Watering It Down Is Out of Fashion. Green Filming Without the Spin

The fantastical world of Jurassic Park, the detailed reconstruction of the Titanic, and the Hogwarts sets in the Harry Potter film series cost millions of dollars. However, beyond their financial cost, these and many other films generated enormous environmental costs. Film productions can produce up to several thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide, meaning that the environmental impact of the film industry is significant. For this reason, the ESG concept (Environmental, Social, Governance), which has been gaining popularity in recent years, is also finding application in cinematography.

ESG and Green Filming

The ESG concept is based on three pillars – environmental, social, and governance – which apply to many industries, including the film industry. In this context, one speaks of green filming or sustainable film production, i.e. an approach aimed at minimising the negative environmental impact of film productions, inter alia by reducing the carbon footprint, limiting the consumption of natural resources, and promoting environmentally friendly solutions that are commonly known and used in everyday life.

Although the film industry has not yet developed binding rules that filmmakers are required to follow, in recent years various institutions and organisations (including the Polish Audiovisual Producers Chamber – KIPA) have prepared guidelines aimed at disseminating and standardising good practices in the field of sustainable film production.

The Risks of Non-Ecological Production

Artificial, plastic and non-ecological materials are usually used only once, exclusively for the purposes of a particular film. Producers try to counteract this single-use approach by employing universal set elements that do not evoke a direct association with a specific film, making it possible to reuse them in other productions.

However, the environmental footprint does not result solely from non-ecological props. A significant negative impact on the environment is caused by power generators that operate continuously on film sets for many hours. Pollution is also generated by transport, particularly when film crews travel long distances, especially by air.

Each shooting day can generate kilograms of waste in the form of disposable tableware and plastic bottles, which are often not segregated. In addition, the environment is negatively affected by artificial materials and chemicals used in the production of sets and costumes – not all of them are suitable for recycling, especially when different types of materials are combined.

When Money Eats Ecology

Many producers approach ecological film production with scepticism. Concerns about the need to increase the film budget and production costs may discourage them from green filming. Environmentally friendly solutions can indeed be more expensive, and given that most films struggle with financing challenges, producers seek to minimise costs.

Moreover, the lack of support from state organisations and institutions hampers the implementation of green filming. The absence of grants, tax incentives and dedicated financing programmes discourages producers from seeking more environmentally friendly solutions.

Sustainable film production is also hindered by concerns about excessive and complex logistics, as well as certain technical limitations, since not all ecological materials can be used in the manner envisaged in the script. As a result, it is not always possible to achieve the planned effects.

Greenwashing

Producers who do not care about sustainable development may face criticism from audiences and business partners, which can negatively affect the reputation of both the producer and the film. This may therefore create a temptation to apply ecological solutions only superficially, thereby misleading recipients.

Greenwashing is a practice that involves a kind of “window-dressing” of activities. Some companies present themselves as ecological and environmentally friendly, even though in reality they are not. They may mislead through the use of eco-labels, advertising campaigns and green PR. The temptation to engage in greenwashing may become stronger as pressure from cultural consumers (audiences) and business partners (co-producers and investors) increases.

It should be borne in mind, however, that consequences are предусмотрed for engaging in such unfair practices. In Poland, greenwashing may be considered an act of unfair competition under the Act on Combating Unfair Competition if it misleads consumers as to the characteristics, quality or properties of the products offered. Greenwashing may also be regarded as an unfair market practice under the provisions of the Act on Counteracting Unfair Market Practices. If collective consumer interests are infringed, the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) may issue a decision imposing financial sanctions on the dishonest entrepreneur.

One can also envisage criminal liability of a film producer who – under the pretext of applying ecological solutions – obtains public funding for a film where green filming is a condition of such funding. In general, eco-deception does not pay off.

Good Green Filming Practices

Ecological solutions do not necessarily require the application of extensive organisational and financial resources. Improved logistics, double-sided printing, waste segregation on set, or the elimination of single-use packaging in catering can already significantly contribute to reducing the carbon footprint.

The Polish Audiovisual Producers Chamber (KIPA) has developed “green” best practices for film production. It is worth considering filming in locations that are close to one another and, where possible, reusing previously produced props and set elements, or using second-hand or rented materials instead of purchasing new ones.

Reducing the use of generators and non-alternative energy sources appears challenging unless energy networks allow filmmakers temporary access to existing power connections. Procedures for obtaining access to the grid can take many weeks, meaning that until energy networks become more involved in the green filming process, filmmakers will not be able to fully limit the use of generators. Regardless, it is worth considering the use of LED lighting, batteries, and disconnecting equipment that is not in use.

Some producers occasionally organise auctions and bidding events where popular props are sold at a significant profit (as in the case of Marilyn Monroe’s dress from The Seven Year Itch or James Bond’s Aston Martin from Goldfinger). These activities are not always directly motivated by ecological considerations. However, if giving objects from film sets a second life can be combined with acquiring new sources of financing or exploitation revenues, this benefits the audiovisual industry as a whole.

The Eco-Manager

It may seem that developing ecological alternatives to traditional materials and processes requires additional coordination and planning on the part of producers, and therefore may be difficult to implement.

For this reason, a good practice that helps realise the assumptions of green filming is the employment of so-called eco-managers – individuals responsible for managing and minimising the environmental impact of film production. The tasks of eco-managers include ecological planning at every stage of film production, waste management, and improving energy efficiency. An integral part of their role is also educating and raising awareness among film crews regarding the application of ecological practices and the promotion of environmental awareness.

An Institutional Approach Is Required

In the current realities of the film market, it is necessary to create an institutional approach aimed at developing measures that engage the entire film community.

Since films are most often produced with funding from various institutions (such as the Polish Film Institute – PISF), it is worth considering the possibility of granting additional funding pools for the application of ecological solutions. A supportive measure could also be the obligation to report on the implementation of pro-environmental solutions. Filmmakers benefiting from additional public funds for ecological purposes would be genuinely held accountable for the effects of their actions, while the reporting obligation would also constitute an additional incentive and motivation for producers, who would know that specific institutions reward ecological film productions. It is important, however, that reporting requirements do not turn into yet another bureaucratic burden requiring time, money and the printing of reams of paper.

The culture of film production therefore requires joint action by film producers, individual crew members, and public institutions that cooperate for the benefit of cinematography. The initiatives undertaken by KIPA are valuable and worth promoting, including the systematisation of best practices in sustainable film production, as well as the organisation of initiatives such as the Climate Film award at the Polish Film Festival in Gdynia, the Green Audiovisual Production Laboratory programme, and the promotion of eco-consultants.