Exemptions are available, but four times as many organisations fail to report without one.
Paul Keller
National Portfolio Organisations (NPOs) have failed to provide environmental monitoring data more than 1,200 times since it became a funding condition.
On average, about a fifth of Arts Council England's (ACE) portfolio has failed to report each year since 2012/13, according to information obtained by ArtsProfessional.
Mandatory reporting was suspended last year, leading to a 13% drop in emissions reporting. ACE's most recent annual report shows NPOs that did provide consistent records for 2018/19 and 2019/20 decreased their total electricity and gas consumption by 12%
READ MORE:
- NPOs report decrease in carbon emissions amid reporting drop
- Science Museum slammed over 'reckless' sponsorship deal
However, 46 oganisations have failed to report more often than not over the five years to 2019/20, ACE's data shows.
Exemptions can be granted if organisations move buildings, are undergoing capital works, are based within a larger NPO that reports on their behalf, or don't have access to data.
But our analysis shows NPOs fail to report without an exemption four times as often as they receive one. Ninety-nine organisations received at least one exemption whilst also failing to report without one in other years.
A handful of organisations have failed to report year after year without exemptions. These include music support agency Generator North East, Birmingham Town Hall and Symphony Hall managers Performances Birmingham, and Shademakers Carnival, none of which returned requests for comment.
Caribbean canival arts network EMCCAN - the only NPO to fail to report five years in a row without exemptions - declined to explain why.
An NPO that reported just one of the past five years said it had no access to the data ACE requires - "a common issue for a small touring company with limited resources".
They asked not to be named, saying environmental justice is "an important issue for [us]".
ACE says NPOs' track record on environmental reporting won't be a factor in deciding the next national portfolio a year from now.
There are no consequences for chronic non-compliance.
"In the small number of cases where organisations don’t report and aren’t exempt, we endeavour to maintain communications with all NPOs throughout the reporting period," an ACE spokesperson said.
"We offer guidance where possible, and we take action to support these organisations by helping them prepare for the next reporting period, exploring why they might not have reported and identifying where improvements can be made."
Spotty records
The figures are skewed somewhat by an unofficial exemption extended for the 2019/20 reporting year in light of Covid-19.
ACE says it doesn't know how many of the 180 NPOs recorded as failing to report without an exemption were taking advantage of this.
Nonetheless, 636 organisations - 77% of the portfolio - submitted their impact reports.
ACE is also unsure which NPOs failed to report during the first three years of the policy. It only collected "headline" figures between 2012 and 2015, when nearly a third of NPOs did not report.
Exemptions were more common then: about a fifth of organisations were granted one, compared to just 19 of 828 organisations in the 2018/19 portfolio.
The most common exemption is not having access to data (84%).
'As strong as possible'
While compliance has improved since 2015, the repeated failures of some NPOs to produce what's required raises questions about the purpose of emissions reporting as a funding requirement.
When asked, ACE said it is working towards "as strong of a set of data as possible".
The data that are available offer "valuable insights for the sector as a whole" and provide a baseline from which to "fully implement consistent reporting".
"Of course, this will be more difficult for some than others based on individual circumstances."
Mandatory reporting will resume next year.
Julies' Bicycle, which supports NPOs with their environmental reporting, did not respond to requests for comment.