Are 'green clauses' the answer to creating a more sustainable tourism industry?

Obviously, many artists want their shows to be as environmentally friendly as possible. But with many factors contributing to a sustainable performance—from energy sources to food vendors to fan transportation—it's difficult for an artist to put on a truly green event without including the many partners needed to put on a show.

Now, a new initiative from live music advocacy group LIVE (Live Music Industry Venues and Entertainment) aims to help.

Together with representatives from AEG, Live Nation, Wasserman, WME, CAA, UTA and other major players in the touring industry, including UK promoter Kilimanjaro Live, LIVE has written a collection of “green clauses” — proposed language that can be written into contracts between artists and agents, agents and promoters, and other agreements in order to produce shows with sustainability in mind from the ground up.

These green clauses offer recommendations for creating energy efficiency. waste reduction; Water saving; prioritizing plant-based, local, and sustainable foods; encouraging attendees to travel to the show using lower-carbon transportation; offering sustainable and ethical merchandise; and more.

The project originates from LIVE's working group, LIVE Green, which he leads Carol Scott — the chief sustainability advocate at global event producer TAIT — along with LIVE Green's impact consultant Ross Patel. The proposed contract language was released on the LIVE Green website in October and Patel says Bulletin board that “there is absolutely a commitment to adopt them” in the industry, adding that “in some cases, these conversations are already happening.”

Along with the clauses, LIVE Green has created a resource hub with information on how to implement sustainability and carbon reduction practices at shows. These free guidelines mainly reflect the needs and capabilities of projects in the UK and North America, although Patel says the hub retains a high level of relevance for most event organisers, touring artists and their teams worldwide.

Here, Patel talks about the clauses' goals, how sustainability-minded tours by major artists helped lay the groundwork, and why, in his words, “doing something will always be better than nothing are you doing anything.”

How were the discussions to bring those clauses together, especially since you were working with global entities like Live Nation, AEG and the majors?

To a large extent, there was no disagreement on the primary content of what we were asking for, in terms of the basic things that need to be addressed, such as power, energy, water, food and transport. These aspects were not really commented on. The red line was to get the clauses most in line with his tone [each company’s] existing contract standards. They have to build them into contracts they already use, so a lot of them were just trying to do it.

What was the process like, with so many participants whose needs and wants are relevant, but also specific?

There was one problem that we managed to solve, which was what this template was designed for. It's about providing something for anyone to access and adopt and adapt as they see fit. In the end, we chose an all-party, best-effort wording because that will be the most relevant to most people.

What were the sticking points?

Of course, if you're an agent, you'll want to see something that's pro-artist. If you are a promoter or venue, you will want something more in favor of the venue or promotion company. As a working group, and certainly from LIVE Green's perspective, we felt that an all-party, best-efforts approach was the best way to start, by bringing something to the industry that wouldn't be a shock to the big companies. We want them to participate in it so that when someone sees it now in a contract or when they talk to each other they understand how they want [a contract to look]there is a starting point that is not in favor of either side.

That makes sense.

The next practical step is, say, Live Nation and WME — because they do so much business together — they're going to have standards that they've already agreed upon and negotiated. There is a baseline they are happy with. They do it all the time, with many different clauses. This happens to be something that focuses on sustainability that was not present in contracts before.

How helpful have sustainable tours by artists like Billie Eilish and Coldplay been in setting examples for what you do?

It seems the industry is ready for this because we have case studies of big booking agents, big promoters and big artists doing what we are now sharing with everyone else. They may have only been one-offs, but they work. [It demonstrates] that it is a choice.

If a venue hosts a Coldplay show and that contract says the venue has to do certain things for sustainability, then the next week that venue has another artist who also has those clauses in their contracts, the hope is that these adjustments will eventually become permanent.

Now, more often than not, the bigger venues tend to do the setup for the show and then go back to whatever their previous setup was. With a more consistent demand for these changes, it will inevitably make sense to keep these things in place.

So is this small group of artists who are performing in this way important, in terms of proof of concept?

Exactly. There are more and more examples [these things working]. Hopefully this will get us to a place where the push is on everyone to help make these things happen. Some people will be further away than others. Some artists may already have contracts that far exceed what we have presented. Some promoters or venues may already have their own viability criteria that are much more developed than what we ask artists to sign up for.

The point is that we hope to accelerate the conversation. Where one can be further away, one can share what is being done. There is now almost a conventional recognition to take them where the other is, to bring everyone up.

To what extent do you think people feel more inclined to participate given that they already live with the reality of climate change?

There are several reasons, and this is certainly one. I don't think anyone can deny—well, there are still people who seem to be able to deny climate change somehow—but I think the majority of people have seen and experienced the effects of climate change. Certainly, from an industry perspective, there is an ever-increasing and urgent need to recognize this and address it and act, because we see how it affects touring. We are seeing the very real effects of flooding, drought, travel issues. We are losing business as an industry to climate change.

This is something that I think people see on an alarmingly regular basis, and so it's at the top of the agenda. With the increased buoyancy of living industry [after the pandemic]people have more to contribute because it comes at a cost. It's something to consider as part of doing business. I wish we could have been in this position to do something sooner, but we're here now, so let's move the dial as fast as we can.

How are advances in technology helping the cause?

We now have proven, stable technology that allows you to run festival stages and live events on batteries and you don't need diesel generators. We had them three or five years ago. Hopefully, through proven technological advances in the industry, we can not only introduce the public to what excites them and gives them a sense of positivity, security and hope, but we can transfer these case studies and proof of concepts into policy and to do these things contractually obliged. We can't do that specific thing yet, but that's what I'd like to see next. But that will largely depend on the market, the artist, the event.

How enforceable are these clauses as standard? What will be the tipping point to get these things into contracts as a legal obligation?

This should be in line with policy. We could, for example, write that if an event does not provide fuel cells, then the contract is void. But is that a reality for that show, in that market, on that tour? Possibly, or maybe it just isn't. There needs to be a degree of people recognizing what is being asked of them in certain areas and then, more importantly, using the resource hub that LIVE Green has developed.

But using best efforts means looking at what's in the clauses and doing your best to live up to what's in it. Doing something will always be better than doing nothing.

Given the incoming administration in the US and the expected loosening of environmental regulations, do you feel or fear that the momentum around this project and projects like it will diminish?

My personal feeling is that the initiative will have a greater degree of support from the industry because of the election. Of course, any climate-related agenda now will be difficult to support, but the creative industries still have the opportunity to influence and drive public behavior change through positive messaging and innovative climate solutions. There may not be a policy requirement or regulation for a specific action, but that doesn't and shouldn't stop us from going ahead anyway. It's what the consumer, the fans and the wider industry want!