Conservation has a uniquely positive and powerful role to play in shaping a sustainable future: it preserves cultural heritage for current and future generations and supports economic and societal stability. Climate change and its destructive impacts endangers cultural heritage. So a vital part of cultural heritage conservation is assessing and adapting professional practices to help combat these foremost agents of change. Embedded within this sustainability context, green conservation prioritizes the environment, and human health and wellbeing, through holistic decision-making. Aligned with conservation ethics and values, it allows for future developments and considers the entirety of consequences within investigative, interventive and preventive practice. It involves a considered balancing of the impacts, before, during and after any decision or approach. Cultural heritage professionals should actively adopt a green conservation approach, with institutional support in accordance with the Economic, Social and Environmental pillars of sustainability.

GREEN CONSERVATION

Green conservation is an aspirational, consultative process and always comparative in practice. A green conservation approach is minimally harmful to the environment and humans. Aligning with the circular economy, green conservation is decarbonizing, zero-waste, accessible, and available. Green conservation is achieved through decision-making and evolving practice, which takes all these aspects into consideration in balance with professional guidelines, and current and continuing research. Green conservation practices encompass the decisions made within the context of collection management and storage, any investigative, preventive or interventive measure, their documentation, the materials used, the frequency of treatment and long-term impacts. Green conservation reinforces and furthers the positive role of conservation in the sustainability of our culture.

GREEN PARAMETERS

Descriptors for green conservation (further explained below)

Hazard impacts on human and environment

G1 Toxicity and hazard metrics for the natural environment
G2 Toxicity and hazard metrics for humans

Impacts on climate change

G3 Energy – Indoor climate control impacts
G4 Energy – Consumption in approach / application
G5 Energy – Conservation approach / treatment-associated materials / products to be used

Impacts on resources

G6 Availability – Water & resource use
G7 Availability – Biodiversity impacts
G8 Waste

Art work, cultural heritage object specific / professional parameters

G9 Material / product selection and application method
G10 Efficiency – Number of applications / consumption / quantities of materials / products used
G11 Longevity of result
G12 Accessibility – Availability of approach / used materials / products
G13 Accessibility – Ease of use and time
G14 Quality / value impacts of result in meeting preservation goals

Download the one pager here (PDF)

USING THE GREEN PARAMETERS

The parameters are intended to provide guidance in both theory and practice.
100 % green does not exist, and the parameters are not intended as an exhaustive list. One solution/approach will be greener with regards to some parameters, whilst another might be greener in others. There will always be a balancing aspect.
The parameters can be considered in any order and depending on context. An example would be examining different ways to condition enclosures (with an identical result) and considering the total energy implications of each.
The parameters can be considered in terms of only those decisions that are directly within the control of an individual professional or used to address the broadest aspects within a wider discussion involving multiple stakeholders. To support context specificity and agency, a weighting system to indicate big vs small impact items has not been applied.
Further/future considerations can be added - if not specified here it is hoped/anticipated these can fall under one of the parameters.

THE GREEN PARAMETERS IN FURTHER DETAIL

Hazard impacts on human and environment

G1 Toxicity and hazard metrics for the natural environment

Considers the information and data relating to the toxicity and chemical hazards / risks of a particular material / product for the natural / living environment when used within the specific process / approach / treatment, as well as the toxicity and hazards for the natural / living environment considering the entire life cycle of the material / product.

G2 Toxicity and hazard metrics for humans

Considers the information and data relating to the toxicity and chemical hazards / risks of a particular material / product for the human user within the specific process / approach / treatment, as well as the toxicity and hazards for humans when considering the entire life cycle of the material / product.

Impacts on climate change

G3 Energy – Indoor climate control impacts

Considers the energy use related to indoor climate control for the object / collection, considering general guidelines, existing controls in place and the prevailing outdoor location: also considering any change in the climate control needs of the object as a result of the approach/treatment under contemplation. Considers the energy sources being used (carbon-based, non-renewable, renewable).

G4 Energy – Consumption in approach/application

Considers the energy use from consumptions directly related to the approach / application being considered (i.e. during the specific implementation process). This could include any analyses needed / carried out before and during treatment, any electrical tools used during active conservation, any transformations required by end-users at extremely low or high temperature, any specifically related energy requirements for the premises (e.g. air extraction), specifically associated transportation for artwork/materials/human, documentation and digital storage. Considers digital sobriety and the energy sources being used (carbon-based, non-renewable, renewable).

G5 Energy – Conservation approach / treatment-associated materials / products to be used

Considers the energy use associated with the manufacture, supply and disposal of the materials/products being used in the approach/application. Compares the carbon footprint/Global warming potential of the manufacture of individual products if known (e.g. Sustainability Tools in Cultural Heritage (STICH), Where there is an assembly of several products, each one is identified and considered as far as possible.

Impacts on resources

G6 Availability – Water & resource use

Considers the quantity of water used in creating the material/product and water requirements for the material/product and treatment / approach during use and disposal (e.g. for dilution). Considers whether pre-processed water or tap water is required (city, reclaimed, demineralized, ultra-pure) Considers other natural resources depleted because of the treatment/approach and materials / products being used (e.g. components in lighting/systems that rely on scarce mineral or ore sources). Considers the location of source extraction (local, national, regional, beyond). Considers social labor practices of the vendors and product manufacturers and considers human resource requirements for the approach.

G7 Availability – Biodiversity impacts

Considers the direct impact on biodiversity from the materials/products used through their creation / manufacture.

G8 Waste

Considers the required disposal of the materials / products being used and a zero-waste hierarchy - whether they can be recycled, are biodegradable, can be repurposed or can be directly reused, whereby waste is avoided. Considers waste streams specific to the organization and region, the general need to avoid pollution / fouling the planet irrespective of direct effect on living organisms and applies best practices for hazardous waste.

Art work, cultural heritage object specific / professional parameters

G9 Material / product selection and application method

Considers the effect of combining the material / product and its application method within an approach / treatment for any change in potential impacts due to the specific combinations (e.g. solvent applied with either cotton swab, gel or tissue / preparing an enclosure with materials for eventual separation and re-use).

G10 Efficiency - Number of applications/consumption/quantities of materials/products used

Considers the quantity of material / product needed. Considers the amount used in a single application and the number of repeated applications required to achieve the desired result. Considers what can be reused and how much will be needed for the duration of the total process (hours, day, month or year).

G11 Longevity of result

Considers the lifetime of the treatment / result of the approach. Considers the durability / purity / quality of the materials / products added to the object within the approach / treatment. Considers the frequency of subsequent interventions / maintenance as a result of the approach (none, every year, 5 years, 10 years, > 10 years), and the type of maintenance that would be required (carbon-based, electrical (renewable, non-renewable), chemical, manual.)

G12 Accessibility – Availability of approach / used materials / products

Considers the costs involved (qualitatively assessed by user) of the materials used in the approach / treatment, within the context of risk assessment and safe efficacy, Considers whether the materials are available as a commercial product for the user, whether they are already present (in the studio / lab / etc) or need to be purchased, and considers the transparency of material/product information.

G13 Accessibility – Ease of use and time

Considers the ease of using the treatment / approach, materials / products, considering the working properties and the time needed for testing the approach / materials / product, and the time needed for carrying out the treatment / approach. Considers the potential professional / long-term benefits of any new method / innovative approach.

G14 Quality / value impacts of result in meeting preservation goals

Considers the quality and value impact of the material / product, treatment / approach in meeting preservation goals, e.g. success of treatment / remedial action in preventing deterioration / increasing public accessibility.

BACKGROUND

Concept, Goal and Scope

Conceptually aligned with a scientific attitude (care for empirical evidence, and willingness to change theory in the face of new empirical evidence), the definition and parameters aim to differentiate and broadly outline the unique characteristics of green conservation from a sustainability perspective.
The definition and parameters are aspirational with the intention to guide clearer evaluations of green conservation in all aspects and disciplines within cultural heritage conservation, encouraging the use of reliable and comparable data where possible.
It aligns with the circular economy.

Frameworks

Developed from a sustainability framework, safe and sustainable by design, combining Life cycle assessment (LCA), Life cycle costing (LCC), social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) approaches and alignment with principles of green heritage science e.g. inherently non-harmful, maximization of (safe) efficiency etc.
Where possible, internationally recognized frameworks, data and metrics can be applied - such as the Globally Harmonized System (GHS, e.g. in G1 and G2), LCA data (e.g. contributing in G1 to G7) and guidelines (e.g. BIZOT).
Whilst certain quantitative frameworks can be applied to the parameters, other aspects can only be assessed qualitatively / comparatively and/or rely on context-specific primary data / inputs from the user.
It is recognized that diverse frameworks of knowledge may be further needed, with specifications and developments that respect the subjective nature of an artwork/cultural heritage’s values, meaning and purpose.
The parameters are grouped for clarity. Where certain effects/impacts could be theoretically considered in multiple parameters, an approach has been taken to avoid repetition and confusion by aiming to determine the primary association within the main impact categories specified g. harmful impacts (toxicity and chemical hazards / risks) on non-human living organisms from disposal of a material are considered in G1 (which encompasses the entire life cycle). Other impacts that could be potentially linked, such as on biodiversity from the associated polluting waste for instance, would be subsequent/secondary knock-on effects.

Our approach

How are we defining green/er conservation?

‘Green conservation’ is informed by the larger context of sustainability and defined by the parameters (or key factors) considered most relevant to conservation. The definition aims to outline environmental impacts alongside professional responsibilities and requirements within conservation decisions and practice, hereby considering the pertinent socio-economic aspects. The parameters are linked with the strategic impact areas as illustrated in figure 1. This definition focuses solely on conservation. The broader environmental impacts, social aspects and implicit value of cultural heritage itself are not directly included herein.

Figure 1. Strategic impact areas identified within the United Nations* 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The model diagram is based upon the approach from the World Green Building Council.

Our research strategy has included:

compiling a database of policies, pertinent tools, datasets and relevant conservation literature to examine the definitions and usages of green-related terms within and -out our field;
adopting a sustainability perspective and identifying our key impacts (inspired by strategies used within other industries) (Figure 1);
incorporating the principles of sustainable green chemistry, LCA and EHS approaches;
acknowledging the complexity of our decisions and applications;
ensuring legible, transparent presentation of the parameters for applying in practice.

Additionally, a connected process of research and feedback (Figure 2) has ensured consultation with experts and the broader conservation community throughout. Input from others via workshops, focus groups meetings and surveys (Figure 3) has been unmissable and invaluable in developing and disseminating our work in progress definitions and parameters.

Figure 2. Connecting research and Feedback. Strategy of connected processes for defining Green in Conservation.

DEFINING GREEN/ER CONSERVATION

Watch this three minute video to see how we are defining green conservation

Do you agree with the definition? Do you have comments or suggestions? Please take our survey below.

Disclaimer / acknowledgements

It is acknowledged that the associated assessments are highly complex, and since not all future developments and socio-economic contexts can be foreseen, a timeless definition of green conservation is impossible.

Further, continuing work

The definition and parameters form the base for the GoGreen Digital Support App (DSA) which is being created, and our continuing research aims to provide specific details on frameworks that could be applied in assessments. This work will also form the basis for developing industry standards with the professional bodies.

An FAQ section will be included to address concerns or disagreements raised, as well as tips and links for the future implementation of the definition in conservators’ day-to-day work life.

FEEDBACK

A connected process of research and feedback has ensured consultation with experts and the broader conservation community throughout. Input from others via workshops, focus groups meetings and surveys has been unmissable and invaluable in developing and disseminating our work in progress definitions and parameters.

External expert committee

International conservation scientists, practitioners, and sustainability leaders from the field were invited to contribute their expertise and knowledge to the development of the definition. The External Experts Committee consisted of prestigious professionals whose input was vital to the success of the project and helped shape the definition. Our External Experts Committee includes:

White woman with medium length dark hair sitting in a lab wearing a black jacket and red scarf

Bronwyn Ormsby

Dr. Bronwyn Ormsby is Tate’s Principal Conservation Scientist and has led the Conservation Science and Preventive Conservation team within the Conservation Department since 2016. Bronwyn specialises in the analysis of synthetic polymers and modern paints and collaborative conservation treatment research. Example projects include The Rothko Conservation Project (2012-14), NANORESTART (2015-2018), CMOP (Cleaning Modern Oil Paints, 2015-2018), GREENART (2022-2025) and two Tate RICHeS awards (2024-2026). Bronwyn was a key member of the GCI CAPS (Cleaning Acrylic Painted Surfaces, 2009-2018) workshop team and lectures and delivers research into practice workshops for conservators and students nationally and internationally. Bronwyn was the 2024 recipient of the prestigious Plowden Medal, awarded for significant recent contributions to the advancement of the conservation of modern and contemporary art.

Jonathan Ashley-Smith

Jonathan Ashley-Smith is a researcher and writer in the field of cultural heritage risk. Jonathan studied chemistry to post-doctoral level at the Universities of Bristol and Cambridge. From 1973-1977 he worked as a metalwork conservator and analytical scientist at the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) London. From 1977-2002 he was Head of Conservation at the V&A. In 1994 he was awarded a Leverhulme Fellowship and was granted sabbatical leave to study risk methodologies. The resultant book, Risk Assessment for Object Conservation, was published in 1999. In 2000 he was awarded the Plowden medal for his contribution to the conservation profession. He was Secretary-General of the International Institute for Conservation 2003-2006. He was Visiting Professor in the Conservation Department of the Royal College of Art, London, from 2000-2010. Between 2009-2014 he was project leader for the damage and risk assessment module of the EC research project “Climate for Culture”, looking at risks to collections and historic interiors arising from climate change. His recent work has highlighted his concerns about the decline in practical conservation skills and the unthinking rigidity of conservation ethics. His current obsession is ‘uncertainty’.

Ellen Pearlstein

Ellen Pearlstein is a founding faculty member and Professor Emerita in the graduate UCLA/Getty Conservation Program, where she incorporated Indigenous instruction into the understanding and care of California basketry and featherwork. Her publications include the book Conservation of Featherwork from Central and South America, articles about feather regalia, coloration, light aging, Peruvian qeros and their colorants, Indigenous basketry materials, and conservation pedagogy. Her book devoted to Indigenous collections conservation and care is in press in the Getty Readings in Conservation series. She is a core contributor to the School for Advanced Research Guidelines for Collaboration. She guest lectures globally. Ellen is the Director of the Andrew W. Mellon Opportunity for Diversity in Conservation and PI for the NEH Tribal Collections Care grant. She is a Keck Prize awardee, and a 2022 recipient of a Rome Prize for the study of collaborative conservation approaches to Americas’ collections in European museums.

Jane Henderson

Jane Henderson, BSc, MSc, PACR, FIIC, FRHisS. Professor of Conservation and the Secretary General of IIC, chair of the BSI standard group B/560 concerned with the conservation of Tangible Cultural heritage and member of the European standards body CEN TC 346. Jane serves on the editorial panel of the Journal of the Institute for Conservation and the Science Museum Journal and is an active board the Welsh Federation of Museum and Art Galleries.

David Saunders

Dr. David Saunders FSA FIIC. Honorary Research Fellow and formerly Keeper of Conservation and Scientific Research at the British Museum. After postdoctoral research in chemistry, he began his conservation career in the Scientific Department at London’s National Gallery. He has twice been a guest scholar at the Getty Conservation Institute in Los Angeles and was also its inaugural Getty Rothschild Fellow. He has been a visiting professor at UCL and NYU. His research focuses on non-invasive analysis, the effect of the environment (particularly light) on museum objects and sustainable preventive conservation.

Justine Wuebold

Justine Wuebold has worked in museums and cultural heritage for over a decade, and has specialized knowledge in collections care, conservation, and green museum practices. She holds a dual Masters in Museum Studies and Business Administration from John F. Kennedy University. Justine is a Research Facilitator in the Embedding Sustainability in Conservation Education Initiative and Program Manager for the Preservation of Indigenous Collections and Cultural Resources program for the UCLA/Getty Program in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage.

Julian Bickersteth

Julian Bickersteth is the President of IIC (International Institute for the Conservation of historic and artistic works) and a lifelong advocate for sustainability practices in conservation. He led the IIC working group that resulted in the IIC/ICOM CC Environmental Guidelines Declaration (2014) and the IIC/ICOM CC/ICCROM Joint Commitment for Climate Action in Cultural Heritage (2021). Julian was appointed an Officer in the Order of Australia in 2024 for services to the arts, museums and the environment.

Cecil Krarup Andersen

Cecil Krarup Andersen is associate professor and head of the Paintings Conservation Program at the Royal Danish Academy, Architecture, Design and Conservation (RDA). She received her PhD in the structure and mechanics of lined paintings in 2013 from RDA. Cecil has extensive experience as a painting conservator from both private practices and museums providing a solid basis for research into paintings and their conservation. Her research focuses on painting’s technique, mechanical properties and degradation in paints and painting materials and the effect of structural conservation of canvas paintings as well as monitoring of collections and simulation of degradation scenarios.

Lorraine Finch

Lorraine provides leadership to address the complex challenges faced in cultural heritage. She has founded and led organisations to explore ethics, professional standards and to encourage EDI in heritage conservation and preservation. She runs LFCP to accelerate the cultural heritage sector’s climate and environmental actions. Lorraine advocates on the international stage for sustainability in cultural heritage participating in conferences, leading workshops and training, publishing books and articles and collaborating with leaders in the field in the USA and Europe. Lorraine is Chair of the Institute of Conservation’s Sustainability Group and a recipient of the David Middleton Sustainability Award. Lorraine is a Director of Climate Museum UK and an accredited conservator of archives, photographs, film and sound.

Eric Breitung

Eric Breitung is a Research Scientist at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. He focuses on modern preservation materials and museum environment issues and leads the Preventive Conservation Science Laboratory (PCSL) in the Department of Scientific Research. The PCSL primarily aims to optimize the air quality near collections by improving the field’s ability to select safe construction, display, storage, and transport materials. This is being accomplished by improving the tests used to evaluate materials, expanding our understanding of which chemicals are harmful to collections, and broadly sharing test methods and results. Other initiatives include policy development for constructing display cases, integrated pest management, and the use of amplified sound and heavy equipment. Eric earned a PhD in physical organic chemistry from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He worked in the Polymer Materials Laboratory on thin films and coatings at General Electric's Research and Development Center for 10 years, during which he spent one year as an Andrew W. Mellon Fellow at The Met. He then worked on textile dye analysis at the Smithsonian Institution’s Freer and Sackler Gallery, followed by becoming senior scientist at the Library of Congress. There he focused on modern materials and development of materials analysis tools.

Your feedback

Do you agree with the definition of green conservation? Is it easy to read? Is it relevant to your work? In this brief survey, you have the opportunity to make suggestions or comments.

Take the survey

As part of our research strategy of connecting research with continuous feedback, we would be happy to hear from you.

We thank you very much for your time!

DEFINING

GREEN

CONSERVATION

WORK IN PROGRESS DEFINITION

BACKGROUND

FAQ SECTION

FEEDBACK

Funded by the European Union

Funded by the
European Union