London 2012: Missed out on Olympics contracts? A case study of ethnic minority organisations in East London

Abstract

Although London’s golden summer of sport is now over, the question arises, what has been the legacy of the 2012 Games for ethnic minority organisations? The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games were seen as an opportunity; a potential catalyst for the regeneration of East London, creating valuable jobs and business opportunities for the local community. One of the proposed benefits of the 2012 Games was the chance for local ethnic minority groups to participate in the preparation and delivery of the Games; however, little is known about the extent to which such groups were involved. This paper addresses the knowledge gap in the literature through the analysis of secondary sources. The sources shed light on the availability of Games-related contract opportunities to ethnic minority businesses and social enterprises. This is followed by an in-depth analysis of the ethnic minority third sector based upon a telephone survey and semi-structured interviews with leaders of ethnic minority social enterprises. Findings show that very few ethnic minority organisations in the East London Olympic boroughs won 2012 Games contracts; furthermore, the paper identifies a number of important issues relating to their participation in the Games.

Keywords

business East London ethnic minorities London 2012 regeneration social enterprise 2012 Olympic Games

Introduction

A major public concern in consideration of sports mega events has been the gap between the forecast and actual impact of such events on society, culture and the economy (Gold and Gold, 2008, 2011). Research has underlined the fact that previous Olympic and Paralympic Games did not bring opportunities for local populations (Shipway, 2007). An example of this is the Beijing Olympics of 2008, which focused on external image building and did not contemplate the impact of the Games on the site where the event took place (Becker, 2008). Claims have been made about the extent to which disadvantaged groups, in particular ethnic minorities, women and the disabled, have benefitted from Olympic and Paralympic Games (Smallbone et al., 2008; Weed and Dowse, 2009).

This was particularly pertinent to the East London 2012 Games, as diversity was a key reason for the Olympic Committee choosing London, one of the most multicultural cities in the world, to host the event (Benedictus, 2005; Ryan-Collins and Sander-Jackson, 2008; Thornley, 2012). The five East London boroughs of Greenwich, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest, some of the most ethnically diverse (42% non-white ethnic minority groups) and disadvantaged areas of Britain, were chosen as the main site for the 2012 Games and were intended to be the principal beneficiaries of the associated regeneration activity¹ (Davies, 2012; Gold and Gold, 2008, 2011; Raco and Tunney, 2010). As the London 2012 Games are now over, two principal questions arise, first, to what extent did the Olympic procurement policies and practices support ethnic minorities, and second, what involvement did ethnic minority organisations (EMOs)² have in the preparation and delivery of the Games?

In 2008, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (now the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) estimated that approximately 70,000 contract opportunities would be generated by the 2012 Games. Of those contract opportunities, a large number were to be awarded to ‘local small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and businesses owned by ethnic minorities, women and disabled people’ (ODA, 2007a: 31). However, studies have indicated that the engagement of local EMOs with the Olympics was relatively low. A research study by Smallbone et al. (2009) found that, by November 2008, few ethnic minority businesses (EMBs) in the East London Olympic boroughs were successful in securing Games contracts and underlined that, first-tier contracts were too large to be suitable for EMOs. Moreover, a Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS, 2012) report suggested that fewer than 7% of companies that were awarded Olympic contracts were ethnic minority owned, despite these communities making up more than 40% of the people living in the Olympic boroughs. It must be noted that none of these studies explore in detail the process of engagement or disengagement of local EMOs with the 2012 Games. Therefore, this paper aims to shed light on the issue of participation and involvement of EMOs located in the East London Olympic boroughs through a particular angle, that of contract opportunities and bidding intentions. In answering this question, the paper presents original empirical material based upon secondary data sources, a telephone survey and semi-structured interviews.

To achieve this, the paper is divided into four parts. The first part examines Olympic procurement policies and practices relating to contract opportunities for mainstream and EMOs. The second part describes the profile of EMBs and social enterprises (SEs) in the East London Olympic boroughs. The third presents the main findings from secondary sources on contract opportunities for EMBs and SEs. A specific analysis of the ethnic minority third sector, including telephone survey results and semi-structured interviews with leaders of ethnic minority social enterprises (EMSEs), is also provided. The paper concludes by presenting the main factors that enabled or constrained the participation of EMOs in the 2012 Games and policy recommendations.

Olympic Delivery Authority procurement: Promoting diversity in policies and practices

The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) was the public body established in 2005 to deliver the new venues and infrastructure for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and to ensure that the economic and social benefits reached all communities in the UK³ (Ryan-Collins and Sander-Jackson, 2008). The ODA stated in a report in 2007 that their policies constituted a significant attempt to increase the diversity of suppliers within the context of existing legislation and regulatory requirements. The ODA claimed that SMEs and SEs could play an important role in the planning, build-up, delivery and legacy of the 2012 Games due to their close contact with the locally deprived communities of the five host boroughs (SEL, 2011).

Moreover, the ODA published the ‘Equality and Diversity Strategy’ and the ‘Race Equality Scheme’ in 2007 to promote equality, inclusion and diversity in its procurement policy as part of a commitment to supplier diversity (ODA, 2007b, 2007c). However, despite the fact that ODA procurement policies represented an attempt to further supplier diversity and benefit EMOs in the East London Olympic boroughs, it could not prioritise organisations owned by particular groups or located in particular areas. This was because the ODA needed to ensure that it followed the European Union public procurement directives, UK public contracts regulations and public sector duties to ensure that its procurement practices were ‘open to everyone’ (Smallbone et al., 2008).

There were three main ODA procurement teams: Programmes Procurement which provided guidance, assurance and standard documentation; Project Procurement which was responsible for procuring works related to construction; and Corporate Procurement which focused on the provision of goods and services such as information technology and communication services, catering, transport, security services, maintenance and cleaning. The primary focus for most local EMBs and SEs is on providing goods and services; it was therefore within Corporate Procurement that most opportunities for these groups lay. Most importantly, the ODA contracts were often negotiated directly with first-tier contractors who in turn subcontracted to other firms (Smallbone et al., 2009).

The main mechanism to find out information about the Olympics and bid for contract opportunities was CompeteFor,⁴ a pre-procurement tool that enabled purchasers to advertise contract opportunities and suppliers to express an interest in Games opportunities. Contractors at all tiers were required to advertise contract opportunities on CompeteFor and to post registered contract companies on the website. Businesses had the opportunity to register on the portal by providing basic information such as their name, address and contact details. Once registered, it was possible to view advertised contract opportunities and express an interest in them. However, in order to receive emails with opportunities related to the Games or to be referred to Business Link,⁵ companies had to complete and publish a detailed profile outlining business activities, ownership, sales, employment, insurance and company policies on equal opportunities and health and safety.

Support infrastructure for the London 2012 Games

There were several key programmes set up to help spread the economic benefits of the Olympic and Paralympic Games far and wide at local, regional and national levels. In 2008, the London 2012 Business Network was established with funding from the London Development Agency⁶ (LDA) with the aim of ensuring that companies had access to 2012 Games contracts; they offered a programme of outreach activities to raise awareness of CompeteFor and gave guidance on how organisations could register and apply for opportunities (LDA, 2009). In 2010, Diversity Works for London was set up by the LDA and endorsed by the Greater London Authority⁷ (GLA) to engage with businesses to produce a step change in their diversity practices, enabling them to harness the benefits of a diverse workforce, marketplace and supplier base and provide all Londoners with equal life chances (LDA, 2009).

The ODA’s Equalities and Inclusion team, in conjunction with the London 2012 Organising Committee, also undertook a range of business outreach activities in the local community. They particularly focussed on business support organisations such as the LDA-funded projects East London Business Place and Supply London, to raise awareness of Games-related business opportunities (LDA, 2009). Furthermore, a tailored scheme, the Fair Enterprise and Trade programme was set up by the GLA to ensure that EMBs were supported and given a fair chance to win Olympics contracts (Newham Recorder, 2012).

There were other support programmes exclusively focused on SEs. In 2007, a national project ‘Social enterprise: winning the 2012’, funded by the Office of the Third Sector (currently known as the Office for the Civil Society) working in partnership with the Social Enterprise Coalition (now known as Social Enterprise UK) and Social Enterprise London, was initiated to represent the voice of SEs to policy-makers and procurers in preparation for the 2012 Games (SEL, 2011). One key strand of the project was the Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) Olympic Network which aimed to ensure that EMSEs gained equitable access to the supply contracts for the Games (Social Enterprise Coalition, 2009). In addition, the Big Opportunity was funded by the Big Lottery in 2008 to engage third-sector organisations including SEs in the Olympic development and to be the strategic interface between the third sector and public and private bodies charged with delivering the Olympics (The Big Opportunity, 2011).

Profile of EMBs and SEs in East London

According to the LDA, in 2006 there were around 66,000 EMBs in London and approximately 93,000 self-employed individuals from ethnic minority communities with a combined sales turnover of £90 billion⁸ (LDA, 2006). There are no data available on the total number of EMBs in the Five Olympic boroughs. Nevertheless, according to a study by Smallbone et al. (2008), most EMBs in the area were small sized, employing fewer than 50 employees. Business and professional services (39%) and wholesale and retail (19%) were the most popular business sectors.

London accounts for the largest proportion of SEs in the UK (Harding, 2006; OLMEC, 2007). A report for the GLA (2007) estimated that, in 2005, London had between 3300 and 5000 SEs, approximately 30% of which were led by BME groups, 14% by Asian groups, the largest subgroup, and 5% from the Black population.⁹ Moreover, previous studies showed that most EMSEs were situated within disadvantaged areas, targeting social aims at deprived people and frequently serving local markets (GLA, 2007).

The total number of EMSEs based in the Five Olympic boroughs is unknown; however, given that there are a high proportion of ethnic minority communities and organisations in the five host boroughs, it is likely that a considerable proportion of SEs are ethnic minority led. A study carried out by Sepulveda et al. (2013) showed that the majority of EMSEs in the East London Olympic boroughs were small in size and faced financial difficulties. The research also showed that the principal fields of work for EMSEs included education (20%), general advice (19%), culture and recreation (15%) and health and social care (15%), followed by employment and training (10%), housing (7%) and faith-related activities (6%).

Methodology

A broad definition of ‘ethnic minority organisations’ is used here that includes businesses and third-sector organisations that are owned or provide services for ethnic minority communities. The term ‘ethnic minority’ is used broadly to capture the increasingly ethnically diverse nature of population groups in the UK. Thus, the term is used to refer to different subcategories of the population and migratory status including first-, second-, and third-generation (British citizens), refugees and asylum seekers and irregular and undocumented immigrants (Vertovec, 2007a, 2007b).

This research utilised a three-stage methodological process. First, an analysis of Games-related contract opportunities for EMBs and SEs was undertaken, using secondary data sources from the CompeteFor website provided by the LDA in November 2010. The data related to registered EMBs and SEs, published business profiles and contracts awarded, as well as information about the size and activities of these organisations. One important limitation is that there was no available data on estimated contract values or the duration of these contracts.

Second, a telephone survey was used to carry out an in-depth analysis of the ethnic minority third sector.¹⁰ Between September and December 2009, 200 short telephone questionnaires of approximately 15 min duration each were conducted with leaders of EMSEs and voluntary and community organisations (VCOs) in the Five Olympic boroughs. In order to complete 200 telephone questionnaires, 352 organisations were approached. They were selected on the basis of location (approximately 70 organisations in each of the five boroughs); different ethnicity (to ensure coverage of the main ethnic populations); type of activity and evidence of earned income activities. The researcher used a national database of 11,450 organisations provided by the Ethnic Minority Foundation,¹¹ several online social enterprise directories and some ‘grey’ material to select the sample. The aim of the questions was to generate information about the involvement of the ethnic minority third sector in the 2012 Games.

Third, semi-structured interviews were conducted with leaders of EMSEs to explore the involvement that such enterprises had with the Games. The sample consisted of 10 leaders from enterprises based in the East London Olympic boroughs: one indirect contract winner, four enterprises that registered and published profiles on CompeteFor but failed to secure Olympic contracts and five organisations that were interested in bidding for contract opportunities but did not register on the website (see Table 1 for further details). The participants were selected from participants in the initial telephone survey. The key considerations in selecting organisations were size, activities, beneficiaries, ethnicity, legal status and percentage of income from trade. There were also more practical considerations such as how receptive organisations were to participating in the study. The sample included not only SEs where the majority of stakeholders were from ethnic minority communities but also organisations where the majority of beneficiaries were from an ethnic minority background.

Table 1.

Organisations selected for the study.

Cases	Profile	Activities	Beneficiaries	Earned income	Games involvement
1	1984, Tower Hamlets Registered Charity (RC) and Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG)	Trading voluntary organisation that provides social care, training and employment	Local Asian disabled people	(95%) contracts and (5%) grants with Tower Hamlets Local Authority	Interested in bidding for contract opportunities but did not register on the website
2	2007, Tower Hamlets Community Interest Company (CIC)	Social business that provides employment, educational and health	Local Muslim women	100% contracts with Tower Hamlets Local Authority	Registered and published profiles on CompeteFor
3	2001, Tower Hamlets CLG	Social business that provides employment, research and consultancy	London immigrants	(50%) Personal funds and (50%) contracts with third sector and social enterprises	Interested in bidding for contract opportunities but did not register on the website
4	2002, Newham RC and CLG	Food cooperative that provides food services and education	BME local community in East London	(100%) Contracts with public, third and private sector	Registered and published profiles on CompeteFor
5	2005, Tower Hamlets CLG	Social business that provides childcare employment opportunities	Local unemployment women in Tower Hamlets	(100%) Contracts with public, third and private sector	Interested in bidding for contract opportunities but did not register on the website
6	2004, Hackney Community group	Trading voluntary organisation that provides audio-visual and media educational courses	Local teenagers in Hackney	(80%) contracts Hackney Local Authority and (20%) contracts with schools and private institutions	Indirect contract winner
7	2008, Tower Hamlets Company Limited by Shares (CLS)	Social business that provides social housing courses	Unemployed people	(20%) Grants from European Social fund and (80%) fee courses	Interested in bidding for contract opportunities but did not register on the website
8	2008, Greenwich CLG	Catering cooperative that provides employment for the local community	Local unemployed people	(100%) contracts private, public and third sector (regeneration agencies, housing authorities)	Registered and published profiles on CompeteFor
9	1995, Greenwich RC and Industrial Provident Society (IPS)	Trading voluntary organisation that provides social housing and mentoring services	Local Black young people homeless in Greenwich	(100%) Renting properties	Interested in bidding for contract opportunities but did not register on the website
10	1996, Tower Hamlets RC and CLG	Trading voluntary organisation that provides health courses and educational activities	Ethnic minorities in East London	(10%) Grants and (90%) contracts with Tower Hamlets Local Authority and the National Health Service	Registered and published profiles on CompeteFor

The semi-structured interviews took place between August 2010 and June 2011. Given the relatively small number of leaders interviewed, it cannot be claimed that the views presented in this paper are representative of all EMSEs in East London. The questions asked in the semi-structured interviews aimed to elicit information about issues facing the involvement of ethnic minority SEs in the Olympics. These interviews were conducted at each respondent’s place of work or at neutral sites such as coffee shops and each lasted between 40 and 60 min. The information collected in the semi-structured interviews was tape-recorded and transcribed. This research used Statistical Package for the Social Sciences to analyse the CompeteFor and telephone survey data as well as thematic analysis as a method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within the data collected.

Research findings and discussion

Contract opportunities for businesses

Data on contract opportunities for the 2012 Games reveal that by November 2010, out of a total of 130,527 registered businesses on CompeteFor, fewer than half (63,900) had published profiles.¹² This shows that many registered firms did not publish a profile. One view is that a considerable proportion of registered businesses did not proceed because they had low expectations of winning Olympic contracts. By November 2010, of those 63,900 businesses with a published profile, a total of 4883 business secured contracts to deliver services for the 2012 Games.

More specifically, within the Five Olympic boroughs, a total of 7755 businesses registered with CompeteFor and fewer than half (3699) published profiles by November 2010. A study by Smallbone et al. (2008) indicated that by October 2008, 2113 businesses were registered with CompeteFor and less than half of the businesses registered had published profiles. This demonstrates that within two years, there was a significant increase in the number of organisations in the East London Olympic boroughs with an interest in advertising for contract opportunities. Evidence shows that, from a total of 4883 contracts awarded, 118 (2.4%) were awarded to organisations based in the Five Olympic boroughs. The boroughs of Tower Hamlets (37.2%) and Newham (27.9%) were most strongly represented. Overall, very few local businesses were successful in winning Olympic contracts. This contrasts with a statement issued by the ODA (2007a), claiming that its policies aimed to benefit local businesses by offering opportunities to participate in the preparation and delivery of the 2012 Games.

In terms of company size, in the Five Olympic boroughs, only 26 contracts (22%) were won by businesses with more than 250 staff; 92 contracts (78%) were won by businesses with fewer than 250 staff. In contrast, the 2008 Smallbone et al. study recorded that most opportunities were suitable for larger businesses. From this evidence, it is clear that there was a significant change between 2008 and 2010, a clear move towards greater opportunities for SMEs.

Contract opportunities for EMBs

Out of a total of 11,133 EMBs registered on CompeteFor, more than half of published a company profile (7637 EMBs). This is particularly interesting, because it demonstrates that a high proportion of EMBs made full use of the CompeteFor system. However, of the 4883 contracts awarded to mainstream businesses, only 67 (1.4%) were owned or led by ethnic minorities.¹³ This illustrates that EMBs have a very low level of success in winning Olympic contracts.

As of November 2010, a total of 1730 EMBs based in the Five Olympic boroughs had registered on CompeteFor and the majority (1213 businesses) had published their profiles. Of the 1213 EMBs with published profiles, only 23 (2%) won contracts for the 2012 Games. This contradicts the promises made by the ODA concerning the contract opportunities for local businesses, particularly those owned by women, ethnic minorities and the disabled (ODA, 2007a).

Of the 23 contracted EMBs, the borough that was most strongly represented was Tower Hamlets (52.1%), followed by Hackney (17.3%) and Waltham Forest (17.3%).

With regard to size, only EMBs with fewer than 250 staff won contracts for the 2012 Games, reflecting the fact that the majority of EMBs based in the East London Olympic boroughs are SMEs (Smallbone et al., 2008). A comparison between the contracts awarded to non-ethnic businesses and EMBs in the Five Olympic boroughs is shown in Figure 1. As can be seen below, for both non-ethnic and EMBs, contracts were more likely to be awarded to SMEs. Few contracts were awarded to large businesses. Moreover, EMBs were less likely to win contracts for the Games. Therefore, it could be argued that, in comparison with non-ethnic businesses, EMBs had fewer opportunities to bid for 2012 Games contracts.

Figure 1.

Size of companies and BME companies by number of awarded contracts in the Five Olympic boroughs by frequency.

With regard to the type of activity, the findings shown in Figure 2 demonstrate that by November 2010, the highest percentage of contacts awarded related to construction (27.1%) and arts, sports and recreation activities (21.1%). However, within EMBs, 39.1% of contracts related to the arts, or sports and recreation; 26.1% of contracts were in IT and telecommunications.

Figure 2.

Activities of contracted businesses and EMBs by percentage.

SEs and the 2012 Games

Data on contract opportunities for the 2012 Games reveal that by November 2010, out of a total of 3009 registered SEs, only 1763 had published profiles.¹⁴ Of these, only 16 SEs were awarded with contracts for the 2012 Games. These findings demonstrate that SEs had a very low level of success in winning Olympic contracts. Within the Five Olympic boroughs, 601 SEs registered with CompeteFor; 408 published their profile and only eight SEs were awarded contracts for the 2012 Games by November 2010. This shows that SEs based in East London Olympic boroughs were more likely to make successful bids than SEs located outside the area.

Regarding EMSEs, of a total of 632 organisations registered, 454 published their profile. Of these, only four enterprises were awarded with contracts for the 2012 Games. Interestingly, there were no contracts awarded to EMSEs in the Five Olympic boroughs. This is particularly important when considering the high proportion of EMOs (including SEs) in the area, and the intended legacy of the Games (see ODA, 2007a). A comparison between the total number of contracts awarded to social enterprises and the number awarded to EMSEs is shown in Figure 3. The data indicate that few contracts were awarded to large SEs.

Figure 3.

Size of SEs and EMSEs by number of awarded contracts.

Figure 4 illustrates that the main activities of contracted SEs related to arts, sports and recreation (75%) and education (12.5%), followed by health and social care services (6.5%) and other (6.5%). For EMSEs, arts, and sports and recreation represented 75% of the contracts and wholesale a further 25%. This is particularly interesting, as previous studies have indicated that EMSEs in the East London Olympic boroughs were primarily focused on education and cultural recreation (OLMEC, 2007, 2011).

Figure 4.

Activities of SEs and EMSEs by awarded contracts.

Issues facing the engagement of EMSEs

Findings from the telephone survey of 200 ethnic minority third-sector organisations demonstrated their very limited involvement in the preparation and delivery of the London 2012 Games. Only eight out of 200 (4%) organisations surveyed had, at the time the survey was conducted (September to December 2009), benefitted from any income-generating opportunity arising from or related to the Games; those which did, did so by ‘indirect’ contracts. An example of such ‘indirect’ sub-contracting is provided by the director of an ethnic minority social enterprise that provides social media courses for children in Hackney. She pointed out: ‘We are doing some projects with Film Nations. Kids create films about the Olympics. That is the only way we are getting involved, but we are also with Arsenal, so we do a programme with them’ (Case 6).

In addition, 45% of the interviewees described their relationship with the Games as ‘non-existent’, and 40% described it as either ‘negative’ or ‘very negative’ citing a lack of information and opportunity to bid for 2012 Games contracts. To derive a deeper insight, semi-structured interviews were carried out with leaders of organisations with an interest in bidding for Games contracts. Respondents identified several barriers which prevented their organisation from getting involved in the preparation and delivery of London 2012 Games. These barriers related to (1) limited capacity of organisations, (2) lack of networking opportunities, (3) lack of appropriate information, advice and support and (4) understanding and navigating regulations.

Capacity

Attention was specifically focused on the capacity of EMSEs to engage in and deliver services for the Games. It was reported that a lack of capacity generated a number of difficulties for EMOs, who were not ‘contract-ready’ for delivering Olympic services. As a leader of an ethnic minority social enterprise based in Tower Hamlets reported: ‘We don’t have the money, resources and skills to compete with other companies for Games’ contracts’ (Case 3). Some respondents suggested that, because their organisations were small and had limited experience in dealing with public sector contracts, they found it difficult to bid for contract opportunities. For example, the director of an ethnic minority social enterprise observed: ‘We are small and we don’t have any track record or experience of public sector contracts … the ODA is going to be terrified whether our small organisation will let them down or whatever’ (Case 1).

Internal skills and resources were seen as another cause of the very limited involvement of EMOs in the 2012 Olympic preparations and (as many of the organisations readily admitted) reflected the fact that they were often not ‘contract-ready’ to bid competitively for the available opportunities. As the director of an organisation pointed out: ‘I don't think that social enterprises based in East London areas are officially mature enough to bid a contract for the Games … [We] don't really have the scale to compete for those big contracts’ (Case 9).

To overcome size and resource constraints, some participants considered developing partnerships with other organisations. An example of this is illustrated by the manager of an ethnic minority social catering enterprise in Greenwich who claimed: ‘We are thinking about creating a consortium to bid for contracts for the Games, I am already talking with a catering company about this’ (Case 8). However, despite the optimism of participants, very few of these partnerships actually came to fruition.

Network opportunities

There was apparent agreement among participants about the importance of developing close networks with the stakeholders of the 2012 Games, in particular with major contractors. According to some key interviewees, contractors were likely to turn to existing suppliers and people they already knew. This actually restricted opportunities for organisations that did not have existing connections, as illustrated by the director of a social enterprise in Newham who pointed out: ‘If you have a good relationship with a “first-tier” contractor then you will have more opportunities to get a contract with the Games, as contractors give contract opportunities to those who they already know’ (Case 4). Therefore, organisations that did not have close networks with major contractors and stakeholders of the Games were less likely to bid for contract opportunities. A number of respondents expressed the view that existing prejudices restricted the participation of ethnic minority communities in the bidding process. For example, the director of an ethnic minority social enterprise related to health in Tower Hamlets stated: ‘There are some contractors who may think that ethnic minority companies are not qualified to bid for contracts to deliver services and will probably fail, just because they are Black organisations’ (Case 10).

Information, advice and support

Patterns of disengagement emerged in relation to the lack of information, advice and support on offer. An example of this is a response from a director of an ethnic minority social enterprise who worked in recruitment in Tower Hamlets. She stated: ‘We don’t know how to get involved within the Games and we don’t know where to go to ask for help’ (Case 5). Measures to solicit engagement were widely believed to be superficial and failed to meet the needs of local EMOs. ‘We heard a lot but nothing happens’ (Case 7) and ‘Local BME organisations are excluded from relevant [Olympic] discussion or debates’ (Case 10). This suggests that EMOs became disengaged with the preparation and delivery of the 2012 Olympics. Only one director of a catering company in Greenwich was aware of the existence of mainstream support bodies to assist her to get involved and raise her awareness of Games-related contract opportunities. She stated:

I receive emails regularly and actually I am going to attend an event this month about catering opportunities. I have also received some support from East London Business Place. I went there to improve my organisation’s capability to bid for contract opportunities. (Case 8)

Regulations

A further point of discussion related to the ODA and the regulations that were put in place to encourage the participation of local organisations in the preparation and service delivery of the London 2012 Games. Some participants were dismissive of the ODA’s claim (2007a) that contract opportunities were ‘open to everyone’. The problem with this, according to one respondent, was that the competition from multinationals for contract opportunities was high and therefore, local businesses were less likely to win contracts for the Games. A director of a food cooperative in Newham stated: ‘The ODA said that there is nothing they can do about it [high competition from multinationals], but then multinational companies will benefit from the Games, not local organisations, so they cannot state that the Games will benefit local business’ (Case 4).

Overall, with respect to CompeteFor, respondents believed the website to be ‘transparent’, this is illustrated by comments made by the Director of a social enterprise in Tower Hamlets:

I think CompeteFor has been very transparent, you know, the locals can advertise to bid for contracts on the system … so I think it is better than it has been in previous Games and I think CompeteFor can benefit not only the Games but the future [of organisations]. (Case 2)

However, there were also voices that are critical of CompeteFor procurement practices, mainly organisations that did not have any contact with support bodies. These organisations reported finding difficulties in both registering on the CompeteFor website and understanding the bureaucracy involved in the procurement process (for example, when completing questionnaires). This is illustrated by the director of a catering business in Greenwich who commented: ‘I found very difficult to use CompeteFor, especially when you need to publish your profile, they ask you for so many things!’ (Case 8). Finally, respondents mentioned the lack of feedback from CompeteFor, for unsuccessful bidders.

Conclusions

The research provides evidence of the extent to which EMOs became involved in the preparation and delivery of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The findings demonstrate that the involvement of EMOs, in particular EMSEs located in the East London Olympic boroughs, was highly restricted. EMOs struggled to gain equitable access in bidding for contract opportunities through competitive commissioning. Indeed, despite high expectations and a genuine interest in becoming involved, organisations faced several barriers which reduced their capacity to compete for and deliver goods and services for the 2012 Games.

First, the findings in East London reveal that the small scale of organisations, their limited resources, lack of track record and experience in bidding for public sector contracts limited their opportunities in the 2012 Games. Second, although there was evidence of mainstream (statutory) support being offered to EMOs, this support often failed to meet their needs. This was amplified by the fact that, very often, organisations did not have the networks in place to bid for contract opportunities. Third, although the ODA policies promoted supplier diversity and opportunities for local organisations, and the fact that the CompeteFor website linked SMEs (including local businesses and SEs) with Games-related opportunities, EMOs still faced significant barriers when attempting to engage with the 2012 Games. This is clearly indicated in the findings that relate to the CompeteFor website procedure and the difficulties organisations faced, for example, in completing questionnaires or using the website.

These findings do not purport to downplay the significance of the 2012 Games in regenerating of the East London Olympic boroughs; however, what the study reveals is the very minor involvement of local EMOs in the 2012 Games tendering process. While it is generally accepted that mega sport events such as the Olympic Games have the potential to create a legacy of sustainability and inclusion, the majority of academic studies have shown there are few benefits for local communities and organisations owned by disadvantaged communities, including ethnic minorities (Becker, 2008; Gold and Gold, 2008, 2011; Shipway, 2007). EMOs have the ability to significantly enhance international mega events such as the Games by harnessing the benefits of a culturally diverse customer base. It is important, therefore, that policy-makers take into consideration the difficulties that previous mega sport events have faced in achieving an inclusive legacy, with a view to supporting and promoting good practice for the benefit of local communities and organisations owned by minority communities.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Stephen Syrett, Leandro Sepulveda and Andres Morales for their helpful comments and suggestions. However, all the views expressed in this article are those of the author.

Funding

The support of the Ethnic Minority Foundation (EMF), the Centre for Enterprise and Economic Development Research (CEEDR), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Office for Civil Society, the Barrow Cadbury UK Trust is gratefully acknowledged. This research would have not been possible without the generous contribution and collaboration of the London Development Agency (LDA).

Notes

References

Becker

(2008) City of Heavenly Tranquility: Beijing in the History of China, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Benedictus L (2005) London: The world in one city. The Guardian, 21 January, Special pull-out.

Davies

(2012) Beyond the Games: Regeneration legacies and London 2012. Leisure Studies 31(3): 307–337.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2012) Meta-evaluation of the impacts and legacy of the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78428/2012_Meta_Evaluation_Report_4_Summary.pdf (accessed 5 November 2013).

Gold

(2008) Olympic cities: Regeneration, city rebranding and changing urban agendas. Geography Compass 2(1): 300–318.

Gold

(2011) Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning, and the World’s Games, 1896–2016, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Greater London Authority (GLA) (2007) Social Enterprises in London: A review of London Annual Business Survey (LABS) Evidence, London: GLA.

Greater London Authority (GLA) (2010) London Development Agency Investment Strategy 2010–2013. Available at: http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/MD605%20LDA%20Investment%20Strategy%20%28unsigned%29%20PDF.pdf (accessed 13 September 2013).

Harding

(2006) Social Entrepreneurship Monitor UK, London: London Business School.

10.

Newham Recorder (2012) London 2012: Black businesses ‘frozen out of Olympic contracts’. Available at: http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/newham-life/organisations/london_2012_black_businesses_frozen_out_of_olympic_contracts_1_1438177 (accessed on 10 September 2013).

11.

London Development Agency (LDA) (2009) London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. What Your Businesses Need to Know: A Business Guide. London: LDA. Available at: http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/Horizontal_Services_files/LDALegacyNowbusinessguide.pdf (accessed 20 September 2013).

12.

London Development Agency (LDA) (2006) Diversity Works for London. London: LDA. Available at: http://www.diversityworksforlondon.com/sites/default/files/Profiting_from_diversity.pdf (accessed 20 September 2013).

13.

OLMEC (2007) Mapping London’s Minority Ethnic Social Enterprises. London: OLMEC. Available at: http://www.olmec-ec.org.uk/mediaFiles/downloads/33097172/Social_Enterprise_Report_pdf.pdf (accessed 12 September 2013).

14.

OLMEC (2011) Inspiring Change Conference. BAMER Social Enterprises, London: OLMEC.

15.

Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) (2007a) Procurement policy. Available at: http://www.london2012.com/documents/business/oda-procurement-policy-executive-summary.pdf (accessed 20 March 2013).

16.

Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) (2007b) Equality and diversity strategy. Available at: http://www.london2012.com/get-involved/business-network/processes-and-policies.php (accessed 15 September 2013).

17.

Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) (2007c) Race equality scheme. Available at: http://www.london2012.com/documents/oda-equality-and-diversity/race-equality-scheme.pdf (accessed 23 September 2013).

18.

Raco

Tunney

(2010) Visibilities and invisibilities in urban development: Small business communities and the London Olympics 2012. Urban Studies 47(10): 2069–2091.

19.

Ryan-Collins J and Sander-Jackson P (2008) Fool's Gold. How the 2012 Olympics is selling East London short, and a 10 point plan for a more positive local legacy. Available at: http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_publicationdetail.aspx?pid=251 (accessed 23 October 2013).

20.

Sepulveda

Syrett

Calvo

(2013) Social enterprise and ethnic minorities: Exploring the consequences of the evolving British policy agenda. Environment and Planning C, Government and Policy 31: 633–648.

21.

Sepulveda

Syrett

(2007) Out of the shadows? Formalisation approaches to informal economic activity. Policy & Politics 35(1): 87–104.

22.

Shipway

(2007) Sustainable legacies for the 2012 Olympic Games. The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health 127(3): 119–124.

23.

Smallbone D, Kitching J, Athayde R, et al. (2008) Procurement and supplier diversity in the 2012 Olympics. Report for Equality and Human Rights Commission, Report 6, London.

24.

Smallbone D, Kitching J, Xhenet M, et al. (2009) Procurement and supplier diversity in the London 2012 Olympic Games. In: International Council for Small Business (ICSB) World Conference 2009: The Dynamism of Small Business: Theory, Practice, and Policy, 21–24 June 2009, Seoul, Korea.

25.

Social Enterprise Coalition (2009) A strategy for the Social Enterprise movement to improve the engagement and support of Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) social enterprises. Available at: www.swdc.org.uk/silo/files/a-strategy-for-the-social-enterprise-movement-pdf (accessed 15 September 2013).

26.

Social Enterprise London (SEL) (2011) Social enterprises and the 2012 Games. Available at: http://www.sel.org.uk/uploads/Social-Enterprise-and-2012.pdf (accessed 10 September 2013).

27.

Teasdale S (2010) What’s in a Name? The Construction of Social Enterprise. TSRC Working Paper 46. Birmingham: TSRC. Available: www.tsrc.ac.uk/Publications/tabid/500/Default.aspx (accessed 10 September 2013).

28.

Thornley

(2012) The 2012 London Olympics. What legacy? Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 4(2): 206–210.

29.

The Big Opportunity (2011) The Big Opportunity. Available at: http://www.londoncivicforum.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-Big-Opportunity-Manifesto.pdf (accessed 20 September 2013).

30.

Vertovec

(2007a) New complexities of cohesion in Britain: Super-diversity, transnationalism and civil-integration, Think piece for the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, Department for Communities and Local Government. Available at: www.compas.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/files/Publications/Reports/Vertovec%20-%20new_complexities_of_cohesion_in_britain.pdf (accessed 14 January 2014).

31.

Vertovec

(2007b) ‘Super-diversity and its implications’. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(6): 1024–1064.

32.

Weed

Dowse

(2009) A missed opportunity waiting to happen? The Social Legacy Potential of the London 2012 Paralympic Games. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 1(2): 170–174.