Context: The Australian pork industry is highly efficient, with a history of ongoing productivity and environmental improvement. The introduction of economy-wide environmental targets require delivering and tracking performance improvement. Aims: This study determined carbon footprint (greenhouse gas [GHG] and land use [LU] and direct land use change [dLUC] emissions, reported as kg CO2-e), fossil energy (MJ), freshwater consumption (L), water stress (L H2O-e), land occupation (m2) and eutrophication potential (nitrogen and phosphorus) for Australian pork for 2020 and 2022. Variability between housing, manure management systems, and regions were identified, and systems analysed to determine new options for low-impact pork. Methods: In the largest Australian study of its kind, data for ~70% of pigs produced were collected using a stratified design. Using attributional life cycle assessment, impacts were reported per kilogram of liveweight (LW), post-processed, retail, and boneless, fat-corrected pork. Results are presented as industry averages ± 2 × s.d. Key results: Key results were 3.0 ± 0.1 and 3.0 ± 0.1 kg CO2-e GHG, 0.4 ± 0.07 and 0.3 ± 0.03 kg CO2-e LU and dLUC, 12.9 ± 0.5 and 13.4 ± 0.5 MJ, 93.8 ± 9.6 and 52.5 ± 3.6 L, 68.4 ± 6.7 and 43.2 ± 3.3 L H2O-e, and 12.0 ± 0.9 and 12.7 ± 0.9 m2/kg LW in 2020 and 2022, respectively. Due to industry growth, total emissions were higher in 2022. Eutrophication potential for Australian pork (2.2 × 10−4 ± 3.0 × 10−5 kg phosphorus and 8.7 × 10−3 ± 3.5 × 10−4 kg nitrogen/kg LW), reported for the first time, was low compared with grazing systems and European piggeries. Conclusions: Industry has demonstrated long-term performance improvement, though the rate slowed between 2020 and 2022. Ongoing interventions are required to return to trend. Covered pond, deep litter, and outdoor systems produce lower carbon footprint pork and can provide other environmental benefits from renewable energy, and reduced fossil energy demand. Implications: There is potential to further reduce environmental impacts through practice change. If industry is to meet formal targets, investment and proactive policy settings are required to overcome barriers to adoption of existing technology and support the techno-economic case for novel strategies. This study assessed the environmental impacts of Australian pork, and is the most comprehensive (70–72% industry) of its kind in Australia. Eutrophication potential was generally lower than in international pork production. The rate of environmental improvement was slow compared with historic trends. Covered pond, litter-based and outdoor systems produce pork associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions. Australian pork has significant potential to further reduce environmental impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]