Who wins from a sustainable Olympics?
- Inga
- 5 minutes ago
- 5 min read
What "sustainable Olympics" really means
"Sustainable Olympics" usually means trying to reduce or offset the giant environmental footprint of the Games—carbon emissions from construction, transport, and operations, plus damage to local ecosystems and communities. Recent editions, such as Beijing 2022 and Paris 2024, have promised to use more renewable energy, reuse existing venues, share or recycle materials, and limit new infrastructure. The International Olympic Committee now officially pushes each host to align with climate goals and even go carbon-negative by cutting emissions and offsetting more than they produce, spreading sustainable practices beyond the event.
Yet "sustainable" often sits somewhere between good-faith reform and clever marketing. Recent academic reviews suggest that, despite bold climate promises, environmental follow-through for big-time Olympics has often weakened over time rather than strengthened. In other words, the environmental branding often outpaces actual impact.
Milano Cortina 2026: A test case in real time
The Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics, currently underway across northern Italy, exemplifies both the promise and complexity of sustainable Games. With 85 percent of competition venues being existing facilities—one of the highest reuse rates in Winter Olympic history—organizers have emphasized infrastructure adaptation over new construction. The Games run entirely on certified renewable electricity, while Milan's Olympic Village is designed for conversion into affordable student housing and public space after the event. Organizers have also committed to recovering or recycling 100 percent of excess food and reusing 20,000 pieces of furniture acquired from Paris 2024.
However, challenges remain visible. The wide geographic spread of venues across the Alps increases transportation emissions and logistical complexity, even as officials tout improved public transit connections. Mountain communities face ongoing pressures from venue upgrades and tourism infrastructure, raising questions about whether sustainability gains in energy and materials offset ecosystem stress in fragile alpine regions. As the first Games officially co-hosted by two cities and taking place under intense scrutiny of climate commitments, Milano Cortina 2026 will offer critical lessons about whether the "sustainable Olympics" model can deliver on its dual promises of environmental responsibility and lasting community benefit.
Who wins from a sustainable Olympics?
Host cities and local infrastructure
Cities that use an Olympics as a lever for long-term sustainability upgrades can come out ahead. Existing stadiums, transport lines, and utilities get retrofitted to run more cleanly, and cities gain early access to renewable-energy hubs, better waste systems, or large-scale cycling and pedestrian networks. Paris 2024, for example, built an almost carbon-self-sufficient aquatics centre with thousands of square metres of solar panels and seating made from local recycled plastic waste, feeding into the city's broader low-carbon ambitions.
These upgrades, if aligned with long-term urban plans, can outlast the two-week spotlight and help residents live in a less polluted, more efficient city. That is one group that can clearly win: host-city citizens who get better parks, cleaner air, and improved public transport after the last medal has been handed out.
Athletes and sports federations
Athletes get a platform on which to promote environmental values and safer, more stable climates for future generations of competitors. In addition, Olympic organisers are increasingly tying sustainability requirements into everything from kit design to venue energy use, nudging federations, suppliers, and broadcasters to cut emissions and waste. Some winter sports, in particular, have a strong vested interest: their very arenas—snow-covered mountains and frozen lakes—are directly at risk from warming environments, so greener Games can support the survival of those sports over decades rather than just a fortnight.
Environmental organisations and "green" firms
Environmental NGOs (Non-governmental organisations) and climate-conscious companies often benefit from visibility and influence around a sustainable Olympics. When hosts highlight circular-economy strategies, local-sourcing of food, plant-based menus, or renewable-powered venues, it gives these organisations and firms a high-profile stage to demonstrate what is technically possible. Some "green" brands see the Games as a chance to rebrand around sustainability, and sponsors of certain slots argue that they are using Olympic platforms to push broader decarbonisation agendas, not just sell products.
Who loses or is left behind?
Ordinary residents, especially the poor
In many host cities, infrastructure projects "for the Games" can displace residents, inflate rents, or divert public funds from schools, clinics, and other basic services into stadiums and transit lines that mainly serve visitors during the event. Even if venues are reused, the surrounding land-use changes can privilege tourism and real-estate investors over long-term community needs.
When the Olympics are framed as flagship sustainability showcases, local people may end up shouldering social and financial costs while the green image is enjoyed by global brands and bureaucracies.
Residents also suffer if local ecology is degraded—wetlands drained, forests shaved, or rivers tainted to make way for riverside stadiums or resorts. In such cases, the "sustainable" label often only applies to the final clean appearance, not to the damage temporarily hidden from view.
Mountain and resort communities
In winter regions especially, turning the Olympics into eco-friendly mega-events can still deepen pressures on fragile mountain ecosystems. Ski-resort expansions, road construction in alpine habitats, and water-intensive snowmaking can harm wildlife, pollute streams, and strain rural communities' resilience, even when organisers stress ecological protection principles. For these communities, the promise of a "green Olympics" can feel hollow if it brings more congestion and environmental stress without the long-term economic or environmental security they need.
Critics of greenwashing and accountability gaps
Academics, watchdogs, and climate campaigners sometimes lose where transparency and accountability should have gained ground. Recent analyses have found opaque carbon-accounting, vague offset schemes, and a lack of detailed monitoring in recent Olympic sustainability programs. When sponsors with high plastic or fossil-fuel footprints—like major soft-drink or auto brands—are prominently associated with "green Games," critics argue that the sustainability effort functions more as public-relations window-dressing than systemic change.
Even when hosts cut venue construction and lean heavily on existing or temporary sites, the total carbon budget of a modern Olympics still runs into millions of tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. That leaves environmental advocates worried that the Games are normalising huge emissions under the guise of incremental improvement, rather than genuinely downscaling or relocating event models to lower-impact formats.
Where the wins and losses meet
The biggest winners from a "sustainable" Olympics tend to be those who can either lock in long-term urban upgrades or exploit the event's visibility for brand and policy influence. The biggest losers are typically the groups already vulnerable to displacement, rising living costs, or ecosystem degradation: lower-income residents and communities near arenas, mountains, and shorelines.
For a genuinely fairer outcome, many experts now argue the system needs more than just greener paint on an oversized machine. Suggestions include rotating the Games among a smaller group of cities with ready-made infrastructure, shrinking the scale of events, and involving local communities more directly in sustainability decisions, rather than treating them as background scenery in someone else's eco-marketing campaign. In that sense, a "sustainable" Olympics only truly pays off if it balances the planet, profits, and people—not just headlines against headlines.
⛷️
🏊