Business

Presumably, a lot of artists want their shows to be as environmentally friendly as possible. But with many factors contributing to a sustainable performance — from power sources to food vendors to fan transportation — it’s challenging for an artist to put on a truly green event without involving the many partners it takes to put on a show.
Now, a new initiative from U.K. 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 U.K. promoter Kilimanjaro Live, LIVE has written a collection of “green clauses” — suggested language that can be written into contracts between artists and agents, agents and promoters, and other agreements in order to produce sustainability-minded shows from the ground up.  

These green clauses offer recommendations for creating energy efficiency; waste reduction; water conservation; prioritizing plant-based, local and sustainable food; encouraging attendees to travel to the show using lower carbon emission transport; offering sustainable and ethical merch; and much more.  

Trending on Billboard

The project comes from LIVE’s working group, LIVE Green, which is led by Carol Scott — the principal sustainability advocate at global event producer TAIT — along with LIVE Green’s impact consultant Ross Patel. The suggested contractual language was launched on the LIVE Green website in October, and Patel tells Billboard that “there is absolutely a commitment to adopt them” within the industry, adding that “in some cases, those conversations are already happening.” 

Along with the clauses, LIVE Green has created a resource hub with information on how to execute sustainability practices and reduce carbon emissions at shows. These free guidelines primarily reflect the needs and capabilities of projects in the U.K. and North America, although Patel says the hub maintains a high level of relevancy for most event organizers, touring artists and their teams globally. 

Here, Patel talks about the goals of the clauses, how sustainability-minded tours by major artists have helped lay the groundwork and why, in his words, “doing something is always going to be better than doing nothing.” 

What were the conversations like in putting these clauses together, particularly given that you were working with global entities like Live Nation, AEG and the big agencies?

To a large degree, there wasn’t any disagreement in the primary content of what we were asking for, in terms of key things that need to be addressed, such as energy, power, water, food and transport. Those aspects were not really commented on. The red lining was to get clauses more in line with the tone of [each company’s] existing contract templates. They have to build them into contracts they already use, so a lot of it was just trying to make it fit.  

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

There was one sticking point we managed to resolve, which was the purpose of what this template was being designed for. It’s to provide something for anyone to have access to and to adopt and adapt as they see fit. In the end, we opted for an all-parties, best-endeavors wording, because that’s the thing that is going to be the most relevant to the most people.  

What were the sticking points? 

Of course, if you’re an agent, you’re going to want to see something that’s in favor of the artist. If you’re a promoter or venue, you’re going to want something more in favor of the venue or promotions company. As a working group, and certainly from LIVE Green’s perspective, we felt an all-parties and best-endeavors approach was the best way to start, with getting something out in the industry that wasn’t going to be a shock to the major corporates. We want them to participate in this, so that when someone now sees this in a contract, or when they now speak to each other to figure out how they want [a contract to look], there’s a starting point that isn’t in favor of either side. 

That makes sense.  

The next practical step is, let’s say Live Nation and WME — because they do so much business together — they will have templates they’ve already agreed on and negotiated. There’s a baseline that they’re happy with. They do that all the time, with lots of different clauses. This just happens to be one that is focused on sustainability that wasn’t in contracts before. 

How useful have sustainably-minded tours by artists like Billie Eilish and Coldplay been in creating examples for what you’re doing? 

It feels like the industry is ready for this because we have case studies of big booking agents, big promoters and big artists actioning what we’re now sharing with everyone else. They might have been just one-offs, but they’re operating. [It demonstrates] that it’s an option. 

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

Now, more often than not, larger venues tend to make the adjustment for the show, then revert to whatever their previous installation was. With a more consistent request of these changes, inevitably it will make sense for them to keep these things in place. 

So this small group of artists who are showing shows can be done this way are important, in terms of being a proof of concept? 

Exactly. There’s more and more examples of [these things working]. Hopefully this will put us in a position where the impetus is on everyone to help deliver these things. Some people will be further along than others. Some artists might already have contracts that far surpass what we’ve introduced. Some promoters or venues might already have their own sustainability criteria that’s far more developed than what we’re asking artists to sign up to.  

The point is that we’re hoping to expedite the conversation. Where someone might be further along, they can share what’s being done. There is now almost a contractual recognition to get them to where the other person is, to bring everybody up. 

Ross Patel

Courtesy of Ross Patel

To what extent do you think people feel more inclined to participate given that they’re already living with the realities of climate change?  

There’s a number of reasons, and that’s definitely one. I don’t think anyone can deny — well, there are still people that seem to be able to deny climate change somehow — but I think the majority of people have witnessed and experienced the impacts of climate change. Certainly, from an industry perspective, there is an ever-increasing and urgent need to acknowledge and address this and act, because we’re seeing how it’s affecting tours. We’re seeing the very real impacts of flooding, droughts, travel issues. We are losing business as an industry due to climate change.  

That’s something I think people are seeing on a terrifyingly regular basis, and therefore it’s at the top of the agenda. With the increased buoyancy of the live industry [after the pandemic], people have more to contribute, because it is a cost implication. It’s one that needs to be factored in as part of doing business. I wish we could have been in this position to do something earlier, but we’re here now, so let’s just move the dial as quickly as we possibly can. 

How are advancements in technology helping the cause? 

We now have proven, stable technology that allows you to run festival stages and live events on battery cells and don’t require diesel generators. We did have those three or five years ago. Hopefully through proven technological advances within the industry, we can not only introduce the audience to that which excites them and gives them a feeling of positivity and safety and hopefulness, but we can move those case studies and proof of concepts into policy and make these things contractually obligated. We can’t do that specific thing yet, but that is what I would like to see down the line. But that will be very much market dependent, artist dependent, event dependent. 

How enforceable are these clauses as the templates stand? What will be the tipping point for getting these things into contracts as a legal obligation? 

That will have to be in line with policy. We could, for example, write that if an event doesn’t provide fuel cells, then the contract is null and void. But is that a reality for that show, in that market, on that tour? Possibly, or possibly it just isn’t. There has to be a degree of people acknowledging what’s being asked of them in specific areas, and then, more importantly, using the resource hub that LIVE Green has developed.  

But using best endeavors means you’re looking at what’s in the clauses and doing anything you possibly can to respond to what’s in them. Doing something is always going to be better than doing nothing. 

Given the incoming administration in the U.S. and its anticipated loosening of environmental regulations, do you feel or fear there will be decreased momentum around this project and projects such as these?

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 challenging to uphold, but the creative industries still have an opportunity to influence and drive audience behavior change through positive messaging and innovative climate solution implementation. There may not be a policy demand or regulation in place for a particular action, but that doesn’t and shouldn’t stop us from progressing anyway. It’s what the consumer, fans and wider industry want!