Knock on wood
Chris Boardman’s green mission and medal economics
Chris Boardman has created a high profile for Active Travel England in his three years as its first commissioner. Over the same period, the former cyclist has been largely invisible as the chair of Sport England. Now, though, Boardman’s roles are coalescing - not, as one might expect, around a health agenda but principally in a drive for sustainability. His passion, while admirable, also challenges conventional concepts of the role of chairs, in both the public and private sectors.
Active Travel England was very recently constructed as a government agency promoting walking, wheeling and cycling. Health, safety and carbon neutrality are its stated prizes. Sport England, by contrast, can trace its roots back almost six decades. Currently it is charged with making the nation more active, a broader remit than its ‘sport’ title might imply.
I bumped into Chris Boardman at a reception during this summer’s Paralympics. A few weeks before he had cycled from Manchester to the Paris Olympics to encourage sporting organisations to sign a ‘Going for Green Pledge’. I didn’t ask how he had returned to the French capital for the Paras, but it’s safe to assume it wasn’t by private jet.
Our conversation focused entirely on Boardman’s ambition that the tens of thousands of grassroots sports clubs in the country develop individual sustainability plans, which collectively could have a positive impact on climate change. Sport England funding is his carrot; the threat of its removal his stick. Hard-pressed volunteers at grassroots clubs up and down the land might feel an unwelcome shiver down their spines. Warming to his task, Boardman has since called for a reduction in elite football’s carbon footprint.
“Sport’s carbon footprint and contribution to waste is massive. We need to re-wire the system so there are suitable incentives to do the right thing, and more consequences for doing the wrong thing.” Chris Boardman at this month’s Sport Positive summit
The position of chair in businesses and public bodies confers various privileges. Central to these are the ability to shape strategy, and the provision of a platform to promote the organisation’s products, people, ideas and ambitions. Some situations call for a chair to seize the opportunities these present, shake things up and shout about it. At other times, careful stewardship is what’s required, aiming simply to leave things in at least as good shape as on arrival.
Too often the ambitions of a chair and the needs of their organisation prove to be mismatched. The key question in any interview for the role should be what candidates want to do with it - how they want to exercise those privileges. Is the position a means to an end (and if so, what?) or an end in itself? Ask any serving CEO in a candid moment what their greatest fears are and you will likely find a change in chair prominent on their worry list. (Obviously, many others will have a change in the chair high on their personal wish list!)
None of which is to suggest that Sport England’s core objectives and Chris Boardman’s green aims are necessarily out of kilter, but in putting such a distinctive stamp onto the chair role so late in his first term of office he has presented board colleagues and those who appoint them with a clear challenge. Do they embed his ideas so that they endure beyond his departure, or ring-fence them as bespoke to the man rather than absolutely core to their mission?
Boardman’s first term in office at Sport England expires next July. He is eligible to serve for a second term. Currently DCMS is advertising for three people to join the Sport England board as non-executives. As well as a set of essential criteria in the job description, there is also a long list of desirable ones, including ‘courageous mindset’ and ‘demonstrable commitment in responding to climate change or sustainability goals’.
We will know soon enough whether Chris Boardman fancies another four years at Sport England. Either way, the three NEDs he helps choose now will have key roles to fulfil in embedding his green legacy. Chairs of commercial enterprises will rightly want to assess the risks of such a focused mission, especially given a company’s profit imperative, but this is nevertheless a case worthy of close study in the coming months and years.
This piece was first published in the business section of The Times on 22 October. I was very tickled that Chris Boardman wrote to the paper in reply, describing my views as ‘quite quaint’. I’ve been called a fair few things in my time but this is definitely the first ‘quaint’! You can find Boardman’s missive in ‘letters to the editor’ in Wednesday’s edition of The Times online.
Collecting splinters and shrapnel
If you want anecdotal evidence of how far reality is from the vision of sustainable sport, look no further than the medals dynamic at grassroots running events. In recent years, many race organisers have offered entrants the opportunity to forego a medal in return for planting a tree or a donation to charity. The overwhelming majority - typically well over 90% - choose to have their metal memento. No matter that it probably arrived on a slow boat from China having been made in a factory by workers paid a pittance by UK standards.
Replace a metal medal with a wooden one, as some races have, and wait for snippy comments to arrive by email or - worse - in online reviews of the event.
One organiser of excellent races in the South of England offers a £20 ‘no medal’ option for some of its races compared to a standard entry price of £37.95. I can testify that its medals are, as described in the event blurb, ‘truly epic’ (and I don’t know where they might be manufactured), but that differential is a true test of the extent of runners’ desires to receive a physical race reward.
I go for the ‘no medal’ option, but am clearly in the minority. And not because of any green creds on my part, but because the organiser has simply found my financial break point. In fact, a few years into this running malarkey, I’d probably tick the ‘no medal’ box every time if offered. But only if it’s cheaper, mind!
8/10 ain’t bad
At last we know the ten sports for Glasgow 2026. The Sport inc. prediction was close - only missing bowls and judo while incorrectly including squash and table tennis. With no badminton either, that’s zero racquet sports.
The CWG should be hugely grateful to Scotland for rescuing its event and showing it is possible to plan on a modest budget, but this appears more stop-gap format than the radical overhaul the Commonwealth Games requires if it is to have a long-term, vibrant future. I’d say there are 18 months to design a sustainable Games (in all senses of the word, including Chris Boardman’s) and find a host for 2030. Can’t arrive at Glasgow with the subsequent edition unannounced. What price a chastened Australia redeeming itself by stepping forward?