (Hayes & Horne, 2011). However, in light of the Triple-Bottom Line theory, the Games could have been improved in the aspects of people and planet. Thus, more job opportunities and equal benefits could have been offered to the public while the games were in process. Moreover, the planet could have benefitted more with more energy conservation plans and more cost-saving initiatives in place. According to the Olympics Evaluation Commission, while the London Olympics was highly successful, there is still room for major improvement (Smith, 2009). The planning for the One Planet Olympics and setting sustainability standards involved expressing leadership qualities and showing a major commitment to achieving the “greenest” Olympics ever. Targets were set accordingly and partnerships were formed amongst stakeholders for the Olympics in order to bring performance up to an optimum standard. Sponsors were selected according to ensuring that sponsors sold and produced recyclable and re-usable material and were socially responsible. Hence, procurement was a central consideration in the planning process. Education and training was provided with regard to the sustainable policies (McCarthy et al, 2010) implemented in the Olympics and awareness was enhanced amongst the public in order to encourage them to participate in the process. Accordingly, committees had also been set up to monitor and record the performance of the event and its sustainability policies. Thus, internal and external monitoring regimes had been set to monitor the performance of the objectives outlined by the UK government for the Olympics (Lindsay, 2009). The London Olympics 2012 then set out to develop legacies for future Olympics and to set an example for the rest of the world in maintaining sustainable event management policies and reducing the ecological impact that the Olympics had upon the environment and the economy as a whole (Shipway, 2007). The London Olympics was the first Olympic event which was organized in line with the ‘triple-bottom line approach from the very beginning and held emphasis upon promoting environmental, social, and economic factors. While all spheres are said to be fulfilled successfully, there is specific emphasis upon the building of the Olympic Park and the Olympic Stadium, which is the largest urban parkland in Europe, and the efficiency and management of the public transport, there are still some aspects, which could have been improved (Poynter & Mcrury, 2009) While the Olympics were said to contribute to economic development and local businesses in the UK, the Olympics did not bring in as many job opportunities and business as anticipated. Hence, the people and profit factors could have been improved within the Olympics planning and arrangement. While the supply chain was procured properly and electricity efficiency measures were taken, initiatives such as zero waste policies were also successful. No landfills were filled and no waste was amalgamated within the city (Munoz, 2006). The sustainability program and knowledge regarding the policies have been passed on to Rio de Janeiro for the 2016 Olympics and while the London 2012 Olympics were highly successful in the sustainability program, improvements could have been made in various areas (Girginov, 2011). RECOMMENDATIONS There are various recommendations that the International Olympics Committee should have followed in order to improve the sustainability of the London Olympics 2012. The Olympic Committee should have implemented proper planning measures in order to promote and facilitate local businesses in UK. The local businesses allegedly did not benefit as much as had been anticipated from the events and job opportunities provided during the Olympic season did not help the major recession prevalent in the economy (Girginov, 2011). Hence, more traffic should have been directed towards local businesses to improve the profitability of the event and to provide better working conditions and wages to workers during the event (Mol, 2010). CONCLUSION After a full analysis of the London Olympics 2012 and their sustainability policies, it is evident that the International Olympics Commission successfully implemented its initiatives of water conservation, energy conservation, zero waste, zero carbon, and other policies in the London Olympics 2012. Specific emphasis was on the construction of the Olympic stadium, the efficient transport system, the green supply chain, and the zero waste policy. The London Olympics effectively fulfilled all three components of the triple-bottom line theory of people, planet, and profit. However, while some areas were better than others were, improvements could have been made in the business sector and in the creation of more jobs for the UK population. REFERENCES Blake, A. 2005. “The Economic Impact of the London 2012 Olympics”. Australian Centre for Event Management. [Online] Accessed on: October 30, 2012: http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/dspace/handle/2100/994 Coalter, F. 2007. “London Olympics 2012: The Catalyst that Inspires People to Lead More Active Lives”. Perspectives in Public Health. Vol. 127, (3), pp. 109-110. Girginov, V. 2011. “Governance of London 2012 Olympic Games Legacy”. International Review for the Sociology of Sport. Vol. 2, (3), pp. 115-130. Glasson, J. & Wood, G. 2009. “Urban Regeneration and Impact Assessment for Social Sustainability”. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. Vol.36, (2), pp. 2011-2015. Hayes, G. & Horne, J. 2011. “Sustainable Development: Shock and Awe? London 2012 and Civil Society. Sociology. Vol. 45, (5), pp.749-764. Holden, M., Mackenzie, J. & VanWynsberge, R. 2008. “Vancouver’s Promise of the World’s First Sustainable Olympic Games.” Environment and Planning Commission Government and Policy. Vol. 26, pp. 882-905. Imrie, L. 2009. Regenerating London: Governance, Sustainability, and Community. London: Routledge. Lindsey, I. 2009. “Conceptualizing Sustainability in Sports Development”. Leisure Studies. Vol. 18, (3), pp. 209-215. McCarthy, M., Ravelli, R. & Sinclair-Williams, M. 2010. “Health Impact Assessment of the 2012 London Olympic Transport Plan.” European Journal of Public Health. Vol. 20, (6), pp. 619-624. Mol, APG. 2010. “Sustainability as Global Attractor: the Greening of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.” Global Networks. Vol. 10, (4), pp. 510-528. Munoz, F. 2006. “Olympic Urbanism and Olympic Villages: Planning Strategies in Olympic Host Cities London 1908 to London 2012”. The Sociological Review. Vol. 54, pp.175-187. Newman, PWG. 1999. “Sustainability and Cities: A New Metabolism Model.” Landscape and Urban Planning. Vol. 44, (4), pp. 219-226. Poynter, G. & Macrury, I. 2009. Olympic Cities: 2012 and the Remaking of London. London: Routledge. Raco, M. & Tunney, E. 2010. “Visibilities and Invisibilities in Urban Development: Small Business Communities and the London Olympics 2012”. Urban Studies. Vol. 47, (10), pp. 2069-2091. Shipway, R. 2007. “Sustainable Legacies for the 2012 Olympic Games”. Perspectives in Public Health. Vol. 127, (3), pp. 119-124. Smith, A. & Stevenson, N. 2009. “A Review of Tourism Policy for the 2012 Olympics”. Cultural Trends. Vol. 4, (2), pp. 1011-1016. Smith, A. 2009. “Theorizing the Relationship between Major Sport Events and Social Sustainability”. Journal of Sport and Tourism. Vol. 14, (2-3), pp.109-120. APPENDIX A: London 2012 Sustainability Policy One Planet Living Principle Strategy Games Legacy Zero Carbon Reducing carbon dioxide emissions by minimising building energy demand and supplying from zero/low carbon and renewable resources Design and construction of Olympic facilities based on maximizing energy efficiency and use of low carbon and local renewable energy sources • Basis for long-term sustainable energy infrastructure and management to be established Athletes’ Village capable of being energy self-sufficient • Distributed network of heating, cooling and power serving local communities • Energy efficient sports venues Zero Waste Developing closed resource loops. Reducing the amounts of waste produced, then reclaiming, recycling and recovering No Games waste direct to landfill – all treated as a resource • Zero waste target a pivotal procurement driver • Closed-loop waste management at all venues • Public information campaign to promote high quality front-of-house waste separation • Zero waste policies extend across East London based on high recycling rates and residual waste converted to compost and renewable energy • Increased market for recycled products • Closed-loop waste management to be standard practice for major sports events Sustainable Transport Reducing the need to travel and providing sustainable alternatives to private car use • All spectators travelling by public transport, walking or cycling to venues • Low/no emission Olympic vehicle fleet • Olympic Park Low Emission Zone • Carbon offset programme for international travel • Individualised travel plans as part of integrated ticketing process • Increased connectivity across and between legacy developments and neighboring communities • Reduced car dependency • Car free events policy adopted for other major events • Greater market for zero carbon transport Local and Sustainable Materials Materials chosen to give high performance in use with minimised impact in manufacture and delivery. Using local materials can have further benefits to local economies and in supporting traditional solutions • Reclaimed, recycled and local construction materials used • Temporary buildings made for reuse elsewhere • Healthy materials used for construction and merchandise • Materials with low environmental impact used for merchandising • Robust Procurement and Management Systems implemented Reclaimed, recycled and local construction materials used during transformation into legacy mode • Training and job opportunities locally in (re)manufacturing • Local and sustainable materials supply chains maintained Local and Sustainable Food Supporting consumption of local, seasonal and organic produce, with reduced amount of animal protein and packaging • Promotion of local, seasonal, healthy and organic produce • Promotion of links between healthy eating, sport and wellbeing • Partnerships established with key caterers, suppliers and sponsors • Composting of food waste as part of Zero Waste plan • Increased markets for farmers in the region • Markets, catering and retail outlets supplying local and seasonal food • Composting facilities integrated into closed-loop food strategy Sustainable Water Reducing water demand with sustainable management of rain and waste water • Olympic Park incorporating water recycling, rainwater harvesting and water conserving appliances • Dual water quality supplies to new buildings • Recycled water used for irrigation or vehicle washing • Sewage and grey water fed into energy production • Long-term sustainable water supply and management •Water efficient homes and infrastructure • Lower Lea Valley self-sufficient in water • Ongoing management of waterways to provide amenity and wildlife habitat Natural Habitats and Wildlife Existing biodiversity conserved with opportunities taken to increase ecological value and access to nature • Remediation of land and creation of large new urban park •Waterways rejuvenated to provide amenity and wildlife habitats • Olympic Biodiversity Action Plan implemented • Buildings and infrastructure designed to minimise ecological impact • Landscaping, planting and building design to increase biodiversity • Net gain of ecologically valuable green space • Biodiversity an integral component of urban and park environment • People have greater local access to nature • Lea Valley ‘green corridor’ connected to River Thames Culture and Heritage Cultural heritage acknowledged and interpreted. Sense of place and identity engendered to contribute towards future heritage • Development of Olympic Park to reflect local heritage and contemporary culture • Facilities to acknowledge, reflect and support diversity of local audience and global visitors • Creation of a vibrant and diverse legacy community • Local and traditional industries revived to create employment and sense of identity • Ongoing development and management of legacy community to include public and stakeholder consultation Equity and Fair Trade Create a sense of community. Provide accessible, inclusive and affordable facilities and services • Fully-accessible facilities for all • Equity and Fair Trade an integral element of Procurement and Management Systems • Affordable ticketing and accommodation • Commitment to ethical business transactions • High proportion of affordable housing • Mixed-use development to create sense of community • Opportunities for local employment and education • ‘Green’ business hub • Fair-trade community status achieved Health and Happiness Promote health and wellbeing. Establish long-term management and support strategies • Extensive public and stakeholder consultation • Programme to promote the health benefits of sport and exercise • Healthy internal and external environments in the Olympic Park • Safe and secure facilities and environments provided • Facilities for worship and spiritual development • Healthy internal environments in homes and other facilities • Improved air quality, visual amenity and soundscape • Community facilities to provide healthcare, vocational training and other support structures • Legacy community management and support structures to facilitate long-term sustainable living (London Sustainability Report, 2011) Read More