Environmental Sustainability, Embedded Agency, and the Rhetorical Appeals of Winning Olympic Bids

Abstract

Environmental sustainability (ES) has increasingly become a core focus of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) due to institutional pressures as well as the threat of climate change. Since the IOC continues to urge candidature cities to underscore ES in the bidding and planning process by asking more elaborate questions in the Candidature Questionnaire, it remains unclear how winning cities have adapted their bids to demonstrate their accountability to win the rights to host an ES Games. One approach to better understanding the discourse candidature cities use in their ES plans is to study how bid committees employ Aristotle’s rhetorical appeals—ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion), and logos (logic). To do so, this qualitative case study analyzed winning candidature files of the Summer and Winter Olympic Games (N = 16) from 1992 to present day. The results revealed one distinct rhetorical appeal, ethos, emerged more than the others that underscored the value of highlighting credibility in ES contexts. One of the most interesting findings of the study is that ethos-based arguments depend greatly on existing governance infrastructures, policies, certifications, and previous experience, external to the IOC governance process. This is a significant finding because it shows the paradox of embedded agency, while also highlighting how establishing credibility is more important to cities than merely promising results.

1. Introduction

Environmental sustainability (ES) has increasingly become a focal point of the Olympic governance structure—the International Olympic Committee (IOC)—due to institutional pressures and the threat of climate change [1] and the potential long-term ecological footprint resulting from the construction, air travel and vehicle emissions, waste management, and general event pollution of the Olympic Games (Games). The IOC’s response to such pressures and environmental concerns has been reflected in the addition of an environment theme to the Candidature Procedure and Questionnaire in 1992, as well as the adoption of policies that centered the environment such as the Olympic Movement’s Agenda 21 in 1999, the Olympic Agenda 2020 in 2014, and the Olympic Agenda 2020+5 in 2021. Subsequently, there has been growing and evolving importance placed in the Candidature Procedure and Questionnaire (Questionnaire) by the IOC on bid committees, to contribute more comprehensive ES plans in their candidature files, colloquially known as “bid books”. The IOC has claimed this evolution is rooted in their commitment to good governance and transparency [2].

Researchers have suggested that, due to growing pressure from the IOC to reduce the environmental impact of the Games, candidature cities represented by bid committees tend to overpromise on environmental sustainability plans as a way to attract votes [3]. For this paper, the terminology “bid committees” and “candidature cities” are used interchangeably in this study to mean the group of actors representing the candidature file/bid book submitted to the IOC.

Other researchers [4] have applied an institutional theory framework to study how environmental practices were adopted within the Olympic Games. They found due to institutional forces from various stakeholders, bid committees adopted similar approaches and exhibited isomorphic tendencies with the environmental practices presented in the ES plans of bid books. This study also showed that one of three themes, zero impact, was voluntarily shared by bid committees as it was not prompted by the Questionnaire. The researchers’ discussion of this latter finding was limited, but it inspires important questions about how institutions—and the IOC Questionnaire—both constrain and enable agency. Rosenau (2009) argues, “numerous shifts in the loci of governance stem from interactive tensions whereby processes of globalization and localization are simultaneously unfolding on a world-wide scale” [5] (p. 14). For instance, the notion of institutional embeddedness sheds light on how the Olympic governance structure (IOC) integrates social norms and rules—in this case, sustainability—into structural and legal processes such as the bid book. The tension then, is between a candidature city’s compliance to local and global governance structures and the embedded agency bid committees may be able to respond with rhetorical devices.

As the IOC continues to urge candidature cities to underscore environmental sustainability through a highly institutionalized bidding and planning process by asking more elaborate questions in the Questionnaire, it remains unclear how winning cities adapted to use linguistic elements in their bids to influence IOC members. Therefore, it is critical to understand just how these bid committees craft their responses to the IOC’s Questionnaire.

One approach to preparing persuasive responses is by using rhetoric. Rhetoric, or “the art of persuasion” is a form of “discourse calculated to influence an audience toward some end”. Furthermore, Aristotelian Rhetoric emphasizes the key role that temporality plays in shaping rhetorical discourse [6]. For instance, Aristotle (1954) contended that arguments for particular actions should be substantiated in examples of the past. Moreover, Aristotle described three rhetorical appeals or argument types—pathos (moral, value, and emotion), logos (logic and rationality), and ethos (character and authority) [6].

Research demonstrated that rhetoric may be used as either a means to manipulate organizational structures and decision making or to maintain trustworthiness and effective communication [7,8,9,10]. Meanwhile, researchers [11] created the term rhetorical institutionalism to refer to the strategic use of rhetorical language as an indication of an actor’s embedded agency, or rather the choice to ignore particular elements of their institutional field while centering others.

Other works, such as Lauermann (2016), suggested that the abstract rhetorical assertions made in Olympic bid books may showcase the candidature city’s capacity to host the Games [12]. In other words, making rhetorical claims may justify knowledge and profoundly influence what is accepted as an objective reality. Yet, these claims and the concept of embedded agency have not been investigated empirically in this context.

This study uses conceptualizations of both classical rhetoric [6] and new rhetoric [11] to investigate how distinct arguments combined with temporal elements are employed by bid committees. More specifically, this study sought to answer the following research question: In what ways do winning Olympic bid committees/candidature cities employ rhetoric to demonstrate the capacity to host an ES Games? In other words, this study investigates how environmental sustainability is rhetorically constructed and made credible in the highly institutionalized environment of the Olympic bidding process. Thus, a qualitative case study approach [13] was employed to study the “environmental sustainability” rhetoric of winning candidature files of the Summer and Winter Olympic Games (N = 16) ranging from 1992 to present day. For the purpose of this study, environmental sustainability is defined as the “maintenance of natural capital” [14] (p. 10) and “[t]he ability to maintain the qualities that are valued in the physical environment” [15] (p. 1).

As the following results will show, of the three rhetorical appeals, two forms were obviously constrained by institutional pressures of the Questionnaire itself, while bid committees were able to employ ethos-based arguments more strategically to demonstrate their unique characteristics and ES capacity. These results are important because it moves the literature beyond simplistic diagnoses of “greenwashing” or overpromising, and instead reveals the patterned, institutionally shaped ways in which sustainability is decidedly convincing.

The paper is organized as follows: first, an overview of rhetorical theory, followed by a review of the literature, including the evolution of the candidature process is presented. From there, the methods used to conduct this study are summarized, a detailed overview of the results are presented, followed by Section 6. To conclude, the research limitations and future research recommendations are given.

2. Rhetorical Theory

Rhetorical theory is a useful analytical tool for determining the circumstances through which text is created, for whom it is written for, how the medium where the text is located creates constraints or freedoms, and how these contextual elements shape the creation of the text [16]. Rhetoric was defined by Burke (1969) as “the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols” [17] (p. 43). By using rhetoric, social actors may create and assign meaning, while also constructing an identity and the world in which they are situated in [18]. Moreover, rhetoric is perceived as the effort to purposefully communicate the organization’s values and preferences of its leadership. Zbaracki (1998) defined rhetoric as “a stream of discourse used to construct, spread, or sustain a set of assumptions” [19] (p. 609). Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) provided clarity, explaining that while discourse focuses on the words spoken or written with attention on the content of the communication, rhetoric is a type of discourse that has elements of beliefs and ideals [20].

Aristotle defined rhetoric as the perception of the means of persuasion. Aristotle placed significance on temporality in rhetorical discourse by distinguishing between three genres of discourse—forensic, epideictic, and deliberative—that respectively correspond to different periods of time—past, present, and future [6]. Aristotle (1954) contended that arguments for particular actions should be grounded in examples from the past “for we judge of future events by divination from past events” [6]. Others such as Poulakos (1983) explained “rhetorical timing”—or Kairos—requires a rhetorical act “[to] show respect for the temporal dimensions of a situation” and be guided by “the temporality of the situation within which it occurs” [21] (p. 30).

Aristotle also recognized three proofs that constitute the art of rhetoric, namely, pathos (moral, value, and emotion), logos (logic and rationality, and ethos (character and authority). Aristotle defined pathos as the value and emotional based appeals that provide persuasive messages to influence an audience to action [6]. Pathos has an impact on the decisions and actions of readers [22]. Aristotle described logos in reference to the proofs available in the logics of speech, words, or arguments [6]. Logos may suggest rationality and intellect. Others explained that to act in accordance with logos is to act intelligently [23], while Herrick (1997) suggested that logos is the study of reasoning and arguments [24]. Finally, ethos refers to how trustworthy or credible the writer is. As Aristotle contended, the term ethos is the persuasive potential of a writer’s character [6] and the effect of ethos on the audience is often termed an argument’s ethical appeal [22].

Scholars such as Polanyi (1944) and Granovetter (1985) provided foundational perspectives on the notion of credibility, and its place in the discussion on rhetorical theory [25,26]. Polanyi (1944) contended that the economy is not autonomous or self-regulating, but rather it is embedded within social, political, and institutional relations [25]. As a result, organizations gain legitimacy and function more effectively when they align with existing institutional and social norms [25]. Granovetter (1985) extended Polanyi’s initial argument, to look at the micro- and meso-level of social networks [26]. From this perspective, organizational credibility emerges from network relationships. While Polanyi emphasized credibility as institutional and aligned with social norms and laws, Granovetter saw credibility as relational and built through accumulated trust. As such, an organization’s credibility relies on notions of legitimacy, compliance with norms and standards, trust between stakeholders, and reputation that is repeated and embedded in social interactions. This work informed Bourdieu’s concept of the field—a structured arena where actors cooperate and compete under shared institutional norms and rules [27]. Credibility is not objective but rather negotiated and evaluated through a set socially determined and symbolic criteria. As such, organizations succeed not merely on performance, but by being recognized as legitimate, trustworthy, and appropriate within their social and institutional environments [28,29,30,31]. Together, these perspectives reveal that fields of evaluation are structured by institutional arrangements and social networks, shaping how organizations are judged, trusted, and deemed legitimate within specific social contexts [25,26].

While classical rhetoric focuses on how we use words and the persuasion as influence [6], more recently, organizational theorists defined rhetoric as the strategic use of language for political reasons or persuasion as communication [32,33]. More aptly, new rhetoric emphasized how words may use the actors who employ it and the audience that interacts with it. As a result, an exchange of information and interaction between individuals or groups occurs, and when effective, it is able to bring people together [34]. Furthermore, new rhetoric can be described as recurring patterns of goals and shared assumptions embedded in texts and exchanges that are projected to influence audiences on either contentious or ambiguous issues [32]. Influenced by previous considerations from Plato and Aristotle, new rhetoric has been debated in management research as a threat of deception, or as a means to build trust. In other words, contemporary theorists stress rhetoric’s bad and good assets, its potential to be used for both destructive and productive means, and that it permeates human interaction when language is being used intentionally [33].

Other theorists argued that rhetoric is used to control and manipulate organizational structures and decision processes [7]. For example, research from Markel (2005) investigated rhetoric in U.S. businesses’ privacy–policy statements, finding that rhetoric is used by companies to misdirect the truth, or as a tool of deception, to project a particular image to website visitors [8]. Other empirical research has demonstrated that cities may invoke optimism through carefully chosen discourse to facilitate trustworthiness and mobilize citizen participation in sustainability initiatives [35]. Meanwhile, Murthy and Gosal’s (2016) study applied Aristotle’s Rhetoric [6] to industrial communication (i.e., Ethernet) [9]. The authors contended when two or more actors performed an industrial task, there should be harmonization and understanding via effective communication. Furthermore, the results showed that with the help of Aristotle’s three persuasive appeals of rhetoric, industrial communication could result in effective use of discourse [9]. More recently, Yang et al. (2018) investigated communication between users and the service providers of the sharing economy by conducting a survey of 171 Airbnb users. Results indicated that rhetorical cues of credibility, emotive bonding, and accommodation, were positively associated with perceived trustworthiness of Airbnb hosts and more broadly the Airbnb brand. These results demonstrated trustworthiness is key for communication between clients and service providers in order to make the persuasion perform [10].

Rhetoric has also been employed by researchers Myers and Macnaghten (1998) to study environmentalism and climate change [36]. The researchers argued that effective rhetoric is a requirement for environmental action because it recognizes that communication is multidimensional and setting off an intricate web of interactions [36]. More recently, researchers, Sant and Mason [37], applied the lens of new rhetoric [38] to investigate the ways in which city leaders strategically deployed and utilized provocative symbols, such as rhetoric, to promote a specific agenda to different stakeholders, persuade various audiences, and garner overall support for new arena construction projects. Results from interviews with local stakeholders in eight Canadian cities highlighted that arena supporters gave specific reasons, via rhetorical legitimation strategies, to justify arena construction projects surrounding issues related to economic development, expanding the city’s tax base, enhanced reputation and status, and event hosting.

2.1. Rhetoric and Institutional Theory

Alvesson (1993) was notably the first researcher to make the connection between institutional theory and rhetoric [39]. Alvesson contributed to institutional theory by starting from the premise that actors as agents use rhetoric to navigate the contingency and ambiguity of institutional life [39]. Alvesson (1993) explained, contingency (possibility) and ambiguity (vagueness) make it conceivable for an actor to have choices, or otherwise described as agency [39]. Using language strategically may indicate an actor’s agency, as actors ignore elements of their institutional field while centering others. In addition, Alvesson maintained that an agent’s claims and perception to ethos and expertise could be more influential than the capability itself [39]. Therefore, making rhetorical claims may justify knowledge and profoundly influence what is accepted as an objective reality [11].

2.2. Structural Institutionalism vs. Agency Institutionalism

Structural institutionalists have argued that firms begin to demonstrate isomorphic similarities and become homogeneous in the pursuit of legitimacy, by conforming to the mimetic, normative, and coercive pressures of their institutional field [40]. Green and Li (2011) provided critique that structural institutionalism focuses exclusively on exogenous shocks, or unexpected and unpredictable events, by discounting insights that could surface from applying an institutional lens to linguistic elements [11].

In response to structural institutionalism, some scholars introduced an actor’s agency back into institutional analysis [41,42,43]. Agency institutionalism adopts the idea that institutional fields are heterogeneous and, therefore, comprised of conflicting and multiple institutional logics [44]. Actors can create or change institutions when they have the resources to imagine and realize interests they regard highly [41]. Researchers found that actors and organizations vary in their capability to ignore, deviate from, engage with, or respond to institutional pressures [43,45]. Agency institutionalism also has its critics, suggesting that actors’ motives, actions, and rationality are conditioned by the very institutions they are trying to change [45,46,47]. The contradiction is that individuals are capable of shaping social structures while also being shaped by those very structures, which can be described as the “paradox of embedded agency” [48] (p. 233).

2.3. Rhetorical Institutionalism

In response to the divide between agency institutionalism and structural institutionalism, Green and Li (2011) described and built upon insights from classical and new rhetoric to explain how institutions both constrain and enable agency [11]. They named this general research approach rhetorical institutionalism, defining it as the positioning of linguistic approaches and rhetorical insights to describe institutionally embedded agency [11]. Rhetorical institutionalism highlights the significance of language in institutional life by linking classical and new rhetorical insights to highlight not only how agency may be embedded in rhetorical elements but also how language constrains and enables actors’ choices. In this context, Green and Li (2011) described structure as shaping agency that actors may take for granted and reproduce meanings and actions, while agency shapes structure as actors employ language to deconstruct these unconscious understandings [11].

The authors pointed to Burke’s (1969) rhetorical theory of motives as it may address the problem of embedded agency by distinguishing between conscious action and unconscious motion by avoiding actions being taken-for-granted (motives are names given to situations to form the legitimacy of actions) [17]. Critics of Burke’s model argued that this system is dualist and does not solve the paradox of embedded agency [49]. Green and Li (2011) responded to this claim by theorizing that language and rhetoric is not a distinct practice or secondary to social structures but a practice of doing. They referred to Burke (1966) who contended that humans are a symbol-using-making-misusing animal [11]. The authors recommended to neither favor agency nor structure by focusing on the transition and movement of action into motion, and motion into action. Movement from action to motion represents an increase in an actor’s taken-for-grantedness, an increase in structural constraints, and a decrease in agency. With time, as practices become motion into action due to an exogenous shock, this transformation from habit back into conscious action suggests a decline in taken-for-grantedness, a decline in structural constraints, and a rise in agency [11].

In sum, using rhetoric as a theoretical lens is useful in determining the kinds of argumentative appeals and temporality that are employed in candidature files by winning bid committees. A rhetorical lens can also highlight how bid committees are using elements of rhetoric to demonstrate capacity to host an ES Games and make them more attractive as potential host cities.

3. Evolution of the Candidature Process

A candidature file is defined as a comprehensive overview and roadmap of the proposed Olympic projects that a city plans to implement should host rights be granted [50,51]. The candidature file, or bid book, is a written proposal and response to the Candidature Procedure and Questionnaire (Questionnaire)—an extensive document spanning a number of themes, such as environment and meteorology, venues, legacy, vision and games concept, and sustainability. Candidature cities are represented by bid committees, which are made up of officials and elites from the cities, regions, and/or countries that put forward a proposal to host the Games. Lauermann (2016) defined bid committees as temporary entities that are set up as a corporation or nonprofit organization, tasked with securing sponsorships, assembling political support, creating a business model, designing site/infrastructure plans, and writing and submitting the bid proposal to the overseeing governing body [12].

The candidature process and the documentation submitted to the IOC have evolved since the early iterations of the Olympic Games. For example, going back to 1896, candidates simply expressed an interest in hosting the Games to the IOC. In 1920, the City of Antwerp (Belgium) submitted a leather-bound book that presented its Games plan. By the 1950s, the IOC requested more information from candidates, so a Questionnaire was introduced for the 1960 candidature process consisting of 13 questions. By 1992, the IOC introduced a more comprehensive process and technical Questionnaire for the 2000 Games [50,51,52]. It was after the 1992 Albertville (France) Games that the role and protection of the environment became formally institutionalized by the IOC and in the candidature process [3]. More recently, between 2008 and 2022, a two-phase application process was introduced. Candidates were first required to submit a response to a list of IOC questions. If accepted, the IOC gave candidates an additional Questionnaire to respond to [50,51].

Yet, despite the increasing focus on sustainability in the candidature process, independent research demonstrated that positive environmental outcomes have decreased between the Barcelona 1992 and the Tokyo 2020 Games [53]. In addition, with mounting environmental concerns, among other issues, such as fewer candidates bidding to host the event, Olympic Agenda 2020 was adopted by the IOC in December 2014. Olympic Agenda 2020 was a list of 40 detailed recommendations developed through a collaborative process involving Olympic Movement stakeholders and external experts. The recommendations ranged from changing the bidding process to highlighting the necessity of sustainable practices, to reducing the economic costs of hosting the Games [54].

An important element of the Olympic Agenda 2020 was to redesign the candidature process with the aim to reduce the economic and environmental burden on host cities, regions, or countries, by giving bid committees permission to maximize the use of existing and temporary venues in their hosting plans [55,56]. Agenda 2020 gave the IOC authorization to have targeted or continuous communication with potential (and preferred) cities, regions, or countries, as future hosts. Continuous dialogue is described as dialogue in perpetuity with interested hosts that is exploratory and non-committal, while targeted dialogue is defined as invited discussions by the IOC Executive Board to one or more preferred hosts to discuss future projects [55] (para. 30–33). The IOC explained this new approach is commanded by good governance, rigor, and transparency through continuous and targeted dialogue. In other words, this updated and diligently enforced governance approach may influence bid committees in their presentation of environmental sustainability initiatives and legacy plans [2].

Finally, in March 2021, the IOC approved the 2020+5 strategic pathway—an extension of Agenda 2020, that determined the direction of the Olympic Movement through 2025 [57]. These adaptations from Agenda 2020 and 2020+5 have impacted the candidature process in recent application time periods. For the 2024 Games, candidates were asked to submit only one file that contained three thematic sections. For the 2026 Games, candidates were asked to submit one file but with a reduction in the number of questions to respond to [50,51]. The 2028 Games had a similar candidature process. Meanwhile, French Alps 2030 and Brisbane 2032 were the first Games chosen based on targeted dialogue. The Winter Olympic bid books for French Alps 2030 and Salt Lake 2024 were not included in this study as the documents were not publicly available at the time of data collection and analysis. This evolution of the Candidate process heeded by major institutional changes are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Major institutional changes.

Description	Year Adopted
Theme on environment added to the Candidature Procedure and Questionnaire.	1992
Olympic Agenda 21 adopted by IOC members to play an active part in the sustainable development of the planet.	1999
Olympic Agenda 2020 adopted to encourage economic, social and environmental sustainability (Agenda 2020+5 adopted in 2021).	2014

4. Methods

For this study, a constructivist paradigm was used, employing a relativist ontology (multiple realities), a subjectivist epistemology (co-create understandings between knower and respondent), and employing qualitative methods in a case study approach [58]. A constructivist approach was deemed appropriate because constructivism seeks diverse perspectives and accepts multiple voices and representations [59]. To investigate these multiple realities, a constructivist supports a subjective epistemology whereby knowledge is symbolically constructed [60].

4.1. Data Collection

Winning candidature files from 1992 to present day were gathered from both the Summer and Winter Olympic Games (candidature cities for the 2000 iteration of the Games submitted bid books in 1992). The documents were accessed from the Olympic World Library via The Olympic Studies Centre. Table 2 indicates the candidature files and host cities that are included in this study. Text from the candidature files were collected, as the unit of analysis for this study was the textual passages from candidature files, the institution was considered the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Olympic Movement, respectively, and the field was considered cities in competition with one another via the candidature process.

Table 2. Data collection.

Host City	Year Hosted	Year Bid Submitted	Olympic Category	Theme/Location of Environmental Sustainability Text
Sydney	2000	1992	Summer	Environment
Salt Lake City	2002	1994	Winter	Environmental protection
Athens	2004	1996	Summer	Environmental protection
Torino	2006	1998	Winter	Environmental protection and meteorology
Beijing	2008	2000	Summer	Environmental protection and meteorology
Vancouver	2010	2002	Winter	Environmental protection and meteorology
London	2012	2004	Summer	Environment and meteorology
Sochi	2014	2006	Winter	Environment and meteorology
Rio de Janeiro	2016	2008	Summer	Environment and meteorology
PyeongChang	2018	2010	Winter	Environment and meteorology
Tokyo	2020	2012	Summer	Environment
Beijing	2022	2014	Winter	Sustainability
Paris	2024	2016, 2017	Summer	Sustainability
Milano-Cortina	2026	2017	Winter	Sustainability and Legacy
Los Angeles	2028	2016, 2017	Summer	Sustainability
Brisbane	2032	2021	Winter	Sustainability

At the beginning of the data collection and analysis, all bids in a given Olympic year since 1992 were collected. This included the winning bid, and all the bids that lost to that winning bid. However, it was decided that only winning bids would be included in the final analysis. While it was recognized that failed bids have sustainability and environmental implications, the rhetoric associated would differ given the unique aims of bidding in the first place. Previous research shows that cities may have different motivations for bidding for events such as the Olympic Games [61], including increasing sport participation, uniting the nation and community building, urban development planning, raising its global profile, promoting tourism, increasing business obtained by local entrepreneurs, or constructing a city’s destination brand [62,63,64]. As such, cities often leverage their bid [65] for these varying outcomes [62], which may influence the types of rhetorical appeals bid committees make and how ES initiatives are embedded in this process. Noting this previous literature on failed bids, it was recognized that it is impossible to determine exactly why a bid failed. For example, did the canadiature city actually want to win or were they seeking other benefits for their respective cities? For this reason, only winning bids were examined in this study, as by doing so it could be established that the motivation to bid was to host the Games.

In addition, the date range was chosen because the 1992 Games in Albertville were deemed significantly harmful to the environment [66] and, as researchers [3] argued, it was after Albertville that the role and protection of the environment became formally established by the IOC as its members introduced a more technical Candidature Procedure and Questionnaire [52]. Shortly after, in 1994, the IOC amended its charter to state that the Games should be held under conditions that respected the environment, while adopting the environment as the third pillar of the Olympic Movement [66]. As such, data were collected from candidature files at the cusp of this institutional change where environmental sustainability was added to the Candidature Procedure and Questionnaire.

Furthermore, while the more recent Questionnaire asks candidature cities about sustainability from a broader perspective (social, economic, environmental), this study focuses specifically on “environmental sustainability” rhetoric. The reason for this focus was due to the impending global climate crisis and the IOC’s specific attempt to address negative environmental impacts of the Games by adopting new policies.

4.2. Data Analysis

This study employed a modified content analysis as the intent of the analysis was to locate and find rhetorical elements in the text of the bid books. A content analysis allows for a systematic, theory-driven approach to text that examines both the manifest (physically present) and latent content (implicit meaning) of the materials [67]. The first phase of inductive analysis focused on the manifest content of the data. Each candidature file was read through once. Structural coding methods were utilized, which “acts as a labeling and indexing device, allowing researchers to quickly access data likely to be relevant to a particular analysis from a larger data set” [68] (p. 141). Key ideas related to the research question were labelled with codes by hand, and reocorring patterns were categorized broadly. The objective of this inductive process was to sort out the large amounts of text in the candidature files.

During this inductive process, it was recognized that the location of “environmental sustainability” rhetoric in the bid books was influenced by the evolution of the Candidature Procedure and Questionnaire. The primary location and theme of each bid book is recorded in Table 2. Changes to the Candidature Procedure and Questionnaire were noted and categorized to ensure historical accuracy of the Olympic candidature process for the analysis. At times bid committees discussed environmental sustainability (ES) outcomes in their vision statements and legacy sections as well; albeit the notion of legacy only became formally introduced in the Questionnaire for the 2012 iteration of the Olympic Games. Many of these changes to the themes were likely due to institutional changes at the IOC level [4], which would also be impacted by the broader sustainability sector in which the IOC partners or collaborates with (for example, when developing Agenda 2020, the IOC brought together experts external to the organization to help form the recommendations). For this reason, this study primarily focused on the text that was included under the theme that discussed environmental sustainability, but other themes in the bid book were examined, for example, the introduction or Games vision sections, if the content of the text focused on or had implications for the natural environment.

The next step in the analysis was a deductive coding approach that was guided by literature on rhetoric, and Aristotle’s (1954) notions of temporality and three appeals—pathos, logos, and ethos [6]. Coding for pathos included looking at vivid imagery through words or phrases that may evoke emotion (fear, pride, hope, etc.), coding for logos appeals searched for words and phrases that appealed to logic and reason, facts, statistics and evidence, and rational arguments, finally, coding for ethos arugments emphasized words and phrases that emphasized the experience and credibility of the candidature city, relying heavily on using action oriented verbs. The purpose of employing Aristotelian Rhetoric to deductively code the text was to both locate and to further determine the latent meaning of the arguments. In sum, second cycle coding methods such as pattern matching were used to analyze latent content and develop major themes from the data [69]. The results are presented below.

5. Results

5.1. Aristotean Rhetoric

Perhaps unsurprisingly, logos- and pathos-based arguments were largely guided by the structure and questions of the Candidature Procedure and Questionnaire. There are numerous examples from the bid books spanning 1992 to present day. For brevity, two examples are presented below. For example, logical arguments were impacted by the iterations of the Questionnaire, which provided the template and rationale as to how a city could host an environmentally sustainable Games. The following example from the Questionnaire for the 2022 Winter Olympic Games demonstrates this further:

Q 5.7 Sustainability Management System. Provide details on any certifiable management system standard and/or reporting standard that will be used to support the SMS, and state whether there will be any form of assurance and independent verification.

[70] (para. 7–8)

This question to the candidature cities reveals to a bid committee the need to adopt a certifiable management system and reporting standard as an indicator of a strong bid and environmental sustainability plan, and thus, it gives the bid committee an opportunity to logically respond to the question as to how this task is accomplished in the future. For instance, Beijing 2022, responded to this question by stating that the “Bid Committee has started to explore and build a sustainable management system in cooperation with third-party institutions” and will “adopt the standardised and internationalised sustainability management knowledge and approaches (Guide on Establishing the Sustainability Programme, ISO 20121—Event Sustainability Management System—Requirements with Guidance for Use)” [71] (para. 1). Further on in the bid, the candidature city stated: “[t]he operational quality of the sustainability management system of Beijing 2022 will be evaluated by the third party to identify potential risks and put forward suggestions for improvement” [71] (para. 3).

Pathos-based arguments that convey emotion around the environment (fear of climate change, beauty and grandeur, importance to future generations, etc.) were embedded in the various iterations of the Questionnaire as well. For example, the IOC expressed:

It is fundamental that during the entire life cycle of the Games, from the beginning the bid to the post-Olympic period, all measures are taken to exploit opportunities, prevent or minimise negative impact and contribute to the harmonious integration of the Olympic Games into the natural surroundings.

[70] (para. 2)

In this example, the IOC claimed the importance of minimizing the negative impact of hosting the Games, and uses words such as “harmonious integration” which can iliicit an emotional appeal or response. In addition, the Beijing 2022 Bid Committee responded with similar sentiment:

The action plan of “Green Olympics, Green Homeland” will be launched on 5 June 2015, the “World Environment Day”, which aims to advocate the concept of green, low-carbon and sustainable development and encourage public participation in building a green homeland. The action plan has four dimensions: Launch green education campaigns, and enhance the public’s environmental awareness; Promote green practices and a green lifestyle; Conduct green supervision, and maintain ecological balance; Engage in green cooperation, and inherit the culture of a harmonious environment.

[71] (para. 2)

The Beijing bid committee emphasized the importance of hosting an environmentally sustainable Games, such as maintaining ecological balance and the harmonious integration of the natural environment into the Games. The bid committee used similar language to the IOC to express pathos-based arguments.

Finally, there were notable differences in pathos-based (emotion) arguments in winter bid books from summer bid books. In winter bid books, candidature cities highlighted the beauty and value of the natural environment in their region, which was likely emphasized because many winter sport events take place outdoors on snow.

5.2. Ethos-Based Arguments

In contrast, ethos-based arguments that were rooted in the past or sometimes present emerged as the rhetorical tool that winning committees employed to demonstrate their capacity. While these responses were guided by the Questionnaire, like logos and pathos-based arguments, candidature cities employed ethos-based arguments to elevate past and present qualifications as well as actions already taken in the context of environmental sustainability. In comparison, future forward statements were centered in logos- or pathos-based appeals. Responses to queries were not uniform across all winning bids. Bid committees spoke of actions already taken to make convincing arguments that were unique to their city’s context. For example, while a focus on green building certification was more prominent in the last fifteen years and one might expect many winning bids to highlight certification, only LA 2028 emphasized the number of green building certifications already received. One reason for LA 2028 being the only candidature city to make this claim is because only LA has achieved this outcome, making it unique to their city context.

With the emergence of ethos-based arguments in the context of candidature files/bid books, the remainder of the Section 6 below focuses on past and present ethos-based arguments and themes/categories that emerged from the analysis. More specifically, there were 19 different ethos-based arguments that were employed by the winning candidature cities in the sample. To reiterate, ethos-based arguments refer to the credibility and character of the writer—in this case, the bid committee, and by extension, the city itself. These nineteen argument types are described in Table 3. Many of these arguments demonstrated actions already taken with direct ES outcomes. Further, substantive differences in ethos-based arguments between summer and winter bid books were not apparent. Table 3 breaks down the 19 argument types into six categories, which include: collaboration; legislation; certification; infrastructure; environmental harm reduction; and bid/event leveraging. Collaboration represents any consultation and/or partnerships with the public or private sector. Legislation exemplifies any law, policy, or legislation put forward by any level of government. Infrastructure illustrates the facilities, buildings, amenities led by the municipality or in some cases private sector. Certification includes formal accreditation the bid committee highlighted that has already been achieved. Environmental harm reduction represents any activity that aims reduced harmful impacts to the environment. Finally, leveraging bids/events acknowledges previous bid attempts and/or event hosting to demonstrate relevant expertise. As each category was prompted by the Questionnaire, responses differed by winning bid committees depending on what specific actions and unique city characteristics they could accurately speak to.

Table 3. Ethos-based arguments.

Ethos-Based Argument	Winning Bids Books	Exemplar
Collaboration
Community and public engagement	Salt Lake City 2002	“In March 1984, Salt Lake City and the State of Utah created a task force to conduct a feasibility study to examine the concept of hosting the Olympic Winter Games … 18 public hearings and workshops were held to address the concerns and issues of the public at large. Representatives from local ecological organizations were involved in these hearings and their interests were incorporated into the overall plan” [72] (para. 5).
Research Development	Athens 2004, Vancouver 2010	“The Ministry of the Environment funds university research centres which conduct research into the relationship between pollution and health” [73] (para. 11).
Partnerships	LA 2028, Paris 2024, Vancouver 2010, Sydney 2002, Milan-Cortina 2026	“Environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace, and conservation authorities, have enthusiastically endorsed Sydney’s Bid” [74] (para. 2).
Legislation
Environmental legislation and laws	LA 2028, Athens 2004	“The state of California passed Senate Bill 32 that requires a 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, through aggressive environmental regulations and policies, Los Angeles and the state of California” [75] (para. 4).
Leadership in climate change measures	Paris 2024, Milano-Cortina 2026	“The Paris Agreement on Climate Change, unanimously adopted by 195 countries on 12 December 2015…. In June 2016, France was the first major industrialised country to ratify the agreement” [76] (para. 12)
Protected park system	Salt Lake City 2002, Torino 2006	“Ten places in the area surrounding Turin have been designated as Heritage Sites for Humanity by UNESCO” [72] (para. 2).
Certification
Sustainable building certifications	LA 2028	“LA is a leader on sustainability policies and practices with: More LEED-certified municipal building square footage than any other city in the US and the world” [75] (para. 12).
Social responsibility standards	Paris 2024	“The Paris Region Agenda 21 plan has received the French Local Agenda 21 award and has been ISO 26000 certified since 2013” [76] (para. 4).
Infrastructure
Use of existing facilities	Beijing, 2022, PyeongChang, 2018, Tokyo 2020	“A total of 12 competition venues are proposed for Beijing 2022. Six are existing venues, namely the National Aquatics Centre, National Indoor Stadium, Capital Indoor Stadium, Wukesong Sports Centre, which are legacies of Beijing 2008, and the Genting Snow Park A and B in Zhangjiakou” [71] (para. 17).
Transportation strategy	Beijing 2008, Brisbane 2032, London 2012	“Queensland is home to the Queensland Electric Super Highway, the world’s longest electric super highway in a single state” [77] (para. 17).
Renewable energy sources	Athens 2004, LA 2028, Rio 2016	“Least per capita water use of any US city over 1 million people” and “Most solar power installed of any city in the United States” [75] (para. 15).
Waste treatment and investment	Beijing 2008	“Over the last two years, Beijing Municipal Government has invested US$3.6 billion to improve the environment with a two-fold increase in wastewater treatment, a three-fold increase in natural gas supply, and a 30% lift in pollution-free disposal of solid wastes” [78] (para. 7).
Location of venues	Vancouver 2010	“This rich natural heritage is a key element of what defines BC and its citizens. As a result, great care has been taken in the selection of 2010 Games venue locations to ensure that this precious natural heritage is respected and not diminished” [79] (para. 6).
Air and Water Quality	Beijing 2008, London 2012, PyeongChang 2018, Salt Lake City 2002, Sochi 2014	“The quality of London’s drinking water is virtually unsurpassed…The Thames Basin, from which London obtains its water, is probably the most effectively managed water resource catchment in the world. Some 55% of the rainfall is captured and used to supply potable water” [80] (para. 3–4).
Environmental Harm Reduction
Carbon Offsets	Rio 2016	“The creation of the already-funded Carbon Park will have the capacity to offset the direct emissions of the Games, a project that will be validated by the technical mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol as a Clean Development Mechanism project” [81] (para. 2).
Fossil Fuel phaseout	Athens 2004	“Greece was one of the first countries to reduce the lead content of petrol. As a result, lead concentrations in the atmosphere are now well below the permitted levels, and as the use of unleaded petrol becomes more widespread, are expected to drop still further” [73] (para. 9).
Environmental pollution compensation	Sochi 2014	“Sochi 2014 has elected to include environmental pollution compensation in the budgets for sports facilities and infrastructure projects…the Laura Hotel Complex construction project has already generated more than US$2 million for the benefit of the Sochi National Park” [82] (para. 1–2).
Bid/Event leveraging
Past and current Olympic bids	PyeongChang, 2018, Rio 2016, Tokyo 2020	“The 2020 Bid builds on significant 2016 Bid commitments already implemented, such as the planting of 20 hectares of the Sea Forest, other greening projects, new road infrastructure and the building of the Jigoro Kano Memorial International Sport Institute” [83] (para. 14).
Hosted major events	Beijing 2022, Paris 2024, Rio 2016	“Rio’s recent event experience and the resulting legacy, both physical and intellectual, will ensure excellent Games delivery. More than USD2 billion was spent on the successful 2007 Pan American and Parapan American Games, providing an important part of the foundations for the Rio 2016 plans” [81] (para. 6–7).

Most notably, and despite the structured format of the Questionnaire over the bidding years, bid committees incorporated ethos-based arguments using past tense and sometimes present tense linguistical elements. Examples of temporal features of the past used by bid committees included terms such as implemented, funded, generated, created, managed, invested, spent, installed, designated, adopted, and passed, which is illustrated in Table 3 in the exemplar column. In other words, ethos appeals relied heavily on emphasizing enacted policies, existing infrastructures, gained certifications, and previous experiences—many enforced or expected in other types of governance and institutionalized environments.

In addition, there were many different types of ethos-based arguments employed by candidature cities, although very few employed a breadth of arguments. One of the only notable bid committees to do so was LA 2028, who employed several different types of arguments and clearly demonstrated how a record of renewable energy source usage, established laws, and current green certifications afforded them credibility as a host city. That being said, while many bid committees only provided one or two ethos-based arguments, some made these types of arguments prominently. Arguments were deemed more prominent where they were: (1) easily located in the bid book under the environmental sustainability theme, and (2) clearly articulated as credible actions taken.

For example, while Rio 2016 did not employ multiple ethos-based arguments, the number of previous events hosted was featured, as was an articulation of how that experience lent workforce expertise as well as environmental knowledge to host the future Olympic Games. Meanwhile, Paris 2024 attempted to invoke a sense of credibility via the Paris Agreement (an international treaty on climate change that was signed by 196 parties during the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in France [84]) and the positive impacts hosting the event has had on local, regional, and national climate change policies. Other candidature cities, such as Salt Lake City 2002, distinctly shared how a historic national park system, coupled with citizens’ desire to protect the land, was an asset in hosting.

6. Discussion and Implications

This study investigated the ways in which winning Olympic candidature cities employed rhetoric to demonstrate their capacity to host an environmentally sustainable Olympic Games. Moreover, it sought to better understand how institutions—and the IOC Candidature Procedure and Questionnaire—both constrain and enable agency. It was found that winning candidature cities used a particular type of rhetoric—ethos—and linguistical elements—temporality—to demonstrate this capacity. By doing so, the results reveal that bidding committees may be able to voluntarily showcase their expertise notwithstanding the rigidity of the Questionnaire process. The discussion below explores both the theoretical and practical contributions that emerged at the intersection of rhetoric and the concepts of embedded agency, temporality, and truth and knowledge.

Green and Li (2011), who created the term rhetorical institutionalism, argued that the deliberate use of rhetorical language may indicate an actor’s embedded agency, or choice to ignore elements of their institutional field while centering others [11]. For this study, the institution was considered the IOC, and the field was considered cities in competition with one another via the candidature process. As previously mentioned, this study revealed that candidature cities employed ethos-based arguments based on their city or regional features, which in turn demonstrated the notion of embedded agency. This finding emphasizes how candidature cities can act as agents by using rhetoric strategically within a highly institutional field. It is also significant because it shows how candidature cities strategically employ rhetoric to demonstrate their ES capacity. Rather than becoming complacent and repetitive, winning bid committees demonstrated Green and Li’s (2011) motion into action by displaying particular rhetorical arguments using temporal features that illustrated a decline in constraints and taken-for-grantedness, and a rise in agency [11].

Furthermore, one of the most interesting empirical findings of the paper is that ethos-based arguments rely greatly on existing infrastructures, authorized policies, added certifications, and previous bidding and hosting experience. In other words, bid committees use rhetorical devices that are shaped by other types of institutional forms, demonstrating the juxtaposition of embedded agency. For bid committees to illustrate such agency is to validate how embedded institutional norms and structures constrain this very agency by way of other forms of local, regional, and national governance mechanisms. As such, bid committees’ credibility emerges from “governance-in-action” or a process of governing. Moreover, the results strongly reaffirm Polanyi’s foundational argument that credibility is institutionalized through social norms and laws [25] in a given institutional field [27]. For instance, the ethos-based examples summarized in Table 3 show that bid committees may translate prior urban development and environmental policies, or government standards, certifications, and laws. These practices are verifiable and are mobilized as guarantees. Ultimately, the bid book functions as a prospective contract and credibility depends on past and present demonstrations of competence and compliance.

The results also emphasized temporality not just in a narrative sense, but could also be investigated as a governing device. Past and present achievements can function as warranties of future compliance and demonstration of credible institutional capacity. Aristotle (1954) explained that by sharing examples of the past, specific actions are substantiated [6]. By using Aristotle’s rhetorical appeals and conceptualizations of temporality, this study was able to highlight how the intersection of rhetoric, embedded agency, and temporality is important in generating perceived truth and knowledge [6,85] of environmental sustainability actions. This finding contributes to previous research [9,10,35] that shows that rhetoric can be a tool to foster trustworthiness. For example, many of the ethos-based arguments, such as certifications achieved, legislation passed, or protected park areas created, may be fact checked by the IOC or other interested parties to determine if the bid committee accurately depicted the actions undertaken. This outcome may emphasize that candidature cities are attempting to showcase to the IOC that they are trustworthy as a potential host city. For instance, when bid committees are choosing what to emphasize in the bid book in order to convince IOC members, it appears the bid committees focus on highlighting the existing characteristics of their cities that make them an ideal place to host an ES Games, rather than just promising potential outcomes.

As such, ethos-based arguments not only provide an opportunity to voluntarily—and with embedded agency—share and highlight the unique characteristics of their city or region as they respond to the Questionnaire but also evoke a sense of trust amongst the IOC and other event stakeholders such as local sponsors. In other words, making rhetorical claims may justify knowledge and profoundly influence what is accepted as an objective reality [11]. This result highlights that while many factors may play into why a city is chosen to host a Games, embedded agency is available to bid committees by how they strategically employ ethos-based rhetoric to describe their attributes and accomplishments.

This study demonstrates that Aristotelian Rhetoric (ethos, pathos, and logos), as a theoretical lens, may be operationalized in empirical settings with practical outcomes for future bid committees. There are practical implications for future candidature cities that are motivated to demonstrate a willingness to host an environmentally sustainable event. Considering there is existing literature that shows that bids tend to overpromise on their plans [3], it is recommended that bid committees employ arguments that can be proven and fact checked because they are more likely to be considered trustworthy; a more convincing argument is one that you can verify with evidence. By doing so, candidature cities can share temporal features of actions (past and present), within the confines of the structural aspects of a bid book.

Moreover, candidature cities who want more control over the process can focus on existing sustainable practices, rather than promising something they potentially cannot deliver. For instance, returning to the six categories that emerged in the results (collaboration, legislation, certification, infrastructure, environmental harm reduction, and bid/event leveraging); each may be significantly guided by a city government’s decision-making process. While this finding is not surprising considering the IOC develops the Questionnaire in the context of candidature cities to respond to, what makes this confirmation interesting is that a city’s bid planning should be started years in advance so that they can highlight not just what they plan to do but what they have already done. Furthermore, candidature cities that are motivated to host an environmentally sustainable Games may want to first consider prioritizing investing resources into developing a priori long-term sustainability strategy so that when it comes time to bid, these actions can be underscored in the bid book. Highlighting these actions can be useful for IOC voting members and it is recommended to the IOC that they prioritize these types of ethos-based arguments that highlight actions completed, rather than logos and pathos-based arguments that are subjective and future facing promises. That being said, candidature cities need to be mindful of individual geographical, economic, social, political, and environmental contexts and future goals when pursuing such initiatives.

In addition, if host cities have unique kinds of characteristics that should be emphasized, such as a prominent national park system, then these attributes should be described in ways that the event will allow them to further leverage them. Candidature cities considering a bid to attain tangible and measurable environmental outcomes should consider making it clear to the IOC in the bid book, the list of actions already completed in environmental sustainability contexts, such as in the introduction or preamble of the bid book. In addition to that, bid committees may consider clarifying if some actions previously adopted are independent of the Olympic Movement and bidding process, as this may reveal that the city and region are committed more broadly to environmental sustainability, and efforts are not solely in attempt to win a bid. In other words, a combination of appeasing the IOC while also demonstrating an authentic desire to evolve as a sustainable city and region may be most effective. This strategy could be beneficial for cities looking to host other events, not just an Olympic Games. By doing so, candidature cities can craft much stronger rationales as to why they should host any event, not just from an environmentally sustainable perspective but to highlight other concerns such as security and governance.

7. Future Research

This study investigated only winning bids. As such, this parameter was a research limitation. Therefore, future research could recognize the varying motivations candidature cities have for bidding while controlling for past failed bids to further explore both ES rhetoric and leveraging. Researchers could investigate whether failed bid committees used fact-based arguments similar to winning bids, or if failed bids employ different types of rhetoric that overpromise with aim to deceive or manipulate IOC voters. For instance, considering that previous research has argued that the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi led to irreparable environmental destruction caused by illegal unloading of construction waste and toxic water [53], what were some of the arguments the Sochi bid committee made in their candidature file and how were these arguments different or similar to those in winning bid books of the same bidding year? Exploring what deceptive rhetoric is used in bid books may have practical implications for other event bidding governing bodies as well as host cities, outside of the Olympic Games.

As discussed above, temporality can be used by the bid committee as a rhetorical or narrative device, but it may also be viewed as a governing device. Future research could explore the governing elements of ethos-based arguments in broader discussions of discourse and sustainability in the environmental-sociology literature where the notion of sustainability is often viewed as a contested vocabulary rather than as a stable goal [86,87,88,89] that only gains legitimacy or recognition when coupled with authoritative and institutional conventions [90,91,92,93].

There are several other directions for future research based on the contributions above. Researchers could interview members of winning bid committees to investigate their intent to use rhetoric when they were putting together their bid books. For example, how critically did they consider spotlighting the existing characteristics of their cities that made them ideal places to host an ES Games? Additionally, researchers could explore if these ethos-based arguments were convincing by interviewing IOC members on the criteria used to assess ES plans of bid books. Presented with these augments, the IOC may better understand what they should be looking for in future iterations of the Games.

Meanwhile, this study underscored embedded agency in highly institutionalized forms such as bidding process and Questionnaire. As such, researchers could use embedded agency as a lens to interview and further investigate city officials and stakeholders in their quest to host an environmentally friendly Games. By doing so, researchers may better understand the institutional forces that play or do not play a role in how key knowledge users coalesce around a common vision and action plan to host a major event, especially as we see global temperatures rising and candidature cities pivot to adopt a more sustainable framework in their event hosting aspirations.

Returning to Green and Li (2011), they recommended neither favor agency nor structure by focusing on the transition and movement of action into motion, and motion into action [11]. The authors explained that as practices become motion into action due to an exogenous shocks or unexpected events, this transformation from habit back into conscious action suggests a decline in taken-for-grantedness, a decline in structural constraints, and a rise in agency. Future research could investigate further what type of exogenous shocks occurred for these candidature cities to move towards a more environmentally sustainable city. Was it local or global climate factors? Or did the corporate community drive this change as they look to moving towards alternative sources of energy?

Furthermore, recognizing that with the adoption of Olympic Agenda 2020, the IOC can begin targeted dialogue with potential candidature cities, and there will be fewer unsuccessful bids each bidding year since “[o]nce a Targeted Dialogue has been opened, no other city, region or National Olympic Committee can apply to host that edition until the International Olympic Committee (IOC)’s Executive Board has decided whether there should be an election” [94] (p. 7). Future research could focus on the rhetorical arguments that are related to the special ES capabilities of targeted candidature cities. Results from such research could illuminate if targeted dialogue impacts rhetoric used to describe leveraging strategies of candidature cities and by what means they change from previous bidding years.

Finally, these results and the ethos-based arguments and patterns found in bid books could be investigated outside of Olympic and sport contexts, such as the international nonprofit sector. For instance, are sustainability claims most effective when attached to already existing and recognizable institutional commitments and devices of proof?

This study explored how Olympic bid committees persuade the IOC of their environmental sustainability capacity under conditions of strong institutional constraint. It reveals that ethos-based rhetorical strategies, anchored in past and present achievements, play a critical role in establishing credibility, while logos-and-pathos-based arguments remain more firmly scripted by the IOC Candidature Questionnaire. Cities have to navigate local, regional, national and international governance mechanisms in their bidding process, “while dealing with a rapidly changing, evermore complex world in which people, information, goods, and ideas are in continuous motion and thus endlessly reconfiguring social, economic, and political horizons” [5] (p. 15). Considering the IOC has continued to invest in making the Olympic Movement more sustainable by adopting environment-focused agendas over the last few decades, the IOC should contemplate assessing and placing greater weight on the ethos-based arguments that bid committees make in their bid books as it may better demonstrate a candidature city’s capacity and capability to host an environmentally sustainable Olympic Games.