Why Is The Science Museum In A Spin Over Its Shell Sponsorship?

authordefault
on

At first it looked like the Science Museum had gone and done the right thing: dropped its sponsorship deal with Shell. But then the museumโ€™s director said something different. Chris Garrard at the Art Not Oil Coalition asks: โ€˜Whatโ€™s goingย on?โ€™

Currently Shell is sponsoring the Science Museumโ€™s climate science exhibition, ‘Atmosphere’, but this is due to expire in December. So, the Art Not Oil Coalition decided to put in a Freedom of Information (FOI) request and find out what ill-advised deal they had lined upย next.

When the response came back, it looked like we had got the result we had been waitingย for:

โ€œNo, the Science Museum Group [formerly the National Museum of Science & Industry] does not have plans to renew its existing sponsorship deal or initiate a new deal or funding agreement with Royal Dutchย Shell.โ€

Sponsorshipย Doubt

However, when this news was reported in the Guardian, the museumโ€™s director, Ian Blatchford, took a very differentย line:

โ€œFor the avoidance of doubt, we have a long-term relationship with Shell, with whom we remain in open dialogue. We may or may not enter into partnership agreements with Shell in theย future.โ€

So, what is going on at the Science Museum? Is there a plan to initiate a new deal or not? What is the nature of this โ€œopen dialogueโ€? Rather than avoid doubt, the museum has created more ofย it.

Sponsorship deals tend to fall into two broad categories: long-term partnerships and ad-hoc deals for specific events or exhibitions. While Shellโ€™s deal at the Science Museum may appear ad hoc it is, like Ian Blatchford says, a long-termย relationship.

Prior to ‘Atmosphere’, Shell sponsored the museumโ€™s interactive gallery, ‘Launchpad’. There was a smooth segue from one deal to the next. The museum has had five years to plan a new opportunity for Shell to keep its logo on the wall โ€“ but itย hasnโ€™t.

Did the museumโ€™s development team simply forget? Or had the deal become toxic for both the museum andย Shell?

Exhibitionย Decisions

Earlier this year, thanks to another FOI request, we at Art not Oil uncovered a catalogue of emails showing that Shell had attempted to influence the museumโ€™s curatorial decisions around its climate exhibition โ€“ what to display and how to displayย it.

Shell even asked for a discussion event to be made โ€œinvite-onlyโ€ so that campaigners like us wouldnโ€™t be able to ask awkward questions about its record in the Arctic, Nigeria andย Canada.

Its sponsorship of the ‘Atmosphere’ exhibition amounted to ยฃ200,000 per year, which we worked out to be roughly 0.25 percent of the museumโ€™s income. Again, that figure isnโ€™t publicly available and had to be drawn out with an FOIย request.

These revelations all raised big questions about sponsorship and public trust in cultural institutions, and undoubtedly influenced the Museums Associationโ€™s new ethical guidelines.

So, with no fanfare for a new sponsorship deal forthcoming, it looked like the museum had taken note of the controversy and decided to quietly phase out its partnership withย Shell.

Typically, when cultural institutions have dropped unethical sponsors inย the past, itโ€™s always been framed in a face-saving way, with lines like: โ€œWhile we have no specific partnership at this time, we are grateful to X for its longstandingย support which we depend on to deliver world-classย exhibitions.โ€

Their response to our FOI request appeared to be another such graceful retreat. But with Blatchfordโ€™s comments the museum urgently needs to clarify whether that response wasย accurate.ย 

Answersย Needed

What we do know is that the museum hasnโ€™t come to its senses on oil sponsorship quite yet โ€“ BP is the sponsor of the current ‘Cosmonauts’ exhibition. In an effort to draw attention to these sponsorships, BP or not BP? and the Progressive Science Institute held an โ€œunofficialโ€ conference in the museum lastย weekend.

Climate scientists have reached a consensus that if we are to have a safe climate, we can no longer drill for new sources of fossil fuels, as Shell and BP plan to. The Science Museum must now decide if itย agrees.

Chris Garrard is a member of the activist theatre group, BP or not BP? which is part of the Art Not Oil coalition. Visit www.bp-or-not-bp.org for more about their campaigns andย performances.

Photo: Dave Patten viaย Flickr

authordefault

Related Posts

on

Canadian environmentalist Tzeporah Berman makes the case for a "bold idea" to end the era of coal, oil and gas.

Canadian environmentalist Tzeporah Berman makes the case for a "bold idea" to end the era of coal, oil and gas.
on

High demand for wild-caught species to feed farmed salmon and other fish is taking nutritious food away from low-income communities in the Global South.

High demand for wild-caught species to feed farmed salmon and other fish is taking nutritious food away from low-income communities in the Global South.
Analysis
on

Premier Danielle Smith can expect new tariffs, fewer revenue streams, and a provincial deficit brought on by lowered oil prices.

Premier Danielle Smith can expect new tariffs, fewer revenue streams, and a provincial deficit brought on by lowered oil prices.
on

Jeremy Clarkson spreads well-worn conspiracy theory that casts inheritance farm tax policy as plot to โ€œreplace farmers with migrantsโ€.

Jeremy Clarkson spreads well-worn conspiracy theory that casts inheritance farm tax policy as plot to โ€œreplace farmers with migrantsโ€.