Climate change is no longer an abstract threat to the art sector, but a concrete challenge. Increased temperatures and humidity volatility are now business as usual. Meanwhile, the heightened frequency of extreme weather events are rapidly altering risk profiles, and bringing the role of art institutions into sharper focus. Galleries and museums face increasing pressure to demonstrate their commitment to sustainability – not only in stated goals and ambitions, but through real-world action. Yet, change also brings challenges: in its financial and operational complexity, and through its introduction of new forms of risk.
Challenges old and new
The art sector is not blind to the realities of a changing climate. In recent years, the industry has seen a proliferation of policy aiming to drive greater adoption of sustainability principles, from the UN’s Art Charter for Climate Action (ACCA) to Circular Museum, a collaboration between MoMa’s Ambasz Institute and ART 2030. But the sector is under increasing pressure to go further. Rising energy costs and tighter regulation have converged to alter the risk calculus around sustainability. In parallel, institutions face greater scrutiny – externally, and from within – to meet strict lending criteria, and embed sustainability within standard operating procedures. In other words, sustainability is no longer primarily a question of what institutions believe, but of how they act.
Structural obstacles remain, however. The sector’s stated ambition sits in tension with a model of activity that is, by design, carbon intensive. International art fairs, exhibitions, biennials, and touring shows depend on the regular movement of objects, people, and materials across long distances, often under time-sensitive conditions that favour air freight and duplicated staffing. These patterns are foundational – closely bound up with how value is produced and recognised across the art world.
This is further reinforced by the financial and legal frameworks within which institutions operate. In the UK, the Government Indemnity Scheme (GIS) absorbs much of the risk associated with loans, enabling more flexibility in how exhibitions are organised and insured. In the US, by contrast, a greater reliance on private insurance tends to produce more conservative approaches to risk, in the form of stricter environmental parameters, additional couriers, and more intensive transport arrangements. These differences do not only shape individual exhibitions, but define the conditions under which sustainability can be pursued.
The embrace of new practices also introduces new and often competing forms of risk. Adjustments to environmental parameters, reductions in courier oversight, or changes to transport methods may lower carbon impact, but can be perceived – rightly or otherwise – as increasing the vulnerability of collections. At the same time, institutions must contend with reputational exposure, whether from perceived inaction, or from any failure of stewardship attributed to revised practices. Likewise, financial risk – including shifts in insurance requirements, potential loan refusals, and the costs of transition – can all act as counterweights to change.
Sustainability in practice
As they look to embed sustainability more effectively, institutions are beginning to move beyond generalised aspirations, and towards a series of clearly defined protocols. Climate impacts are increasingly shaped by routine choices rather than exceptional ones: from how artworks and people move, to how buildings are run, collections cared for, and exhibitions conceived. By mapping these choices, galleries and museums can begin to understand where emissions are generated, and where their agency lies:
Supply chains: The transportation of artworks has emerged as a primary point of tension. This includes decisions around air freight versus sea freight, the use of climate-controlled crates, and the requirement for multiple couriers to accompany shipments across international loans. Institutions are beginning to question whether every object must travel at the same speed, or whether shipments can be consolidated across venues, but these changes must be balanced against lender expectations and insurance conditions. Beyond freight, the sourcing of exhibition materials – from MDF walls to bespoke vitrines – and the reliance on short-term contractors further embed carbon within production cycles.
Built environment: Many museums operate within ageing or historically protected buildings, making wholesale retrofit complex and costly. Maintaining fixed environmental conditions of 21°C and 50% relative humidity across large gallery spaces requires continuous HVAC operation, often regardless of external conditions. Efforts to reduce energy demand – for example through zoning galleries, adjusting opening hours, or upgrading plant systems – are constrained by both infrastructure and conservation requirements. Capital projects, meanwhile, are increasingly expected to demonstrate improved environmental performance, placing sustainability in tension with heritage and cost.
Collection care: Conservation practices are coming under renewed scrutiny. Standards around tightly controlled environmental parameters, developed to minimise risk to objects, are now being reassessed in light of climate evidence. Proposals to widen acceptable temperature and humidity ranges – or to adopt seasonal setpoints – challenge deeply embedded professional norms, and raise questions around lender confidence and liability. Even small adjustments can have system-wide implications, particularly when loan agreements stipulate fixed conditions.
Exhibition-making and programming: Exhibition cycles themselves are a point of pressure. The production of short-term shows often involves bespoke builds, single-use materials, and tightly scheduled international loans. But it is so-called “blockbuster” exhibitions that carry the greatest transport and production demands. In response, some institutions are testing longer runs, touring formats, or the reuse of display systems, but such approaches can sit uneasily alongside expectations of novelty and institutional prestige. Questions of sustainability therefore intersect directly with how value, ambition, and audience engagement are defined.
Carbon measurement and budgeting: The introduction of carbon accounting is beginning to formalise these tensions. Emissions can now be tracked across freight, energy use, and exhibition production, making visible the carbon cost of individual decisions. A major loan, a touring exhibition, or a capital upgrade can be expressed in tonnes of CO₂, forcing institutions to confront trade-offs that were previously absorbed into best practice.
Most of these ideas are not new, but they are becoming increasingly central to decision-making as institutions look to move from discussion to implementation of sustainability best practices.
Reframing the sustainability proposition
As sustainability becomes incorporated into institutional practice, it is increasingly being reframed in financial as well as ethical terms. Rising energy prices have made the financial implications of inefficient buildings harder to ignore, while reductions in air freight, fewer courier requirements, and the reuse of exhibition materials all carry the potential to lower costs alongside emissions. But these benefits are uneven, and aren’t always immediate – often demanding significant upfront investment, while savings are realised over longer timeframes. For institutions, a key challenge lies in evidencing sustainability as a mechanism of financial resilience.
These dynamics play out differently across institutions of varying scale. While larger organisations often have greater capacity to invest in infrastructure, specialist roles, and carbon measurement tools, their complexity also tends to result in higher absolute emissions. By contrast, smaller institutions may be more agile, with simpler operations and fewer constraints, but typically come up against limited resource and expertise. These factors will likely define institutions’ approach to sustainability.
For progress to be most consistent, a top-down approach is crucial. This includes assigning sustainability as a formal board-level responsibility, to ensure that environmental performance becomes part of governance rather than a delegated operational concern. Institutions may also incorporate sustainability criteria into strategic planning around exhibitions, partnerships, loan approvals, and capital projects – to be assessed against clearly defined targets and benchmarks, with progress tracked through regular reporting. These initiatives can transform sustainability into a framework against which institutional activity is assessed.
Building a coalition
Achieving progress on sustainability is likely to require coalition – between museums, lenders, insurers, and funders – to develop shared standards that can reduce friction and redistribute risk. Efforts by bodies such as ICOM and CEMA to revisit established frameworks, including the influence of Bizot standards on loans and conservation, suggest that some of the sector’s most entrenched assumptions may yet be open to revision. Even so, the pace and extent of that change remains uncertain, shaped as much by institutional realities as by collective intent.
Talk to us
Our specialists work with experienced third parties to support art organisations to review and implement sustainable practices. By leveraging our close relationship with insurers, we ensure that the benefits of these changes are fully communicated, and accurately reflected in our clients’ insurance programmes.
For more information about the above, or for questions about your risk, reach out to a member of our team.
