Sustainability Officer at an international tournament: a field report from the 2023 Women's Under-19 EURO

By Géraldine Heinen28 August 202611 min read

From 18 to 30 July 2023, Belgium hosted the UEFA Women's Under-19 EURO: five matchdays, eight national teams, four stadiums (Leuven, La Louvière, Brussels and Tubize) and 15,135 spectators. I held the role of Sustainability Officer within the local organising committee, with a particular assignment: this tournament served as a pilot for UEFA's new ESG management system. Here is what I actually did, what the figures showed, and what I take from it for any sports event organiser.

1. The context: a pilot tournament for UEFA

At the time, UEFA was developing an ESG Management System, a tool designed to help the organisers of its competitions improve their environmental, social and governance performance, with minimum requirements for each type of event. The Belgian federation agreed to test it in real conditions at the Women's Under-19 EURO, and at the same time to make it a laboratory for its own events: the aim was to come out of it with a reusable assessment tool, trained teams and a first impact measurement, in order to be self-sufficient for the following matches.

The project was first built between UEFA and the Belgian federation: together, they defined a shared strategy and action plan, around common objectives. The role of Sustainability Officer, in this framework, covered four areas: building the measurement tool, assessing the tournament in the field, coordinating the social responsibility activations, and producing the final report with recommendations. We benefited from the expert support of bloomUp (formerly The Shift), a Swiss consultancy specialised in sustainability in sport, which contributed its expertise on measuring the carbon footprint and the impact in particular, and helped us get down to specifics; one of its experts took part in the assessments.

↑ Back to contents

2. Building the assessment tool: 48 indicators

The first step was to turn the indicators of the UEFA system into an assessment grid adapted to the Belgian context. We started from the UEFA list, completed it with elements specific to the country, and gave each indicator an impact factor (high, medium, low) to allow prioritisation. The result: 48 criteria spread over three pillars, 24 for the environment, 14 for social and 10 for governance.

The scoring principle is simple: each criterion is rated "yes", "partially" or "no", and the weight of its impact factor gives the number of points. A single sheet consolidates the results for the whole event, with a dashboard per pillar. Once built, such a grid can become the assessment model for an organisation's subsequent events, and serve as a basis for comparison from one edition to the next.

↑ Back to contents

3. On-site assessment: observe, interview, measure

During the tournament, the 48 criteria were assessed in the four stadiums by three complementary means:

• observation, carried out by the expert and by the volunteer ambassadors of the "Because We Care" programme, who walked around the stadiums with the grid in hand;
• interviews with the venue and organisation managers;
• a survey of spectators (104 responses) on how they travelled, their perception of the sustainability measures and their expectations.

This set-up has a merit I recommend to every organiser: it gives an objective snapshot, stadium by stadium, rather than a general impression. And it reveals the differences between venues, which are often the real information.

↑ Back to contents

4. Activations: bringing sustainability to life during the tournament

Measuring is not enough; a tournament is also an opportunity to raise the awareness of thousands of people. Several activations were rolled out with the Because We Care volunteers:

• a "Find the 17 Because We Care actions" competition in the stadiums, built around seventeen simple gestures ranging from respecting others and protecting young supporters to sorting waste, using a reusable bottle, car-sharing and vegetarian options;
• an inclusive Football Festival, so that athletes with amputations, reduced mobility or intellectual disabilities could take an active part in football, in a spirit of social cohesion;
• the involvement of volunteers from the federation's refugee welcome programme, to encourage inclusion and cultural exchange;
• an audio-description service for visually impaired and blind supporters at the final, provided with the organisation Inter;
• raising supporters' awareness of the action plan against racism and discrimination, with a reporting point for victims and witnesses;
• the integration of UEFA's 3 × 11 "Respect" actions into the volunteers' contracts, an introductory sustainability module for staff, and the appointment of a child and youth protection officer for the tournament.

This last point illustrates something that matters to me: the sustainability of an event is about more than waste and energy. The safety of young participants and the inclusion of all audiences are a full part of it, and the UEFA system assesses them in its social pillar.

↑ Back to contents

5. The carbon footprint: 683 tonnes, and above all lessons

The tournament's carbon footprint, calculated on all the activities funded, controlled or influenced by the organiser, amounts to 683.4 tonnes of CO₂, or about 30 kg per spectator. To put this in perspective, it is the equivalent of the annual consumption of 73 Belgians, and a ratio comparable to other youth events (19 kg per spectator at the Lausanne 2020 Youth Olympic Games, against 94 kg for a world event). The overall figure matters less than what it reveals:

• spectators account for 67% of the footprint, with more than 600,000 km travelled by car (104 tonnes);
• 60% of emissions come from activities not funded by the organiser, and therefore harder to influence directly, which argues for incentive measures (public transport, car-sharing) rather than simple messages;
• the teams travelled more than 100,000 km by coach rather than on short-haul flights, which clearly reduced their share; conversely, the flights of the UEFA delegation account for 56% of the officials' emissions;
• more than 50,000 litres of beer consumed represent 57 tonnes, more than half of the catering item;
• single-use signage accounts for 70% of the materials item (70 tonnes).

This calculation had a very concrete consequence. On the basis of the measured tonnage, UEFA paid an amount per tonne of CO₂ emitted, and the organiser could choose the project funded by this sum. We decided to allocate it to the installation of water fountains at the Proximus Basecamp, the federation's headquarters: durable equipment, used every day, that reduces the consumption of single-use plastic bottles well beyond the duration of the tournament. It is a principle I readily recommend: when compensation is planned, direct it towards an investment that keeps producing an effect on site rather than towards an abstract contribution.

The most useful lesson is perhaps methodological: the data needed for the calculation was difficult to collect, because nobody had explicit responsibility for it beforehand. Deciding before the event who collects what (meals, overnight stays, kilometres, signage budget) is the condition for a reliable footprint.

↑ Back to contents

6. The results: 58%, well above the required level

The tournament obtained a score of 57.5 points, or 58%, where UEFA's requirement for a youth event is 20% (level 1 out of 5). By pillar: environment 22.5 points out of 52, social 19.5 out of 25, governance 15.5 out of 23. The pilot therefore exceeded expectations, with a particularly strong performance on the social and governance aspects, and clear room for progress on managing and measuring environmental impact.

↑ Back to contents

7. What worked well, what still needs improving

Sorting the findings by pillar is instructive: it shows where the organisation was solid and where it lacked tools.

Environment

What worked well: well-equipped, accessible cycling facilities in the immediate vicinity of the stadiums; plenty of sorting bins, and no litter outside them; opportunities to reuse and recycle materials.

What still needs improving: no active promotion of or incentive to use public transport, beyond a message on the website; a high volume of single-use banners and signage; a lot of single-use plastic in the catering areas, with big differences between venues; stadium lighting used in broad daylight; goodies handed out in the VIP areas.

Social

What worked well: sufficient, well-signposted parking for people with reduced mobility, with a shuttle; accessible pricing (4 euros per match for an adult); the diversity of staff and volunteers, including people from the refugee welcome programme; clear anti-discrimination tools and a reporting point; audio-description at the final; the inclusive Football Festival; the appointment of a child and youth protection officer.

What still needs improving: difficult access for people with reduced mobility in some stadiums (ramps, obstacles, stairs), with significant differences from one venue to another.

Governance

What worked well: sustainability training for staff and volunteers before the tournament; the integration of requirements into the volunteers' contracts; the survey of more than a hundred spectators, and the systematic assessment of the four venues with a common grid.

What still needs improving: very limited data for the carbon footprint, for lack of collection responsibilities defined beforehand; no public communication of the event's sustainability objectives and performance.

↑ Back to contents

8. What I take from it for any organiser

These lessons go beyond football and apply to any tournament, championship or sports event, whatever its size.

Environment

1. Act on what really weighs. Spectator travel and single-use signage made up most of the impact; that is where an incentive or a purchasing decision changes the figures, far more than a generic message.
2. Prefer incentives to messages. Two thirds of emissions come from activities the organiser does not fund directly: only concrete measures (shuttles, tickets combined with public transport, organised car-sharing) really shift behaviour.
3. Direct compensation towards a lasting investment, such as the water fountains installed at the federation's headquarters, which keep producing an effect once the event is over.

Social

1. Treat the social pillar as seriously as the environment. Accessibility, inclusion, protection of young people, the fight against discrimination: this is where the tournament performed best, because concrete actions had been prepared beforehand.
2. Check accessibility venue by venue. The differences between stadiums were significant; a preliminary visit with a common grid makes it possible to correct them before the event rather than note them afterwards.
3. Involve volunteers as ambassadors. The Because We Care observers both fed the assessment and carried the messages to the public; it is an inexpensive and very effective set-up.

Governance

1. Set a level of requirement before the event. Knowing that a youth event must reach 20% gives the whole team a clear course; everyone knows what they are working towards.
2. Measure with a grid, not with impressions. Some forty weighted indicators, assessed on site, are enough to be objective and to compare one venue with another.
3. Assign data collection to named people, from the preparation phase onwards. This is what was most lacking, and what costs the least to fix.
4. Report publicly. The lack of communication of objectives and results was one of the tournament's weak points; a short and honest report would have been enough, and that is exactly what UEFA's sustainability reporting playbook now recommends.

↑ Back to contents

9. What we recommended to UEFA

The pilot ended with a lessons-learned meeting with UEFA. Our conclusion: the ESG management system is a pragmatic tool to help organisers make progress, and the existence of a reference level for each type of event clearly guides local committees. Our recommendations to improve it: consolidate the indicators and standardise how they are measured; support organising committees in collecting data; collect and share the results of previous events, for transparency and knowledge sharing; consider a standardised scoring system and the visualisation of results; develop an online introductory training course on the system; and consider an incentive model for events. Several of these leads can be found in the tools UEFA has published since.

This type of assignment, from designing the assessment grid to the final report, including coordinating volunteers and calculating the carbon footprint, is precisely what Actitude 360 offers sports event organisers today as Sustainability Officer or Safeguarding Officer.

↑ Back to contents