Environmental sustainability policy within Australian Olympic sport organisations

ABSTRACT

The 2032 Brisbane Olympic Games commitment to deliver a ‘climate-positive’ Games raises concerns about the current environmental actions of Australian Olympic sport organisations. This study adapts a policy assessment framework, founded on environmental policy integration (EPI), to analyse the responses of Australian Olympic sport organisations to environmental sustainability. The integration of environmental considerations into sport policy is arguably critical to helping the sport industry transition to sustainable operations. However, an analysis of official documents found that the environmental responses of Australian Olympic sport organisations are limited and insufficient. It is argued that sport organisations need to develop more comprehensive mitigation and adaptation goals, change strategic directions, and integrate environmental policies into their mainstream activities. This transition should be supported by environmental impact and climate vulnerability assessments as well existing sport specific international frameworks (e.g., UN Sport for Climate Action Framework) and sustainability policies of international sports federations. The assessment framework used here has the potential to support the monitoring and evaluation of environmental policy integration within sport.

KEYWORDS:

• Policy integration
• sustainability in sport
• environmental initiatives
• sustainable development
• sport management

1. Introduction

This study explores the formal commitments made by Australian Olympic sport organisations to address environmental sustainability. Environmental issues such as environmental degradation and anthropogenic climate change are ‘wicked problems’ as they present an evolving complexity, interconnectedness to other social problems and defy a unique or simple solution (Rittel and Webber 1973). Sports organisations and the environment have a two-way relationship – sport operations contribute to environmental issues, while environmental issues impact sport operations (McCullough and Kellison 2018).

In 2020, for example, Australian cities were blanketed in smoke from unprecedented bushfires exacerbated by climate change (Canadell et al. 2021). At the time, sport clubs and organisations cancelled their activities (e.g., Australian Institute of Sport 2020a), sport events were delayed or postponed (e.g., Murray 2020), and the smoke threatened athletes’ health and wellbeing (e.g., Australian Institute of Sport 2020b). Such environmental disasters are forecast to become more frequent, prolonged and/or intense as climate change continues (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2021). The relevance of environmental sustainability to sport is not, however, only about adapting to changing environmental conditions. Operational demands across sport organisations are immensely varied but commonly include energy and water consumption, waste management, procurement, and travel requirements (McCullough and Kellison 2018). These demands contribute to the carbon footprint (i.e., total amount of greenhouse gas emissions) of sport organisations.

Transitioning to environmentally sustainable modes of operation, where mitigating environmental impacts is prioritised, may be facilitated by the integration of environmental concerns into policy (Ross and Dovers 2008, Book and Carlsson 2011, Geeraert 2016, Evans et al. 2017). Currently, Australian Olympic sport organisations do not have a legal requirement to adopt environmental policies. Further, it is unclear if and how environmental policies are being adopted, despite downward pressure from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and elite athletes calling for action (Climate Council 2021). Furthermore, the body of literature discussing environmental policy in sport is recent and still evolving (Book and Carlsson 2011, Geeraert 2016, Ross and Leopkey 2017, Johnson and Ali 2018), offering little in terms of understanding adoption and development of environmental policies by sports organisations, and with no insights into the Australian context.

Therefore, this study aims to assess formal commitments to environmental sustainability within Australian Olympic sport by taking stock of existing environmental sustainability policies and analysing how environmental considerations have been formally embedded in sport policies. To do so, the paper adapts the environmental policy integration assessment framework proposed by Becken et al. (2020) to guide the content analysis of environmental policies within Australian Olympic sport. For the purposes of this study environmental sustainability deals with actions undertaken in the interest of preserving the natural environment, mitigating environmental impact, and building resilience against environmental impacts.

2. Background

2.1. The Olympic movement and environmental sustainability

The IOC started its environmental sustainability journey in the early 90s and more recently launched a sustainability strategy (International Olympic Committee 2017). The strategy guides environmental action within the Olympic Movement, ‘incorporating sustainability in all aspects of the Olympic Games and encourages all stakeholders of the Olympic Movement to include sustainability in their daily operations’ (International Olympic Committee 2017, p. 2). It includes emissions reduction plans aligned with the 2015 Paris Agreement, and recommendations on adaptation to the impacts of climate change (International Olympic Committee 2017). Although these have been positive steps towards environmental sustainability, scholars have questioned the IOC’s ability to promote sector-wide policy change (Lenskyj 1998, Pentifallo and VanWynsberghe 2012, Geeraert and Gauthier 2018).

The Olympic Charter (International Olympic Committee 2020) states that national Olympic sport organisations should have policies aligned with Olympic values, but investigations of NSOs’ responses to environmental issues remains overlooked in the literature. Geeraert and Gauthier (2018) argue that the IOC lacks effective control mechanisms to monitor environmental commitments, specifically with regards to the Olympic Games and stakeholders of the Olympic Movement, such as the national Olympic committees and their affiliated national sport organisations (NSOs). For example, research suggests a disjuncture between the commitments made by Rio’s Olympic bid and the plans (or lack thereof) implemented (Pentifallo and VanWynsberghe 2012). Further, Paquette et al. (2011) and Geeraert and Gauthier (2018) noted a lack of oversight from legal or regulatory bodies and that the IOC and Olympic Games Organising Committees are not held accountable for environmental impacts.

In 2019, the IOC partnered with the UN Climate Change secretariat to launch the UN Sports for Climate Action framework (United Nations Climate Change 2019). The framework is designed to guide the sport sector ‘in achieving global climate change goals’ (United Nations Climate Change 2019, p. 4) by providing climate action principles tailored to the sport industry. As of August, 2022, over 280 organisations are voluntary signatories, including seven organisations from Australia (Bowls Australia Ltd., Australia Sail Grand Prix team, Tennis Australia, Melbourne Cricket Ground, Youlden Parkville Cricket Club, Richmond Football Club, and the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC)). Only two of these entities are part of the Olympic Movement: Tennis Australia and the AOC. This suggests that while the upper levels of the Olympic Movement have ramped up their strategic commitment to the environment, this is yet to filter down to stakeholders such as Australian national sports organisations of Olympic sports.

2.2. The Australian Olympic sport context

This study focuses on the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) and affiliated national sport organisations (NSOs). Figure 1 illustrates the organisational relationships between the IOC, the AOC, and NSOs and highlights in grey the organisations targeted in this study.

Figure 1. Relationship between IOC, AOC and NSOs.

The AOC represents the IOC within Australia and is responsible for disseminating Olympic values (i.e., humanity, universality, solidarity, sustainability), agendas, and policies at a national level. A total of 46 NSOs are affiliated with the AOC, including summer and winter sports, which are also expected to disseminate the Olympic values and agendas (such as the IOC Sustainability Strategy) (IOC 2018). In theory, this means the IOC’s influence extends via the AOC and NSOs to all levels of Australian sports in the Olympic programme (Shilbury et al. 2017). While this study focuses on the Australian context, this structure connecting the IOC with National Olympic Committees (e.g., AOC) and affiliated NSOs is similar in other countries that engage with the Olympic Movement, and comes with concomitant expectations that all sport organisations in this chain will play a role in disseminating Olympic values (International Olympic Committee 2020, 2021).

In addition to their affiliation with the AOC, Australian Olympic NSOs are also influenced by the Australian Sports Commission (ASC), the Australian Government agency responsible for supporting and investing in sport. The ASC supports the Australian sport industry and oversees the targeted allocation of public resources to sport at all levels. Pertinent to this research, the ASC has an environmental policy (ASC 2016), revised in 2018, covering environmental considerations in relation to procurement of office supplies and ICT equipment, building management, maintenance and refurbishments, and waste and water management, in order ‘to comply with Australian Government environmental policies, initiatives and legislative requirements’ (Australian Sports Commission 2020, p. 57). However, the ASC places no requirements on Australian NSOs to implement similar environmental policies in order to be able to access the government funding it distributes.

Instead, the ASC recognises NSOs based on the adequacy of their governance structures and their standing within their sport (Sport Australia 2022). Although environmental sustainability is an accepted part of corporate responsibility in sport (Trendafilova et al. 2013), the ASC is yet to recognise environmental sustainability as a criterion for adequate governance. Currently, the criteria NSOs are required to meet includes (but is not limited to) possessing governance structures that align with the ASC’s Governance Principles and meeting the ASC’s expectations around integrity (Sport Australia 2022). The latter criterion focuses on organisational accountability for establishing, maintaining, and enforcing the key policies and connected education plans that underpin integrity in their sport (e.g., member protection, child safety and anti-doping) but does not include any specific requirements related to environmental sustainability practices.

In sum, currently Australian Olympic NSOs do not have legal obligations to implement environmental sustainability policies and practices, either through their affiliation with the Olympic Movement or interactions with the ASC. It is unclear if the IOC’s sustainability agenda is being embraced by Australian NSOs, particularly as there is no national structure to support or encourage a unified response to environmental concerns within the Australian sport sector. Against this backdrop, this research seeks to understand the extent to which environmental policies are incorporated within Australian Olympic sport. Understanding how NSOs are formally responding to environmental issues in the absence of a national supporting structure or legal obligations provides insights into the autonomous capacity of NSOs to incorporate environmental sustainability at a strategic level. The findings of this research will provide baseline insights into what Australian Olympic NSOs are currently doing and may be useful for sport policymakers seeking to improve environmental policy integration in sport.

2.3. Environmental sustainability policy in sport literature

Research on environmental sustainability in sport is still evolving and exponentially growing over the last 10 years (McCullough and Kellison 2018). Geographic contexts have been expanding but North American studies are still predominant alongside professional sports (e.g., Ciletti et al. 2010, Babiak and Trendafilova 2011, McCullough et al. 2020) and major sport events (e.g., Dolles and Söderman 2010, Paquette et al. 2011, Pentifallo and VanWynsberghe 2012, Miller 2016) as dominant sport contexts. Although sport management studies have addressed the drivers and challenges to the implementation of environmental initiatives (Mallen et al. 2010, McCullough and Cunningham 2010, Uecker-Mercado and Walker 2012) and the impact of environmental initiatives on sport stakeholders’ pro-environmental behaviour intentions and attitudes (e.g., Jin et al. 2011, Inoue and Kent 2012, McCullough 2013, Casper et al. 2020), environmental policy development and implementation in sport literature is scarce (Book and Carlsson 2011, Geeraert 2016)

In the absence of environmental regulations and an environmental regulatory body in sport, studies suggest that sports organisations self-regulate their environmental approaches and demonstrate poor ability to implement environmental initiatives (Book and Carlsson 2011) or achieve satisfactory levels of environmental performance (Chard and Mallen 2013). Specifically, studies have indicated that sports organisations’ environmental approaches can be characterised as informal, inconsistent, and independent (not part of a cohesive action across sports organisations) (Book and Carlsson 2011, Chard and Mallen 2013). For instance, in Sweden, an environmentally sustainable movement in sport has emerged through several ‘eco-projects’ among different sports actors, ‘albeit rather immature, individualised and isolated, in the light of insufficient governance and policy’ (Book and Carlsson 2011, p. 413). Literature further suggests environmental sustainability is being embraced by sports organisations at a slow pace (Chard and Mallen 2013), with comprehensive environmental responses generally not well integrated into sport organisations’ mainstream activities (Book and Carlsson 2011, Geeraert 2016).

Book and Carlsson (2011) and Geeraert (2016) are exceptions of the scant attention devoted to sport organisations’ policy development and implementation beyond the International Olympic Committee context. Geeraert (2016) analysed the integration of environmental concerns in European Union sport policy and suggested a consistent sector-wide approach to environmental sustainability is arguably often lacking at national levels and international contexts such as the European Union (Geeraert 2016). Furthermore, Book and Carlsson (2011) indicated that passive leadership towards the development of environmental policy hinders the ability to coordinate such efforts towards a common goal, regardless of the manifestations of individual environmental projects in everyday sporting practices. Consistent integration of environmental considerations into sport policy is deemed relevant to enhance the sport-sector ability to coordinate environmental efforts and collaborate in developing effective environmental responses (Book and Carlsson 2011, Geeraert 2016).

Publicly reporting environmental policies and initiatives can indicate an organisation’s formal environmental commitment (Ross and Dovers 2008) and an attempt to inform stakeholders with transparency and accountability (Spector et al. 2012, Casper and Pfahl 2015a, 2015b). However, the literature has consistently demonstrated ineffective communication of environmental practices in sport (Ciletti et al. 2010, Wall-Tweedie and Nguyen 2018, McCullough et al. 2020). Wall-Tweedie and Nguyen (2018) analysed content related to environmental initiatives published on the websites of professional teams across seven countries in the Asia-Pacific region. They found minimal and ineffective communication of environmental sustainability practices, with only 17 of 114 teams publicising environmental sustainability efforts and limited details about initiatives (Wall-Tweedie and Nguyen 2018). Research conducted in North America produced similar results (Ciletti et al. 2010, McCullough et al. 2020). Ciletti et al. (2010) found that 33% of 126 American professional teams produced at least one publication related to environmental sustainability, while McCullough et al. (2020) identified that only 35% of 147 teams and respective venues official websites mentioned environmental sustainability. Publications lacked transparency regarding environmental objectives and reporting measures (Ciletti et al. 2010, McCullough et al. 2020). The scarcity of information on websites demonstrated by minimal communication of environmental sustainability efforts and limited details about the initiatives published, suggested a low level of commitment towards environmental sustainability (Ross and Dovers 2008, Wall-Tweedie and Nguyen 2018).

The absence of communication of formal commitments does not necessarily mean sports organisations are not implementing environmental initiatives. Casper and Pfahl (2015a) research suggested sports organisations could be partnering with environmental organisations, obtaining environmental certification, and signing international commitments, but not communicating such initiatives on their webpage (Casper and Pfahl 2015a). However, from a policy perspective, publishing goals and reporting on progress are integral for an organisation’s transition to sustainability (Althaus et al. 2018, Dovers 1997) and can guide a comprehensive, coordinated approach to address environmental issues (Ross and Dovers 2008). Policies make the consideration of environmental aspects compulsory in decision-making processes (Althaus et al. 2018, Dovers 1997). Consequently, there have been calls for greater commitment by sport organisations to address environmental sustainability (Book and Carlsson 2011, McCullough and Kellison 2018), and for standardisation and transparency of such efforts (Spector et al. 2012, Chard and Mallen 2013). Integrating environmental sustainability through policy may enhance transparency and standardisation of environmental action in sport. Transparency and standardisation can facilitate knowledge transfer, industry impact measurement and monitoring, and dissemination of environmental achievements across stakeholders (Spector et al. 2012, Casper and Pfahl 2015b).

In order to contribute to the scarce literature on environmental policy in sport and understand how national sports organisations may communicate and integrate environmental consideration at governance level, this study adopts environmental policy integration lens to assess formal environmental commitments within Australian Olympic sport.

2.4. Environmental policy integration

Environmental policy integration (EPI) first emerged as a policymaking principle in the 1990s (Lenschow 2002) aimed at ensuring the environment was prioritised in the policymaking process and that protecting the environment became an overarching objective (Lafferty and Hovden 2003). Scholarship has since positioned EPI as either a governing process (wherein environmental considerations are integrated into everyday political practices [Jordan and Lenschow 2010]), or as an outcome (whereby EPI is viewed as the result of effective policy addressing environmental issues [Lenschow 1999, Jordan and Lenschow 2010). In this study, EPI is interpreted as a governing process because the study aims to explore formal commitments to environmental responses rather than to evaluate policy effectiveness. Therefore, this study adopts a definition developed by Runhaar et al. (2014) that positions EPI as ‘the incorporation of environmental concerns in policy sectors by public and private actors involved [companies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and governmental actors]’ (p. 241). This definition was chosen because it approaches EPI as a governing process, recognises the importance of a range of actors (i.e., alongside governments) in EPI, and accommodates for EPI in the not-for-profit sector (which accommodates for NSOs).

EPI prioritises the environment in policymaking by bringing environmental considerations into mainstream decision making and operations (Lafferty and Hovden 2003, Ross and Dovers 2008). For example, EPI can support an organisation to establish a formal commitment to address environmental issues through a statement of intent accompanied by a set of environmental objectives with a respective strategic plan or action plan (Ross and Dovers 2008). Furthermore, EPI encourages alignment between an organisation’s environmental direction and goals and international or sectoral agreements and agendas (e.g., Paris Agreement and the UN Sport for Climate Action framework). This alignment helps to establish shared objectives, avoiding potential contradictions between and within policies (Briassoulis 2005, Becken et al. 2020).

A significant amount of EPI literature targets the public sector (Lenschow 1999, Briassoulis 2005, Jordan and Lenschow 2010), providing an opportunity to expand understanding of EPI into the not-for-profit sector and sport. EPI has been researched in the context of the European Union sport sector (Geeraert 2016). Geeraert (2016) discussed the challenges of integrating environmental considerations into international sport policy, including the lack of top-down commitment, the economic aspects of environmental concerns, and the autonomy of international sports organisations. With prior literature demonstrating the potential application of EPI in the sport context (Geeraert 2016), we adopt such lens to stocktake formal environmental commitments within Australian Olympic sport and analyse how environmental considerations have been formally embedded into governance. To do so, the paper adapts the environmental policy integration assessment framework proposed by Becken et al. (2020), introduced next, to guide the content analysis of environmental policies within Australian Olympic sport.

3. Environmental policy integration assessment framework

Becken et al. (2020) developed a systematic approach to investigating the extent of environmental policy integration in tourism. They drew on four parameters (i.e., coverage, scope, materiality and alignment) aiming to capture key policy integration criteria, including coordination (i.e., alignment with external policies) and consistency (i.e., internal alignment between policies) (Lafferty and Hovden 2003, Brendehaug et al. 2017, Becken et al. 2020). Becken et al.’s (2020). The choice of this framework for the present study rested on: (a) the similarities of the studies’ purposes (i.e., enhancing understanding of sectoral environmental commitments); (b) commonalities and cross-linkages between the tourism and sport industries (both are services industries) (Kennelly and Toohey 2014); and, (c) the framework’s utility in providing a rigorous analytical structure for assessing EPI (data analysis approach). Table 1 contrasts original and adapted parameters, their definitions and introduces evaluation levels of adapted parameters.

Table 1. Original (Becken et al. 2020) vs. Adapted EPI in sport parameters and evaluation levels.

	Original Parameters	Adapted Parameters	Evaluation Levels
SIGNALLING	Not used	Number of published documents mentioning or linked to environmental sustainability and climate adaptation	Absent: no publications Minimal: one publication Moderate: two to three publications Solid: four to five publications Extensive: six or more publications
COVERAGE	How often tourism-climate change nexus was mentioned and how substantial the mentions were (i.e., a measure of quantity and quality)	Substantiality of published documents mentioning or linked to environmental sustainability and climate change	Absent: not possible to evaluate due to the absence of publications Outlying: no formal guideline or policy Adapting: at least one guideline Merged: one sustainability policy (or sustainability plan) Consolidated: one sustainability policy and a progress report
SCOPE	The climate change focus of the policy framework, strategy or plan.	Environmental focus of documents	Absent: not possible to evaluate due to the absence of publications Unclear: natural environment identified as an area of concern but insufficient information to determine specific scope Environmental impact mitigation: information, initiatives, goals and/or strategies to minimise impact on the environment and adopt practices that use natural resources sustainably Climate change adaptation: information, initiatives, goals and/or strategies to minimise the adverse effects of climate change and help communities cope with remaining effects Both: included environmental sustainability and climate change adaptation
MATERIALITY	The extent the tourism-climate change nexus is addressed in the document’s objective(s), action(s), and measure(s).	Not used
ALIGNMENT	Reference to other policies, frameworks, strategies and plans relevant to the nexus	Reference to other policies, frameworks, strategies and plans relevant to environmental sustainability and climate change	Absent: not possible to evaluate due to the absence of publications Disregarded: no reference to other relevant policies and sources International sport: reference to sustainability guidelines and policies of International Federations and IOC Global: reference to general policies and/or guidelines, agreements and frameworks specifically linked to environmental sustainability (e.g., UN Climate Change frameworks, Paris Agreement and similar) Combination: included international sport and global references Others: reference to other policies, regulations or guidelines that not fit on the above (e.g., national policies and targets)

Overall, the policy assessment framework was adapted to assess: How many documents mentioning environmental sustainability were published (signalling)? To what extent the organisation demonstrated a formal commitment to environmental sustainability (coverage)? What was the predominant environmental focus of the published documents (scope)? And finally, did the organisations acknowledge any environmental policies or recommendations from external organisations? Analysing the data by applying the framework parameters, enabled the study to provide an assessment of formal commitments to environmental issues within Australian Olympic sports organisations.

The original parameters of Becken et al.’s (2020) framework were modified to suit the context and purpose of this study which has a broader scope than Becken et al.’s (2020) focus on climate change. As illustrated in Table 1, the adjusted framework used to evaluate EPI in sport, considers signalling, coverage, scope and alignment. In their document analysis, Becken et al. (2020) used the parameter coverage to establish the quantity and substantiality of attention paid to climate change. In the current study, Becken et al.’s (2020) coverage parameter was split into signalling (quantity) and coverage (substantiality). Signalling was defined based on signalling theory which argues that deliberate communication of information to convey organisational attributes (signal) can reduce information asymmetry between an organisation and its stakeholders (Connelly et al. 2011). That is, signalling helps stakeholders recognise an organisation’s commitment to the values it claims to hold (Morsing and Schultz 2006, Connelly et al. 2011). In the case of this research, signalling enables stakeholders to recognise that an organisation commits to environmental sustainability.

Becken et al.’s (2020) climate change scope parameter was adapted to scope to enable exploration of environmental issues more broadly. Scope encompassed environmental impact mitigation (to refer to documents focused on minimising environmental impacts), and climate change adaptation (to refer to documents focused on addressing resilience building in light of the adverse effects of climate change) (Swart et al. 2003). Becken et al.’s (2020) materiality parameter was excluded from the present study due to the limited information found in the sport organisations’ documents and communications related to specific objectives, actions and measures. Finally, the alignment parameter was retained but adjusted to accommodate policies, frameworks, strategies and plans available in the sport context. Within each parameter, a range of levels were used to guide evaluation (see Table 1).

The following section describes the study sample, data collection process and explains how the framework was applied in the data analysis process.

4. Method

This study assessed the self-reported position, actions and performance of organisations concerning environmental issues. As described above, this study interprets policy as the way organisations respond to issues and involves the development of commitments, actions, and evaluations (Althaus et al. 2018). As such, a range of formal statements of intent (such as policies, strategic plans, guidelines), as well as reporting evidence (such as news, annual reports and sustainability reports) were examined. In combination, the abovementioned materials were considered to reveal an organisation’s formal commitment to environmental sustainability.

4.1. Study sample: organisations

The 46 organisations were selected based on their association with the Olympic Movement (see section 2.2) and included the AOC, and the Australian NSOs for all winter and summer Olympic sports. The official websites of the IOC and AOC were used to identify eligible organisations (Appendix) and Luge Australia was the only organisation not included in the sample as it did not have an official website at the time of data collection (July, 2021).

4.2. Data collection

Publicly available documents were collected from the official websites of all 46 Australian sports organisations associated with the Olympic Movement, following a data collection process similar to McCullough et al. (2020) (see Figure 2). Official websites are a common platform used by sport organisations to communicate with external stakeholders, to convey their social and sustainability commitments (Morsing and Schultz 2006, Ciletti et al. 2010, Wall-Tweedie and Nguyen 2018, McCullough et al. 2020). More broadly, publishing policies, sustainability strategies and reports on official websites links to organisational transparency and accountability practices (Connelly et al. 2011, Junior et al. 2014).

Figure 2. Data collection approach.

The document search adopted the key words ‘sustainability’ or ‘environment’. When the application of these terms related to the natural environment (including air quality, weather conditions and similar), the document was deemed relevant for this research, consequently, collected and stored. Documents using the term ‘environment’ to refer to the organisation’s operating or social environment (e.g., ‘child-safe environment’, ‘inclusive environment’) and the term ‘sustainability’ applied to financial or sport performance strategic goals were deemed not relevant for this study. References to the Reconciliation Act, a tool to help organisations strengthen the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, were also not included in the sample. In all instances, these mentions related to the social inclusion of Indigenous Australians, rather than the integration of indigenous environmental knowledge in sport.

Preliminary data collection elicited a limited number of formal environmental policies within the sampled organisations. Consequently, the research team extended data collection to incorporate strategic plans, annual reports, guidelines, and other published documents that could shed light on sports organisations’ formal commitment to environmental sustainability. This approach was consistent with the adopted definitions of EPI and policy aforementioned in this paper. The final sample consisted of 50 documents.

4.3. Data analysis

To support the analysis process, this study applied an adapted policy integration assessment framework introduced in Section 3. First, the number of documents found for each organisation was determined (signalling). Then, a content analysis of the 50 documents (Patton 2015) was conducted to (a) categorise the documents based on their function (National Archives of Australia 2003) (as summarised in Table 2) and establish extent of commitment (coverage), (b) determine their environmental focus (scope) and (c) identify references to other policies and environmental targets (alignment). Therefore, the adapted parameters and evaluation levels illustrated in Table 1 were used to code the data.

Table 2. Document categories.

Type	Description
Policy n = 1	A document outlining an organisation’s aims, goals and/or principles in relation to managing its environmental impact and environmental effects on its operations.
Progress Report n = 0	A document describing overall progress towards an organisation’s environmental goals and priorities.
Strategic Plan n = 3	A document outlining strategic directions to achieve an organisation’s established aims and/or goals.
Annual Report n = 19	A comprehensive report on an organisation’s activities and finances throughout the preceding year.
Guideline n = 17	A document outlining the course of action to be taken in the event of a specific environmental condition or situation. Designed to provide instructions, directions, and recommendations.
Regulation n = 1	A document describing rules or directives to be maintained by an authority. For example, a competition rule book.
News n = 9	Communication published on an organisation’s website with the purpose of informing stakeholders.

Coverage, scope and alignment parameters were assessed at two levels: 1) for each document, and 2) overall for each organisation. While scrutinising the documents against the parameters, an Excel spreadsheet was used to record observations on each parameter and included a column for reflective observations comparing similarities and differences within the same types of documents. Content analysis and observational notes were used to support the EPI assessment results, depicting empirical examples based on the documentation analysed, as presented in the following section.

5. Results

5.1. Insufficient environmental policy integration in sport

The analysis of data showed that 19 organisations did not have any publications addressing environmental sustainability, including all eight winter sport organisations (see Figure 3a). Thirty-two organisations had no guidelines, policy, or sustainability plan (see Figure 3b). Only two organisations had an environmental sustainability policy (Rowing Australia 2009) or sustainability plan (AOC n.d.), but neither had published reports on their progress towards environmental sustainability based on these documents.

Figure 3. EPI assessment within Australian Olympic Sport.

The documents suggested limited alignment between existing NSOs initiatives with Australian and international policies. In 40 organisations, no references to external environmental policies and frameworks were identified (see Figure 3c). Observed references to international policies included the UN Sport for Climate Action framework (3 organisations), the IOC’s Agenda 21 and IOC environmental commitment (2 organisations), and the Paris Agreement (1 organisation).

Organisations referring to external policies largely failed to explain how the policies informed environmental goals, strategic directions, or the design of their initiatives. For example, Rowing Australia’s Environmental Sustainability Policy (Rowing Australia 2009) identified strategic areas of action aligned with the IOC’s Agenda 21 for Sport (International Olympic Committee 1999) but set no explicit goals. The policy does not appear to have been updated since it was published in 2009, despite significant changes in global environmental debates and the establishment of the IOC’s Sustainability Strategy (International Olympic Committee 2017), UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2015a), and the UNFCCC Paris Agreement (UN 2015b). While Rowing Australia’s Environmental Sustainability Policy has clear limitations, this document was the closest to exhibiting EPI and contained the only definition of environmental sustainability found in this study. Table 3 provides observation notes on this document.

Table 3. Rowing Australia environmental sustainability policy (2009) observation notes.

	Observation notes
Purpose	The policy (and guidelines within the policy) ‘intended to focus the collective minds of the rowing community on the part each can play in ensuring that the natural and physical resources which the sport of rowing needs to flourish will be sustained.’ (2009, 1)
References to other policies & frameworks	IOC Olympic Charter, Agenda 21 for Sport and FISA (World Rowing Federation) guidelines on events Environmental Management System.
Environmental sustainability definition	‘Environmental sustainability in rowing includes social, cultural, economic and ecological responsibility which fulfils present needs while allowing future generations to meet their needs.’ (2009, 2)
Policy commitments or principles	Protection of the habitat of fauna and flora and biodiversity Conservation of resources both renewable and non-renewable Reduction of the production of waste and pollutants in all their forms Recognition of the importance of heritage and indigenous cultural values Promotion of healthy conditions for athletes, officials, volunteers, and spectators in which to conduct the sport of rowing Fostering environmental awareness and education about sustainable development within the international rowing community Consulting the wider community to foster positive partnerships
Absent	Measurable environmental targets and reporting commitments, setting no baseline data or structure for evaluation.

Although some organisations mentioned the natural environment and sustainability, no documents set specific environmental goals or targets. Organisations referencing the UN Sport for Climate Action framework also failed to provide comprehensive goals and strategic directions. The AOC and Tennis Australia, both signatories to the UN Sport for Climate Action framework, communicated their commitment to the framework but neither articulated specific steps to integrate the framework into their own operations.

Overall, the integration of environmental policy within Australian Olympic sport organisations was insufficient based on signalling, coverage, and alignment. The limited number of organisations formally committing to environmental sustainability was accompanied by superficial integration of environmental policies into mainstream activities. Furthermore, evidence suggested poor alignment across the sport sector and a failure amongst those who acknowledged international environmental policies to define their organisational commitments with strategic goals or targets.

5.2. Indicators of environmental awareness

Despite data indicating poor coverage and alignment, Australian Olympic sport organisations did show some recognition of the need to adapt to challenges imposed by environmental issues per the scope findings. Twenty-one organisations addressed environmental impact mitigation, nineteen addressed climate change adaptation, and nine had both (Figure 3d). However, the scope of some documents and organisations was unclear; that is, they did not define or adequately explain their interpretation of sustainability or the environment. For example, Shooting Australia had an unclear scope because it presented only one document mentioning ‘environmental preparedness’ with limited additional information.

When analysing the scope per document (see Figure 4), 13 out of the 21 documents with an environmental impact mitigation scope were annual reports with a section entitled ‘environmental regulation statement’, a disclosure required as part of the Corporations Act 2001. Most documents included a statement in this section to the effect that ‘the company is not affected by any significant environmental regulation in respect of its operations’ (Equestrian Australia 2020, p. 46). The Annual Report of Athletics Australia (2019–2020), the Australian Weightlifting Federation (2020), Badminton Australia (2019–2020), Boxing Australia (2020), Diving Australia (2019–2020), Golf Australia (2019–2020), Gymnastics Australia (2020), Rowing Australia (2020), and Rugby Australia (2020), for example, contained a similar passage. Sailing Australia was the only organisation declaring that its operations were subject to environmental regulations yet did not provide details of specific regulations. The environmental regulation statement only indicated that the organisation was obliged to meet an environmental legal obligation and nothing further.

Figure 4. Scope of Australian Olympic Sport Organisations Documents.

Of the nineteen documents that addressed climate change adaptation, sixteen targeted it implicitly. The documents were primarily focused on sport participants’ welfare (sportspersons, referees, and volunteers) and organisational duty of care, rather than explicitly addressing climate change mitigation or adaptation. The documents provided guidance on identifying risky environmental conditions and approaching adverse or extreme climate conditions (i.e., extreme and adverse weather, air/smoke pollution, and intense sun exposure) to minimise health and safety risks.

Softball Australia (2021), for example, states that heat stress can ‘occur when a participant exercises vigorously in hot conditions. It may also occur with prolonged exposure to hot weather, even if [the] activity is low intensity’ (p. 2). Softball’s Adverse Weather Policy (Softball Australia 2021) recommended participants exercise according to personal physical capacity, considering their heat tolerance and hydration. It also advised on contributing factors such as wearing heavy clothing and the type of surface where the exercise is practised (e.g., black asphalt, concrete and black rubberised synthetic surfaces can intensify hot conditions) (Softball Australia 2021). Water Polo Australia’s Sun Protection Policy (2015) supports the use of sunscreen, educating on risks associated to sun exposure – risk associated to the ozone layer depletion. It explains,

“Water Polo Australia intends to permit the use of alcohol-based sunscreens in all Water Polo fixtures and will encourage and support other practices among all participants that reduce sun exposure. For the safety of participants, it is obviously vital that sun protection methods be implemented to minimise the risks of skin damage and more serious afflictions. Water Polo Australia is acutely aware of the need to implement a code of prevention behaviour and reinforce this through the education of it’s members and by advising coaches and referees.” (Water Polo Australia, 2015, p. 3)

Hockey Australia (n.d.) Child Safe and Healthy Guideline (n.d.) also exemplifies this focus on participants’ welfare by mentioning legal responsibilities associated with ensuring the health and safety of sport participants during extreme weather conditions. Specifically, it acknowledged how the thermoregulation of children differs from adults and outlined procedures to be implemented under extreme weather conditions to provide a safe sport environment. Then, it stated that ‘any incident, action or behaviour that does not comply with these policies and procedures may be considered a breach of Hockey Australia or Member Associations’ policy and/or a breach of the law’ (n.d., p. 1). The same document reported that breaches of the law ‘may also result in action being taken by an external agency such as the Police’ (n.d., p. 1). Therefore, the guidelines seemed to promote sport participants’ welfare and prevent legal liabilities (i.e., implementing risk management guidelines to avoid being sued) rather than representing a moral responsibility to operate in a more environmentally sustainable manner.

By contrast, environmental considerations were explicitly included in some risk management and safety guidelines (e.g., Archery Australia Risk Management Resources for Clubs [Archery Australia 2013], and Paddle Australia Safety Guidelines [Paddle Australia 2021]). Specifically, the ‘Minimal Impact’ section in the Paddle Australia Safety Guidelines (Paddle Australia 2021) informed paddlers about their impact on the natural environment and provided principles on how to minimise this impact (e.g., dispose of waste properly, leave what you find, minimise campfire impacts and respect wildlife). In this case, the concern for biodiversity and environmental preservation were prioritised through behavioural recommendations to mitigate impact.

Some organisations had limited publications and no evidence of an environmental policy or strategic plan but showed attempts to incorporate environmental considerations within broader initiatives. Cycling Australia, for example, had only one publication and no formal guidelines or policies. Specifically, its Annual Report (2020) mentioned the launch of a Cycling Australia Participation brand and strategy (called Ride Nation, Bike for Life) where one of the objectives was to ‘position bike riding as ‘active transport’; providing environmental solutions’ (p. 30) to transport issues. Surfing Australia also had no environmental policy, but a few publications explicitly mentioned environmental sustainability and climate adaptation. The organisation listed ‘environment’ (p. 8) as a driver to grow an inclusive and active community through surfing in its Annual Report (2020).

The case of Surfing Australia also illustrates the potential influence of sponsors on a sport organisation’s capability to address environmental issues. In a news item, Surfing Australia communicated about its partnership with ACCIONA, a global group devoted to designing and managing sustainable infrastructure solutions. This partnership helps Surfing Australia deliver carbon neutral events and provides a platform for environmental activations such as the ‘ACCIONA Recycle Station’ powered by Envirobank (recycle depot operator in Australia). This type of partnership is also beneficial for ACCIONA as Australia and New Zealand ACCIONA CEO stated that: ‘Through our partnership, we hope to raise awareness of the impact of climate change and water pollution’ (Surfing Australia 2020, p. n.d.). Golf Australia also had an environmentally friendly partnership with AgBioEn (renewable energy company), where AgBioEn ‘strive[s] to use its partnership to educate Golf Australia’s constituents in the commercial benefits of renewable energy and fuels’ (Golf Australia 2019, p. n.d.).

Furthermore, athlete activism and community-based initiatives were identified in a few documents, but without evidence of linkage to environmental strategic direction. Australian Swimming, for example, reported that Australian Swimming team members were partaking in an initiative to raise awareness about the state of the Great Barrier Reef (Swimming Australia 2018). Also, Rowing Australia mentioned in its Annual Report (Rowing Australia 2020) that the Spring Creek Regeneration Project (a community project in Orange, New South Wales) won the World Rowing Sustainability Award in 2019. These initiatives may represent pathways to enhance environmental knowledge and develop commitments towards broader environmental goals, but do not provide evidence of EPI.

Results suggest that regulations (i.e., the Corporations Act 2001) and risk management concerns dominate Australian Olympic sport organisations’ existing approaches to environmental issues. Some environmental initiatives were evident but tended to be ad-hoc. Yet, such initiatives demonstrate the potential to implement and promote environmental initiatives (e.g., drawing on and responding to strategic partnerships and athlete and community activism). Practical and theoretical implications of these results are discussed next.

6. Discussion and implications

The sport sector is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and is not exempt from the need for organisations to tackle environmental issues (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2021). In addition, the Australian Government’s commitment to delivering a ‘climate-positive’ 2032 Olympic Games (Stevenson and Kleyn 2021) and the relevance of sport as part of Australian culture, make Australian Olympic sport organisations’ responses critical to supporting broader environmental initiatives nationwide.

This study contributes to environmental policy and assessment discussions in sport by demonstrating that the autonomous capacity of NSOs to respond to environmental issues is resulting in delayed and ineffective environmental responsiveness as current formal commitments are insufficient to promote transitions to environmentally sustainable modes of operation. This finding calls for further consideration of environmental issues in debates on good governance in sports (e.g., Geeraert et al. 2014, 2015, Næss 2021). We argue that national structures should be considered to support NSOs to develop comprehensive mitigation and adaptation goals (scope) and integration of environmental considerations into mainstream activities (coverage) aligned with international environmental targets (e.g., Paris Agreement) (alignment).

This study’s findings demonstrate that existing environmental responses of Australian Olympic sport organisations have mostly adopted a climate adaption perspective through their focus on participants’ welfare and risk management. Concerns regarding the impact of environmental degradation on public health date back as far as the late 19th century (Pontin 2007) and helped advance environmental policy development in the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia (Howes 2005). But only recently studies have demonstrated a negative relationship between air pollution, extreme temperatures and natural disasters and physical activity and health (including sports practice) (Cunningham et al. 2020, Bernard et al. 2021). Aligned to these findings, some Australian Olympic sports organisations have adopted air quality and extreme heat policies focused primarily on establishing safe conditions for sport participants to play. However, such policies have yet to transition to comprehensive climate adaptation targets that better encapsulate climate risks. Specifically, Schneider and Mücke (2021) suggest that the complexity of climate change impacts requires sport organisations to intervene by further adopting structural preventive measures (e.g., building sun protection structures, temperature-dependent schedules etc). Therefore, current efforts to implement guidelines to identify and manage environmental risks and climate change effects may need to escalate to support sport participants’ welfare.

Sport participants’ welfare is only part of sport climate adaptation pressures. The environmental vulnerability of sport infrastructure (Kellison and Orr 2020) and the logistics of sport activities (e.g., sport events and training sessions) (Schneider and Mücke 2021) can also incur economic loss and social impacts (Dingle and Mallen 2021, Müller et al. 2021). Moreover, climate change adaptation should be accompanied by sport organisations’ commitment to mitigate their environmental impact (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014, Zhao et al. 2018, Abu-Omar and Gelius 2020). Combining climate change adaptation and mitigation policies effectively remains a challenge in sport, across governments and other sectors (Victor 2009, Zhao et al. 2018).

Environmental and climate assessments could help sport organisations better understand their impacts and risks. The Sustainable Sport Index (2021) evaluates sport organisations management, operations, and communications, assessing carbon, waste and water management and energy efficiency. Using this index could contribute to the development of mitigation policies. The Climate Vulnerability of Sport Organisations framework could help minimise climate adaptation uncertainties and build organisational resilience (Orr and Inoue 2019). This framework combines considerations of climate impact on organisations and organisational capacity to respond to climate change (Orr and Inoue 2019). An organisation presenting high exposure to climate impacts and low capacity to address those impacts, for example, requires prompt actions to reduce climate vulnerability (Orr and Inoue 2019). Organisations should focus on matching their capacity to address climate change impacts to their climate vulnerability (Orr and Inoue 2019).

Alignment to external policies could also support policy development (Ross and Dovers 2008). Environmental goals are critical to establishing a relevant response due to their role in monitoring policy progress and evaluating effectiveness (Althaus et al. 2018). Further, an effective alignment of sport organisations’ environmental goals and strategic directions to external environmental policies would also assure that organisational responses produce collective effort to tackle environmental issues (Ross and Dovers 2008, Brendehaug et al. 2017).

Existing sport-specific directives from the IOC (e.g., IOC Sustainability Agenda and IOC Sustainability Essentials) and the UN Sport for Climate Action framework are recommended. These policies align with the Paris Agreement and also account for specific characteristics of the sport sector. As a result, they provide a holistic perspective on how sport organisations can comprehensively establish environmental responses. For instance, the IOC’s Sustainability Strategy sets goals for: the construction of infrastructure with minimal environmental footprint; the protection of natural areas; the promotion of urban green spaces; conservation of water resources and protection of water quality; the optimisation of product and material lifecycles; and the sourcing of products and services that takes into account environmental impact. Another example is the UN Sport for Climate Action (2019) framework which sets principles for sport organisations to mitigate their environmental impact at the operational and governance levels, including infrastructure, events, and sport stakeholders. In addition, it also recognises the leadership role sport can play in the climate action movement and provides principles for sport to contribute to environmental education and advocate for climate action (United Nations Climate Change 2019).

A national structure could support sports organisations with education and guidelines on how to navigate through the complexities of environmental policy development as well as overcome possible economic, political, and environmental barriers to the adoption of environmental initiatives (Babiak and Trendafilova 2011, Trendafilova et al. 2013, Daddi et al. 2021) that may influence the integration of environmental policies into mainstream governance. Furthermore, as a non-environmental sector, sport organisations could explore partnerships and other ad-hoc practices (e.g., guidelines and promotion of athletes’ activism) as a springboard for significant improvements in EPI (Ross and Dovers 2008). For example, developing strategic partnerships, such as Surfing Australia and ACCIONA (see section 5.2.), can help sport organisations overcome knowledge and capability limitations (Cousens et al. 2006). However, caution is required as limiting action to ad-hoc practices without environmental integration, only addressing peripheral adjustments imply greenwashing (Johnson and Ali 2018, Boykoff 2021).

It is possible sport organisations undertake environmental initiatives that are not reported, which is a limitation of this study method. However, communicating environmental goals and reporting on progress are integral steps in an organisation’s transition to sustainability and indicate a public commitment to environmental action (Morsing and Schultz 2006, Ross and Dovers 2008). Transparency regarding sustainable practices could also promote Australian Olympic sport organisations’ influence on adopting and integrating sustainable initiatives by state sport organisations and local clubs (top-down environmental action).

This study expands the application of EPI to the sport sector, addressing contextual gaps, and providing a tool to evaluate EPI in sport. An environmental policy assessment framework is new in sport management literature. The adaptation of the Becken et al.’s (2020) framework provided an objective set of parameters based on policy integration and good governance literature to determine the current state of environmental policy integration in sport. Specifically, the adapted EPI framework developed in this research was robust in providing insights into transparency (signalling), extent environmental commitments are embedded within organisational governance (coverage), comprehensiveness of environmental targets (scope) and their alignment to international targets (alignment) and could contribute to future environmental policy and assessment discussions. These parameters may be used to support the monitoring and evaluation of EPI in the short and long-term. However, future studies evaluating policy integration in sport could consider additional variables (e.g., funding application processes, national popularity of the sport, dependence on the natural environment, and pressures from international) within their method instruments.

Finally, the current literature on environmental sustainability in sport is highly concentrated in North America (Trendafilova et al. 2013, Johnson and Ali 2018, McCullough et al. 2020) and Geeraert (2016) was the only study identified exploring EPI within the sport context of the European Union. Political and cultural cross-country variations influence environmental policy development and integration (Howes 2005, Colvin et al. 2015). This study adds data on the Australian situation.

7. Conclusion

This study explored the formal commitments made by Australian Olympic sport organisations to address environmental sustainability and found that currently the responses of these organisations to environmental issues are limited. Findings indicated that many Australian Olympic NSOs have developed guidelines to protect athlete welfare and manage climate related risks (i.e., heat policies, sun protection policies, etc.). In contrast, there was minimal evidence of formal efforts among the organisations to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of their operations or to align with existing international agendas and guidelines set by the IOC and UN (i.e., the UN Sports for Climate Action Framework).

This study argues that mitigation and adaptation goals and strategic directions aligned to external environmental policies should be developed alongside a solid integration of environmental policies into mainstream activities. Addressing environmental policy development and integration limitations could significantly strengthen the response of Australian Olympic sports. Environmental impact and climate vulnerability assessments and ad-hoc initiatives are suggested to assist sport organisations as they transition to more robust environmental policy development and integration. However, it is important that sport organisations do not limit their responses to peripheral initiatives. The study also highlights the absence of national structures to facilitate the Australian sport industry’s transition to more environmentally sustainable operations. As such, there may be an untapped opportunity to build a national response to environmental issues with guidance from the ASC.

Acknowledged limitations of this study include its use of secondary, publicly available data from Australian Olympic sports organisations, and being bounded by EPI lenses and assessment criteria. To build on this study, future studies could explore Australian sport more broadly and adopt qualitative methods (i.e., ethnographic approaches, in-depth interviews) capable of providing rich insights from a range of stakeholders’ perspectives and the ability to contrast formal and informal commitments and implementation of initiatives. Furthermore, good governance, self-governance and collaborative networks theoretical lenses could be used to expand this analysis. For example, understanding actors and elements and the dynamic pressures they exert on sport organisations to respond to environmental issues and climate change could enhance environmental policy integration efforts in sport. Studies could specifically explore the role of management in integrating environmental considerations in decision-making and perceptions of the relationship between environmental transparency and good governance in sport.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Appendix I

NSOs affiliated with the Olympic Movement included in this research

Australian Olympic Committee	Australian Sailing
Olympic Winter Institute of Australia	Shooting Australia
Archery Australia	Skate Australia
Artistic Swimming Australia	Softball Australia
Athletics Australia	Sport Climbing Australia
Badminton Australia	Surfing Australia
Baseball Australia	Swimming Australia
Basketball Australia	Table Tennis Australia
Boxing Australia	Taekwondo Australia
Paddle Australia	Tennis Australia
Cycling Australia	Triathlon Australia
Diving Australia	Volleyball Australia
Australian Fencing Federation	Water Polo Australia
Equestrian Australia	Australian Weightlifting Association
Football Federation Australia	Wrestling Australia
Golf Australia	Snow Australia
Gymnastics Australia	Australian Biathlon
Handball Australia	Sliding Sports Australia
Hockey Australia	Australian Curling Federation
Judo Australia	Ice Skating Australia
Australian Karate Federation	Ice Hockey Australia
Modern Pentathlon Australia	Australian Ice Racing
Rowing Australia
Rugby Australia