A chance to end fossil fuel sponsorship for good?

“You don’t abandon your friends because they have what we consider to be a temporary difficulty.”

Back when BP’s oil was flowing into the Gulf of Mexico some fifteen years ago, those were the words Sir Nick Serota used to defend his notorious sponsor whose logos were splashed across the walls of Tate Britain.

Today, the picture is remarkably different. Tate, like many other cultural organisations, has cut ties to BP and other fossil fuel sponsors, with its current director Maria Balshaw even openly opposing the British Museum’s decision to continue its BP partnership, highlighting how “the public has moved to a position where they think it is inappropriate”.

And it’s easy to see why. Just a few months ago, BP’s own internal memos were made public revealing how the oil and gas producer has cynically used cultural sponsorship for years as a way to engage in a form of covert lobbying, where it meets politicians at private events and exhibition openings to further its unsustainable drilling for new oil and gas. These arrangements allow BP to recruit respected culture leaders and museum directors as – to use the company’s own words – its “enablers and defenders”.

Debate is the next stepping in curbing promotion fossil fuels

Now, for the first time in UK history, after over 100,000 people backed a petition spearheaded by environmental broadcaster Chris Packham, MPs will have the opportunity to debate a Ban on Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship in the Commons next week.

Just as parliament once developed legislation to put limits on the promotion of tobacco products – with demonstrable improvements in health outcomes as a result – MPs will have the opportunity to take the next step in curbing the promotion of fossil fuels. The debate comes as the UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change calls for a total ban on fossil fuel industry lobbying and advertising.

It’s not the only reason this debate is timely, as a member of Parents for Palestine, a group campaigning for the Science Museum to end its fossil fuel sponsorships from Adani and BP, explains: “The fossil fuel industry fuels and profits from mass atrocities across the globe.

“Investor-owned and private oil companies supply 66% of oil to Israel – more than a third (35%) of that from major oil companies like Chevron, Shell and BP – despite genocide warnings from the International Court of Justice. Companies like arms and coal producer Adani and oil giant BP are exploiting our cultural institutions to ‘greenwash’ and legitimise their dirty profits.”

Ethical ‘red lines’ have shifted

Another reason this debate has come about is that, over time, ethical ‘red lines’ in the sector have shifted. At the National Portrait Gallery, its initially tobacco-sponsored John Player Portrait Award became the oil-branded BP Portrait Award, with that 30-year partnership finally coming to an end in 2022 after mounting pressure from artists.

But this ongoing evolution in values across the sector has been mischaracterised recently, with opposition to unethical sponsors being conflated with some imagined opposition to all philanthropy. In her Jennie Lee lecture earlier this year, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy misleadingly implied that there are now “protests against any or every sponsor of the arts” and branded ethical scrutiny of sponsors as “moral puritanism which is killing off our arts and culture”.

If it was Fossil Free Books and its campaign on investment bank Baillie Gifford she had in mind, then Nandy missed the mark. Firstly, Fossil Free Books is not some anonymous activist group but a collective of writers and literary workers, many of whom speak, perform and work at Edinburgh International Book Festival and other literary events.

Second, their demand was for Baillie Gifford to divest from fossil fuels and those profiting from the ongoing genocide in Palestine. Rather than respond to that pressure, it was Baillie Gifford that instead chose to abruptly drop its sponsorship deals.

What is also less known is that Fossil Free Books then played a role in securing £100k funding from Bloomsbury to support literary festivals after Baillie Gifford withdrew its support, and that Creative Scotland has not just replaced – but increased – the funding Edinburgh Book Festival previously received from the investment firm.

Transactional nature of corporate sponsorship

In a similar vein, Kings Place recently dropped the hire of its building for a ‘defence and space’ conference, after 1,200 musicians and artists signed a letter to the venue, with some also withdrawing from scheduled performances in its programme.

The lead sponsor of that conference was the arms company Lockheed Martin – which supplies the Israel Air Force with F-35 and F-16 fighter jets. Kings Place ultimately understood that, while the initial loss of revenue would represent a challenge, a shift in its stance was both possible and necessary, and that legitimising the violent business of Lockheed Martin crossed a line.

When many organisations are grappling with the ethical questions, it’s disappointing that some culture leaders aren’t acknowledging the transactional nature of corporate sponsorship – and why it attracts scrutiny.

For example, British Museum director Nick Cullinan wrote in the FT in March that it “strikes me as odd” that “activism has gravitated to arts venues in order to protest geopolitical events rather than, say, Parliament Square”. He must have missed the numerous climate and pro-Palestine marches that pass by parliament every week, but it’s also abundantly clear why opposition has gravitated towards his own museum.

Under his watch, the museum continues to normalise the brand of JTI – Japan Tobacco International – and provide a promotional platform to notorious polluter BP. And just last month, it hired out its Great Court as a venue to the Israeli Embassy. The British Museum is perhaps the perfect illustration of how sponsorship – when not subject to ethical scrutiny – gives legitimacy to those that profit from harms to health, climate breakdown and violent occupation.

Arts organisations having to make choices regulators and government avoid

It’s also concerning that in many recent comment pieces, it has been overlooked that ethical judgment should actually be a cornerstone of corporate sponsorship in the arts. For example, Sadler’s Wells continues to face opposition from artists over its sponsorship by Barclays, a bank that provides billions of pounds worth of investment and loans to arms companies selling weapons and military technology to Israel.

However, Britannia Morton, co-CEO of the venue recently commented that, “regulatory bodies are not making those [ethical] choices, and the government is not making those choices – but arts organisations are being asked to do that”.

Whether we look to the Museums Association’s Code of Ethics, the Charities Commission guidance or principles set out by the Fundraising Regulator and National Audit Office, there’s a clear expectation that decisions about sponsorship do involve ethics – and should be subject to robust due diligence processes. In other words, you can’t ‘take the money and run’ from any legally operating company; there’s an expectation of ethical standards and criteria.

Explorations of value emerge from space of creativity

It also makes sense that museums, galleries and theatres are being looked to, as explorations of values, ethics and action so often emerge from spaces of culture and creativity. That’s why it’s artists, writers, musicians and actors who are asking these questions and speaking out so powerfully.

When photographer and activist Nan Goldin mounted a campaign which prompted art galleries to cut ties to tainted Sackler money, it set the stage for convictions and guilty pleas from Purdue Pharmaceuticals, the producer of the opioid OxyContin. Now, the widespread rejection of BP and Shell’s sponsorship of the arts has helped to pave the way for Monday’s debate in parliament.

In a recent letter to the FT, the CEOs of Sadler’s Wells – supported by organisations including Donmar Warehouse, the Old Vic and the Science Museum – argued: “We must find a way to show that cultural organisations contribute to a better world, and partnership with business and philanthropy is an admirable and valuable part of that mission.”

Of course, cultural organisations can, and routinely do, contribute to a better world and in powerful ways – but disregarding how some specific sectors of business clearly further destruction and injustice will only undermine that goal. Giving cover and cultural legitimacy to those businesses profiting from climate breakdown and genocide will never be an admirable and valuable part of an organisation’s mission.