The research, conducted by Julia Glesner of the University of Applied Sciences in Potsdam, centres on a pilot project launched in 2019 by the German Federal Cultural Foundation. The Foundation enabled nineteen publicly funded cultural organisations, spanning libraries, museums, exhibition venues, orchestras and theatres, to measure their greenhouse gas emissions and calculate individual carbon footprints for that year. The goal was to test a carbon footprinting model tailored to the cultural sector, offering a scalable tool that other organisations could use on the path to climate neutrality. Participants also received climate coaching to encourage knowledge transfer within their institutions about how to improve climate-impacting activities.

The technical backbone of any carbon footprint report is the division of emissions into three scopes under the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Scope 1 covers direct emissions from on-site fuel burning, such as heating plants, vehicles and refrigerant leaks. Scope 2 captures indirect emissions from purchased electricity and district heating. Scope 3 includes all other indirect emissions from upstream and downstream activities, mainly business trips, staff commutes, goods transport and, crucially, visitor mobility. Scope 3 is typically the largest share for non-production facilities, yet it is also the area where the pilot study found data availability to be most inconsistent, because organisations decided case by case which subcategories to record.

Those definitional choices had dramatic consequences for the results. Museum Folkwang in Essen focused on facility management and selected operational processes while excluding gastronomy and visitor travel, which pushed its scope 1 share to 94 percent of all emissions and limited comparability with other museums. The Zentrum für Kunst und Medien in Karlsruhe, by contrast, recorded 95 percent of its emissions in scope 3. At Staatstheater Darmstadt, audience travel accounted for 79.5 percent of scope 3 emissions, which themselves made up 52 percent of the total. The Foundation itself recommended that organisations compare only with themselves over successive assessments, warning that absolute figures should be treated with caution and contextualised.

Across the pilot group, a clear pattern emerged. Project manager Sebastian Brünger identified a cross-organisational trend: the main factors in most climate footprinting are the air conditioning of buildings and the mobility surrounding operations, particularly audience mobility, business trips and transport logistics such as loan transport in museum practice. The age of buildings, their state of maintenance and their degree of renovation also contributed significantly. But here lies the central problem the study uncovers: arts organisations can influence these factors only to a limited extent, because the decisive decisions are made elsewhere.

Museums illustrate the bind vividly. International loan traffic of artworks requires museums to comply with strict climate-control standards that emerged after the Second World War, and demanding packaging and transport conditions add further emissions. Many museums occupy historic buildings owned by local authorities or regional governments rather than by the organisations themselves, so insulation upgrades and modern, energy-efficient climate systems require the approval of owners, heritage authorities and funding bodies. At Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, where buildings are designated historical landmarks, refurbishment options are severely restricted. Audience mobility is similarly beyond direct organisational control, shaped by public transport availability, socioeconomic factors, weather and individual habits that no theatre director can decree away.

Comparing the pilot findings with European practitioners’ discourse confirmed the pattern. The IFLA Guidelines for Green and Sustainable Libraries, the NEMO survey of 578 museums in 34 countries titled Museums in the Climate Crisis, and the Where to land initiative for European performing arts all converge on the same key areas: buildings and infrastructure, operational logistics, and mobility. Because these cut across all divisions, the study concludes that the critical leverage points lie at national and international levels, requiring concerted action by funding bodies and policymakers. The Where to land participants put it starkly: if systemic change is to be achieved, all players must be involved, otherwise the bulk of individual effort falls on the weakest link in the ecosystem, namely independent artists and producers.

The study also flags a tension that carbon accounting tends to obscure. For internationally active organisations such as Kampnagel in Hamburg, Mousonturm in Frankfurt and Berlin’s Schaubühne, travel is integral to their mission. The Schaubühne reached 50,000 people through 83 guest performances worldwide in 2019, and more than 85 percent of its scope 3 emissions stemmed from business trips and tours. Mousonturm explicitly stated that, for the sake of climate equality, it does not want to question the value of cooperation with countries that contribute less to climate change but suffer its effects more severely. Blanket travel reductions, the study warns, could undermine the very cultural exchange such organisations exist to enable.

Qualitative interviews with employees of two participating theatres revealed the human cost of the reporting process. Staff described the creation of the balances as an emotionally highly charged topic marked by strong resistance, and as a research process requiring everyone to learn from scratch. Scarce personnel resources had to be diverted from producing performances, and only basic measures, such as combined public transport tickets, had been implemented. Sustainability management positions created after the project lack permanent funding, and organisations must finance the reports from their ongoing budgets. One interviewee even reported a rebound effect after the first measures were introduced.

Viewed through the lens of Sociological Neo-Institutionalism, the Foundation’s project triggered mimetic and normative isomorphism, with organisations across Germany adopting carbon footprint reports as a new standard to secure legitimacy as trustworthy, responsible and innovative institutions. The climate footprint standard for cultural organisations adopted by federal, state and local authorities in 2023 was a direct result. But the study warns this institutionalisation risks sliding into coercive isomorphism, with reports becoming mandatory funding prerequisites, and into decoupling, where organisations formally comply while actual practices remain unchanged. The paper’s conclusion is pointed: carbon footprint reports are essential starting points but should not be made mandatory for funding, and genuine ecological transformation demands systemic and political engagement, from building renovation programmes to reformed international loan standards and modernised rail infrastructure, rather than standardised methodologies that burden the organisations least able to act.

Subject of Research: The limited impact of carbon footprint reports on ecological transformation in European arts organisations

Article Title: Ecological sustainability in arts organisations—on the potentially limited impact of carbon footprint reports in ecological transformation

Article References: Glesner, J. (2025). Ecological sustainability in arts organisations—on the potentially limited impact of carbon footprint reports in ecological transformation. European Journal of Cultural Management and Policy, 15, Article 14629. https://doi.org/10.3389/ejcmp.2025.14629

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/ejcmp.2025.14629

Keywords: carbon footprint, arts organisations, cultural sector, ecological sustainability, German Federal Cultural Foundation, greenhouse gas emissions, institutional isomorphism, cultural policy, museums, performing arts, sustainability reporting, climate neutrality