Museums must be free to decide their own partnerships

The Museums Association has recently published proposed updates to its Code of Ethics, to be debated and voted on at its AGM in October. The draft code makes clear that members will be expected to “transition away” from sponsorship with companies involved in environmental harm, explicitly mentioning fossil fuels, as well as human rights abuses and other areas deemed inconsistent with museum values. It also instructs museums to secure funding only from “ethical sources,” though it offers no definition of what “ethical” might mean.

The draft code lands at a time when sponsorship of cultural events by commercial companies has never been under greater scrutiny, so a review is timely. I did not support the boycotting of Baillie Gifford by authors. Not only was it self-defeating, it will have resulted in many companies shying away from supporting the arts, particularly those that are trying to do the right thing – surely companies we should wish to encourage.

The new draft code appears to be a straightforward, principled response to climate emergency and public concern. But in practice it raises more questions than it answers. The real opportunity lies not in drawing up rigid prohibitions, but in helping museums navigate complexity, share best practice and build confidence in their own decision-making.

What would an acceptable sponsor look like?

Ethics are rarely absolute. One community may regard a company as a valued partner; another may see it as unacceptable. Trustees are already charged with weighing up those choices in line with their mission and values and making context-specific judgements.

Nor is “environmental harm” as clear-cut as it might sound. Of course, fossil fuels are a major contributor to climate change. But what about other industries that carry a heavy ecological cost – fast fashion, plastics, industrial agriculture, shipping, aviation, even the energy-hungry growth of artificial intelligence?

Which leads to an obvious question: what would an acceptable sponsor look like? Very few major companies are wholly uncontroversial. A bank may finance renewables while also underwriting oil and gas. A tech firm may support cultural education but also carry a significant carbon footprint from data centres. A supermarket may invest in community programmes while contributing to waste and overconsumption.

Responsibility lies with institutions not the Association

Across the UK, museums and galleries already take these matters seriously. Trustees weigh sponsorship opportunities carefully, considering their mission, reputation and the views of their communities. Many institutions have developed their own robust ethical policies through consultation and debate.

As Sir Peter Bazalgette has argued: “The Association’s role should be to encourage each museum to have a well-thought-out donations policy, with ethical considerations that reflect its own values and community. But it is not for the Association to tell members which sectors to avoid – that responsibility properly lies with the institutions themselves.”

That is surely the right approach: support local decision-making, rather than impose strict rules from above.

Partnerships are not passive

We do not want to see a code that could result in fewer partnerships, reduced income and diminished capacity to serve audiences. And, of course, one of the important ways that museums can contribute is to be places that encourage thoughtful dialogue about how we can improve our world, with interpretation and exhibitions reflecting different perspectives.

Partnerships are not passive. Many museums already use them as a platform for sustainability, education and engagement. With the right guidance, they could do more – co-creating initiatives that support climate action, promote diversity and extend access. Cutting off whole categories of potential sponsors risks closing doors that could otherwise be used to influence change.

What refusing what has hitherto been regarded as mainstream sponsorship would achieve is to deprive museums of the resources they need to deliver exhibitions, outreach and education. It is a gesture that costs museums more than it necessarily changes the behaviour of industries or governments.

All this must be seen in the context of a sector under immense financial pressure. Local government is stretched to breaking point. Philanthropy is important but finite and increasingly competitive. Corporate support remains a vital strand of income for many museums.