Fossil fuel sponsorship: six key considerations for rights holders

For decades, rights holders have been forced to respond flexibly to changes in sponsorship regulation. Evolving restrictions on tobacco, alcohol, gambling and certain kinds of food have demanded strategic agility and an entrepreneurial attitude to partnership marketing.

In recent years, however, the job has got even tougher – because now right holders are also having to make ethical judgements about what constitutes an appropriate partner. No longer is it simply a question of whether a sponsorship is legal, but also whether it is right.

Nowhere is this more evident than on the subject of fossil fuel-based sponsors. Partnerships with the likes of BP, Shell and Gazprom have sparked vocal protests from campaigners that blame these companies for the current climate emergency. The issue made headlines again this week when The Science Museum unveiled a new sponsorship with energy giant the Adani Group. The Guardian quoted Jess Worth, from Culture Unstained, as saying the museum’s “enthusiasm for fossil fuel partnerships has turned controversy into a crisis of credibility.”

At a basic level, there really is nothing to stop cash-strapped rights holders from signing up fossil fuel sponsors. They are, after all, legal firms providing products that the vast majority of us regard as essential in our daily lives. But the reality is that this is an over-simplistic entry point. At a time when the issue of the environment has moved centre-stage politically, rights holders need to think carefully before they get into bed with a fossil fuel partner. Here are just a few areas they would do well to explore before taking the plunge.

Gauge stakeholder reaction: First and foremost, what will visitors, staff, collaborators and existing benefactors think? Will the decision to work with a fossil fuel partner alienate target audiences? Will talent withdraw their labour? Will staff become demotivated or resistant? Will other sources of money dry up? When the RSC ended its partnership with BP, it said that the sponsorship was putting up a “barrier” between it and young people. Culturally and commercially, it makes no sense for rights holders to alienate existing stakeholders. Rights holders need to try and evaluate whether a short term cash injection is worth the potential long term (perhaps irreversible) damage to their overarching brand reputation.

Insist on authenticity: In these polarising times, it’s impossible to have a nuanced debate about anything. But the narrative doesn’t always have to be led by climate change deniers and activists. Unquestionably, there will be a pivotal role for fossil fuel giants to play in the transition to renewables - redirecting their technological and operational expertise towards cleaner solutions. For rights holders determined to work with fossil fuel companies – this is the point they need to focus on. They need to ensure that partnerships are built around the work that oil and gas firms are doing to put things right. The Science Museum’s partnership with Adani is focused on the latter’s renewable ambitions – but it needs to be sure that it isn't just participating in corporate greenwashing.

Work hard on narratives: Clearly, working with fossil fuel firms brings with it one major negative narrative – complicity in environmental degradation. But there are others – as the British Museum found out recently. It’s only a short hop from oil & gas expansion to accusations of war-mongering and complicity in cultural destruction (stolen artefacts, displaced tribes, etc.). Rather than stumbling blindly into such controversies, rights holders need to find ways to associate themselves with positive stories around tech innovation, job creation and decisive action in tackling climate change. If fossil fuel firms are genuinely transitioning, there must be a bank of feel good stories to illustrate the point.

Prepare for disruption: Of course, authentic storytelling in itself won't be enough. Even if a rights holder is convinced of a sponsor’s sincerity, there will be pushback. Some sectors of society will refuse to accept that fossil fuel firms are capable of acting in anything other than a self-seeking way. People will protest and disrupt – as the British Museum learned when hundreds of people occupied it to protest its links with FTSE-100 giant BP. Crisis management capabilities will be key as long as the sponsorship is in place. So perhaps consider a fairly modest partnership to begin with – to see how existing systems cope with the pressure.

Explore subtle solutions: Fossil fuels firms start out wanting to make big statements – attaching their logos to high profile institutions and events. But what if there was a more subtle way of working together that didn’t attract such attention? In this era of digital channels, data analytics and personalisation, rights holders should try and discover whether there is a more targeted way of working with oil & gas firms. This is not an attempt to get around the issue of authenticity, but to de-escalate the nature of the controversy.

Consider alternatives: Oil & Gas investment must look like relatively easy money – especially to cash-strapped arts and cultural organisations. But what if a partnership of this kind is clearly doomed to fail? Is it really the only way to raise funds? Maybe there are corporate giants in other sectors looking to burnish their green credentials that could be persuaded to part with cash. Or perhaps there are greentech firms that could be co-opted at a lower price point but on a long-term basis. Maybe there are completely new ways of raising funds. Instead of taking money from fossil fuel firms, for example, could high-profile opponents (actors, musicians) be persuaded to front crowd-funding campaigns that cover event/exhibition costs? As a minimum, might they be persuaded to use their own influence to promote events?