Eliza Callil, Hannah Doan and Michele Douven

What are the ways Australian publishers are considering editorial practices (freelance and in-house) in their sustainability or carbon zero goals, and how are they implementing changes based on these considerations?

Keywords: Australian publishing industry, editorial practices, Penguin Random House Australia (PRH Australia), Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), sustainable practices, University of Queensland Press (UQP)

Introduction

The threat of climate change is something that we are all being forced to grapple with, and corporations have an urgent responsibility to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The resource-intensive book publishing industry has been a particularly bad culprit, but fortunately, many Australian publishing houses have been making enthusiastic strides towards sustainability. This movement towards sustainability has seen increased adoption of Forest Stewardship Coucil (FSC) certification and embracing of sustainability goals, data collection and public reporting. However, industry resources focus heavily on aspects of operation with the biggest emissions, like production, freight and pulping, while overlooking smaller aspects of the supply chain, like editorial practices. We believe that to create a sustainable future for the industry, the environmental impact needs to be thoroughly considered at every stage of publishing. Through interviews with industry professionals, we hope to fill some of the gaps in existing information around sustainable editorial practices and provide actionable insights for industry members.

Sustainability in publishing

Paper-reliant industries like book publishing have a responsibility to make urgent changes and reduce their environmental impact. The Australian Publishers Association (APA) re-established its Sustainability Working Group in 2019, bringing together large and small publishers to share knowledge and lead the way on sustainable practices. The APA’s Greener Publishing Guide provides publishers with updated guidance on sustainable materials, green office practices and emissions reduction targets.

Some larger publishing houses are setting the pace by taking strong actions in their own operations. Penguin Random House (PRH) Australia, for example, is working toward achieving climate neutrality by 2030. According to their 2023 Sustainability Report, PRH Australia has transitioned to 100% renewable energy in its offices and warehouses, implemented energy-saving measures and enhanced efficiencies in freight and packaging. Allen & Unwin has restructured its Sydney office, implementing composting, LED lighting, soft plastic recycling, sustainable cleaning products and promoting circular resource use. Simon & Schuster Australia has focused on sustainable production by using FSC-certified paper, soy-based inks and plastic-free packaging wherever possible. These initiatives tend to focus on operational process and production practices, but where does the work of editors fit into these moves towards greener publishing?

Editorial processes and their overlooked environmental impact

Editors are not only responsible for refining the content of a book, but also work closely with design, marketing, production and sales departments to ensure quality control at every stage. These processes are essential to the creation of the final product, but their environmental implications are often overlooked in sustainability discussions and industry reports. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) white paper, ‘Recommendations on the CO2e emissions calculation in the publishing industry for printed books’, states that content creation, including editing, is ‘usually a small component of a book’s footprint and not an area publishers will likely focus on reducing.’ However, we found there is currently very little hard data on the environmental impact of content creation.

Editorial workflows: digital vs hard copy

Traditionally, editorial processes have relied heavily on paper for manuscript development, editing and proofing. Each stage often involves multiple printed versions, contributing to office paper waste and energy usage involved in printing. Editorial work is also often outsourced to freelancers who might live far away, adding transport emissions and minimising potential oversight from publishing houses.

The nature of editorial work has evolved in response to the digital era, with a large degree of editing operations now being done on-screen. This is partly due to environmental efforts, but also largely for convenience, saving the wait time and costs associated with old mail courier methods.

While it is easily assumed that digital practices generate lower environmental impact, this is not necessarily the case. These methods have their own sustainability concerns that need to be understood and addressed. Specifically, storing large volumes of manuscripts, images, drafts and communications in the cloud requires data centres. The International Energy Agency (IEA) found that data centres accounted for roughly 1.5% of global electricity use in 2024. Personal devices used by editors use their own energy and contribute to e-waste, and digital tools frequently used in the editorial process like email, file transfers and video conferencing all have additional carbon footprints. In addition, emergent AI technology has already begun to be incorporated into editorial workflows, and along with the ethical issues of AI, we know that it has significantly negative environmental impacts.

While the footprint of editorial work may be lower than, for example, distribution, it still nonetheless needs to be better understood, mapped and accounted for in the industry's sustainability efforts. To better understand the environmental footprints of editorial practices — and ways to mitigate them — we have spoken with a freelance editor, looked at a mid-size publisher and at a big publisher leading the charge in sustainability initiatives.

Debbie Emmitt: on thriving as a sustainable freelance editor

Debbie Emmitt is a UK-based freelance editor and proofreader who started her freelance career in 2018. She has had seven years of experience working with self-publishing authors, businesses and occasionally with small presses. The blog on her business website, How I strive to be a sustainable editor, offers insights into how individual editors are already integrating eco-friendly practices into their workflows.

In our interview, Emmitt shared that her journey toward integrating sustainability in her editorial work began when she was inspired by fellow editor Jessica Brown, who planted a tree with every book she edited. ‘I researched the company, JUST ONE Tree, to ensure they were legitimate and decided to adopt this practice too,’ Emmitt stated.

Despite her personal commitment to sustainability, Emmitt has not actively marketed herself as a sustainable editor. She explains, ‘I don’t feel it defines me, but it might be something I focus on in the future’. For her, being ‘greener’ in her editorial processes is a way to ‘do my bit to help the planet’.

Sustainable editorial processes

As an editor, Emmitt blends ‘greener’ practices into her daily editing tasks, including donating to JUST ONE Tree for every 2000-word manuscript she edits. She prioritises a paperless workflow and works from home to reduce her carbon footprint. Due to the high energy usage, she uses AI only sparingly and does not use it in her editing work. She continues to adapt her lifestyle and business practices to reduce her environmental impact.

Emmitt shares that she has begun offsetting the carbon emissions from her air travel. This aligns with 2023 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) sustainable workplace guidance on ‘planet-friendly travel’, which encourages the use of alternatives to flying, such as video conferencing, public transport and defined thresholds for when air travel is justified.

Challenges in sustainable editing: AI and the lack of industry recognition

The widespread rise of AI has threatened Emmitt’s sustainability goals, particularly due to the ‘resource-intensive’ nature of AI technologies. She takes proactive steps to minimise its use, including disabling AI overviews in search engines like Google and DuckDuckGo. However, Emmitt acknowledges the inevitable expansion of AI in many aspects, noting, ‘I’ve read that Green AI is increasing and some sources predict that by 2030, carbon-neutral AI will become the standard’. To further streamline her sustainable practices, she uses digital tools like Trello and Free Agent, and buys planners that use FSC-certified paper.

Emmitt admits that due her lack of experience working with larger publishers she is not fully aware of how they prioritise sustainability when working with authors or hiring editors. This gap underscores a broader disconnect between independent freelancers and larger industry players in advancing cohesive, industry-wide sustainability efforts.

According to Jobs and Skills Australia, there are approximately 5,900 authors and book/script editors employed in Australia, with 40% working part-time. In the employment survey conducted by Books+Publishing in 2018, only 8% of respondents identified as freelancers, but many worked for multiple companies, 41% worked for six or more and 22% for just one or two.

Freelancers’ practices can have a significant impact on the carbon footprint of the projects and products they are working on. Often, they will have more flexibility to integrate sustainable practices into their workflows, such as reducing paper usage and offsetting their own carbon footprint. However, they may face financial constraints and inconsistent workloads that limit their ability to invest in sustainable tools or prioritise green practices consistently. A lack of industry-wide collaboration may hinder freelancers’ efforts to enact sustainable practices—as they are not able to ensure that each publisher they work for will hold these same values. Additionally, the lack of industry-wide collaboration and client awareness can hinder efforts to implement or advocate for eco-conscious editorial practices effectively.

In short, Emmitt’s proactive efforts toward sustainable processes demonstrate the potential for integrating sustainability into editorial processes at the individual level within the Australian freelance editing landscape. Her case study provides valuable insights for this article, showcasing how freelance editors can take significant steps towards sustainability, even in the absence of structured industry-wide frameworks and limited support from larger publishers. This case study also demonstrates the disconnect between freelance and in-house sustainability efforts and highlights opportunities for increased collaboration and recognition of freelancers' role in advancing sustainability within the Australian publishing industry.

University of Queensland Press (UQP)

Established in 1948 as the University of Queensland’s publishing arm, UQP is today one of Australia’s leading publishing houses, winning the Australian Book Industry Awards (ABIA) Small Publisher of the Year award from 2021 to 2023. They are also Queensland’s only publisher that distributes both nationally and internationally, with a reputation for promoting emerging and First Nations authors.

UQP’s journey to climate positive

As Australia’s first climate positive publisher, UQP also has a reputation for promoting environmental sustainability, both in the content of the books they publish and in their business practices. In 2021, UQP became a signatory to the SDG Publisher’s Compact. The Publisher’s Compact, launched at the 2020 Frankfurt Book Fair, saw publisher’s pledge their commitment to advocate for sustainability in the community and the industry at large. This ‘connects UQP with a coalition of publishing houses across the globe that explicitly acknowledge their responsibilities to promote change and create a better world’.

Sustainability and editing

We spoke to Felicity Dunning, editor at UQP and a founding member of their sustainability team, who had valuable insights into how sustainability influences their editing practices. In 2023, UQP refocused their efforts on improving the sustainability of their workplace practices. Former UQP Director, Ben James, also sat on the APA Sustainability Committee, which allowed him to research the various offset programs available to assist them in this process. The specific offset programs that UQP ended up using are accredited under both the Gold Standard Schemes and the Verra Schemes.

Sustainability can be an expensive endeavour, specifically the process of being independently accredited by an external governing body (Climate Active). While being owned by the University of Queensland provides UQP with unique resources that not every small publisher can access, attaining carbon neutrality was still only achieved with extra financial assistance from Creative Australia.

Like many publishing houses, UQP employs both in-house and freelance editors, with between 30–40% of their projects using a freelancer at some point, especially for the proofreading stage. Unfortunately, this makes it difficult to track the impact of freelance editors in any carbon zero goals, as many freelancers work from their own home or office spaces. Aside from encouraging them not to edit on paper, there is little that can be done to enforce sustainable practices outside of the office. If a freelance editor chooses to print out a project in the privacy of their own home so that they can work on it, that is their personal decision and not something they are required to record or report.

As expected, a huge part of sustainability in the editing process focuses on paper. For UQP, this means making efficient use of the paper they do use—only using 100% recycled paper, no longer using paper for meetings and supplying a scrap paper basket for excess wastepaper when printing. When they send out manuscripts, they always query whether digital or hard copy is preferred but explain that they prefer digital and why. If a hard copy is requested, it is always printed double-sided. When applicable, they also send multiple projects to an editor at a time, to save on packaging and distribution.

While UQP does not actively look for ‘green’ editors, they do tend to attract sustainably-minded editors, due to the type of books they produce. For those who are not sustainably-minded, UQP makes sure to brief them on projects to ensure that they ‘enhance and not decrease that focus’ according to Dunning. This shows a focus on sustainability that stretches across all stages of the content creation process.

Dunning said that ‘editorial can have a pretty big impact because you're there at the start’ and that ‘you have a lot of impact on what an author does’. This perspective highlights how the editor’s influence extends beyond merely the physical production of a book and how the sustainability journey starts before the content is even finalised.

Penguin Random House

Penguin Random House are a dominant force in Australian publishing and are leading the industry in sustainability efforts. In 2024, PRH Australia reported employing over 500 staff members and had a revenue of approximately $240.6 million, making up a significant portion of the Australian book publishing industry. The publisher also continues to grow in influence through the acquisition of smaller, independent competitors like Text Publishing, who PRH Australia acquired in January of 2025. Acquisitions like this not only increase PRH Australia’s economic strength but their cultural influence too, making them a dominant player who guides decisions in the industry.

In February 2020, global CEO Markus Dohle announced PRH's goal to become climate neutral by 2030. This ambitious schedule pushed the publisher forward as an industry leader in sustainability. The following year PRH Australia published a detailed sustainability report, where they engaged an independent consultancy firm to analyse their carbon footprint, mapping out a series of targets on the way to becoming carbon-neutral. They released two subsequent annual reports in 2022 and 2023. In 2024 they published an article updating their progress, but it did not provide the same detailed emissions data. Their achievements since the 2020 pledge include running on 100% renewable energy, printing books on 100% sustainably sourced paper and using 100% recycled and carbon-neutral print paper in all offices.

Editorial practices at PRH Australia

Firstly, we wanted to understand how sustainability is considered on a personnel level. PRH Australia confirmed that all editorial is managed exclusively in-house, without the use of freelancers. We also asked whether they ever look for sustainably-minded editors when hiring.

We haven’t recruited in this area for a number of years. I don’t think we would specifically look for a sustainably-minded editor. Having said that, we are proud of our efforts in reducing our emission [sic] and as one of our key goals we look to ensure all new hires share our commitment to sustainability (Representatives from PRH Australia, written interview, 1 May 2025).

Using in-house editors over freelance might grant publishers more control over editorial practices, keeping them in line with sustainability goals. It also makes environmental impact easier to track without the difficulty posed by capturing freelancers' emissions. Next, we asked whether any changes had been made to PRH's editorial process since their climate-neutral pledge.

Nothing material specific to editorial since that pledge was made to be honest. Prior to the pledge we did change processes to ensure all editorial activity was online, reducing the use of paper and printing (Representatives from PRH Australia, written interview, 1 May 2025).

The word ‘reducing’ implies that PRH still uses a degree of printing and paper in the editorial process. This hybrid approach appears to be the most common industry-wide practice, with the majority of editing now being done on screen, but with hard-copy editing remaining at certain stages, usually proofreading.

When we asked PRH whether they currently measure emissions relating specifically to the editorial process, they said that, ‘emissions generated by editorial practices are captured indirectly’, providing the examples of ‘electricity use, both at home and at work, travel to work, [and] work from home calculations’. We looked to PRH’s 2023 sustainability report in Figure 3 to understand how emissions are being recorded under these categories.

The most likely categories encompassing editorial staff and operations might be:

• stationary fuels (boilers, generators etc.),
• imported electricity consumption,
• paper mill/printer/printer materials,
• staff commute,
• working from home,
• waste supply and wastewater treatment,
• waste disposal and recycling.

These categories make up 36.25% of PRH’s total emissions for 2023, but it is difficult to analyse this data in relation to editorial practices with our limited insight—beyond the examples provided by PRH, we can only guess at where editorial staff and operations fall. It is possible, for example, that editorial staff would also be engaging in business travel and accommodation. Another limitation is the broad nature of these categories. For example, ‘paper mill/printer/printer materials’ emissions cannot be differentiated between those created through book production (presumably the majority) versus office paper and printing. Recent PRH Australia reports do, however, state that ‘paper used in offices for printing and administration is made of 100% recycled material and is carbon-neutral.’

In a May 2025 written interview PRH Australia stated that they have addressed their editorial practices as far as they can, though they added that they ‘always welcome new information or advice on how to be better’. Without a detailed analysis of the emissions created by editorial operations, it is difficult to understand their true impact on sustainability goals within the industry. If we were going to find this information anywhere it would have been at PRH Australia, who have the infrastructure and economic capacity to engage in these large-scale reports. The issue remains that a lack of industry resources and discussion around sustainable editorial practices is leaving editors and publishing houses, even those at the frontline of sustainability like PRH Australia, in the dark.

Findings

Paper vs digital

Despite the advances in digital editing processes, across the industry, there is still a reliance on editing on paper, especially at the proofreading stage. Some industry professionals have embraced digital only, while others, like Dunning, maintain that when they edit ‘just on screen, [they] miss a lot.’ A Cambridge literary review comparing proofreading on screen vs on paper states:

The precise environmental benefit of not needing to use paper always needs to be weighed against the carbon emissions of computer use. On-screen proofreading also has a (digital) carbon footprint, which depends on a variety of factors (e.g., screen time, type of computer equipment, data sharing infrastructure).

The same review added further that there was no definitive, empirical evidence to indicate that one method of editing was functionally better than the other and suggested the need for further research into the topic.

Simply saying ‘use less paper’ or ‘edit on screen’ is therefore an unsatisfactory answer to a much more complex problem. Other initiatives that focus on efficient paper usage and recycled paper are a start in the right direction, but they are not enough, especially when the environmental impact of digital is considered. The best practices consider both methods and attempt to minimise carbon footprint across all fronts.

The freelancer question

How are freelancers factored into sustainability calculations? How does a publisher ensure that their freelancers are following practices that reflect their stance on environmental sustainability? Is that even possible? This is an obvious problem, as many freelancers live far away from their clients and some may even live overseas. At best, a publisher can brief a freelancer on the company’s sustainability focus and encourage the freelancer to follow sustainable practices, but tracking the impact of freelancers in any sustainability calculations is difficult, except in the most general terms.

Emmitt’s case study shows that freelance editors can effectively embed sustainability into their personal and professional workflows. Her example underscores how individual actions, like donating to tree-planting charities and maintaining a paperless office, can reduce the environmental impact of editorial work. Low-carbon practices that freelancers can use include working remotely to reduce commuting emissions, donating to initiatives such as JUST ONE Tree, using carbon-neutral electricity and FSC-certified paper, avoiding unnecessary air travel and limiting use of AI due to its environmental cost.

From the freelancer perspective, it can be hard to prioritise sustainability when the extra costs are taken into account, especially when even eco-conscious publishers do not specifically value hiring ‘green’ editors. There is little support to encourage freelancers to choose sustainable options, especially when they are also balancing cost of living increases and unstable incomes. Freelancers such as Emmitt are often left feeling excluded from structured sustainability frameworks within the publishing industry.

Recommendations

While there is no way to ensure that freelancers follow a publisher’s sustainability guidelines, opening a discussion and providing clearer guidelines and support should be a priority for publishers for whom sustainability is a major concern. This could be achieved by providing freelancers with a guide on best sustainable practices and offering pointers on how to incorporate these practices into their everyday workflow. Publishers and other industry bodies can better support freelancers in sustainable practices through training, funding and partnerships. Furthermore, freelancers need to be recognised for the vital role they play in advancing sustainability in the Australian publishing industry.

The sustainability journey of a book does not begin once it is transferred to paper. It can begin at the content creation stage. An editor can have an impact on a book right from the start, by noticing eco-conscious themes that already exist in the text and helping the author bring those themes to the foreground, making them clearer to the reader. Sustainably-minded editors should be aware of books with these themes and consider how they can work with the authors to maximise their impact.

A discussion needs to be opened into sustainable editing practices, to uncover whether publishers are doing everything that they can in this area and to encourage new and innovative initiatives. Considering the relatively small size of the Australian publishing industry compared to the rest of the world, it is even more important that both independent and mainstream publishers work together to bring about change in the industry.

Conclusion

Very little advancement, if any, has been made in sustainable editing practices. We can no longer afford to just assume that editorial processes have minimal environmental impact compared to the rest of the publishing process and therefore not research it. This article has largely demonstrated the lack of information that exists around this topic and how much work remains to be done.