[b]As the founder of Sustainable Marketing, John Luff advises corporations, cities and other organisations on how to build Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) into their brand and marketing. Luff has looked at the long- term legacy of the 2012 London Games from a CSR viewpoint and is concerned that the ‘long-term social impact’ may not deliver what the local community wants[/b].
In everyday conversation the concept of sustainability is usually taken to refer to environmental sustainability and ‘legacy’ usually spoken of in the context of social and economic good.
But there is a growing recognition in the world of CSR that environmental, economic and social sustainability are inseparable and mutually dependant.
The most corporately irresponsible environmental project is one that is economically unsustainable. The environmental and economic legacy of a project has to be adopted and sustained by the societies and communities it most directly impacts. Otherwise it will be rejected, as the body’s immune system rejects an unwanted intruder.
So what has this got to do with London 2012? The London Olympics have been held up as the textbook example of marketing a concept - in this case long-term social impact - over a location’s (London’s) physical attributes. If this works it is exceptionally good news, not least for sponsors and others associated with the project.
But look at this project from some other, CSR related, perspectives. The facilities that will be created and will remain in the Lea Valley are presented as a long-term recreational good thing. However, looking at it another way - and be under no illusion there are lobby groups with this perspective - this is concreting over one of the last green lungs in the East End. Exactly what is sustainable economic good for the local community? Will the local communities perceive a social benefit that they requested and want? Or will the long-term perception be of a relatively few service jobs created for those tending swimming pools or jogging facilities and so on for the rich neighbours in Canary Wharf?
OK, I know I’m simplifying and exaggerating. I know I’m also talking about perceptions rather than debating facts. But this is a project that was sold on perceptions not facts. Perhaps the time has come to look at legacy in different ways. As opposed to seeing what is constructed as there for the long-term, how about thinking about things the other way around, the minimalist approach.
What’s the least that can be left behind, the lightest footprint? Let’s think about how new technology can be used to create temporary or movable structures where ever possible/desirable. So facilities constructed for use in London could be re-erected where needed elsewhere in the UK to spread the benefit, or better yet in more deprived areas of the developing world where they could really help. That’s a project for sponsors to work on in the long-term. By the way this is not technological nonsense or indeed new. The Victorians did it with the Great Exhibition. The Crystal Palace was only temporarily in Hyde Park.
So what’s left for the local community? Answer - choice. They don’t have to have ‘iconic’ sports facilities. They might want the money generated spent in other ways. They might want wet lands like their fellow Londoners in Barnes. They might want eco-friendly industrial facilities integrated with the natural site. The point is: are sponsors doing enough to ensure sustainable brand enhancement by working with the community to ensure their long-term buy in and support? The better ones are, I know, doing this. Let’s hope everyone involved does so. If not a cold wind will blow around the new concrete canyons of Stratford.
[b]John Luff (www.sustainablemarketing.co.uk) [/b]
