Sustainable Materials in Events: Going Beyond the Paper Straw

The sustainable materials conversation in music, media and entertainment is incomplete. 

What something is made of matters: the difference between a virgin plastic cup and a reusable polypropylene one is real, the difference between PVC signage and a recyclable alternative is real, the carbon cost of conventional versus organic cotton is real. Material choices have environmental consequences, and they deserve scrutiny.

But material type alone doesn't determine the outcome. 

What happens to that material across the lifecycle of an event: who brings it, how it moves, what infrastructure exists to recover it, what the waste contractor actually does with it at midnight on Sunday, is just as important, and gets a fraction of the attention.

 A reusable cup with no washing logistics plan delivers little environmental benefit. 

Compostable packaging at an event with no commercial composting collection composts nothing. 

Certified sustainable timber in a set structure that goes to landfill is a worse outcome than uncertified timber repurposed for ten years.

Material choices and operational systems both matter. The industry tends to get the first one partially right and the second one barely started.

That’s why in this article we tackle…

• Why sustainable materials in events require both the right material and the right system
• The supply chain decisions that actually move the needle
• Cups and drinkware: where the evidence is clearest
• Packaging, signage and set materials: the decisions nobody talks about
• Merch, costumes and textile materials: the overproduction problem
• What "sustainable" actually means and what it doesn't
• Where most organisations go wrong

Sustainable materials in events requires both the right material and the right system

A major event is a temporary supply chain. Materials flow in; timber, steel, fabric, plastic, paper, packaging, drinkware, signage, costumes, cables, fuel, and flow out in a condition that determines whether they re-enter use or go to waste. The decisions that shape that material footprint are not made at the point of purchase. 

They are made months earlier: in vendor selection, in rider specifications, in logistics planning, in the set design brief, in the waste management tender. By the time the trucks arrive, most of the material outcomes are already locked in.

The supply chain decisions that actually move the needle

Most event supply chains are invisible to the sustainability conversation. Vendors supplying staging, rigging, lighting, sound and catering infrastructure are making material decisions constantly: what they stock, how they package it, how they transport it, what they do with it between jobs. Those decisions aggregate across every event they service.

Unusual Rigging's sustainability initiative with Hope Solutions is what vendor-level engagement looks like in practice: a systematic review of materials, operations and supply chain practices across a major industry supplier. 

Rider and contract specifications are the mechanism for driving change through the supply chain, specifying reusable drinkware, restricting single-use packaging, and requiring vendors to document what they bring on site and remove at the end. These levers exist and are massively underused. The events industry writes detailed technical riders without thinking twice. The same rigour applied to materials would change outcomes significantly.

Logistics rarely gets discussed. Consolidated deliveries reduce transport emissions and minimise the handling points at which materials get separated or damaged. Return logistics are standard in some production contexts and almost unheard of in others. The future of touring depends on whether the infrastructure exists to support circularity at scale. 

Waste contractor relationships are where sustainability intentions most often quietly die. An event can have excellent materials procurement and still generate enormous landfill waste if the contractor lacks the infrastructure to sort and recover what they're collecting. Waste management has to be designed in from the planning stage, not called in at the end to deal with whatever's left.

Cups and drinkware: where the evidence is clearest

Research by Hope Solutions and Julie's Bicycle, commissioned by LIVE, is the most comprehensive lifecycle analysis of cup materials for UK indoor venues available. The findings are unambiguous. Reusable cups have a lower environmental impact than single-use cups after just three uses. 

At 75 uses, they create 87% fewer emissions. Within reusables, polypropylene (PP) is the right material: hard-wearing, lower production impact, capable of the wash cycles needed to deliver its benefit. Recycled plastics like r-PET are less robust and typically reach the end of life before offsetting their production cost. For venues that cannot operate a reusable system, aqueous-lined paper cups create 75% fewer emissions per pint than virgin plastic single-use cups.

The material question has clear answers. The operational question (making reusable systems actually work) is where most venues fall down. Loss rates are the main variable: a cup that doesn't come back has to be replaced, eroding the lifecycle advantage. Loss rates are determined by audience communication and deposit scheme design, not by the cup itself. Washing logistics matter equally; industrial washing within 50km of the venue is the most efficient option; beyond that, transport emissions eat into the benefit.

The scale justifies urgency. At least 80 million single-use cups are used across UK venues every year, costing the industry £4.8 million annually. A 2,000-capacity venue running three shows a week uses over 686,400 single-use cups at a cost of £41,184 a year. The financial case for switching is as strong as the environmental one. 

Packaging, signage and set materials: the decisions nobody talks about

The MIT Climate Machine study, produced with Hope Solutions, Coldplay, Live Nation and Warner Music Group, identified waste as a significant and underaddressed source of emissions across live music. The principle is consistent across packaging, signage and set materials: the right material choice and a broken waste system still deliver a poor outcome. Compostable packaging at an event with no commercial composting collection ends up in general waste. 

Signage is produced at scale, used once and almost always discarded. PVC, the default, is cheap, durable and essentially unrecyclable. Fabric with recycled content is better, but only delivers its end-of-life benefit if a recovery system exists to collect and reprocess it. 

Set and production structures are where the highest-value decisions are made. FSC-certified timber over uncertified, steel designed to be returned and reused over single-use fabrication: material choices matter here. But the highest-impact decision is designing for reuse from the outset: structures built to be adapted, repurposed and tracked rather than disposed of locally at the end of a tour. That is a design stage decision. It is one of the clearest examples of why sustainability embedded in production operations delivers what a post-hoc review cannot.

Merch, costumes and textile materials: the overproduction problem

Organic cotton eliminates synthetic pesticides and uses less water than conventional cotton. Recycled polyester has a lower production footprint than virgin: though it sheds microplastics during washing, which matters for garments laundered frequently. These distinctions are real. 

However, the main event is overproduction. Merch made speculatively in bulk, shipped to venues, returned unsold and disposed of generates environmental impact regardless of material. Organic cotton in a landfill is still in a landfill. On-demand production significantly reduces this, but requires logistics and lead times structured around demand rather than supply. Most touring operations haven't built that discipline.

The most sustainable textile choice for touring merch is the right material, in quantities that reflect actual demand, produced close to where it is needed, designed to be worn many times. 

What "sustainable" actually means and what it doesn't

The Green Claims Code requires environmental claims to be accurate, substantiated and not misleading. Several terms used constantly in event sustainability don't meet that bar.

"Biodegradable" is the most abused. PLA, marketed heavily as biodegradable, requires industrial composting conditions to break down. Those conditions don't exist in standard event waste streams. If it goes in a general waste bin, it doesn't biodegrade. Claiming otherwise without specifying the conditions required is potentially non-compliant under the Green Claims Code and the FCA's Anti-Greenwashing Rule.

"Recycled" and "recyclable" mean different things. Recycled content has already diverted waste, a genuine benefit. Recyclable means it can theoretically be recycled, but whether it is depends on local infrastructure and contamination rates. At events where waste streams are mixed, recyclability in theory rarely becomes recycling in practice.

"Responsibly sourced" is unverifiable without certification. For timber-based products, FSC and PEFC are the recognised standards. Without one of those, it is a claim without evidence.

Greenwashing in live events is now a governance risk, not just a reputational one. What you say about your materials needs to be what you can substantiate: and that is increasingly central to credible ESG reporting.

Where most organisations go wrong

Treating sustainable materials as a communications brief. 

The visible switches, such as paper straws, recycled lanyards, and branded bottles that end up in a drawer, generate content and satisfy some stakeholders. They don't move the environmental needle. The decisions that matter are in vendor supply chains, logistics, waste contractor specification and production design. Unglamorous, operationally complex, and with almost no public narrative. That is where the work is.

Choosing a material without designing the system. 

Reusable cups without washing logistics. Compostable packaging without composting collection. Recycled signage without a recovery plan. The material creates the potential. The system delivers: or doesn't.

Engaging the supply chain too late. 

Once a production is underway, material decisions are largely made. Getting ahead of them requires vendor engagement, rider specification and logistics planning well before load-in. This is where environmental consultancy embedded in the production process makes the difference: not certifying materials, but building the systems that make sustainable choices land.

What to do next

If you're making materials and supply chain decisions for an event, a venue, a tour, a production and want them grounded in evidence and built into your operations rather than bolted on at the end, that is where we start.

At Hope Solutions, we work with organisations across music, media and live events on sustainability that is operational, not symbolic. Get in touch if you want to talk through what that looks like for you.