The Only Way is Ethics?

Ethics in the Arts - In these shaky financial times should the arts accept cash from anyone? Who should a sponsorship policy exclude? We know more money is needed. It might save your venue, create a striking community project or be the icing on the cake for a totemic show. It might save your job.

So there you sit, trying to make the figures balance, looking at how to bring the money in. How often do you say, “I will never work with them?” I wonder how long this list is, how clear are your guidelines?
The ethics of #artsfunding money is not the most burning issues in the arts at the moment, yet I sense it will bite some well known cultural brand soon. I wonder how potential funders think about the arts' collective opinion regarding corporate money. Is there one? No, not in my experience. Attitudes to private cash are patchy and confused, without a clear moral logic.
You ask a handful of arts and cultural bodies the same questions. What happens? You get five different answers. Some regions seem more picky and prickly, others prompt and practical. Are smaller bodies more precious, bigger ones more mature? There is no discernable rhyme or reason to any of it.
Perhaps this is because creating a coherent response, balancing the ethical and finical imperatives, is such a complex task. The recent ructions in the education sector are instructive, notably the controversy surrounding some of the individual funding to the LSE. What a tightrope this process can be. How quickly can a bona fide funder turn into a pariah? Where is Vilar’s Floral Hall now?
Sometimes we all agree that we cannot accept an offer of business money for sponsorship. Could they however be squeezed in as corporate members, or maybe fund discrete community wor?. On the other hand should we have their employees in our audiences, or as patrons? And hang on, wasn’t that funder previously a board member?
Here are my thoughts. Any legal money coming to the arts will become good money. There I said it. We are in such a fluster about this issue it seems as if people would rather say nothing, but we must get it out in the open. Recent demonstrations at the Tate and National Portrait Gallery (criticising recent business collaborations) reveal our societal tensions, our well-meaning but inconsistent sensitivities about corporate funds. But what good comes from turning this money down? Taking 'bad' money may mean protesters chant outside your door, but at least you will have doors left to open.
Of course, it comes down to personal choices, made by fundraisers, management teams and groups of the board. You might be told that public money is good and private money is bad. Surely this is nonsense. Perhaps you could rifle through all government finances and identify the unethical funds mixed in with the good, aggregating out all the 'bad' taxes paid by business operating and driving growth. Yet hang on, this is the same money which finds its way into government coffers to then be given out in terms of pubic investment. Surely it is one and the same? The water system of society, happiness, business and progress is a difficult one to judge when we honestly look at it.
I do not think it helps to be didactic, or preachy on these issues. I do think it would be a good idea to sort out the confusion that currently exists. We need to make it easier for the right choices to be made by investors and recipients alike. Should we aspire to clear criteria and grids, as other charity sectors seek to provide, where it is clearly stated for all the 7,500 bodies we engage with who they would or would not partner with? Should we just be more open about the choices we have made and perhaps say, 'We do not agree with all actions of our sponsor, as some may cause social harm. However, they are legal businesses and in funding us and our arts we believe they are doing good.' Will business accept this more honest approach?
It won't be easy, however we try. Let me tell you a story. A little while ago, I worked in international development. If you had businesses interested in working on your campaign, you had to run them past an ethics committee. It took a while, with all the knotty issues to address. In one particular instance, after an interminably long wait, I was told that it was okay to work with this brand on a global project. All the necessary checks and balances had been undertaken, the go-ahead was given for this campaign to improve the lives of children working in the sewers of Mumbai. The business approved?
Enron.