Driving Stadium Performance Improvements by Optimising Sustainability Certification Systems and Green Building Rating Schemes

Abstract

Due to their unique structural and operational characteristics, stadiums create substantial environmental impacts throughout their lifecycle. Assessing the environmental sustainability (ES) of stadiums is important to identify opportunities for targeted improvements and enabling a transition towards environmentally sustainable stadiums (ESSs). This paper investigates how sustainability certification systems and green building rating schemes (GBRSs) can be optimised for effective application in stadiums to improve ES outcomes. A qualitative exploratory approach using in-depth semi-structured interviews, followed by the thematic analysis of qualitative data using NVivo, was applied to examine the suitability of existing certifications and rating systems in stadiums. Twenty stadium and sustainability experts from diverse global regions participated in semi-structured interviews. Three overarching themes emerged, offering insights into how ES certifications and GBRSs can be optimised for use in stadium settings. These themes encompass the ES challenges that stadiums face and the benefits and limitations of existing assessment tools. This study identified “Green Operations and Advanced Leadership” (GOAL) as the only sustainability certification designed specifically for application in venues and stadiums. This paper proposes a set of recommendations to improve the application of certifications and GBRSs in stadiums. These recommendations enable designers, stadium owners, and decision makers to advance stadium sustainability through the more effective use of certification frameworks and rating systems.

1. Introduction

Sports have been recognised by the United Nations (UN) as a key enabler to achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [1], in particular SDGs 3,4,5,8,11 and 16 [2]. As the most visible structures in sports industry, properly designed, positioned, and managed stadiums can lead to community, economic, destination, and social and cultural development of a place [3]. They provide particularly visible opportunities for addressing both positive environmental behaviours and community resilience even during large-scale disasters [4,5]. With a steady stream of ongoing stadium construction projects, the negative environmental impacts of stadiums continue, particularly pertaining to energy, carbon emissions, water, and waste. For mega-events such as the FIFA World Cup, research indicates that the construction of permanent venues (including stadiums) can account for about 72% of total greenhouse gas emissions [6]. Major sporting events generate approximately 0.25 to over 7 kg of waste per spectator daily, with over 60% of this waste often sent to landfills due to contamination and reliance on single-use products [7]. These statistics indicate the necessity for researchers to focus on environmental sustainability (ES) of stadiums. An environmentally sustainable stadium (ESS) can minimise the use of natural resources, counteract existing environmental damage and contribute to addressing broader environmental issues over its lifecycle, while lowering operational costs, extending community usage and high occupant satisfaction [8,9].

Although there are ample studies available on the ES of different industries such as transport and logistics [10] and tourism [11], ES and how it is institutionalised within the sports industry is an emerging area of study [12,13,14,15]. The recent subdiscipline of sport ecology studies the impact of sports on the environment and vice versa through participation, spectator activities and the impacts of climate change on sports [16,17]. However, studies focusing on the ES of built infrastructure, particularly the design and construction of stadiums within the sports industry, are limited, and studies predict the creation of more environmentally sustainable sport facilities in the near future [18]. Stadiums have a particularly low usage frequency compared to other building types and significantly high environmental and social impacts. These impacts span construction (resource consumption, carbon emissions, biodiversity loss) and operation and maintenance (resource consumption, light and noise pollution) [19,20,21,22,23]. Studies also found the structural and operational uniqueness of stadiums as major barriers in adopting ES features in stadiums [9].

Due to stadiums’ unique structural and operational characteristics, assessing its ES throughout all phases—from planning and design to construction, operation and maintenance, can help stadium owners and managers to gain insights into the current state of environmental impacts, providing opportunities for targeted improvements and enabling a transition towards ESSs. Assessing and reporting ES are increasingly becoming a priority as the sports industry moves towards more sustainable and net positive goals. Sustainability certifications and green building rating schemes (GBRSs), which provide a comprehensive assessment of a building’s environmental performance, are the most prevalent and credible methods for assessing ES [24,25]. The usage of these third-party certifications in stadiums has also been promoted by many sports organisations (e.g., FIFA, IOC) and professional leagues by introducing mandatory green certifications for host stadiums.

The existing sustainability certifications and GBRSs were not originally developed for sports industry or stadiums, which highlights the lack of a dedicated assessment framework that is specifically tailored for stadiums. The most recent literature on ES certifications and GBRSs focuses on comparing different GBRSs and analysing how these schemes generally evolve over time within the building sector [26,27,28,29]. For example, research tends to concentrate on well-known systems like LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method), which were originally developed for residential and office buildings but are now being applied to stadium assessments. Academic research also found a lack of stadium-specific sustainability certification schemes and assessment tools [8]. Current tools often fall short in assessing the ES of stadiums due to their generic criteria and methodology, limited focus on operational demands and ongoing performance, and insufficient focus on large-scale impacts. The recent related research has focused on assessing the sustainable properties of stadiums by developing a “Sustainable Assessment Tool” and a sustainability evaluation system based on criteria such as economy, social impact, function conversion and efficiency [30,31].

Acknowledging this gap—no certification system specifically designed for stadiums and only little exploration of how different existing tools are applied in this context—the authors sought to address the following research question: “how can sustainability certification systems and green building rating schemes be optimised for effective application in stadiums, towards improving ES outcomes?” This research question was addressed through two research objectives (ROs): (RO1) to understand how the ES of stadiums is currently assessed and (RO2) to identify the benefits and challenges associated with the existing certifications and rating systems. This paper analyses seven sustainability certifications and GBRSs identified by the interviewees based on focus, key performance outcomes (criteria and categories), and methodology used to achieve these objectives. This paper identifies the key ES challenges in stadiums and the benefits of using sustainability certifications and GBRSs in driving stadiums’ environmental performance outcomes. This paper then explores the limitations in current certifications and GBRSs used for assessing the ES of stadiums. Finally, this paper proposes a set of recommendations to improve the application of certifications and GBRSs in stadiums. The proposed set of recommendations are critical for driving meaningful outcomes from sustainability certifications and GBRSs in creating stadiums that are environmentally sustainable.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Environmentally Sustainable Stadiums (ESSs)

Despite the growing attention given to sustainability, many contemporary stadiums continue to operate unsustainably due to resource-intensive operational models and structural inefficiencies [9,32,33]. Stadiums exhibit high energy and water consumption, particularly during peak event times [31]. Event-based operations generate substantial waste, much of which is landfilled due to reliance on single-use materials and poor source separation. Stadiums are characterised by high embodied carbon due to their extensive use of concrete and steel. As the stadium construction continues to increase, these associated environmental impacts have intensified, highlighting the need for greater research attention on the environmental sustainability (ES) of stadiums.

ES is defined as “the environmental implications of the company’s operations, products and facilities; to eliminate waste and emissions; maximize the efficiency and productivity of its resources; and minimize practices that might adversely affect the enjoyment of the country’s resources by future generations” [34]. In the sports industry, sports organisations need to be sensitive to the ES of stadiums as they are built on large areas in the city plan, and it can have a negative impact on the environment due to their scale and high number of users. According to the FIFA Stadium Guidelines, the design team of stadiums should aim to reduce energy consumption, waste, and carbon emission, while promoting reuse and recycling of water, and focusing on ecology and biodiversity [35]. Some of the examples for ESSs include constructing a new facility on a redeveloped land, capturing rainwater for field irrigation, installing wind turbines, solar panels or LED lights and developing an efficient waste management programme [32,36,37,38,39]. Recent studies also expanded environmentally sustainable stadiums into the concept of stadiums as an environmentally sustainable community infrastructure with optimised design, functionality, resource efficiency and integration with community and nature [40].

2.2. Sustainability Certifications and Green Building Rating Schemes (GBRSs)

Sustainability certifications and GBRSs can function as accessible and comprehensive tools, incentivising and facilitating informed decision making among stadium owners, designers, decision makers and other stakeholders who may not be environmental specialists. Certifications and GBRSs encourage the building industry to enhance ES features and initiatives that are sometimes invisible to the public such as water and energy efficiency [41]. These tools with their third-party certification give credibility to a building’s ES initiatives while providing financial gains through improved performance and marketability [42]. Previous studies found that certified green buildings offer significantly higher thermal comfort and save 15.1% and up to 21.9% of energy under present and future climate conditions, respectively, compared to non-certified green buildings [43]. Studies also conclude that the productivity of green building occupants can be in the order of 20% higher than conventional building occupants due to an improved indoor environment such as air quality, health and thereby overall comfort [42,44].

2.3. Practical Context

There is a substantial body of existing literature that examines GBRSs by analysing their development over time and comparing scopes, structures and credit categories. Studies include exploring the perceptions of individuals involved in the initial development of major rating schemes [41] and analysing the evolution of different tools, illustrating how they have progressed towards achieving a balance across the three pillars of sustainability [26]. There are also several systematic literature reviews on the development of different GBRSs exploring their development, critically comparing the included categories and evaluating the effectiveness of these tools to assess different aspects of sustainability [28,29,45]. Studies also include reviews of these tools within specific regions. Example includes studies that investigated four major rating schemes used in European Union to analyse their differences and influence levels [46].

Most studies within sports industry explore one or two major certifications (e.g., LEED, BREEAM) with their application in specific stadiums. Ref. [47] explored the willingness of South Korean spectators to pay for different green stadium features using LEED as a guide to outline an overview of attributes and levels within the rating system. Ref. [48] evaluated the effectiveness of Indonesia’s Greenship grade by comparing with LEED using Jakarta International Stadium (JIS) as a case study [48]. However, the certification of stadiums using these GBRSs is increasing with the growing importance placed on environmentally sustainable buildings and sports events along with mandatory certifications introduced by sports organisations.

Table 1. Examples of certified stadiums.

Stadium	Certification
Climate Pledge Arena, Seattle	International Living Future Institute—Zero Carbon Certification
Mercedes-Benz Stadium, Atlanta	LEED Platinum, TRUE Zero Waste
Samara World Cup Stadium, Russia	BREEAM Excellent
Lincoln Financial Field	LEED Platinum
Levi’s Stadium, San Francisco	LEED Gold
Eden Park, Auckland	WELL Health-Safety Rating
U.S. Bank Stadium, Minneapolis	LEED Platinum
CommBank Stadium, Sydney	LEED Gold
Q2 Stadium, Austin	LEED Gold

shows the examples of certified stadiums. Certified stadiums like Mercedes-Benz Stadium reduced its water consumption by 47%, electrical use by 29% and diverted more than 90% of waste from landfills through comprehensive recycling and composting initiatives [49]. However, there is a lack of literature that holistically explores different tools and GBRSs used in certifying stadiums and their limitations and opportunities for improvement.

Recognising these gaps, this study examines three recent and emerging certifications—WELL, Living Building Challenge (LBC) and Fitwel—alongside established tools such as Green Star, LEED and BREEAM. Additionally, this study provides an overview of GOAL (Green Operations and Advanced Leadership), a contemporary venue sustainability programme.

Table 2. Overall comparison of ES certifications and GBRSs discussed in this paper.

Certification or Green Building Rating System	Primary Focus	Country/Region of Origin	Stadium or Sports Infrastructure-Specific Category	Category for Stadiums	Coverage of Temporary Facilities	Weighing of Operational Phases
BREEAM	Sustainable built environment and infrastructure	United Kingdom	No	Non-standard building type—Bespoke assessment criteria	No	Strong focus on design and construction and post occupancy (in-use)
LEED	Sustainable buildings and communities	United States	No	Hospitality	No	Major focus on design and construction credits; O + M exists but less widely used.
Green Star	Sustainability	Australia	No	Green Star Buildings	No	Mix of design and operational phases, but certification is awarded largely at completion based on design evidence; O&M exists separately.
WELL	Health and wellbeing	International	No	WELL Health-Safety Rating	No	Strong emphasis on operational performance, health, safety, and facility management; also evaluates building systems in use
LBC	Regenerative built environment	International	No	Landscape or infrastructure	No	Highly weighted towards operational performance over a 12-month period; requires proof of in-use regenerative outcomes
Fitwel	Health and wellbeing	United States	No	Retail	No	Strong emphasis on operations, health, and user wellbeing
GOAL	Environmental and social sustainability	International (launched in the United States)	Yes	The tool is created specifically for sports and entertainment venues.	No	Primarily focused on operations, continuous performance tracking, monthly benchmarking, and real-time data

provides the overall comparison of these seven tools (see Supplementary Material for a detailed explanation of these tools: Supplementary material—common and emerging sustainability certifications and GBRSs).

3. Materials and Methods

This section outlines the overall research design, the criteria used to select participants, and the procedures followed for data collection and analysis.

3.1. Research Approach

This study used the qualitative exploratory approach to understand how the ES of stadiums is assessed and to identify the benefits and challenges associated with the existing certifications and rating systems. This approach facilitates the exploration of available evidence to understand the study context and provides groundwork for future studies [50]. Previous researchers used this approach to study the ES of different industries such as manufacturing and logistics [51,52]. Following this approach, semi-structured interviews were used to gain understanding about assessing the ES of stadiums, focusing on certifications and GBRSs. Semi-structured interviews offer a balance between open-ended and highly structured interviews providing participants the opportunity to expand on their thoughts and perspectives while enabling the researchers to ask questions that are significant to the research objectives and to keep consistency [53,54].

3.2. Participant Selection

Participants were initially identified using the non-probabilistic purposive sampling method. It includes professional networking sites such as LinkedIn and websites of stadiums, major architectural and engineering firms, and sports organisations. Snowball sampling was also adopted as initial interview participants recommended other potential experts with similar skills and knowledge relevant to the research for selecting participants. The selection criteria used for choosing the interview participants consisted of three core criteria, i.e., by sector, by leadership and by project experience, and one desirable criterion, i.e., by knowledge. These criteria are summarised in

Table A1. Criteria for selecting interviewees.

Criteria	Rationale	Examples of Evidence to be Considered
Core Criteria (CC)	Interviewees Meet Each of These Criteria
CC1: (by sector) experience in one of the four sectors of interest	Extensive experience in either: (1) Stadium design, construction and operation; (2) Environmental sustainability consultation for stadiums; (3) Stadium ownership, operation and management; (4) Green building certification systems or assessment tools.	Over 5 years of experience in any of these sectors and/or involved in mega-event projects and/or state, federal or internationally recognised citations or awards, and/or major contribution to policy development, frameworks, or guidelines related to stadiums
CC2: (by leadership) leadership in their field/s of experience	Demonstrated leadership role in any of the above sectors	Awards, publications, holds or recently held senior positions in construction and design firms, stadium management, environmental consulting firms or green building councils or certification systems; recognised on state, federal or international level, featured in media, etc.
CC3: (by project) experience in stadium projects	Experience in stadium design and construction projects and/or experience in planning and hosting of mega-events	More than 5 years of experience in stadium projects or mega-events, or currently part of any upcoming mega-events
Desirable criteria (DC)
DC1: (by knowledge) subject matter expert	Advanced knowledge in one or more of the sectors noted in Core Criteria 1 or other field of expertise and projects important to these sectors	Academic experts from universities or other research institutions; frequently cited in academic publications

.

The interviewed experts work in six countries, i.e., Australia, the United States, Qatar, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, with the portfolios of these experts collectively influencing stadiums across Oceania, North America, South America, Asia and Europe. The expertise profile of interviewees describing roles, fields and alignment with selection criteria is summarised in

Table A2. Expertise profile of interview participants. (X indicates participant’s alignment with the specified criteria).

Participant	Role	Core Criteria			Desirable Criteria
		CC1 (By Sector)	CC2 (By Leadership)	CC3 (By Project)	DC1 (By Knowledge)
Sustainability in the Built Environment Experts
P1	Sustainability Advisor	X	X	-	-
P2	Head of Sustainability	X	X	-	-
P3	Sustainability Leader	X	X	-	-
P4	Sustainability Consultant	X	-	-	-
P5	Sustainability Consultant	X	-	-	-
P6	Sports Sustainability and Climate Consultant	X	X	-	-
Built Environment Experts
P7	Architect	X	X	X	-
P8	Architect	X	X	X	-
P9	Architect	X	-	X	-
P10	Engineer	X	-	X	-
P11	Engineer	X	-	X	-
Stadium Management Experts
P12	Group Executive, Assets and Facilities	X	-	-	-
P13	Asset and Environmental Management Specialist	X	-	-	-
P14	Facility Manager	X	-	-	-
Mega-event planning and management Experts
P15	Director	X	-	X	-
P16	Manager	-	-	X	-
P17	Sustainability Manager	X	-	X	-
P18	Sustainability Manager	X	-	X	-
Research Experts
P19	Academic	-	-	-	X
P20	Academic	-	-	-	X

.

3.3. Data Collection

Data collection was carried out online using the Microsoft Teams platform between 22 January 2023 and 30 September 2023. It was undertaken with the ethics approval from Griffith University (Human Ethics Approval (2022/820)). A total of 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted and interviews ranged between 40 and 60 min in length and were digitally recorded through Microsoft Teams. A theoretical saturation was achieved between the 18th and 20th interview as no new information was obtained from further data. The authors considered 20 interviews to be sufficient for qualitative analysis as far as the data are rich in quality. Ref. [55] highlighted that depth of the data and what constitutes the sample size are more important in data saturation than the numbers. Ref. [56] stated that data saturation can occur even with six interviews if they are rich in quality. When no new data emerge from the samples, it indicates that no additional themes or new codes are developing; therefore, the study has reached data saturation [55,57,58]. However, we acknowledge that findings based on the sample of 20 experts may not be generalisable to the entire global stadium market.

Trustworthiness of this study was addressed using the criteria of credibility (validity), dependability and transferability [59]. To ensure and validate the quality of interview questions, a pilot review was conducted with an industry expert, and the questions were revised according to their feedback. Specifically, we revised wordings, structure and clarity of the questions based on the feedback. Credibility was also established using purposive sampling. The level of consistency of findings (dependability) and transferability were ensured through data triangulation, which involves collecting data from different sources and gathering data from participants from different areas of expertise and locations [60].

The interview questionnaire consisted of three parts: Part 1: the experience, goals and environmental values of the participants; Part 2: decision making regarding adopting ES features in stadiums; and Part 3: the assessment of ES in stadiums using certifications and green building rating systems. This paper analyses the data related to Part 3 of the questionnaire.

3.4. Data Analysis

A stepwise approach was used to develop the recommendations for optimising the application of ES certifications and GBRSs in stadiums. Thematic analysis was used to analyse data following a deductive–inductive approach. Thematic analysis is a qualitative research method to detect, examine, and describe recurring patterns or themes in collected data. A deductive approach involves pre-existing theories or frameworks to guide the analysis of data, and an inductive approach involves identifying themes directly from the data [61]. This study used three predetermined themes based on research objectives to guide the analysis: key ES challenges, benefits of ES certifications and GBRSs, and limitations of current ES certifications and GBRSs. Microsoft Excel was used for preliminary analysis to identify initial ideas related to these themes, and the NVivo software, version 14 was used to further explore data and identify categories related to the themes using a deductive approach. The thematic analysis step represents the expansion and refinement of data into more structured codings within each pre-identified theme. In this step, in-depth, line-by-line codings of interview transcripts have been performed, grouping participant statements beneath pre-defined themes, and creating codes. This helps the researchers to identify recurring patterns and insights in the data. In the final step, codings were synthesised and grouped into categories that reflect broader patterns across participant’s perspectives. The identified categories were discussed with the research team for inter-code reliability and reducing the subjectivity. Figure 1 shows the process of thematic analysis following a deductive–inductive approach.

4. Results and Discussion

From the data analysis, three major themes were identified that can provide insights into the optimisation of sustainability certifications and GBRSs in the application of ES in stadiums. These themes are the key ES challenges and the benefits and limitations of current tools and are summarised and discussed in the sections below.

4.1. Key ES Challenges in Stadiums

Understanding the factors that can limit the ES performance of stadiums is important for addressing stadium-specific challenges and improving future ES certifications, GBRSs and industry best practices. Interviewees identified three major areas of concern in stadiums, namely, resource management, operational efficiency and readiness, and community impact and end user experience. The following sections summarise these challenges along with potential solutions that interviewees mentioned, wherever applicable.

4.1.1. Resource Management

This section summarises two major resource management issues faced by stadiums: high resource usage in peak demand and carbon emissions reduction.

• High resource usage in peak demand

Stadiums are resource-intense structures in construction, operation and maintenance, with energy, materials, and water being the primary resources consumed [62,63,64]. Stadiums use a substantial amount of energy for lighting, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), concessions, broadcasting, electronic displays and other operations. The other unique challenge in stadium’s resource management during its operational phase is the huge fluctuations in energy and water requirements between event and non-event days. Meeting this heightened resource demands of peak times in an environmentally sustainable manner is one of the key challenges stadiums are facing. This highlights the importance of a system that can quickly transition between peak and non-peak demands while maintaining operational efficiency under all conditions. P-18 stated:

“One thing that is interesting is that how to manage the peak. So you will have in our case, hottest day of the year with full capacity. How do we make sure that we don’t build all of our system be designed against that. You know what I mean? And we gonna have humongous systems. Can we somehow come up with a way to meet that demand without necessarily having to build like that?”

—P18

Implementing energy-efficient ES features and initiatives throughout a stadium’s lifecycle is essential to reduce energy consumption. A suggested solution was the implementation of passive energy systems such as the utilisation of renewable energy and incorporating natural ventilation strategies. The literature suggests using cooling jets and the application of highly reflective coatings and shielding materials to minimise the effects of sunlight and to stabilise the indoor environment as examples of major strategies to improve energy outcomes [65,66].

Materiality, considering the environmental impacts of stadiums due to sourcing practices and construction methods is another major challenge. Using low-impact, less-toxic materials particularly recycled and locally sourced whenever feasible can help to reduce environmental impacts [62,67]. It is also important to choose materials that can be recyclable or reused during the demolition stage for enhancing ES in all the phases of a stadium’s lifecycle.

The other resource-intense area is high water consumption, primarily coming from the irrigation of turfs or grass fields, toilets and food service. Suggested solutions to water efficiency includes techniques like rainwater harvesting, water capture off roof, water-saving technologies such as low-flow toilets and water recycling and reusing initiatives to reduce graywater discharge. An excellent example of using rainwater harvesting system in stadiums is provided by [63].

• Carbon emissions reduction

Another issue noted by interviewees from a climate perspective is the reduction in carbon emissions. Stadium construction, operation and maintenance are sources of enormous scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3 carbon emissions. Many stadiums are trying to achieve zero carbon emissions (embodied and operational carbon) and transition to 100% renewable energy sources during their construction and operation phases [68]. However, it was noted that the active monitoring and tracking of carbon emissions are limited in stadiums. There is a growing recognition of the need to reduce scope 3 carbon emissions such as supply chain management, procurement activities and fans’ travel. Carbon emissions associated with the external stakeholders is another issue that needs to be resolved to achieve enhanced overall ES outcomes in stadiums. P3 stated that:

“The hard bit is stadiums are enormously resource intensive you know, in their embodied and operational energy and carbon. So that tends to sort of overrun everything else. If you can’t get that right, then the rest of it’s really difficult.”

—P3

4.1.2. Operational Efficiency and Readiness

The operational phase of stadiums can act a baseline by revealing how well the stadium adheres to its ES goals. This section explains how stadiums’ unique operational characteristics affect its environmental sustainability outcomes.

• Keeping the stadium functional

Keeping the stadium functional constitutes two components: adhering to regulatory compliance and ensuring operational efficiency. It has been noted that the foremost requirement for a stadium is to comply with law, which encompasses reporting requirements to the local authority or to the government. Stadiums can be reluctant to participate in ES certifications and GBRSs that require additional reporting due to limited human and financial resources. Also, stadiums are required to host different types of events in succession, requiring quick transitions between different configurations and uses. Implementation of ES features that hinders the quick adaptability of stadium to host various events can negatively affect operational efficiency. P20 described this as:

“So, the primary points of consideration for the decision making on all this is, what’s broken that needs to be fixed right now? What can I afford financially? Do I have the time to actually get this done? Because if I run, let’s say an indoor arena and I have a basketball game tonight and then I have a hockey game tomorrow and then a concert 2 days from now. At what point in that, in that time slot am I actually going to be able to change things within the building without, you know, having to shut down for a week. So, it’s kind of like, replaces as you go if what for technology, it’s like replaces as you go. And if you can buy a replacement part that’s more sustainable then you would go for that. But what matters first and foremost is just that the building is functional.”

—P20

Additionally, given the high occupancy during event days, it is crucial to ensure the safety of the fans, visitors, staff and athletes. As enormous structures with different operational requirements and characteristics, it might not be always possible to adopt certain ES initiatives and features. P2 illustrated this as:

“I had someone asked me why our backup power in our venues aren’t electric or powered by biodiesel, and the answer is if you know in our industry, they can’t be. It’s illegal right now for an emergency system to only be powered by batteries or and they don’t make generators that use biodiesel that are big enough to power one of these buildings. So, it’s literally not possible. But someone, you know, in an ivory tower far away might say, oh, you should do this. You have to do this. And it’s like, well. We need a lot of help before we can do that.”

—P2

• Waste management

Waste is noted as the most visible ES concern in stadiums, which can affect its reputation. Waste is historically related to the operation of stadiums, with a substantial amount of waste generated including food, food packaging, plastics, banners and other disposables and non-disposables during event days [32]. However, effective waste management should also include effective planning and execution of construction activities. P17 highlighted that:

“I see a huge focus on energy and water and of course that’s important, but I see less weight put on some of the other areas like for example, waste. Waste is something I think is left behind a little bit and is extremely crucial, so that could be your construction waste. It could be how you design to avoid construction waste. It could be how you actually handle that construction waste, it could be, have you designed this facility in a way that allows a whole bunch of different users to come in and recycle efficiently? Or is there anything you can do to help the eventual user avoid generation of waste in the first place.”

—P17

One key aspect mentioned by the interviewees was minimising waste and reusing unused materials generated during construction. A solution noted by interviewees was to embrace the concept of zero waste construction and go beyond traditional waste disposal methods during operations like composting or donation and minimal packaging, emphasising waste reduction at its source. These solutions are supported by the existing literature [62,68]. Engaging vendors to minimise plastic usage and adopting sustainable procurement practices are crucial steps in this regard. It is also noted that waste management initiatives offer various marketing and promotional opportunities such as branded recycling bins, making it easier to attract sponsors.

• Adaptability

Stadiums often contain fixed infrastructure that is event-specific such as the field, roof and seating. This can result in the inability to adapt to changing operational demands (e.g., event type and size, time or season) causing unnecessary resource usages and operational costs. Growing climate issues and rapidly evolving technology and environmental regulations require stadiums to integrate new technologies and meet new standards. A lack of adaptability or flexibility in design can result in limited, complex and costly retrofits to incorporate ES features and initiatives negatively affecting stadium’s reputation and compliance. Additionally, a lack of flexibility leads to an inconsistent operation pattern reducing the usage value of stadiums for different events. P19 stated that:

“Keeping the building and keeping it up as long as possible is the most the sustainable thing you can do. It’s this constant tearing down in the [XXX], we have this huge problem that the lifespan of stadiums is getting smaller and smaller. And so we have to do what we can to reverse that trend. And again, that’s not a question of, you know, materials, that’s a question of political will and kind of innovative thinking about business models and so on. So that means stadiums, they have to be built to be adaptable, they have to be capable of responding to market shifts, the changing face of the consume”

—P19

The potential suggested solutions include making stadiums multi-usable for various purposes of the community and the integration of design elements that facilitate easy reconfiguration or expansion. A good example is provided by [69]. Recent real-world examples include SAP Garden Arena in Munich and National Athletics Stadium in Budapest. Stadiums with enhanced adaptability can easily integrate ES features and technologies as they emerge, making them comply to evolving ES standards and policies. This can be linked to the design for disassembly and reassembly principles that can maximise the usage and extended lifespan of stadium infrastructure by supporting material recovery and reuse.

• Temporary infrastructure

Temporary infrastructure and facilities often necessary for event operations is another ES concern during the operational phase of stadiums. This can include hospitality tents, media centres, back of house areas and temporary amenities such as food stalls, merchandise stands, diesel generators, barriers or fences, which are often rented equipment built with non-durable materials and rely on non-renewable energy sources to operate. These temporary utilities often result in high resource consumption and are not managed properly, contributing substantially to the event’s overall carbon footprint. For example, FIFA noted that temporary facilities are not well connected to grid and usually use diesel generators to operate, which produce GHG emissions and noise and air pollution [4]. Qatar 2022 World Cup implemented electric substations and solar-powered LED lighting to mitigate this [4]. However, interview participants noted that, despite these initiatives, a significant amount of temporary materials including copper cables, packaging, fixtures and furniture were left behind after Qatar 2022 for the host nation to manage. P17 stated this as:

“Guidance and requirements are needed for sporting federations or whoever is coming in to you, the users of the stadiums. Let’s say, so my example is obviously World Cup. So FIFA comes in and they need an enormous amount of temporary infrastructure around that stadium and they need a huge amount of temporary power. So that’s, you know, diesel generators, they bring in all sorts of furniture, fixtures and equipment that doesn’t go back to FIFA, it’s up to the host country to then disseminate it to charities or whatever. All the packaging that comes with that there are so many different levels of catering, food and beverage you have for the spectators and all the waste that comes from that food waste as well as packaging. You have tens of thousands of people every day being served that in back of house canteens and so much food waste and packaging waste comes from that. And broadcasters coming in and you can end up with hundreds or thousands of tons of copper cables leftover that have to be dealt with, and the list just goes on and on”

—P17

Integrating temporary infrastructure into stadiums and aligning the ES of these facilities with the stadiums’ overall ES goals and objectives can help to reduce the overall environmental footprint. This approach can also lead to an increased collaboration among various stakeholders involved and the shared ES goals. P18 highlighted this as:

“There’s a massive opportunity around the whole temporary piece, which no one has talked into it. So, the temporary build that is coming with every event, go to music festival, go to state of origin, go to IPL cricket. That is not managed. It’s usually relatively low-quality bills, often rented equipment, often high use of energy, water, diesel generators. All this stuff that is not managed properly through green building certification schemes. A lot of waste, a lot of inefficient operations, a lot of last-minute decisions. Lot of single use items via chair, throw it out by banners, throw it out by flag… Big opportunity there. I think sometimes in sports I call that overlay, that whole temporary construction.”

—P18

4.1.3. Community Impact and End User Experience

As monumental structures, stadiums can negatively impact their local community and surroundings. Also, as an entertainment business, end user experiences adopted by stadiums play a crucial role in stadiums’ ES performance.

• Local community impact

The construction of new stadiums and their operation can disrupt local flora and fauna. Stadiums especially during event days cause noise, air and light pollution, disrupting natural habitats, life and sleeping patterns of local residents [22]. Events can also lead to traffic congestion in local communities. Waste management challenges and visual and aesthetic effects of improperly designed stadiums are other areas of concern. In addition, the presence of stadiums can also contribute to the heat island effect if not effectively managed, resulting in an increased demand for HVAC. Due to their limited usage, extended periods of inactivity, and lack of accessibility to the public, stadiums often lack community engagement.

Interviewees suggested a few potential solutions. Improving the value of stadiums as a community infrastructure by making it suitable to meet diverse community needs can increase ES outcomes and revenue generation from stadium infrastructure. Pedestrian-friendly pathways, traditional design concepts, creating inclusive and accessible spaces for people with different cultures and abilities, green spaces and public amenities such as parks and retail spaces help stadiums to enhance their community usage [70]. Expanding the role of stadiums to act as a district system for the local community by leveraging their infrastructure and resources is another way of enhancing community engagement and thereby improving stadiums’ as well as local communities’ ES outcomes.

For example, an interviewee stated that:

“Just a recent project that we did with [XXX]. And this one is again, it’s structural. So, it’s got an embodied carbon focus. The replacement of the existing stands that we’re looking to come up with the solutions that use local products, so Victorian ash timber and locally supplied steel and concrete just to engage the local community and building it. So that they’re engaged inbuilding it, but also it’s a community asset. So, they get it for the pride for the years to come.”

• End user experience

Stadiums are part of an entertainment business, and fan experience is vital for business success and customer satisfaction [71]. Creating the best end user experience in stadiums can impact its ES in positive and negative ways. Fan experience includes crystal clear broadcasting and the use of a wide range of single-use materials in the form of cutleries, banners and posters. Event-specific traffic can also be considered as a part of fan experience. Focusing solely on fan experience particularly immediate improvements such as extensive food and beverage options, luxury suits, additional lighting and advanced technologies can outrun the ES goals of stadiums if not efficiently maintained. In addition, the safety of fans, staff and athletes are of primary importance in stadiums. An example response is:

“How do you get to the stadium? how do you get food and drink? How do you get out of the stadium quickly and efficiently so that they can clean up the stadium and whatnot. So there’s a number of things that play there somewhere around simply the experience”.

4.2. Benefits of ES Certifications and GBRSs

ES certifications and GBRSs can be used as highly effective tools to achieve ES goals in stadiums. These tools can support to set clear ES targets, provide benchmarking opportunities, continuous improvement, regulatory compliance, and recognition. The following section describes the different benefits of using these tools in stadiums mentioned by interviewees.

4.2.1. Guidance, Compliance and Credibility

ES certifications and GBRSs can be considered as a category of information that provides checklists for addressing different ES impact areas in stadiums such as energy efficiency, water conservation, waste management, biodiversity preservation, and community engagement. These tools can guide stakeholders and decision makers in the journey of improving ES, regardless of their expertise, by raising awareness, pinpointing the areas of improvement and suggesting pathways to achieve it. By offering criteria and performance metrics to optimise ES in different areas, these tools facilitate the identification and understanding of potential ES features and strategies to be adopted in different stages of stadiums. Additionally, during the design and construction stages, these tools can function as guardrails for the project, preventing shortcuts and ensuring adherence to ES goals and standards while allowing the design and construction team to make informed decisions.

In addition, it was also noted that many certification criteria are now part of government building codes, policies and regulations. Mandatory green building certification are now a prerequisite for stadiums hosting mega-events like the FIFA World Cup or the IOC Olympics. P-17 stated that:

“We are driven by the requirements to host the FIFA World Cup, and the stadiums were in someway built towards that standard. One of the requirements to host the FIFA World Cup was to have a green building certification of the stadium.”

—P17

By providing a clear standard to meet and undergoing assessments against that standard ensure consistency and accountability throughout the project lifecycle while ensuring current and evolving regulatory and industry-specific compliance. Therefore, ES certifications and GBRSs can facilitate compliance with regulatory requirements and policies and enable stadiums to proactively address risks associated with evolving environmental legislation and standards. They provide credibility to ES efforts, particularly in fields like sports where understanding the complexity of ES practices is limited. These tools make complex ES concepts, objectives and requirements more accessible and understandable to a wider audience. This credibility is strengthened by an independent verification offered by these tools, which offers tangible evidence of a stadium’s success in meeting ES goals based on the established standards.

P3 noted this as:

“It’s so much easier when there’s an independent verification to say, well, you know, here’s the standard. You have to meet that when you go through independent verification because they are assessing you against that standard. That’s it. Whereas if there is no independent verification, therefore there is no standard, then you get arguments about me saying, well, I think that’s more sustainable. You know, option one more sustainable than option two and they go why, and you go, oh it’s just my experience. That’s a lot harder to defend. Then here’s a tool developed by the market, everybody understands it. There’s no argument. And then at the end of the project, you can actually sit back with confidence and say it was designed well. It was actually constructed well and I know that because I’ve got the evidence and it’s been verified”

—P3

4.2.2. Public Relations and Promotional Incentives

ES certifications and GBRSs provide public relations benefits, by helping stadiums to identify and adopt ES features and providing credibility to their actions towards ES. A majority of these tools are increasingly recognised among fans and stakeholders. Therefore, certified stadiums are increasingly perceived as environmentally friendly, fostering a positive response in fans and other stakeholders [9]. These tools also provide a platform to advocate ES within organisations while positioning stadiums advantageously in the market over other stadiums. These tools foster leadership and catalyse market transformation by incentivizing organisations to shift towards more ES practices.

P19 stated that:

“If you hear the term [XX] certified, you at least tend to know that means something good for the environment. And it gets a lot of positive attention what I think the advantage or the incentive for teams is that the [XX certification] name carries a lot of weight and so there is a public relations incentive for teams to pay the extra money to get the certification so that they can put this in the promotional material and it’s, you know, using this kind of household name to promote sustainability within the organization”

—P19

4.2.3. Collaboration and Collective Action

Certifications and GBRSs serve as effective catalysts for collective action, especially in the context of stadiums where a diverse array of decision makers and stakeholders are involved. By establishing clear criteria and baselines, certifications can serve as a starting point for collaborations among diverse stakeholders. This can facilitate the communication and alignment of goals among stakeholders including stadium owners, designers, contractors, operators, government agencies, fans and community. Certification and rating schemes also provide transparency, accountability, and knowledge sharing, enabling stakeholders to work together towards shared ES objectives and goals.

P15 stated that:

“I think the thing about this is it’s really tricky is you’ve got many, many, many decision makers involved. And so, I think that certifications bring people together in a constructive way initially.”

4.3. Limitations in Current Certifications and GBRSs

This section summarises the four main limitations of current ES certifications and GBRSs in their application in stadiums, as follows: the limited tracking and evaluation of the operational phase, a lack of tailored criteria for the sports industry and stadiums, limited priority and incentives to innovation, and the risk of prioritisation of compliance over client-centric ES goals.

4.3.1. Limited Tracking and Evaluation of Operational Phase

A major limitation in the application of ES certification systems and GBRSs in stadiums is their predominant focus on the design phase rather than ongoing operational environmental sustainability. Unless the stadium is aiming for an operation-focused certification or rating system, how stadiums are operated and managed for achieving ES outcomes are often overlooked, and there is only a limited requirement for consistently reporting performance in certification systems and GBRSs.

P12 stated that:

“I think that’s been the problem is that that most facilities don’t have anything, they just have, you know, promises that they’ve made which are not necessarily worth a lot or they may have a certification for their building as it was designed, but not as it’s operated that you know. So the cutting edge of course is to be tracking everything and transparently reporting you know your data and your performance…”

This is critical for stadiums as their operations differ significantly from normal buildings, with intermittent usage and fluctuating resource demands and occupancy patterns. Moreover, even with performance-focused certifications and GBRSs, the performance data is confidential, and there is a lack of transparent and public reporting hindering the ability to compare and establish benchmarks for stadiums [8]. Constantly tracking and analysing the operation of stadiums by considering the number and type of events, number of attendees, peak resource demands and non-event day stadium maintenance are essential to make establish consistent benchmarks for stadium’s ES assessment. It has been noted that design and construction firms often use their own tools to assess the performance of their projects.

Additionally, stadiums are resource-intensive in their embodied and operational carbon; hence, if the operation and maintenance of stadiums are not addressed effectively, they can overrun other ES efforts taken during the design and construction stages.

P11 stated that:

“I see a huge focus on energy and water and of course that’s important, but I see less weight put on some of the other areas like for example [pause] what I don’t see, waste.”

—P11

This leads to another limitation of these tools, which is their lack of focus on evaluating the ES of temporary infrastructure and the activities of stadium users and their stakeholders, whose ES goals may not align with those of the stadiums. This can result in extra resource usage and waste generation. For example, broadcasters can leave tons of copper cables for the host stadiums to be dealt with. The transportation of materials and equipment for building and dismantling of these temporary structures can create additional waste generation and environmental footprints. Therefore, interviewees showed their concern on how effective these tools are to measure the right things and understand how the stadium building is operated and maintained over time as opposed to design.

4.3.2. Lack of Tailored Criteria for the Sports Industry and Stadiums

Stadiums’ structural and operational requirements and demands are unique. Current certifications and GBRSs, not originally designed for sports industry and stadiums and typically originated with residential or office buildings as their baseline, may not be effective to assess these unique characteristics. An example mentioned by one of the interviewees was that the metrics on current tools were often performed based on floor area, which may not be the appropriate metric to measure a stadium’s ES. More effective alternatives such as per-event or per-attendee metrics, event-type benchmarking, or structural metrics such as embodied carbon per seat can provide a more accurate representation of ES performance in stadiums. Additionally, a majority of the current tools are based on frequent regular occupation or operation patterns, whereas stadiums experience sporadic but intense periods of high occupancy during events, which lead to substantial spikes in resource demands. Additional features such as grow lamps on pitches, broadcasting technologies and irrigating turfs can further increase operational carbon and resource consumption. It has been noted that, while owners, clubs and stadium operators are aware of the resource usage of these additional extra features, these aspects are not typically covered by the existing certifications and GBRSs.

Another example that highlights the evolution of current tools has not completely adapted to address the needs of different building types is related to stadiums’ sites, which are often restricted to specific areas, such as adjacent to existing stadiums or transportation networks. This inherent constraint limits flexibility in site selection, and once the site is chosen, there is limited flexibility to alter it. As a result, it is difficult for stadiums to achieve certification criteria related to sites as they are confined within the physical boundaries of their designated site. Similarly, standard requirements like end-of-trip facilities, lockers or change rooms are already inherent in stadium designs, allowing them to earn points without significantly enhancing ES. Therefore, it was highlighted that certifications and GBRSs often fail to capture and assess the operational realities and environmental impacts specific to stadiums; therefore, adopters had to think of ways of adapting these certifications to make them fit inside stadium buildings. An example response is as follows:

“I think that there does need to be something on specifically the embodied carbon, related to the number of seats or the occupants. Because it’s so skewed at the moment comparing stadium, you know, we’ve tried comparing stadium based on the current areas and that it’s very skewed and it would also reveal some of the things that have been done recently on some of the sort of mega projects that have, you know, where a club has decided they want to have a pitch that’s for tracks so that they can have two different types of sport, and it’s meant that the whole grandstand has been spanning over a pitch that has to be stored underneath it. And at the moment all the impacts of that aren’t really captured. And they’re huge. So I think we need something that does relate to the specific structural features of stadiums and then it’s about something that looks at the uses of the building and these spikes and acknowledges that there’s these special things around grow lamps and hot water usage.”

—P10

4.3.3. Limited Priority and Incentives to Innovation

ES certifications and GBRSs often lack the incentive to go beyond what is on the certification and can be less successful in adapting to emerging and future ES needs and priorities [72]. Although a majority of these tools now include sections for innovation or leadership, there are not adequate pathways for achieving this unless stadiums aim for the highest certification or rating levels such as LEED Platinum or Green Star 6. This limitation can result in missed opportunities for significant advancements in ES outcomes.

It is also noted that, as industry standards and technologies evolve rapidly, certifications and ratings are effective only for the specific period they are awarded, providing a sign of ES achievements at a given time, and reflecting the benchmark for best practices available then. Limited emphasis on innovation leads to a continual need to update and replace current ES features, and strategies align with technological advancements or changing economic circumstances, ensuring that stadiums remain functional and environmentally sustainable. Innovations are where stadiums can help to raise the bar on what is possible regarding ES and use their platform to provide examples for other infrastructure and to inspire behavioural changes in fans and community. An example response is as follows:

“The tools themselves become a box ticking exercise and you can find the easiest path there. And sometimes those paths are not overly beneficial, they’re already part of an existing building. And so it’s not doing anything beneficial necessarily, but it’s easy box to tick and you get points for that where it’s almost like those tools need to come and say, well, that’s part of an inherent part of that design type. You don’t get those with block them out. I don’t know that the ratings tools are trying to be as conducive to use as possible. But sometimes by doing that they can fall short of the ambition of about the tools trying to achieve and also what the designers are trying to achieve and it becomes an easy low hanging fruit situation where more impactful items are removed for the sake of something that’s inherent to the design outcome. So in that sense that the tools don’t get you where we need to get to”

—P9

4.3.4. Prioritisation of Compliance over Client-Centric ES Goals

Depending on how the certifications and GBRSs are used, they can prioritise compliance over client-driven ES goals and features in stadiums. Certifications and rating tools can serve as a good framework for achieving ES outcomes; however, they should not dictate the goals themselves. It was noted that the current practices often involve selecting a certification or rating scheme upfront and setting ES goals around the criteria to comply with the chosen certification or GBRS. This can result in overlooking the client’s ES requirements and objectives. For instance, if a client is interested in water conservation, then the ES approach should build around water-saving features and initiatives. This approach ensures that the client remains committed to the goal and will be ready to invest in certifications that can help them to achieve it. Hence, interviewees suggestedstarting with a client-centred approach to set ES goals and commitments, selecting a certification or rating scheme that best supports these goals, and then structuring the ES features and strategies accordingly for long-term ES outcomes. An example response is as follows:

“I think you need to have the conversation with the client about what are their goals and build our sustainability approach around that. Yeah, because they’re going to be more invested in that than if I come and say we’re going to do [XXX certification], by the way, you know, you have to go do this thing over here because that’s what you need to get [XXX], even if you don’t believe in it, even if it’s not something you want to invest in. I think we’ve gotten everything backwards. So have the conversation first. Understand what the client’s true goals and interests are, and then build your sustainability approach around that. Find the certification system that most closely aligns with it and then go forward. Our industry is backwards in that respect”

—P7

4.4. GOAL’s Contributions and Limitations

GOAL, developed specifically for venues in the live event industry, represents a sector-tailored sustainability programme. Several features of GOAL address the aforementioned gaps in general GBRSs. Firstly, GOAL provides operational benchmarking and continuous performance tracking, enabling venues to monitor and share their performance on an ongoing basis, particularly related to GHG emissions, water, waste and energy. Secondly, GOAL provides a comprehensive ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) analysis programme for venues, including venue-specific operational categories such as health and wellbeing, food and nutrition, social impact, guest engagement and education, sustainable partnerships and community resilience, which reflects the unique operations and functions of venues like stadiums. Thirdly, GOAL offers a collaborative network, workshops and shared learning environment, helping industry to develop benchmarks and exchange best practices.

However, GOAL does not currently assess temporary event infrastructure such as generators, temporary seating, broadcast equipment or vendor tents, despite their frequent use in large events. GOAL can also expand to evaluate the sustainability performance of event hirers such as leagues and sports federations, broadcasters, promoters and fan behaviours. While GOAL enables internal transparency among member venues, more strict mandates on the public facing ESG reporting is important to drive external transparency and community trust. Finally, GOAL includes social categories, including community resilience, but it does not assess the community use beyond event days to examine whether venues fulfil a broader role as inclusive, culturally grounded, and environmentally sustainable public infrastructure.

5. Recommendations for Optimising Sustainability Certifications and GBRSs

This section introduces a set of recommendations within eight areas of improvement, to improve the application of ES certifications and GBRSs in creating stadiums that serve as environmentally sustainable community infrastructure:

• Inspire Innovation: Sustainability certifications and GBRSs themselves are tools that do not inherently drive ES improvements. The expertise and dedication of the teams utilising them determine their effectiveness. Therefore, these tools should provide a platform to anticipate emerging problems and imagine solutions that can address future needs. Emphasising innovation or leadership in these tools is one way to encourage innovation and adoption of cutting-edge ES features and initiatives in stadiums that can raise the bar. This also help stadiums to adapt to evolving ES priorities and regulations, extending their lifespan and functionality while causing a ripple effect in the whole built environment.

Implementation pathways: Innovation can be improved through incorporating innovation credits, future-focused criteria and leadership credits in certification systems. Certification bodies could update rating tools regularly, create options for piloting emerging technologies and incorporate stadium precincts in supporting sustainability innovation.

Potential barriers: Certification systems often prioritise comparability, making it difficult to incorporate rapidly changing design features and technologies. Stadium owners may perceive innovation requirements as financially risky. Additionally, the established procurement and supply chain practices can limit innovation.

2.

Enhance Supply Chain and Procurement: The cost, availability and required machinery or technique for the construction and maintenance of ES materials can be complex and limited to specific suppliers. Additionally, the ES characteristics of many materials and products are still relatively unknown to people who are not experts in the field.

Implementation pathways: Certifications and GBRSs can address this gap by educating users about the ES characteristics of different materials, products and processes. By incorporating lists of vendors or providing guidelines to achieve ES procurement models, these tools can enhance the availability of ES materials and products at reasonable costs. Certifications systems can integrate material circularity guidelines and decision-support tools and documents to simplify sustainable purchasing such as material passports and lifecycle analysis.

Potential barriers: Supply chains for specialised stadium components, such as turf systems, seating and broadcasting infrastructure, are often provided by a small number of vendors with limited sustainable alternatives. Data transparency from suppliers is also inconsistent, making verification difficult.

3.

Assess temporary infrastructure: There are only limited requirements for constructing and operating temporary infrastructure (e.g., diesel generators, furniture, tents, fixtures, security offices, etc.) around stadiums during events, which often do not go back to the users instead stay with the host stadium. The current versions of sustainability certifications or GBRSs are not effective in assessing the ES of temporary infrastructure, which often consists of low-quality equipment and resource-inefficient or environmentally unsustainable materials that are often not included in the initial planning. ES certifications can address this by incorporating ES requirements and protocols for temporary infrastructure, encouraging collaborations on ES goals and regular audits to ensure that all actions are aligned.

Implementation pathways: Certifications and GBRSs can create dedicated categories for temporary structures and establish requirements for energy sources, materials and end-of-life pathways. Temporary infrastructure is driven by event requirements, so sports organisations such as FIFA and IOC have the strongest leverage over temporary infrastructure. At the same time, stadium owners and host nations can include sustainability clauses and agreements in contracts with sports federations, hirers, and broadcasters, which can ensure compliance with certification requirements.

Potential barriers: Temporary infrastructure is usually installed by external hirers, contractors or event organisers rather than stadium owners, making the enforcement of sustainability difficult. These installations are often time-sensitive and may prioritise convenience over sustainability. Reliable data on temporary infrastructure is also often unavailable.

4.

Identify users and their stakeholders: Stadiums users can be called as forgotten stakeholders in stadium operations. There is no ES framework, requirements or guideline set for the users such as sports federations and their stakeholders (e.g., sponsors, partners, broadcasters, etc.) that use stadiums to run their event. By setting criteria for the ultimate users and stakeholders, sustainability certifications and GBRSs can encourage a more environmentally sustainable operation of stadiums and running of events. As hosting mega-events are getting expensive and countries are increasingly not wanting to host big events, stadium owners possess higher ability to establish guidelines and requirements for the federations that want to host their event. It is important to use this opportunity to reduce environmental impacts that come with these events.

Implementation pathways: Certifications and GBRSs can incorporate criteria that allocate shared responsibility across users—sports federations, promoters, sponsors, vendors, etc.—which include mandatory sustainability requirements for hirers and scoring system that evaluate stakeholder alignment with stadiums’ sustainability goals.

Potential barriers: Hirers and federations, particularly in the case of mega-events, often hold significant power and may resist additional requirements if they increase cost and operational complexity. Stadium owners may be reluctant to impose strict constraints that could impact mega-events, and enforcement becomes harder when a venue hosts diverse event types with different stakeholders.

5.

Enable more performance-based tools: Opportunities for continuous evaluation and real-time monitoring of stadium performance is limited in current ES certifications and GBRS. Performance-based metrics that focus on actual outcomes rather than prescriptive measures will help to identify success areas and areas of improvement, which can lead to continuous improvement. As stadiums have intermittent usage with fluctuating resource and occupancy demands, ongoing performance-based programmes that can assess stadiums’ performance over different types of events, occupancy rate, time and location are important to manage peak demand and to enable comparisons to create stadium-specific benchmarking.

Implementation pathways: Certifications and GBRS can require continuous and automated resource monitoring using features like real time dashboards with performance benchmark normalised by event type, attendee numbers or operational hours. Annual reporting, regular audits and continuous data sharing can support ongoing assessment beyond design phase.

Potential barriers: Installing advanced resource monitoring systems can be costly especially in older stadiums. Performance data may vary across event types, complicating the development of standardised benchmarks.

6.

Enhance transparency through communication: The current sustainability certifications and GBRSs lack transparent communication of ES outcomes to stakeholders and the public. Information is shared only between the stadium and the certification body, apart from GOAL, which facilitates data sharing between similar stadiums. Tools that enable transparent reporting and data sharing are important for informing the industry about the current best practices. This will help to identify areas of improvement and support collaborative action towards the common ES goals. Communicating ES outcomes and the impact generated by stadiums’ ES efforts and successes with the public are important to increase reputation, positive behaviours and more environmentally sustainable partnerships. Telling the story of how the stadiums’ ES efforts support the community and local ecosystem can enhance positive perception towards stadiums.

Implementation pathways: Certifications and GBRSs can include requirements for the public facing ES disclosure requirements, scorecards, dashboards and annual reports. They can also require stadiums to communicate ES outcomes through fan engagement platforms.

Potential barriers: Stadium operators may worry about reputational risks if performance metrics reveal shortcomings. Data accuracy and verification can be resource-intensive and require specialised sustainability teams to analyse data and report.

7.

Assess community usage of stadiums: Assessing stadiums’ impact on and usage by the community beyond hosting sports events are important for transforming them into community infrastructure. This includes assessing stadium’s role in meeting community resource needs such as water and energy and how they serve the public during non-event days. Additionally, stadiums should be examined for their potential to enhance inclusivity, accessibility, local culture and community development, which can lead to increased functionality and financial gains. It is also important to examine how stadiums and their platforms like social media or broadcasting opportunities are utilised to engage with fans to promote ES initiatives and positive behavioural changes.

Implementation pathways: Certifications and GBRSs can include criteria assessing stadiums’ contribution to community and wellbeing such as accessibility, inclusivity, cultural elements, use of spaces during non-event days, hosting local events, local business engagement, etc. Tools can also reward the incorporation of multifunctional spaces in stadiums such as dining options, conference rooms, training facilities, libraries, disaster management facilities and museums for the public.

Potential barriers: Stadiums rarely track informal community usage or public assess patterns, resulting in a lack of data. The responsibility of community programming and reporting is often shared between stadium owners, operators, councils, precinct developers and clients, leading to unclear accountability. Some stadiums may avoid measurement because it risks revealing limited non-event usage, which can reflect poor public value.

8.

Include categories for sponsors and partnerships: Stadiums and events are closely linked to brand sponsorships and partnerships. Identifying stadium and event sponsors and partners and evaluating their ES are lacking in the current ES tools and GBRSs. It is important to assess and set ES requirements for sponsors and partners of stadiums and events. The existing commercial relationships with sponsors and suppliers with different ES goals can hinder stadiums from adopting new ES features. Partnering with environmentally sustainable companies helps stadiums to adopt ES features more effectively while sending positive messages to the community and other infrastructure.

Implementation pathways: Certifications and GBRSs can add assessment categories to evaluate the environmental performance of sponsors, suppliers and commercial partners. GBRSs can also provide guidance for stadiums to assess and select environmentally responsible sponsors such as screening tools, checklists or tiered partnership categories.

Potential barriers: Stadiums often heavily rely on sponsorship revenue, and adding ES criteria may create tensions with existing commercial agreements. Stadium owners have limited control over a hirer’s or client’s partnerships.

6. Conclusions

This study has presented solutions to optimise the current sustainability certifications and GBRSs for their effective application in stadiums towards improving ES outcomes. This paper introduced a set of recommendations within eight areas of improvement, to optimise the application of ES certifications and GBRSs in creating stadiums that serve as environmentally sustainable community infrastructure. The proposed recommendations can be included in the future iterations of these tools to support stadium-specific requirements and to promote significant advancements in environmentally sustainable stadiums.

This study provides practical contributions to implement strategies to address the unique challenges of stadiums. The identified ES challenges in stadiums and limitations of current sustainability certifications and GBRSs can provide valuable insights to the industry to understand the gaps and areas of improvement. This study highlights the need for stadium-specific sustainability assessment tools that consider resource efficiency across fluctuating usage patterns, sustainability of mega-events and associated temporary infrastructure, sustainability during post-event phase, and end-of-life repurposing and demolition. Establishing stadium-specific regulations, reporting requirements, certifications and rating systems with clear and measurable ongoing outcomes can ensure the sustainability of stadiums. This paper analysed four emerging sustainability assessment tools—WELL, LBC, Fitwel and GOAL—which have not been systematically analysed in the academic literature before, a;ong with three common rating schemes. The summary of the seven common and emerging certification and GBRSs used to assess ES of stadiums are given in Supplementary material [73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80]. By presenting a concise overview of these tools, this paper offers a quick accessible reference to stadium owners, decision makers and non-experts.

The findings of this study have direct implications for sports federations responsible for setting ES requirements for mega-events as they control event technical manuals and operational requirements of host stadiums. The findings also support host nations and individual stadiums for implementing ES requirements for hirers and their stakeholders, enabling a greater alignment between stadium design and construction sustainability and operational sustainability. This study offers guidance for policy makers to further encourage the community value of stadiums and their capacity to influence sustainable supply chains and procurement practices. Integrating the proposed recommendations into sustainability assessment has the potential to significantly influence the evolution of stadium-specific tools like GOAL and distinguish them from broader certifications like LEED. Although GOAL already offers sector-specific advantages, the assessment of temporary infrastructure, user and stakeholder accountability, procurement guidelines and community usage metrics are not currently strongly embedded in GOAL. By incorporating these expanded categories, tools like GOAL can further develop into a comprehensive, stadium-specific sustainability regime that captures the wider socio-technical complexity of stadium operations, ultimately setting new norms uniquely relevant to large venues.

This study primarily focused on the environmental sustainability pillar of sustainability with the limited exploration of social and economic sustainability. However, there is a need for future research to systematically investigate the social sustainability of stadiums, exploring how it is integrated into stadium projects and how it is assessed throughout the stadiums’ lifecycle. Funding and cost constraints play an important role in stadium projects; hence, future studies can examine the economic sustainability pillar by investigating funding challenges, financial models and economic opportunities in stadium projects.