Sustainability in Greek Cultural Organizations: Mapping Practices, Professional Views, and Digital Narratives

Abstract

Digital platforms are one of the main forms of media used by cultural and creative industries (CCIs) to communicate sustainability, yet the alignment between institutional strategies and online narratives remains insufficiently explored. This study investigates how ten Greek cultural institutions—including museums, performing arts organizations, and cultural centers—represent their sustainability efforts online. A mixed-methods approach combined organizational mapping, content analysis of 1761 Facebook posts (January–September 2025), and targeted semi-structured interviews with four communication professionals within the sample. Results show a pronounced emphasis on social sustainability, highlighting accessibility, education, and community engagement, while environmental sustainability is under-represented despite significant investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and waste management. Economic sustainability receives moderate attention, primarily framed through transparency. Interviews reveal that institutions face challenges in translating environmental initiatives into compelling digital narratives due to audience preferences, storytelling limitations, and resource constraints. Findings also indicate that strategic sophistication varies according to organizational scale, governance, and capacity. By linking institutional practices with their online representation, this research provides insights into the communication–practice gap and offers guidance for managers and policymakers to foster more balanced, authentic, and multidimensional sustainability storytelling in the cultural sector.

1. Introduction

Cultural and creative industries (CCIs) play a distinctive role within contemporary sustainability discourse. As sectors inherently focused on meaning-making, cultural expression, and social value creation, CCIs hold unique potential to advance the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) beyond conventional economic indicators [1,2]. Yet this potential remains underexplored, particularly regarding how such organizations communicate their sustainability commitments through increasingly dominant digital platforms. While CCIs are increasingly recognized as potential agents of societal transformation [3,4], systematic empirical evidence on how these organizations communicate their sustainability commitments—particularly through digital platforms—remains notably scarce. This gap is not merely descriptive but reveals a deeper theoretical paradox: the disconnect between organizational sustainability practice, institutional identity construction, and public-facing digital discourse.

Digital platforms have transformed how cultural organizations communicate sustainability. Research demonstrates that strategic digital marketing enhances both cultural identity and audience engagement [5,6], while social media platforms enable direct stakeholder interaction and participatory communication [7]. However, sustainability in the digital age is increasingly mediated through digital storytelling. Unlike traditional reporting, digital storytelling allows CCIs to translate complex environmental or economic data into emotive, human-centric narratives that resonate with digital audiences [8]. Within CCIs—encompassing museums, galleries, performing arts organizations, festivals, and creative enterprises—sustainability has become both an operational priority and a defining aspect of organizational identity [9,10].

Despite growing recognition of sustainability’s multidimensional character, a critical unresolved question persists: do organizations communicate sustainability dimensions proportionally to their actual implementation, or do institutional, cultural, and platform-specific factors create systematic distortions in digital sustainability narratives? Significant variation exists in how organizations conceptualize and communicate sustainability’s core dimensions—environmental, social, and economic—with several scholars also advocating a fourth, cultural, dimension [11,12]. Empirical research demonstrates that organizations prioritize these dimensions unevenly, influenced by mission orientation, governance structure, and resource capacity [13,14]. In digital media environments, this variation is amplified: algorithmic visibility, audience engagement metrics, and platform-specific affordances shape how sustainability narratives are constructed and disseminated [15]. Social media platforms enable direct stakeholder interaction, real-time storytelling, and participatory communication [16]. However, they also pose risks—such as superficial “greenwashing,” the prioritization of visually appealing content over substantive messaging, and the underrepresentation of less media-friendly sustainability dimensions [17].

For CCIs, balancing artistic mission, economic viability, and social responsibility, digital sustainability communication introduces both opportunities and complexities. Although research on sustainability within creative sectors is expanding [18,19], and scholarship on sustainability communication is maturing [20], the intersection between these domains remains underdeveloped. Specifically, limited empirical evidence exists on how CCIs use digital media to communicate sustainability, which dimensions receive emphasis, and how these digital narratives correspond to institutional strategies and stakeholder expectations. This study addresses these gaps by examining a paradox emerging from preliminary observations: cultural organizations often implement substantial sustainability practices yet communicate them unevenly or not at all in digital spaces. What explains this practice-communication decoupling? How do institutional logics, sectoral norms, and platform affordances shape which sustainability dimensions become visible and which remain backstage? Through a mixed-methods approach examining ten Greek cultural organizations—including museums, performing arts institutions, and multifunctional cultural foundations—the research pursues four interrelated objectives:

(1)

To map sustainability communication approaches across organizational types;

(2)

To analyze the relative prevalence and framing of environmental, social, and economic sustainability in social media content;

(3)

To identify institutional perspectives on sustainability priorities and communication strategies through semi-structured interviews;

(4)

To examine the relationship between stated sustainability commitments and actual digital communication practices.

Guided by these objectives, the study addresses the following Research Questions:

RQ1: Which sustainability dimensions (environmental, social, economic) are most frequently communicated by Greek cultural organizations through their Facebook posts?

RQ2: Within each sustainability dimension, which specific sub-themes and variables are most prominently featured in digital communications?

RQ3: What post structures (text, image, video, etc.) are most frequently employed, and how do they influence sustainability visibility?

RQ4: What sustainability practices do Greek CCIs report implementing, and how do these relate to their digital communication strategies?

By combining organizational mapping, qualitative interview analysis, and systematic content analysis of social media posts, the study provides a comprehensive account of how Greek CCIs articulate sustainability within digital environments. Theoretically, the findings enhance our conceptual understanding of the “narrative gap” in the cultural sector. Practically, they offer evidence-based insights for managers seeking to design more authentic, balanced, and engaging sustainability narratives. As cultural organizations increasingly position themselves as agents of societal transformation, understanding how they communicate sustainability becomes crucial for assessing their role in advancing the global sustainability agenda.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Defining and Delimiting the Cultural and Creative Industries

The cultural and creative industries (CCIs) comprise a diverse ecosystem of organizations involved in the creation, production, and dissemination of cultural goods and services [9]. Definitions vary, but contemporary frameworks include sectors such as visual and performing arts, museums and heritage, design, architecture, audiovisual production, and cultural tourism [2]. This reflects CCIs’ dual nature: they are simultaneously economic actors generating employment and revenue, and cultural stewards safeguarding symbolic resources essential for collective identity and social cohesion [1].

Lazzeretti and Capone [9] distinguish between narrow definitions—focused on arts and heritage institutions—and broader perspectives encompassing experience economy sectors and technology-mediated creative production. This study adopts the broader approach, acknowledging that CCIs increasingly operate at intersections: museums develop tourism products, festivals integrate sustainability education, and creative enterprises embed social missions in commercial strategies [10,18,19]. Moreover, recent scholarship highlights CCIs’ territorial embeddedness and their contribution to regional development, especially in areas where cultural resources drive innovation and sustainable growth [2]. This spatial dimension directly links CCIs to sustainability discourse: these organizations mediate relations between heritage preservation, environmental stewardship, and community well-being [1]. While CCIs significantly contribute to GDP and employment, they also face mounting pressure to demonstrate social and environmental accountability beyond economic indicators [9].

2.2. Conceptualizing Sustainability: Multiple Dimensions and Their Interrelations

Sustainability thinking has evolved from an environmental focus toward multidimensional frameworks recognizing social, economic, and cultural dimensions [12]. The concept now implies simultaneous attention to ecological integrity, social equity, economic resilience, and cultural vitality [11]. Environmental sustainability addresses organizational impacts on ecosystems—energy use, materials, waste, and emissions [18]. Within CCIs, this includes facility management, set and exhibition design, transportation, and preservation practices. Social sustainability relates to equity, inclusivity, accessibility, and community well-being [17], while economic sustainability ensures long-term viability through diverse funding and equitable value distribution [19]. Cultural sustainability, as proposed by Hawkes [11], emphasizes maintaining creative diversity and local identity as intrinsic to development. Empirical research shows that organizations prioritize these dimensions unevenly [13,14]. Ferran Vila et al. [13] found that cultural sustainability priorities vary across EU countries, with environmental concerns often dominating, while Järvelä [14] demonstrated that institutional capacity and governance influence sustainability balance. This uneven emphasis shapes how sustainability is communicated and perceived.

2.3. Sustainability in Cultural and Creative Industries: Unique Challenges and Opportunities

Unlike manufacturing or extractive sectors, CCIs’ sustainability impacts are often symbolic, diffuse, and intertwined with social and cultural dimensions [18]. Scholars argue that CCIs can advance sustainability transitions by linking creativity, community development, and heritage stewardship [10,19]. Lazzeretti et al. [9] proposed the notion of “culturally sustainable entrepreneurship,” integrating economic viability with cultural preservation and social benefit. Müller [10] and Pereira et al. [19] demonstrate that festivals and events not only generate economic benefits through tourism but also strengthen cultural identity, foster social inclusion, and contribute to long-term sustainability strategies at the regional level. However, tensions persist between cultural conservation and sustainability innovation. For instance, heritage conservation standards may conflict with energy efficiency or accessibility goals [11]. Additionally, CCIs face operational challenges: energy-intensive exhibition spaces, event-related waste, and travel emissions [18]. Yet they also possess transformative potential to model sustainability through creative education, participatory governance, and community storytelling [1,17].

2.4. Sustainability Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure

Organizational communication is where sustainability commitments become visible—or contested. Sustainability disclosure serves multiple purposes: signaling values, legitimizing operations, and building trust [16,17]. However, it is also vulnerable to “greenwashing” when communication outpaces practice [16].

Recent studies demonstrate the importance of authentic and consistent messaging. Nascimento and Loureiro [20] emphasize that effective sustainability communication in cultural organizations requires coherence between institutional mission and digital narratives. Rathee and Milfeld [16] similarly warn that the pursuit of engagement metrics may undermine credibility if communication lacks substance.

Empirical findings indicate that stakeholder trust depends on perceived authenticity and value alignment [8]. Digital marketing strategies prove particularly effective when aligned with sustainability goals. Studies of Greek cultural organizations reveal that authentic digital communication—combining visual storytelling, interactive content, and consistent messaging—significantly enhances audience engagement [6,21]. Visual communication further shapes interpretation: aesthetic appeal and storytelling enhance engagement but may oversimplify complex sustainability issues [16,18]. For CCIs, whose legitimacy depends on authenticity, achieving balance between promotion and transparency remains a key challenge.

2.5. Social Media as Sustainability Communication Platforms

Digital platforms have transformed how organizations communicate sustainability [15,17]. Social media allow real-time, dialogic interaction but also introduce constraints: algorithmic visibility, audience segmentation, and the prioritization of visual content over informational depth [15]. Kapoor et al. [16] provides a broader review of social media research, showing how platform affordances shape organizational communication strategies. Herrada-Lores et al. [15] highlights how platform dynamics influence message framing and stakeholder engagement. Visual storytelling, as seen on Instagram and Facebook, promotes emotional resonance but risks oversimplification. At the same time, social media empower organizations to reach new audiences, foster transparency, and democratize communication [17].

In the creative sector, Iodice et al. [22] found that B Corps in the arts use social media to express hybrid missions—combining artistic, social, and environmental objectives—though with uneven sophistication. Similarly, research on Greek cultural institutions demonstrates that platforms like Facebook and Instagram serve as primary channels for sustainability communication, with cultural organizations leveraging multimedia content to promote environmental, social, and economic sustainability initiatives [7,23]. For CCIs, social media thus represents both opportunity and risk: a means to engage publics around sustainability, but one requiring strategic coherence and authenticity.

2.6. Research Gaps and Study Contribution

This literature synthesis reveals key gaps at the intersection of CCI scholarship, sustainability communication, and digital media studies:

• Limited CCI-specific research: Despite extensive sustainability and communication literature, empirical studies focusing on CCIs remain scarce [9,10,18].
• Imbalance across sustainability dimensions: Research typically centers on environmental aspects, overlooking social, economic, and cultural dimensions [12,13].
• Scarce empirical social media analysis: Few studies systematically assess how CCIs communicate sustainability through digital platforms [15,17].
• Disconnect between strategy and communication: The relationship between stated sustainability commitments and digital representation remains largely unexplored [20].

This study addresses these gaps through mixed-methods research integrating organizational mapping, stakeholder interviews, and content analysis of social media communications. It empirically examines how ten Greek CCIs articulate environmental, social, and economic sustainability online, identifying sector-specific communication patterns, priorities, and disconnections between strategy and practice.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design and Philosophical Approach

This study employs a multiphase sequential mixed-methods design, integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches to provide comprehensive understanding of how Greek cultural organizations communicate sustainability through digital media [24,25]. The adoption of mixed methods is justified by the research’s dual focus: examining both organizational strategic intentions (captured through qualitative inquiry) and actual digital communication patterns (requiring systematic quantitative analysis) [26,27]. Rather than following a classic exploratory (qual → quant) sequence, the research is structured as a progressive, multi-stage design in which different forms of qualitative and quantitative data serve complementary analytical purposes across successive phases. This integration enables triangulation, with convergent findings strengthening conclusions and divergent patterns highlighting potential gaps between stated commitments and actual communication practices.

The research follows four sequential phases:

Phase 1: Organizational mapping and sustainability practices documentation through systematic analysis of publicly available materials. Data were collected exclusively from official organizational sources, including institutional websites, sustainability or annual reports (where available), official policy documents, press releases, and publicly accessible digital content describing environmental, social, and economic initiatives. This documentary analysis aimed to identify declared sustainability strategies, institutional priorities, and formal commitments, providing an empirical baseline for the subsequent quantitative content analysis and qualitative interview phases. To ensure the reliability of cross-organizational comparisons, the mapping process was guided by a standardized thematic framework based on the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) dimensions. The documentation followed specific validation criteria and evidentiary standards, identifying practices across the same sub-variables used in the subsequent content analysis (e.g., accessibility, education, transparency, and resource management—see Phase 2 for full definitions). This documentary analysis aimed to identify declared sustainability strategies, institutional priorities, and formal commitments, providing a consistent and empirical baseline for the subsequent quantitative content analysis and qualitative interview phases.

Phase 2: Quantitative content analysis of Facebook posts, aimed at systematically identifying sustainability-related themes, dimensions, and communication structures across organizational digital outputs. A predefined coding framework was applied, based on the alignment of different types of posts with specific sustainability variables. Each post was evaluated to determine whether and how it communicated sustainability themes, categorizing it into one of the three main sustainability dimensions: social, economic, or environmental. Posts were categorized into three primary dimensions:

-

Social Sustainability: Posts that addressed themes such as accessibility (e.g., announcements with subtitles for people with disabilities), education (e.g., promotion of educational programs), inclusion (e.g., activities involving marginalized groups), collaboration (e.g., joint initiatives with community partners), and community engagement.

-

Economic Sustainability: Posts that referred to financial transparency (e.g., posts about audited reports or sponsorships), diversified funding sources (e.g., mentions of grants, sponsorships, or donations), economic commitments (e.g., cooperative economic initiatives), and resource management related to funding or revenue generation.

-

Environmental Sustainability: Posts that were related to ecological concerns such as energy efficiency (e.g., installation of LED lighting, use of renewable energy), waste management and recycling, biodiversity protection (e.g., tree planting, sustainable agriculture), and other green infrastructure or practices.

Posts not explicitly related to any of these sustainability categories—such as generic event announcements without social or environmental context—were coded as non-sustainability related. Each category’s inclusion criteria were defined clearly to maintain consistency, and ambiguous cases were resolved through team discussions to ensure intercoder reliability. To ensure the reliability and consistency of the coding process, multiple researchers independently coded a subset of posts, and discrepancies were discussed and resolved collaboratively. This procedure aimed to enhance intercoder reliability and strengthen the trustworthiness of the qualitative content analysis [24,25]. This coding framework enabled the quantitative assessment of how sustainability dimensions were communicated through social media, underpinning the study’s comparative analysis of cultural organizations’ digital engagement with sustainability.

Phase 3: Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with organizational representatives, designed to contextualize and interpret the patterns identified in the quantitative content analysis and to explore organizational rationales underlying sustainability communication choices. To ensure the robustness and credibility of the qualitative findings, several measures were implemented. First an analytical audit trail was maintained, where two researchers independently coded the interview transcripts to ensure inter-coder reliability and thematic consistency. Second, the use of semi-structured protocols allowed for internal validity, ensuring that the same core themes were explored across all participating organizations while allowing for deep, context-specific insights.

Phase 4: Integration and interpretation of findings across all phases

This sequence allows initial qualitative insights to inform subsequent quantitative analysis categories while enabling quantitative patterns to contextualize qualitative data interpretation [27].

3.2. Case Selection and Justification

This study examines ten cultural and creative organizations operating in Greece, selected through purposive sampling to ensure maximum variation across organizational types, geographic locations, operational scales, governance structures, and CCI subsectors. The selected organizations encompass a diverse range of cultural institutions in Greece. Contemporary art museums include the National Museum of Contemporary Art in Athens (EMST), a national-scale institution; the Museum of Contemporary Art in Thessaloniki (MOMus), serving a regional audience; and the Museum of Contemporary Art in Crete (CCA), representing a regional and peripheral presence. Performing arts and music organizations feature the Greek National Opera (GNO), a national opera and ballet institution; the Thessaloniki State Symphony Orchestra (TSSO), a regional classical music ensemble; and two major concert halls, the Athens Concert Hall (ACH) and the Thessaloniki Concert Hall (TCH), catering to national and regional performing arts audiences, respectively. The Gerovassiliou Wine Museum/Estate exemplifies a cultural–creative hybrid, integrating creative industries, cultural tourism, and viticulture. Finally, multifunctional cultural foundations include Onassis Stegi, a private foundation offering multidisciplinary programming, and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Center (SNFCC), a large-scale integrated cultural complex. The selected organizations can be systematically categorized according to multiple dimensions relevant for comparative sustainability communication analysis (

Table 1. Organizational Categorization Framework.

Category	Name	Location	Scale	Governance	Sustainability Infrastructure
Contemporary Art Museums	National Museum of Contemporary Art (EMST)	Athens	National	Public	Heritage building adaptation
	Museum of Contemporary Art (MOMus)	Thessaloniki	Regional	Public	Mixed heritage/modern facilities
	Museum of Contemporary Art Crete (CCA)	Crete (peripheral)	Regional/Local	Public	Purpose-built facility
Music & Performing Arts Institutions	Greek National Opera (GNO)	Athens	National	Public	Documented environmental practices
	Thessaloniki State Symphony Orchestra (TSSO)	Thessaloniki	Regional	Public	Standard operational practices
	Athens Concert Hall (ATH)	Athens	National	Public- private partnership	Energy efficiency upgrades
	Thessaloniki Concert Hall (TCH)	Thessaloniki	Regional	Public- private partnership	Green initiatives documented
Cultural-Creative Hybrid Organization	Gerovassiliou Wine Museum/Estate	Northern Greece	Regional	Private enterprise	Sustainable viticulture certifications
Multifunctional Cultural Centers	Onassis Stegi (Onassis Cultural Centre)	Athens	National/ International	Private foundation	Documented green practices
	Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Center (SNFCC)	Athens	National/ International	Private foundation	LEED Platinum certification

Source: authors’ elaboration.

):

This geographic variation enables examination of whether sustainability communication patterns differ between metropolitan centers and peripheral regions, relevant given research indicating CCIs’ territorial embeddedness influences sustainability approaches [1,2]. Scale variation is critical because organizational resources, stakeholder complexity, and communication capacity significantly influence sustainability disclosure practices [28]. Governance structures fundamentally influence sustainability priorities, resource allocation, and communication autonomy, making this dimension essential for comparative analysis [29]. The sample includes organizations with explicit, documented sustainability commitments alongside organizations where sustainability positioning is less prominent institutionally, enabling robust comparative analysis of communication strategies across this spectrum.

3.3. Research Questions

This study addresses the following specific research questions:

RQ1: Which sustainability dimensions (environmental, social, economic) are most frequently communicated by Greek cultural organizations through their Facebook posts?

This question directly addresses the core theoretical puzzle of whether digital sustainability discourse reflects actual organizational practice or is systematically distorted by institutional, cultural, or platform-specific factors. Research on cultural organizations demonstrates uneven prioritization of sustainability dimensions [13,14,22], yet the specific patterns within Greek CCIs and their digital manifestation remain unexplored.

Approach: Quantitative content analysis of all Facebook posts. Each post will be coded for sustainability dimensions based on a structured coding scheme. Frequencies and percentages will be calculated to identify the most communicated dimensions.

RQ2: Within each sustainability dimension, which specific themes, variables, or parameters are most prominently featured in digital communications?

Moving beyond dimensional prevalence, this question examines how sustainability is narratively constructed within each dimension. Understanding which specific themes dominate (e.g., accessibility within social sustainability; waste management vs. carbon reduction within environmental sustainability) reveals the sector’s implicit prioritization hierarchies and the degree to which communication aligns with global sustainability frameworks. This granular analysis enables identification of communicative blind spots that may undermine holistic sustainability positioning and cultural policy alignment [18]. Recent research on sustainability messaging from CCIs suggests significant thematic variation [23], yet systematic content analysis revealing which specific parameters dominate remains limited.

Approach: Each sustainability dimension will be analyzed using a detailed coding scheme. Specifically: Social sustainability will be coded into subcategories such as accessibility, education, inclusion, and community engagement. Environmental sustainability will be coded into subcategories such as carbon footprint, energy use, biodiversity, and waste management. Economic sustainability will be coded into subcategories such as funding sources, financial transparency, local economic impact, and pricing/accessibility strategies. All codes will be applied systematically to Facebook posts, and quantitative counts will reveal the prominence of each theme within the corresponding sustainability dimension.

RQ3: What post structures (text-only, image & text, video & text, repost, etc.) are most frequently employed for sustainability communications?

Research on digital communication demonstrates that multimodal content (image, video) generates higher algorithmic visibility and audience engagement than text-only posts [15,16]. Strategic digital marketing research specifically shows that visual and interactive content enhances both cultural identity construction and audience engagement in cultural organizations [5,6]. If environmental or economic sustainability is disproportionately communicated through less engaging formats, this would constitute a structural barrier to their visibility—independent of organizational intent. Conversely, if social sustainability dominates visually rich formats, this would amplify its communicative hegemony through platform-mediated mechanisms. Thus, RQ3 examines whether observed dimensional imbalances result partly from format choices, contributing to scholarship on digital impression management and organizational storytelling strategies in cultural sectors [7,8].

Approach: Quantitative coding of post structure and media type. Frequency distributions and cross-tabulations with sustainability dimensions will be used to identify patterns.

RQ4: What sustainability practices do Greek cultural organizations report implementing, and how do they describe their approaches to communicating these practices digitally?

This question enables triangulation between organizational practice and digital communication by comparing self-reported sustainability actions with observed Facebook content. This methodological approach allows empirical identification of practice-communication gaps and examination of the institutional factors driving selective disclosure. Interview data will clarify whether limited communication of certain sustainability dimensions stems from strategic considerations (e.g., concern about appearing self-promotional), operational constraints (e.g., limited digital communication capacity), or cultural-organizational norms (e.g., perceiving environmental messaging as inconsistent with artistic mission). This addresses a significant gap in sustainability communication scholarship, which has predominantly examined communication outputs without systematically investigating underlying organizational practices and decision-making rationales [references]. Understanding the relationship between what cultural organizations do and what they communicate is essential for developing more authentic and strategically coherent sustainability narratives in the cultural sector.

Approach: Interpretive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with representatives of four cultural organizations (n = 4). Interviews will be coded to identify: (1) self-reported sustainability practices across environmental, social, and economic dimensions; (2) strategic approaches guiding sustainability adoption; (3) stated digital communication strategies and channel usage for sustainability messaging.

These self-reported accounts establish the organizational narrative that will subsequently be triangulated with observational data from organizational mapping (actual practices implemented) and Facebook content analysis (actual themes communicated).

3.4. Participant Characteristics

Four professionals from diverse Greek cultural organizations participated in semi-structured interviews conducted between June and October 2025. These interviews correspond to Phase 3 of the multiphase mixed-methods design and were conducted to interpret and contextualize patterns identified in the preceding quantitative content analysis. Participants were purposively selected based on their professional roles involving communication strategy, sustainability initiatives, or senior management responsibilities, ensuring that they possessed in-depth knowledge of their organizations’ sustainability practices and communication approaches. The final sample comprised two male and two female participants aged 30–58 years. All held higher education degrees; three possessed master’s qualifications in fields related to marketing, cultural management, or education, while one participant held a PhD in communication and cultural administration. Participants’ professional experience in the cultural sector ranged from 8 to 25 years (M = 17.0 years). Organizational positions included two Communication Managers, one Museum Coordination Officer, and one Director of Marketing and Communications. Two participants occupied senior management roles with strategic decision-making responsibilities, while two held mid-level management positions. The organizations represented included one contemporary art museum and one creative industry, one performing arts organization, and one major concert hall.

Table 2. Participant Demographic and Professional Characteristics.

ID	Gender	Age Range	Education	Position/Role	Department	Years in Organization	Organization Type
P1	F	30–39	Master’s	Marketing Manager	Communications	8	Gerovassiliou Estate
P2	F	50–59	Master’s	Coordination & Program Officer	Education/ Operations	25	Museum (Contemporary Art Museum of Crete)
P3	M	50–59	Bachelor’s	Head of Marketing & Communications	Communications	25	Performing Arts (State Orchestra of Thessaloniki)
P4	M	50–59	PhD	Director of Marketing & Communications	Communications Management	18	Cultural Venue (Thessaloniki Concert Hall)

Source: authors’ elaboration.

summarizes the demographic and professional characteristics of the participants. To ensure confidentiality, participants are identified throughout the results section by their organizational affiliation rather than by personal names.

3.5. Thematic Coding Process

All interviews were conducted in Greek and transcribed verbatim. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis following the six-phase framework proposed by Braun and Clarke [30] and subsequent methodological refinements by Nowell et al. [31] to ensure transparency, credibility, and analytical rigor. The process was interpretive rather than purely descriptive, aiming to identify not only the content of participants’ responses but also the underlying meanings, organizational assumptions, and discursive strategies surrounding sustainability practices and communication.

The analysis followed the sequential steps below:

• Familiarization with the data: Repeated reading of transcripts and preliminary note-taking to capture initial impressions.
• Initial coding: Line-by-line open coding was performed to identify key ideas related to environmental, social, and economic sustainability, as well as digital communication strategies. Codes were inductively generated from the data, with some informed deductively by the literature on sustainable cultural management and sustainability communication.
• Theme development: Codes were clustered into subthemes representing recurring conceptual patterns (e.g., waste management, digitization, accessibility, audience engagement, funding models).
• Theme review and refinement: All themes were reviewed against the entire dataset to ensure coherence and internal consistency.
• Theme definition and naming: The final thematic map was organized into three overarching themes corresponding to the triple bottom line of sustainability—Environmental Sustainability, Social Sustainability, and Economic Sustainability.
• Reporting: Representative quotations were selected to illustrate each theme, ensuring anonymity through coded participant identifiers (P1–P4).

Thematic analysis was supported by manual coding using Microsoft Excel, as the dataset was relatively small and allowed close interpretive engagement. Triangulation with quantitative content analysis and organizational mapping data enhanced validity and interpretive depth. Reflexivity was maintained throughout the process to acknowledge the researcher’s positionality and interpretive influence.

Table 3. Coding Framework for Thematic Analysis.

Initial Codes	Subthemes	Main Themes
Waste reduction, recycling, energy efficiency, circular economy, digitization, renewable energy	Operational sustainability, resource management, digital transformation	Environmental Sustainability
Accessibility, inclusion, education, participatory programs, community partnerships, volunteerism	Social access, audience engagement, social learning	Social Sustainability
Funding sources, EU programs, diversified income, economic transparency	Resource allocation, economic resilience	Economic Sustainability
Communication channels, strategic framing, message tone	Communication strategy, audience perception	Cross-Cutting Communication Dimension

Source: authors’ elaboration.

summarizes the coding framework used in this study, showing how initial codes were refined into higher-order themes.

4. Results

4.1. Comparative Analysis of Sustainability Practices Across Ten Greek Cultural Organizations

The findings presented in this section are primarily derived from organizational mapping and document analysis (Phase 1), drawing on publicly available institutional documents and sustainability reports. This section presents a detailed comparative analysis of sustainability practices across ten Greek cultural organizations. The analysis addresses environmental, social, and economic dimensions, revealing differences in commitment, transparency, and strategic integration according to organizational type, scale, and governance structure.

4.1.1. Environmental Sustainability

Environmental sustainability was examined across energy management, carbon reduction, water management, biodiversity, and waste practices. A hierarchical pattern emerged, largely associated with organizational scale, governance model, and resource availability. The Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Center (SNFCC) demonstrates exemplary environmental practices, combining LEED Platinum certification, 100% renewable energy operation, and energy generation through a 10,000 m² photovoltaic canopy supplying 23% of the complex’s energy needs [32]. Its bioclimatic architecture incorporates passive cooling, natural ventilation, automated shading, LED lighting, motion sensors, and an advanced Building Management System. Detailed annual sustainability reports further underscore transparency and commitment to continuous improvement. The Greek National Opera (GNO) benefits from SNFCC infrastructure while implementing sector-specific measures, including LED conversion of performance spaces, recyclable costume and set materials, and environmental education through the OperaBox platform [33]. The Gerovassiliou Estate integrates sustainable viticulture practices, employing renewable energy-powered winery operations, precision irrigation, and organic fertilization, achieving measurable carbon footprint reductions and energy savings [34].

Organizations classified as Tier 2, such as the Thessaloniki Concert Hall (TCH) and Onassis Stegi, demonstrate proactive environmental engagement. The TCH’s “Megaro Goes Green” program achieved documented energy reductions of 20–50% through LED conversion and lighting control optimization [35]. Onassis Stegi employs a comprehensive suite of sustainability measures documented in its bilingual Green Handbook, including bioclimatic design, LED replacement, motion sensors, solar collectors, four-category recycling, rainwater harvesting, drought-resistant plantings, elimination of single-use plastics, and circular economy prop-sharing via the Athens Props Market [36]. The Athens Concert Hall (ACH) contributes with Mediterranean drought-resistant gardens, though environmental documentation is comparatively limited [37].

Tier 3 organizations, such as the Thessaloniki State Symphony Orchestra (TSSO), demonstrate emerging environmental awareness primarily through digital transformations, including e-ticketing and participation in EU-funded projects (DIGI-ORCH), which reduce resource usage despite limited control over performance venue infrastructure [38].

Contemporary art museums, including EMST, MOMus, and CCA, are classified as Tier 4 due to minimal publicly documented environmental practices, despite facing significant sustainability challenges, such as climate control, energy-intensive lighting, and exhibition waste management [39,40,41]. Water management and biodiversity practices vary widely. SNFCC achieves zero potable water consumption for irrigation through rainwater harvesting, supporting over 1,700,000 plants across a 210,000 m² park [33]. Onassis Stegi employs rainwater collection, Cycladic drought-resistant species, and watercoolers to replace bottled water [34]. The Gerovassiliou Estate incorporates water-efficient irrigation systems for vineyards and gardens, promoting biodiversity and landscape resilience [42]. Waste management practices also differ. SNFCC operates a sophisticated 15-stream recycling system with RDF energy recovery, achieving near-zero landfill disposal [33]. Onassis Stegi maintains four-category recycling and circular reuse programs for props, posters, and production materials [34]. GNO maximizes recycling where artistically feasible and implements extensive digitization [25]. The Gerovassiliou Estate applies circular reuse of winery by-products for compost and energy generation [32].

4.1.2. Social Sustainability

Social sustainability emerged as the strongest dimension across organizations, with variability in implementation depth. Accessibility is widely implemented, particularly in institutions with large infrastructure and resources. SNFCC exemplifies universal design with wheelchair-accessible pathways, hearing assistance, visual impairment signage, WCAG-compliant websites, and partnerships with disability organizations [43]. GNO provides sign language interpretation, audio description, and accessible tours [32], while Gerovassiliou Estate offers barrier-free winery tours and inclusive tastings [42]. TCH and Onassis Stegi demonstrate strong accessibility infrastructure, including collaborations with educational and rehabilitation centers [44,45]. ACH ensures accessibility through elevators, hearing assistance, and multilingual interpretation [46].

Educational programming is extensive. SNFCC served over 90,000 students through 985 school programs in 2024, complemented by nationwide access via the SNFCC Class digital platform [47]. GNO offers interactive learning resources via OperaBox and national school programs [48]. Onassis Stegi and TCH provide workshops, artist residencies, and youth orchestras promoting sustainability through creative curricula [49,50]. ACH integrates garden-based experiential learning and early childhood programs [51]. Museums offer more limited and less systematically documented educational engagement [52]. Gerovassiliou Estate contributes through partnerships with local schools and cultural workshops embedded in wine tourism activities [53].

Partnerships and community engagement are central to social sustainability. SNFCC maintains collaborations with disability advocacy groups, LGBTQ+ organizations, social entrepreneurs, and migrant support networks [54]. TCH partners with universities, foundations, and municipalities [55], while GNO collaborates with correctional facilities and welfare organizations [56]. TSSO engages in international cultural exchange and socially inclusive programming [57]. Gerovassiliou Estate partners with environmental NGOs and local educational initiatives [58]. Accessibility of programming is further reinforced through pricing strategies. SNFCC offers 99.7% free access, while other institutions, including GNO, TCH, Onassis Stegi, ACH, and Gerovassiliou Estate, provide discounted or tiered pricing to support inclusivity [35,41,46,51]. Digital access platforms, such as GNO TV [34], SNFCC Class [41], TCH’s digital repository [42], facilitate remote engagement and global reach.

4.1.3. Economic Sustainability

Economic sustainability is strongly influenced by organizational scale and governance. Funding diversification varies from highly diversified models (SNFCC, Onassis Stegi, GNO, Gerovassiliou Estate) to moderately diversified (ACH, TCH) and limited diversification (TSSO, Contemporary Art Museums). Highly diversified institutions combine endowments, public funds, EU programs, sponsorships, and earned revenue streams, reducing dependency on single sources [30,31]. Revenue innovation is particularly notable in GNO TV’s subscription-based streaming platform, while other organizations leverage merchandise, eco-products, and event hosting [35]. Gerovassiliou Estate integrates digital wine sales, event ticketing, and guided tours as complementary income streams [45]. Financial transparency varies substantially. SNFCC publishes detailed annual statements and conducts Social Return on Investment (SROI) analyses, demonstrating the value of cultural investment [33]. Onassis Stegi maintains strong transparency through audited reports [34]. GNO and concert halls provide moderate transparency, whereas museums and smaller organizations exhibit limited reporting [34,35].

4.1.4. Key Findings

The comparative analysis reveals several structural dynamics shaping sustainability practices across Greek CCIs. A pronounced documentation–practice gap is evident, with well-resourced institutions such as SNFCC, Onassis Stegi, and the Gerovassiliou Estate providing extensive reporting and detailed sustainability documentation, while smaller organizations and museums frequently underreport, limiting transparency and sector-wide learning. Sustainability leadership is concentrated within elite, foundation-backed institutions, reflecting the influence of resources, governance structures, and long-term strategic planning. Social sustainability emerges as a consistently strong dimension across organizations, encompassing accessibility, educational programming, community engagement, and inclusive pricing, whereas environmental practices are often under-communicated despite significant initiatives. Scale and governance further shape operational capacity, infrastructure availability, and revenue diversification, with private foundations demonstrating the ability to plan long-term, assume calculated risks, and implement complex sustainability strategies. Finally, digital transformation functions as a cross-cutting enabler, supporting environmental, social, and economic sustainability objectives; however, the investment required to implement advanced digital solutions may exacerbate inequalities between resource-rich and resource-limited organizations. A synthesis of best practices across these dimensions, highlighting which organizations implement which strategies, is presented in

Table 4. Best Sustainability Practices and Implementing Organizations (Greek CCIs).

Sustainability Dimension	Best Practices	Organizations
Environmental	LEED Platinum certification, 100% renewable energy, photovoltaic canopy, Building Management System (BMS)	SNFCC
	Use of recyclable and sustainable set & costume materials	GNO, Onassis Stegi
	LED conversion	SNFCC, GNO, TCH, Onassis Stegi, ACH
	Systematic recycling	SNFCC, Onassis Stegi, TCH, GNO
	Circular economy (props sharing, reuse)	Onassis Stegi, GNO, Gerovassiliou Estate
	Rainwater collection, drought-resistant planting, biodiversity gardens	SNFCC, Onassis Stegi, ACH, Gerovassiliou Estate
	RDF energy recovery	SNFCC
	Elimination of single-use plastics	Onassis Stegi
Social	Universal accessibility, WCAG compliance, adaptive design	SNFCC, GNO, Onassis Stegi, TCH, ACH, Gerovassiliou Estate
	Accessible performances	GNO, TCH, TSSO
	Digital accessibility	GNO, TCH, TSSO, SNFCC, Gerovassiliou Estate
	Educational ecosystems	SNFCC, GNO, Onassis Stegi, TCH, ACH, Gerovassiliou Estate
	Social inclusion & outreach	GNO, TSSO, Gerovassiliou Estate
	Community partnerships	SNFCC, Onassis Stegi, GNO, TCH, TSSO, EMST, Gerovassiliou Estate
	Free or low-cost access	SNFCC, GNO, TCH, Onassis Stegi, ACH, Gerovassiliou Estate
Economic	Diversified funding	SNFCC, Onassis Stegi, GNO, ACH, TCH, Gerovassiliou Estate
	Digital revenue innovation	GNO, Gerovassiliou Estate
	Facility rentals	ACH, TCH, SNFCC, Gerovassiliou Estate
	Merchandise & eco-products	SNFCC, GNO, Onassis Stegi, ACH, Gerovassiliou Estate
	Membership programs	ACH, TCH, Onassis Stegi
	Financial transparency	SNFCC, Onassis Stegi, partly GNO

Source: authors’ elaboration.

.

4.2. Content Analysis of Social Media Posts

Table 5. Number of Facebook posts per organization (January–September 2025).

Organizations	Facebook Posts	Sustainability Posts
ACH	293	160
CCA	34	21
EMST	182	121
Gerovassiliou Estate	67	46
GNO	225	178
MoMus	93	67
SNFCC	247	172
STEGI	212	163
TCH	145	86
TSSO	264	195
Total	1761	1209

Source: authors’ elaboration.

presents the total number of Facebook posts published by each organization during the study period (January–September 2025), as well as the distribution of posts related to sustainability. A total of 1761 posts were collected from ten Greek cultural and creative organizations (CCIs), of which 1209 posts (68.7%) explicitly addressed at least one dimension of sustainability. This relatively high proportion highlights that sustainability communication constitutes a central component of the organization’s digital presence.

Institutions such as TSSO (264 posts), ACH (293 posts), SNFCC (247 posts), and STEGI (212 posts) exhibit the highest levels of overall posting activity, suggesting consistent digital engagement strategies. The large share of sustainability-related content in these organizations’ communication further implies that sustainability discourse is embedded in their institutional narratives and programming. Conversely, smaller entities such as Gerovassiliou Estate (66 posts) and MoMus (93 posts) demonstrate more limited activity, possibly reflecting constraints in resources or differing communication priorities. The analysis of sustainability dimensions (Table 5) reveals a striking imbalance across the three pillars. As shown in

Table 6. Distribution of sustainability dimensions in Facebook posts.

Sustainability Dimensions	Facebook Posts
Social	1034
Economic	138
Environmental	37

Source: authors’ elaboration.

, social sustainability overwhelmingly dominates the communication landscape, with 1034 posts (85.5%), compared to 138 posts (11.4%) on economic sustainability and only 37 posts (3.1%) referencing environmental themes.

This finding indicates that Greek CCIs predominantly use social media to promote their social missions—addressing access, inclusion, education, and collaboration—rather than to communicate economic or environmental performance. The minimal representation of environmental sustainability is particularly noteworthy, suggesting that ecological issues remain peripheral to the cultural communication agenda. This pattern mirrors broader tendencies in the European cultural field, where social engagement and accessibility are often prioritized as markers of institutional relevance and public value, while environmental sustainability still lacks systematic integration into cultural narratives.

Within the social dimension, the data reveal a rich but uneven distribution of themes. Access emerges as the most frequently referenced subcategory (468 posts), emphasizing the sector’s strong commitment to democratizing culture and reducing participation barriers—be they physical, social, or economic. This recurrent emphasis illustrates a shared narrative among Greek CCIs that frames cultural participation as a right rather than a privilege. Collaboration follows with 197 posts, reflecting the growing importance of partnerships, community co-creation, and institutional networks. This aligns with European cultural policies promoting cross-sectoral synergies and collective creativity. Education (182 posts) and Inclusion (108 posts) also appear as significant but secondary themes, suggesting that educational programming is embedded within broader inclusion strategies rather than standing as an isolated priority. Additional variables such as Transparency (42 posts) and Commitment (23 posts) contribute to a more nuanced understanding of social sustainability, pointing toward increasing awareness of ethical accountability and institutional openness. However, their lower frequency may indicate that such values are less concretely articulated in public communication compared to more tangible goals like accessibility or collaborations. Overall, the prominence of “access” and “collaboration” underscores a social mission-oriented communication profile among Greek CCIs—one that aligns sustainability with cultural participation and collective engagement rather than environmental or economic responsibility (

Table 7. Analysis of social sustainability variables communicated.

Social Sustainability Variables	Facebook Posts
Access	468
Collaboration	197
Commitment	23
Education	182
Inclusion	108
Transparency	42
Other	14

Source: authors’ elaboration.

).

Economic sustainability appears considerably less prominent in comparison, but its internal structure reveals interesting communicative tendencies. Transparency dominates this category (93 posts, representing over two-thirds of economic sustainability content), far surpassing Commitment (28 posts), Funding Sources (7 posts), and Other (10 posts). This finding suggests that when economic themes are addressed, they are primarily framed in terms of accountability and public trust rather than proactive financial strategy or innovation. This focus on transparency reflects the institutional and political context of Greek CCIs, many of which depend on public or mixed funding sources and operate under increasing demands for financial openness. Communicating transparency can thus function as a legitimizing discourse—projecting integrity, compliance, and alignment with national or EU cultural governance frameworks. The relative neglect of “funding sources” and “financial commitment” indicates that organizations rarely discuss concrete financial mechanisms or sustainability investments, perhaps due to sensitivities around financial disclosure or a preference for emphasizing cultural and social contributions over economic narratives. Finally, economic sustainability is present but underdeveloped in the communicative repertoire of Greek CCIs, serving more as a performative gesture of accountability than as an exploration of innovative funding or value-generation models (

Table 8. Analysis of economic sustainability variables communicated.

Economic Sustainability Variables	Facebook Posts
Transparency	93
Commitment	28
Funding Sources	7
Other	10
Total	138

Source: authors’ elaboration.

).

Environmental sustainability is markedly underrepresented, accounting for only 37 posts across all organizations. Within this minimal corpus, Biodiversity (20 posts) and Energy (10 posts) are the most recurrent subthemes, while Waste (3 posts) appear marginally (

Table 9. Analysis of environmental sustainability variables communicated.

Environmental Sustainability Variables	Facebook Posts
Biodiversity	20
Energy	10
Waste	3
Total	37

Source: authors’ elaboration.

).

The overall scarcity of environmental discourse suggests that ecological consciousness has yet to be systematically integrated into the sector’s communication frameworks [59]. This limited engagement may stem from several factors, including the perceived distance of cultural organizations from material production processes, a lack of institutional expertise or environmental policies, or the relative novelty of sustainability reporting in the Greek cultural context. However, as global and European cultural policies increasingly emphasize environmental responsibility and carbon reduction [54,55], this communicative gap highlights a pressing need for capacity building and alignment with emerging sustainability standards.

The systematic cross-analysis of the 1209 sustainability-related posts reveals significant correlations between an organization’s sector and its preferred digital communication structure (

Table 10. Cross-analysis of Post Structures by Organizational Type.

Post Structure	Contemporary Art Museum	Creative Industries	Multifunctional Cultural Foundations	Music Institutions	Total
Text & Image	163	38	266	358	825
Text & Video	23	5	62	156	246
Text	1	0	0	1	2
Video	0	0	0	19	19
Image	0	0	1	2	3
Repost	22	3	3	81	109
Total	209	46	335	619	1209

Source: authors’ elaboration.

).

While the “Text & Image” format serves as the universal baseline for communicating sustainability in the Greek cultural sector, representing 68.2% (n = 825) of the total discourse, the adoption of more complex or interactive structures varies according to organizational scale and governance. Music Institutions and Multifunctional Cultural Foundations demonstrate the highest level of structural sophistication, collectively accounting for 88.6% of the total “Text & Video” posts (n = 218 out of 246). Notably, Music Institutions exhibit the most diverse structural repertoire, being the only group to utilize standalone video content (n = 19) and the primary user of “Reposts” (n = 81). This suggests a strategic investment in high-production narratives and a networked communication approach that amplifies partner messages, likely facilitated by the extensive resources and digital infrastructure characteristic of large-scale music and foundation-backed entities.

In contrast, Contemporary Art Museums and Creative Industries demonstrate a more rigid and less diversified structural profile. Museums rely almost exclusively on the “Text & Image” format (n = 163), which accounts for 78% of their total sustainability communication, while showing zero engagement with standalone video or “Other” formats. This reflects a curated, visual-centric aesthetic where the static image is the primary vehicle for the sustainability message. Similarly, Creative Industries follow a consistent but limited pattern, with 82.6% of their content (n = 38) adhering to the “Text & Image” standard. The near-total absence of purely textual posts across all 1209 cases (n = 2) further underscores a sector-wide digital norm: sustainability in the Greek cultural field is communicated almost entirely through visual evidence. Whether it involves the high-production video strategies of Music Institutions or the curated images of Museums, the digital “framing” of sustainability is intrinsically media-dependent, with organizational type and resource capacity determining the level of multimedia complexity rather than the thematic focus itself.

4.3. Thematic Analysis of Interview Responses on Sustainable Cultural Management Practices

This section reports the findings of the qualitative interview phase (Phase 3), which was designed to contextualize and interpret patterns identified in the organizational mapping and quantitative content analysis. A total of four cultural organizations participated in this qualitative study, representing diverse sectors within the cultural landscape. All interviews were conducted via digital channels in Greek and were subsequently analyzed using interpretive thematic analysis methodology. Participants were asked to describe sustainable cultural management practices adopted by their organizations in recent years, including but not limited to building energy efficiency, use of recyclable materials, content digitization, partnerships with environmental organizations, and related initiatives.

4.3.1. Environmental Sustainability: Implementation–Communication Gap

All four participants reported implementing environmental sustainability measures, although the scope, depth, and degree of institutionalization varied substantially. A central paradox emerged: while environmental practices were widely implemented, their visibility in digital communication remained limited. The content analysis confirmed that only 3.1% of Facebook posts addressed environmental issues, indicating a persistent disconnect between practice and disclosure. Recycling initiatives were the most consistently adopted environmental measure. P4 described a systematic waste management system, noting that “specific collection points have been established for recyclable waste, and the use of printing has been reduced through the adoption of digital means for a large part of communication, such as electronic signatures, digital cards, use of printed materials for drafts and informal printing, use of recycled paper for programs, and a significant reduction in print runs.” This demonstrates an approach where waste management is conceptualized as an integrated system involving both infrastructure and behavioral change among staff and audiences. However, despite such comprehensive implementation, P4’s organization rarely featured recycling practices in its social media communication, suggesting an assumption that operational sustainability may not appeal to the public as strongly as artistic programming. P1 also reported an advanced approach, stating the “installation of a waste management system” within a broader framework of environmental responsibility. Mapping data confirmed complementary circular economy actions, including biomass utilization and compost production from production by-products. Energy efficiency measures were also reported by three participants, though at varying levels of maturity. P2 mentioned “installation of energy-efficient lighting and air conditioning systems” as standard operational upgrades, while P4 noted that energy improvements were achieved “either with own resources or through programs from the Recovery Fund and ESPA.” These statements reveal both the reliance on external funding and the practical barriers that influence environmental transitions in cultural organizations. Nevertheless, none of these participants’ Facebook posts during the study period explicitly referenced these energy-efficiency initiatives, reinforcing the communication gap between operational sustainability and digital representation. P1 reported the most comprehensive energy strategy, describing “coverage of 100% of the organization’s needs with green energy from a photovoltaic station, the use of electric forklifts and vehicle charging stations, and the installation of LED lighting systems.” This reveals a transformative approach extending across production, logistics, and visitor facilities. Despite these achievements, related communication remained minimal, with fewer than five posts referring to renewable energy or environmental infrastructure across the nine-month analysis period. Environmental sustainability was also deeply embedded in P1’s operations through agricultural and heritage-related practices: “Application of sustainable and organic cultivation certified with AGRO 2.1–2.2, use of meteorological stations for disease prevention and reduced spraying, underground drip irrigation and rainwater utilization, utilization of biomass for energy production, and green fertilization instead of chemical fertilizers.” This example illustrates sustainability integrated into core production processes rather than treated as an add-on. However, digital communication rarely presented these as environmental initiatives; instead, posts framed them as expressions of cultural heritage, and quality—suggesting that environmental sustainability is often communicated indirectly through sector-specific narratives rather than explicit environmental discourse.

Digital transformation emerged as a dual-purpose initiative, simultaneously promoting resource efficiency and accessibility. Three participants emphasized digitization as a key sustainability strategy. P3 provided the most detailed description: “Since 2015, the organization has proceeded with digitization of its archive through the Digital Convergence program, linking its material with Europeana, and continuously upgrading environmentally friendly practices such as electronic ticketing, reduction of printed materials, and the transition from traditional to digital marketing.” This perspective highlights how digital initiatives produce cascading sustainability effects across organizational systems. P2 also referred to “digitization of content” as part of the organization’s sustainability agenda, while P4 explained that “digitization of the organization and the Drama School archive” was implemented through ESPA funding. P4 elaborated on practical implications, describing “electronic signatures, digital cards instead of paper ones, and the use of recycled paper with reduced print runs.” These actions reveal an institutional awareness of internal sustainability beyond public programming. Yet, content analysis showed that posts highlighting electronic tickets or digital programs were framed mainly around convenience and accessibility rather than environmental benefit, again reflecting the tendency to background environmental narratives in favor of audience-focused communication. Two participants (P2, P3) reported incorporating environmental content into artistic and educational activities. P2 described “development of exhibitions that connect cultural heritage with environmental practices, and organization of educational actions aimed at raising public awareness for environmental protection.” Similarly, P3 noted “active participation in conferences such as ‘Culture and Environment,’ and awareness-raising actions in collaboration with local organizations.” These examples demonstrate how environmental topics are integrated into cultural missions. However, social media communication about these activities emphasized inclusion and participation rather than environmental education, indicating that even when organizations implement environmentally themed programs, their communication frames prioritize social accessibility and community engagement. This discrepancy highlights the analytical value of the multiphase design, as it enables the identification of gaps between implemented sustainability practices and their representation in digital communication.

4.3.2. Social Sustainability Dominance

In contrast to environmental initiatives, social sustainability emerged as both extensively implemented and prominently communicated. Content analysis revealed that 85.5% of sustainability-related posts addressed social dimensions, particularly accessibility, education, and community engagement. Interview data confirmed that participants conceptualize social sustainability as central to their institutional mission rather than as a separate agenda.

P3 described a comprehensive educational approach: “Concerts for schools of all educational levels, with free admission for students, programs for all ages, seminars in music schools, and live-streamed concerts throughout the country and abroad.” This reflects a strong commitment to inclusive access, which dominates the organization’s digital presence. P1 also highlighted positive audience responses to participatory activities: “The public responds warmly to our actions, especially those related to environmental protection and the local community, such as volunteer clean-ups, educational programs for children, and tours that connect history and culture.” These statements indicate that participatory environmental initiatives resonate most when framed through community engagement rather than environmental impact. P2 observed that “actions that touch on environmental issues mainly attract young people and school groups of all levels,” suggesting that environmental programming can function as an audience development tool for younger demographics. P4 advanced a pedagogical interpretation: “The adoption of good practices functions as an example and in a way ‘educates’ without forcing the result… this approach has had positive effects, as seen in the increase in electronic ticket and program sales.” Here, sustainability operates as implicit education—behavioral modeling through organizational practice. P4 also described a creative integration of recycling infrastructure as cultural experience: “After the placement of an aluminum recycling point in cooperation with a sponsor, audience participation was remarkable; the recycling space, designed as an artwork, attracted not only recyclable materials but also the gaze of spectators.” This aestheticization of environmental action highlights the cultural sector’s capacity to transform sustainability practices into experiential engagement. P3 added contextual depth by reflecting on post-pandemic shifts: “During the pandemic, the bonds between the public and cultural organizations were strengthened… since then collaboration in numerous actions has become much more substantial, mainly raising awareness on environmental, social, and health issues.” This temporal insight illustrates how crisis-driven social trust can enhance sustainability engagement across multiple dimensions.

4.3.3. Strategic Communication and Economic Sustainability

Economic sustainability appeared as the least visible dimension, representing only 11.4% of sustainability-related posts. Nevertheless, interview data revealed nuanced strategies. P4 described mixed funding sources—“either with own resources or through Recovery Fund and ESPA programs”—while P3 mentioned participation in “Digital Convergence” programs. P1 presented a diversified model that combines cultural programming, educational activities, and commercial operations as “a model of sustainable cultural management that combines environment, art, and society.” Despite these strategic approaches, financial aspects were seldomly discussed publicly, suggesting communicative reticence surrounding economic sustainability. Participants’ responses revealed varied levels of strategic sophistication in sustainability communication. P2 stated briefly that practices are shared “through the Museum’s website and social media”, while P1 noted “through the official website and social media of the organization.” P4 outlined a more structured approach, combining digital and physical communication channels, while P3 articulated a holistic communication philosophy: “Sustainability actions are communicated within the general framework of our communication policy, which highlights our cultural, social, and educational role. Our slogan is ‘Your orchestra’ reflects the idea of shared ownership and collaboration with our audience.” These opinions demonstrate an integrated rather than compartmentalized understanding of sustainability communication.

5. Discussion

The findings from this mixed-methods study—combining organizational mapping, social media content analysis, and semi-structured interviews—reveal complex patterns of sustainability practice and communication among Greek cultural organizations. This section synthesizes empirical results with international scholarship to explore broader theoretical implications, sectoral challenges, and strategic opportunities for sustainable cultural management.

5.1. Inverted Decoupling: Environmental Implementation Without Digital Visibility

A central and theoretically significant finding challenges classical institutional theory assumptions. According to Meyer and Rowan’s model of institutional isomorphism, organizations often adopt sustainability policies symbolically to gain legitimacy without substantive implementation [60]. However, evidence from this study indicates a reverse dynamic: substantial environmental implementation with minimal public disclosure. Despite all four participating organizations reporting concrete environmental actions—ranging from renewable energy use, waste reduction, and recycling systems to organic cultivation and circular economy practices—only 3.1% of analyzed Facebook posts explicitly referenced environmental themes. This pattern suggests a phenomenon closer to “greenhushing” or “greenblushing” rather than traditional greenwashing [61]. This interpretation is strongly grounded in the interview data. Participants repeatedly emphasized a deliberate restraint in environmental self-presentation. As P4 noted, “good practices function as an example and in a way ‘educate’ without forcing the result,” revealing a communicative philosophy that privileges silent demonstration over explicit messaging. This reflects concern that explicit environmental advocacy might be perceived as self-promotional or preachy, thereby undermining organizational authenticity—a critical asset in cultural sectors where symbolic capital and stakeholder trust are paramount [8]. Similarly, P2 expressed concern that overt environmental messaging could “distract from the artistic experience,” reinforcing the idea that under-communication is not accidental but strategic. Rather than exaggerating sustainability credentials, organizations under-communicate genuine achievements, potentially to avoid perceptions of self-promotion, ideological conflict, or audience disinterest. Bromley and Powell’s typology of means–ends decoupling [62] can be extended to include practice–communication decoupling, where substantial environmental practices remain invisible within public discourse. This may suggest a possible tension between sustainability practice, legitimacy management, and communicative strategy in the cultural sector. Several factors may explain this under-communication.

First, sustainability reporting in the cultural sector remains voluntary and unstandardized, leading to inconsistent disclosure practices [63]. Second, communicators may perceive environmental issues as operational rather than mission-driven, thereby relegating them behind artistic and social narratives [64]. Third, as P4 articulated, “good practices function as an example and in a way ‘educate’ without forcing the result,” illustrating a belief in implicit modeling rather than explicit advocacy. However, unlike classical decoupling driven by ceremonial conformity without implementation, inverted decoupling reflects implementation without ceremonial communication—a theoretically distinct phenomenon requiring sector-specific explanation. This finding reinforces calls for sustainability communication as a strategic discipline requiring narrative skill and systems thinking to connect organizational behavior with global sustainability frameworks [65]. The cultural sector also faces unique communicative challenges. Environmental initiatives—such as energy retrofits or waste management—are often backstage and lack the visual or emotional resonance of artistic programming. Furthermore, concerns about authenticity, aesthetic coherence, and sponsorship sensitivities may discourage environmental self-promotion. Consequently, CCIs risk obscuring their most transformative sustainability work, weakening their role as environmental educators and exemplars.

5.2. Social Sustainability’s Communicative Hegemony and Moral Legitimacy

In contrast, social sustainability dominated the communicative landscape, comprising 85.5% of sustainability-related posts. This included messages on accessibility, inclusion, education, and community participation. The prominence of social sustainability reflects how cultural organizations construct moral legitimacy—alignment with socially accepted values that justify their public relevance and funding [66]. Interview narratives further clarify why social sustainability dominates communication. Participants consistently framed accessibility, education, and inclusion as inseparable from their organizational identity. As P3 emphasized through the “Your Orchestra” narrative, social sustainability was described not as a separate policy goal but as “the essence of why the organization exists.” This framing positions social sustainability as morally non-negotiable, while environmental and economic dimensions remain perceived as supportive or secondary. Especially within publicly funded or mission-driven institutions, social inclusion and educational access represent tangible demonstrations of societal contribution. This emphasis on social dimensions is consistent across Greek cultural organizations. Research on digital marketing strategies reveals that accessibility, education, and community engagement consistently outperform environmental messaging in terms of audience interaction and perceived institutional value [23,67]. Cultural organizations prioritize social sustainability both because it aligns with their core mission and because it generates stronger audience resonance [21].

This communicative bias mirrors cultural sector identity. For many organizations, democratization of culture, rather than environmental performance, constitutes their raison d’être. The “Your Orchestra” narrative articulated by P3 exemplifies how social sustainability communication fosters participatory belonging and transforms audiences into co-owners of institutional identity. This discursive strategy aligns with participatory governance models and relational communication approaches emphasizing co-creation and trust-building between cultural institutions and publics [68].

Cultural and contextual factors also shape this pattern. Research suggests that in collectivist societies, messages emphasizing social efficacy and community benefit resonate more strongly than individual environmental responsibility. The Greek context, characterized by high relational orientation and strong communal values, may thus predispose organizations toward social sustainability communication. Furthermore, the platform logic of Facebook significantly shapes these narratives; the platform’s algorithmic preference for high-engagement, visual, and ‘shareable’ content favors social and participatory stories over technical environmental data or formal economic reports. This creates a ‘narrative filter’ where organizations prioritize social sustainability to maintain digital visibility. Finally, the intrinsic differences between organizational types play a role: while museums often adopt a curated, archival approach to sustainability, performing arts organizations leverage their transient, event-based nature to promote immediate social engagement and community collaboration

While social engagement enhances legitimacy, neglecting environmental communication limits the sector’s contribution to climate discourse and weakens its alignment with global sustainability frameworks such as the UN SDGs [69]. Nevertheless, it is important to interpret this predominance of social sustainability communication as a provisional finding, grounded in the specific sample and national context of this study, which may limit its generalizability. Such communicative emphasis on social dimensions could inadvertently marginalize environmental and economic aspects, thereby resulting in a sustainability discourse that is somewhat imbalanced.

5.3. Strategic Communication Gaps and the Economic Sustainability Taboo

Economic sustainability emerged as both implemented and under-communicated. Only 11.4% of analyzed posts addressed economic themes, typically emphasizing transparency and accountability rather than innovation or funding mechanisms. Interview data revealed organizations’ reliance on European Union programs (Recovery Fund, ESPA, Digital Convergence), but these were rarely discussed publicly. This selective disclosure reflects cultural sector sensitivities: economic topics may appear incongruent with artistic missions or risk perceptions of commercialization [68]. This silence constitutes what may be called the economic sustainability taboo.

Cultural organizations, particularly those operating under public or non-profit mandates, navigate dual legitimacy pressures—demonstrating fiscal responsibility without appearing profit-oriented. Consequently, economic transparency is confined to formal reports rather than ongoing social media narratives. Yet, economic resilience underpins the long-term viability of sustainability commitments, suggesting that strategic reframing is required to integrate economic sustainability as a legitimate and communicable dimension of cultural stewardship. The findings also illustrate a spectrum of strategic communication maturity. Some organizations employ “ambient communication,” where sustainability messages diffuse incidentally through general content without deliberate framing, while others exhibit “integrated communication,” embedding sustainability narratives within holistic identity discourse [7,70,71]. The latter approach, exemplified by P3’s articulation that sustainability actions “aim at the preservation and promotion of cultural heritage while simultaneously enhancing social and economic well-being,” reflects advanced strategic sophistication consistent with integrated communication frameworks [71].

5.4. Practical Implications for Cultural Managers and Policymakers

Building on the identified imbalances across sustainability dimensions, the findings carry important practical implications for both cultural managers and policymakers. First, cultural organizations would benefit from adopting integrated sustainability communication strategies that translate “backstage” environmental and economic practices into accessible, audience-facing narratives aligned with their artistic identity. Rather than relying on isolated or sporadic “green posts,” environmental actions could be embedded within storytelling formats already familiar to cultural audiences, such as behind-the-scenes content, artist collaborations, or educational and participatory programming. This approach may enhance visibility while preserving authenticity and aesthetic coherence.

Second, the findings suggest a need for targeted capacity building in sustainability communication within cultural organizations. Interview evidence indicates that under-communication of environmental and economic practices often stems from uncertainty about appropriateness, relevance, or narrative framing, rather than from resistance to sustainability principles. Providing cultural managers and communication professionals with strategic guidance and digital storytelling skills could help bridge the gap between operational sustainability and public discourse, enabling more confident and balanced sustainability narratives.

From a policy perspective, the results highlight the importance of complementing funding compliance mechanisms with communicative incentives. Public funding schemes and cultural policy instruments could explicitly encourage—or softly require—cultural organizations to communicate sustainability actions across social, environmental, and economic dimensions. Such incentives would promote narrative balance and transparency without imposing rigid reporting templates that may be ill-suited to the symbolic, mission-driven nature of the cultural sector. Supporting flexible communication frameworks may thus enhance both accountability and sectoral legitimacy.

Beyond the practical implications, this study offers significant theoretical contributions to the fields of sustainability and organizational communication within the cultural sector. It introduces a nuanced understanding of the ‘Narrative Gap’—the disconnect between internal sustainability practices and their external digital representation. The findings demonstrate that sustainability communication in CCIs is not merely a reporting exercise, but a strategic performance shaped by the interplay between institutional identity and platform logic. By systematically analyzing how different organizational structures (e.g., museums vs. performing arts) ‘frame’ sustainability, the research advances the theory of institutional legitimacy in the digital age, suggesting that cultural organizations prioritize social narratives to align with policy expectations and algorithmic preferences. Ultimately, this study provides a new conceptual baseline for exploring how symbolic and cultural capital are translated into digital sustainability discourse.

To synthesize the multi-dimensional findings of this study,

Table 11. Integrated Synthesis of Sustainability Practices, Communication Gaps, and Strategic Implications.

Sustainability Dimension	Descriptive Findings Practice-Communication Gap	Theoretical Implications	Practical & Policy Recommendations
Social	Strongest Dimension: over 85.5% (n = 1034) of total posts. High implementation in accessibility and education	Sustainability as legitimacy	Move from “broad access” to “impact reporting”. Use digital tools to measure and communicate deep social change
Environmental	The Paradox: Systematic internal practices (LED, LEED, 15-stream recycling) but minimal visibility (3.1% of posts)	Operational Silence: Environmental action is perceived as “backstage or technical”	Transition from “isolated green posts” to “green storytelling”
Economic	Transparency focus: 67% of economic Posts concern transparency	Communication serves as “performative gestures of compliance” rather than innovation	Organizations need to communicate “Innovation” (e.g., GNO-TV) to show resilience

Source: authors’ elaboration.

provides a comprehensive overview that distinguishes between empirical results, their theoretical significance, and the resulting recommendations for the cultural sector.

5.5. Limitations and Future Opportunities

The study’s interpretive scope was limited by sample size (ten organizations), national context (Greece), reliance on self-reported four interview data, and the exclusive focus on a single social media platform (Facebook), which may not fully capture organizations’ broader digital sustainability communication practices. Future research should expand cross-nationally to compare how policy frameworks, funding ecosystems, and cultural traditions shape sustainability communication. Mixed-method longitudinal studies could track evolving digital discourse as sustainability norms mature within the cultural sector. Practically, the findings highlight opportunities for capacity building in sustainability storytelling, strategic digital literacy, and data-informed communication planning. Developing shared frameworks for cultural sustainability reporting—integrating environmental, social, and cultural indicators—could strengthen alignment with global sustainability standards. Finally, as cultural organizations increasingly function as environmental infrastructure shaping public consciousness [72,73], empowering them with narrative and communicative tools becomes essential for advancing both cultural and ecological resilience.