'BP's Cynical Greenwashing Sponsorship Tactics Over British Cultural Institutions Has Now Been Exposed'
Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.
For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….
SUBSCRIBE
The recent publication of BP's damning internal memos exposes what many artists, performers, writers and arts workers have long argued: that corporate sponsorship is a transaction, not a donation.
In its own words, these documents reveal how BP uses cultural sponsorship as a means to "secure public support and advocacy from partners to mitigate risks and advance business interests".
For BP, influential cultural figures are co-opted as fossil fuel industry "enablers and defenders", and our cultural institutions leveraged in order to reach "high-level decision-makers" and - exceeding even the most sceptical of expectations - to "mitigate against the impacts of possible litigation".
This poses an urgent question for those museum directors who continue to take BP's dirty money: will you cut ties to BP now that its cynical use of your institutions has been laid bare and an ethical red line has clearly been crossed?
Captured Culture
BP is, as always, in need of some good PR. In February, BP completed an astonishing yet hardly surprising U-turn by backtracking on its already weak carbon reduction targets, deciding that it could make more money by simply having no targets at all.
At the same time, it has also come under scrutiny for its role in providing a significant source of fuel to the Israeli military, enabling the genocide of Palestinians.
Whistleblower Alleges Systemic Failures in UK-Approved US Biofuel Sustainability Certification
Ex-auditor claims compliance has been 'eroded into a rubber-stamping process'
Stuart Spray
Who were virtually the only voices to rush to BP's defence as it announced its pivot 'back to petroleum' and increasing oil and gas production? The British Museum and the Science Museum of course, apparently eager to play their part as BP's "powerful third party advocates for issues that are critical to our business".
Right on cue, they both named BP's support as "vital" to their institutions, giving BP its only positive publicity in the same week that it decided to openly stop caring about the death and destruction that it fuels as one of the world's biggest contributors to climate breakdown.
The Director of the Science Museum, Sir Ian Blatchford, has for years given credibility to BP's previously desired image as "a fossil fuel company that is playing its part in addressing the climate challenge", as outlined in one of the newly exposed documents.
As if reading from the same script, Blatchford has repeatedly repeated the line that "the major energy companies have the capital, geography, people and logistics to be major players in finding solutions to the urgent global challenge of climate change", even while BP continued to invest in new oil and gas extraction and obstruct the solutions that were so urgently needed.
Despite BP changing its line, the Science Museum is still finding a way to justify its sponsorship deal and argue that BP plays a positive role in the world against the unchanging scientific reality that we must urgently reduce carbon emissions.
Just Stop Oil Has Called It Quits, but They Say Their Fight Is Far From Over
The climate movement has announced an end to its direct action campaigns. The group's spokesperson tells Josiah Mortimer what's next
Josiah Mortimer
Similarly, when The British Museum's announcement of a new 10-year deal with BP at the end of 2023 was met with resounding criticism, Nicholas Cullinan, Director of The British Museum, chose to defend the institution's decision to accept BP's £50 million payment on the rather low-bar basis that the money was "legally acquired", and made the readily refutable claim that, without BP, the Museum would no longer remain free to the public.
Po...
For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….
SUBSCRIBE
The recent publication of BP's damning internal memos exposes what many artists, performers, writers and arts workers have long argued: that corporate sponsorship is a transaction, not a donation.
In its own words, these documents reveal how BP uses cultural sponsorship as a means to "secure public support and advocacy from partners to mitigate risks and advance business interests".
For BP, influential cultural figures are co-opted as fossil fuel industry "enablers and defenders", and our cultural institutions leveraged in order to reach "high-level decision-makers" and - exceeding even the most sceptical of expectations - to "mitigate against the impacts of possible litigation".
This poses an urgent question for those museum directors who continue to take BP's dirty money: will you cut ties to BP now that its cynical use of your institutions has been laid bare and an ethical red line has clearly been crossed?
Captured Culture
BP is, as always, in need of some good PR. In February, BP completed an astonishing yet hardly surprising U-turn by backtracking on its already weak carbon reduction targets, deciding that it could make more money by simply having no targets at all.
At the same time, it has also come under scrutiny for its role in providing a significant source of fuel to the Israeli military, enabling the genocide of Palestinians.
Whistleblower Alleges Systemic Failures in UK-Approved US Biofuel Sustainability Certification
Ex-auditor claims compliance has been 'eroded into a rubber-stamping process'
Stuart Spray
Who were virtually the only voices to rush to BP's defence as it announced its pivot 'back to petroleum' and increasing oil and gas production? The British Museum and the Science Museum of course, apparently eager to play their part as BP's "powerful third party advocates for issues that are critical to our business".
Right on cue, they both named BP's support as "vital" to their institutions, giving BP its only positive publicity in the same week that it decided to openly stop caring about the death and destruction that it fuels as one of the world's biggest contributors to climate breakdown.
The Director of the Science Museum, Sir Ian Blatchford, has for years given credibility to BP's previously desired image as "a fossil fuel company that is playing its part in addressing the climate challenge", as outlined in one of the newly exposed documents.
As if reading from the same script, Blatchford has repeatedly repeated the line that "the major energy companies have the capital, geography, people and logistics to be major players in finding solutions to the urgent global challenge of climate change", even while BP continued to invest in new oil and gas extraction and obstruct the solutions that were so urgently needed.
Despite BP changing its line, the Science Museum is still finding a way to justify its sponsorship deal and argue that BP plays a positive role in the world against the unchanging scientific reality that we must urgently reduce carbon emissions.
Just Stop Oil Has Called It Quits, but They Say Their Fight Is Far From Over
The climate movement has announced an end to its direct action campaigns. The group's spokesperson tells Josiah Mortimer what's next
Josiah Mortimer
Similarly, when The British Museum's announcement of a new 10-year deal with BP at the end of 2023 was met with resounding criticism, Nicholas Cullinan, Director of The British Museum, chose to defend the institution's decision to accept BP's £50 million payment on the rather low-bar basis that the money was "legally acquired", and made the readily refutable claim that, without BP, the Museum would no longer remain free to the public.
Po...
Activity