.jpg)
As the curtain rises on Australia’s new mandatory climate reporting law, the theatre sector is moving beyond formal regulation to address its industrial footprint through a creative, industry-led green revolution.
‘Strong reasons make strong actions’, King John, William Shakespeare
The magic of theatre relies on materialising illusions, masking a heavy physical reality. As spectators, we marvel at actors under brilliant spotlights and intricate costumes, oblivious to the massive electricity required and the textile industry's planetary impact. Behind every temporary fictional backdrop lies a permanent industrial truth: lorries burning diesel to transport sets, dumpsters filled with single-use timber, or the relentless extraction of resources. Ultimately, the business of creating make-believe leaves behind a very real, and very heavy, environmental footprint.
To understand the sheer scale of this footprint, we can look at recent global data. In its Annual Report 2023-2024, the Arts Council England revealed that, as for England only, theatre emitted around 14,837 tonnes of CO2, while a study commissioned by the European Commission evaluated that the travel of audiences to theatre venues in the European Union generated approximately 35,000 tonnes of CO2 per year.
While these European figures highlight the industry's baseline impact, the broader environmental context in Australia makes the need for change even more urgent. An OECD report demonstrated that Australia is amongst the highest emitters of greenhouse gases (more than 400 million tonnes of GHG), even ranking second in emission of GHG per capita (19 tonnes of GHG).
Faced with these staggering national statistics, Australia’s shift towards sustainability appears inevitable – especially because it is also now legally mandatory. In order to achieve this goal, changing the theatre industry is required.
‘The law hath not been dead, though it hath slept.’, Measure for Measure, William Shakespeare
A step towards corporate sustainability was made in September 2024, when the Australian Parliament amended the Corporations Act 2001, introducing mandatory climate reporting for major businesses through the Australian Sustainability Reporting Standards (ASRS), internationally aligned with the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) of IFRS Foundation.
Under this new legislation, the Australian Accounting Standards Board S2 mandates major companies to disclose climate risks, targets, greenhouse gas emissions, and governance strategies.
But who must report? Given the environmental impact of theatre companies, does the law require them to submit a report? The law relies on thresholds and report periods. An entity must prepare an AASB S2 report for July 1 of 2027 if it meets two of three triggers: $50 million in revenue, $25 million in gross assets, or 100 employees.
We can only regret the lack of efficiency of this reform in a sector with such a significant worldly impact. Indeed, for instance, Belvoir St. Theatre – one of the biggest Australian theatre companies – is exempted from publishing any sustainability report, falling below the legal thresholds.
Similarly, although the Melbourne Theatre Company (MTC) operates at a scale that would typically trigger reporting, it is not registered as a company under the Corporations Act. Indeed, the MTC is a department of the University of Melbourne. Established via the University of Melbourne Act 2009 (Vic), the University is not bound by the provisions of the Corporations Act 2001, therefore escaping the federal reporting requirements. However, Australia being a federal State, the University follows Victorian Financial Reporting Directions (FRD 24), which mandate environmental disclosures for state agencies.
This structural arrangement raises a critical question regarding the ‘value creation chain’. Currently, the University of Melbourne produces a consolidated sustainability report, within the specific and heavy environmental impacts of the MTC are included into a university-wide report, the reality of the theatre's footprint is often obscured.
Nonetheless, the law succeeds at catching the most influential fish in the sea. The Sydney Theatre Company operates on a different scale, with more than $45 million in income, $60 million in assets and a massive workforce. Hence, a report on the company’s sustainability impacts will be expected in 2027, containing the climate statements for the year and any statements determined by the Minister.
The law therefore creates a ‘two-speed’ regulatory environment: while the Corporations Act 2001 applies to the most influential actor on the theatre scene, it leaves a vast majority of the industry in a legal shadow, where sustainability remains voluntary (thankfully, the Act allows companies to submit a report voluntarily!).
‘Plate sin with gold, and the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks; arm it in rags, a pigmy's straw does pierce it.’, King Lear, William Shakespeare
While the reformed Corporations Act tackles carbon emissions, it misses the human element of corporate sustainability – namely, aiming for a safe and just world. The legislation appears to ignore the broader ‘value creation chain’. It also fails to address justice for arts workers and First Nations communities, since Australia’s mandatory reporting regime remains strictly limited to climate-related data.
By tethering the new AASB S2 standards almost exclusively to the ISSB’s ‘climate-first’ approach, Australia has sidelined the social and human rights disclosures of its sustainability reporting. While general sustainability risks could technically be covered under AASB S1, the government has made this standard voluntary, thus creating a regulatory environment where companies are legally compelled to disclose their environmental impact but may opt to leave the human element entirely out of the spotlight.
We need a shift in how we view the theatre business. As highlighted by researchers of the Queensland University of Technology, traditional economics only envisages a linear value chain, therefore ignoring the surrounding environment or external and influential actors. A re-mapping of the theatre value creation chain must be operationalised, since it is a dynamic and multi-directional network.
For a play to exist, an entire ecosystem must be developed – from production and makeup to advertising and audiences driving cars to reach the theatre venue. Emissions come from every corner of this web, but the law, pursuing a singular linear direction, remains blind to this issue.
Alongside this failure of the law, it must be emphasised that Australia endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2009, with its article 31 protecting Indigenous cultural heritage. However, corporate climate laws do not force companies to measure how their operations respect or exploit the rights enshrined within that Declaration. However, the concern regarding First Nations cultural heritage is more qualitative (storytelling, representation, intellectual property) than quantitative (environmental impacts). Standard corporate climate laws are designed to measure physical risks, therefore unsuited to measure the exploitation or protection of Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP).
‘We must not stint / Our necessary actions, in the fear / To cope malicious censurers.’, Henry VIII, William Shakespeare
The inefficiency of mandatory reporting suggests that transparency alone is not a substitute for material change: while the law focuses on the disclosure of risks, the Australian theatre sector is shifting by itself toward direct action to ensure the country's survival.
This may be explained by the fact that many major Australian arts organisations are set up as Companies Limited by Guarantee. As there are no dividends to pay, and all value is reinvested into the art and the community, this type of company challenges the ‘shareholder primacy’ theory and looks beyond the goal of profit maximisation.
This freedom allows the industry to self-regulate. For instance, the Theatre Green Book, provides clear, practical guidelines for making productions sustainable. To fill the gaps in copyright law regarding traditional knowledge, Creative Australia (the Australian Government’s principal arts investment and advisory body) offers a framework for respectful and collaborative creation through its Protocols for using First Nations cultural and intellectual property in the arts, using funding as a lever for compliance. Because the hard law remains inefficient, Creative Australia embodies a form of quasi-regulation, where the government, through contractual interaction of funding agreements, implicitly enforces compliance.
The ultimate proof of proactive green innovation is the Sydney Opera House, which boasts a six-star Green Star rating and has legitimately claimed to be carbon neutral since 2018.
While the true green revolution in theatre is being driven by the artists, designers, and non-profits who understand that their creative ecology must be protected at all costs, the law must become a proactive architect of change: if disclosure alone is insufficient to truly protect a creative ecology, can the Corporations Act transition toward establishing a ‘duty of care’ for environment and cultural heritage?
