IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i23p16086-d990733.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efforts Proposed by IOC to Alleviate Pressure on Olympic Games Hosts and Evidence from Beijing 2022

Author

Listed:
  • Weihua Yan

    (School of Management, Beijing Sport University, Beijing 100084, China
    China Football College, Beijing Sport University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Na Xu

    (School of Psychology, Beijing Sport University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Rui Xue

    (School of Education, Beijing Sport University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Zhenghang Ye

    (China Football College, Beijing Sport University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Zhaoyang Wang

    (China Football College, Beijing Sport University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Dingmeng Ren

    (China Football College, Beijing Sport University, Beijing 100084, China)

Abstract

Nowadays, the Olympic Games (OG) are faced with escalating complications and gigantism that frustrate the motivation of potential Olympic bidders, therefore obstructing the sustainable development of the Olympic Movement. The IOC has made numerous efforts to solve the problems, which include easing the pressure on OG hosts (including candidates) in an attempt to regain public trust and justify the delivery of the OG. Relevant countermeasures have been adopted and highlighted in the Olympic Winter Games Beijing 2022 (Beijing 2022). This study first examined the governance model proposed by the IOC, which consists of diversified stakeholders and different guiding documents. Then a typology of measures to reduce the pressure on Olympic hosts was developed, and four significant initiatives taken by different actors were identified, namely reducing economic costs and increasing financial support, setting up subsidiaries and outsourcing services, signing official partners to share the workload, and transferring organising knowledge. To be more clear, the case of Beijing 2022 was analysed to illustrate the measures proposed by the IOC. Additionally, suggestions were made to the IOC and future hosts in their preparations for the OG. The current study could add to the literature by inspiring future candidates/hosts to draw on the IOC’s policy and to have a better understanding of the successful delivery of the OG.

Suggested Citation

  • Weihua Yan & Na Xu & Rui Xue & Zhenghang Ye & Zhaoyang Wang & Dingmeng Ren, 2022. "Efforts Proposed by IOC to Alleviate Pressure on Olympic Games Hosts and Evidence from Beijing 2022," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-18, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:16086-:d:990733
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/16086/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/16086/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Milena M. Parent & Christian Rouillard & Michael L. Naraine, 2017. "Network governance of a multi-level, multi-sectoral sport event: Differences in coordinating ties and actors," Sport Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 497-509, December.
    2. Milena Parent & David Deephouse, 2007. "A Case Study of Stakeholder Identification and Prioritization by Managers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 1-23, September.
    3. Myrna Mandell & Toddi Steelman, 2003. "Understanding what can be accomplished through interorganizational innovations The importance of typologies, context and management strategies," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 197-224, June.
    4. Junki Kim, 2006. "Networks, Network Governance, and Networked Networks," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 19-34, July.
    5. Parent, Milena M. & Rouillard, Christian & Naraine, Michael L., 2017. "Network governance of a multi-level, multi-sectoral sport event: Differences in coordinating ties and actors," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 497-509.
    6. Bent Flyvbjerg & Allison Stewart & Alexander Budzier, 2016. "The Oxford Olympics Study 2016: Cost and Cost Overrun at the Games," Papers 1607.04484, arXiv.org.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Qianjin Wu & Zusheng Wu & Shanshan Li & Zichao Chen, 2023. "The Impact of the Beijing Winter Olympic Games on Air Quality in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region: A Quasi-Natural Experiment Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-16, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mohit Vij & Amitabh Upadhya & Anu Vij & Manoj Kumar, 2019. "Exploring Residents’ Perceptions of Mega Event-Dubai Expo 2020: A Pre-Event Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, March.
    2. Kati Lehtonen & Petri Uusikylä, 2021. "How Do Networks Reflect Collaborative Governance? The Case of a Sport Policy Program," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-14, July.
    3. Shahzad Khurram & Sandra Charreire Petit, 2017. "Investigating the Dynamics of Stakeholder Salience: What Happens When the Institutional Change Process Unfolds?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 485-515, July.
    4. Pasquale Lucio Scandizzo & Maria Rita Pierleoni, 2018. "Assessing The Olympic Games: The Economic Impact And Beyond," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 649-682, July.
    5. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    6. Ruben Burga & Davar Rezania, 2016. "Stakeholder theory in social entrepreneurship: a descriptive case study," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 6(1), pages 1-15, December.
    7. Päivi Myllykangas & Johanna Kujala & Hanna Lehtimäki, 2010. "Analyzing the Essence of Stakeholder Relationships: What do we Need in Addition to Power, Legitimacy, and Urgency?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 65-72, August.
    8. McNamara Madeleine W., 2011. "Processes of Cross-Sector Collaboration: A Case Study of the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 1-22, November.
    9. Maria Järlström & Essi Saru & Sinikka Vanhala, 2018. "Sustainable Human Resource Management with Salience of Stakeholders: A Top Management Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 703-724, October.
    10. Lidija Stefanovska, 2014. "Challenges in Creating Competitive Strategies-Comparasion between Production and Service Activities," Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies, Educational Research Multimedia & Publications,India, vol. 5(1), pages 01-08, January.
    11. Hannah Charlotte Joos, 2019. "Influences on managerial perceptions of stakeholder salience: two decades of research in review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 3-37, February.
    12. Raul Lejano & Savita Shankar, 2013. "The contextualist turn and schematics of institutional fit: Theory and a case study from Southern India," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 83-102, March.
    13. AnnMarie Bennett & Breda Murphy, 2017. "The Tax Profession: Tax Avoidance and the Public Interest," Economics Department Working Paper Series n286-17.pdf, Department of Economics, National University of Ireland - Maynooth.
    14. Watson, Rosina & Wilson, Hugh N. & Macdonald, Emma K., 2020. "Business-nonprofit engagement in sustainability-oriented innovation: What works for whom and why?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 87-98.
    15. Robbin Derry, 2012. "Reclaiming Marginalized Stakeholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 111(2), pages 253-264, December.
    16. Parent, Milena M., 2016. "Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 402-416.
    17. Petri Lintumäki & Hannes Winner & Sabrina Scheiber & Anna Mederle & Martin Schnitzer, 2020. "The Economic Impact of Participant Sports Events: A Case Study for the Winter World Masters Games 2020 in Tyrol, Austria," Economies, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-23, November.
    18. Elise Perrault, 2017. "A ‘Names-and-Faces Approach’ to Stakeholder Identification and Salience: A Matter of Status," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 25-38, November.
    19. Mathieu Djaballah & Christopher Hautbois & Michel Desbordes, 2015. "Non-mega sporting events’ social impacts: A sensemaking approach of local governments’ perceptions and strategies," Post-Print hal-03550805, HAL.
    20. David Carassus & Khaled Albouaini & Marie Caussimont, 2013. "Une analyse de l'Audit Expectation Gap dans le contexte français," Post-Print hal-02432110, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:16086-:d:990733. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.