Carbon footprint reduction practices in the Olympic Games: a policy mobility approach
Authors: Ngoenha Wesselia Isa 
Published: January 2025

Introduction The environmental impact of mega-events like the Olympic Games and the FIFA Men's World Cup has been widely criticized due to their significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, largely driven by infrastructure construction and resource use, and travel. Despite sustainability initiatives introduced by the IOC since the 1990s, including the 2017 "Sustainability Strategy," research indicates that these efforts rarely lead to tangible results, with environmental scores of the Games declining over time (Müller et al., 2021). Policies such as Agenda 2020 are mostly seen as recommendations, not obligations, contributing to accusations of greenwashing and unmet environmental commitments. The lack of a standardized framework for assessing and mitigating environmental impacts highlights the gap between promises and outcomes, suggesting that current approaches are insufficient to align mega-events with sustainability goals (Collins et al., 2009; Gaffney, 2013). This research thesis examines this gap to understand the ineffectiveness of these policies and their evolution over time using the policy mobility methodology, which allows us to understand how policies are created, transferred and reapplied in a new context, thanks to tools and people who transport knowledge from one place to another. The research highlights the evolution of environmental policy in the Olympic Games, tracing its origins from global environmental movements to its integration within the framework of the International Olympic Committee.
Methods The methods used in this research focus on understanding the challenges of policy mobility and sustainability in the context of the Olympic Games. Policy mobility is a concept that analyzes how policies, conceived locally, circulate, adapt and apply in new contexts, particularly in a globalized. Unlike traditional nation-state-centric approaches, policy mobility emphasizes the role of non-state actors, international networks of experts, and global organizations in policy diffusion and transformation (Cochrane & Ward, 2012). In the context of mega-events such as the Olympic Games, it explains how sustainability-related practices and ideas travel between editions of the Games, influencing local policies while being reconfigured according to specific contexts. The study employs text-based methods, such as content and discourse analysis of policy documents and official IOC publications, as well as oral methods through interviews with key actors involved in the organization of the Games. This dual approach allows for an in-depth analysis of how policy ideas travel, the role of individuals in this process, the materials used for policy travel, and the politics of policy mobility (Temenos & Ward, 2018). The text-based analysis is built on a database [DG1] of the Olympic Games' carbon footprint using M. Müller's methodology, which emphasizes longitudinal and systematic data collection to identify sustainability patterns in mega-events (Gogishvili et al., 2024; Müller et al., 2022). This allowed for the analysis of all documents related to Paris 2024's sustainability policy, including its sustainability commitments, sustainability and legacy plan, two pre-games sustainability reports, and the final sustainability report.
Results Despite initiatives such as Agenda 21, Olympic Agenda 2020 and Agenda 2020+5, which aim to embed sustainability into the Games, their impact remains uneven. While the IOC encourages the introduction of sustainable practices since from the planning phases of the Games since 2003 and has introduced carbon management plans and sustainability reporting requirements, its reliance on recommendations rather than enforceable commitments limits their effectiveness. The analysis revealed that policy mobility plays a crucial role in shaping sustainability policies for the Olympic Games, as host cities adapt approaches from previous editions. This exchange, facilitated by the IOC's Olympic Games Knowledge Management program and informal expert networks, allows cities to implement proven strategies, such as carbon management plans and infrastructure reuse. However, the effectiveness of these policies is often hampered by the performative nature of environmental commitments, with actual results falling short of stated ambitions, as evidenced by the Paris 2024 case study. While the organizers aimed to halve the Games' carbon footprint and achieve a "positive climate impact", key measures, such as the AMO (Avoid, Mitigate, Offset) approach, lack clear methodologies and actionable details. For instance, despite promises to systematically assess environmental impacts at all venues, no methodology was provided for some key sites like Tahiti, highlighting gaps between goals and execution​. These findings highlight the tension between the sustainability goals of the Olympic Games and the practical challenges of implementation despite the popularity of some of these policies among host cities.
Discussion/Conclusion While the IOC has made strides in integrating sustainability into its strategic goals, such as through the adoption of the Olympic Agenda 2020 and its Sustainability Strategy, the practical impact of these initiatives remains limited. The absence of standardized metrics for assessing and comparing environmental performance across editions of the Games makes it difficult to evaluate progress or enforce accountability. Weak accountability frameworks, such as voluntary reporting requirements and non-mandatory guidelines, leave much of the responsibility to Organizing Committees. Additionally, policy mobility does not always produce policies tailored to the unique challenges and opportunities of each host city. While the theory aims to create quantifiable and comparable outcomes, differences in economic, political, and cultural contexts often hinder adaptability. These variations in starting points make it difficult to implement standardized policies effectively across diverse host cities.
References
Cochrane, A., & Ward, K. (2012). Researching the geographies of policy mobility: Confronting the methodological challenges. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44176
Collins, A., Jones, C., & Munday, M. (2009). Assessing the environmental impacts of mega sporting events: Two options? Tourism Management, 30(6), 828–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.12.006
Dittmer, J. (2010). Textual and discourse analysis. In D. DeLyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang, & L. McDowell (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative geography (pp. 274–286). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857021090
Gaffney, C. (2013). Between discourse and reality: The un-sustainability of mega-event planning. Sustainability, 5(9), 3926–3940. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5093926
Gogishvili, D., Ngoenha, W., & Müller, M. (2024). Carbon footprint of the Winter and Summer Olympic Games from 2000 to 2026 (doi:10.7910/DVN/Y1OCLT; Version 1.0) [Dataset]. 2024-04-29. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/Y1OCLT
Kitchin, R., & Tate, N. J. (2000). Conducting research in human geography: Theory, methodology & practice. Routledge.
McDowell, L. (2010). Interviewing: Fear and liking in the field. In D. DeLyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang, & L. McDowell (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative geography (pp. 156–171). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857021090
Müller, M., Wolfe, S. D., Gaffney, C., Gogishvili, D., Hug, M., & Leick, A. (2021). An evaluation of the sustainability of the Olympic Games. Nature Sustainability, 4(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00696-5
Müller, M., Wolfe, S. D., Gogishvili, D., Gaffney, C., Hug, M., & Leick, A. (2022). The mega-events database: Systematising the evidence on mega-event outcomes. Leisure Studies, 41(3), 437–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2021.1998835
Temenos, C., & Ward, K. (2018). Examining global urban policy mobilities. In J. Harrison & M. Hoyler (Eds.), Doing global urban research (1st ed., pp. 66–80). SAGE Publications Ltd.