Public funding for the cultural heritage sector has often been unstable. Cuts that began in earnest with the 2008 recession, and the pandemic eleven years later, have exacerbated the issue.
Reductions continue to this day. Many cultural organisations have turned to private and corporate sponsors in the wake of this funding gap. Among them are companies and conglomerates rooted in the fossil fuel industry.
There have been calls among some museum staff, climate activists, and other concerned citizens against these types of sponsorships. They argue that by accepting funds generated by the fossil fuel industry, institutions not only accept but condone a funder’s activities. They claim that this perceived support jeopardises an organisation’s moral foundation. Boycotts, such as those in 2023 and 2024 against book fairs sponsored by investment management firm Baillie Gifford, have led to disengagement. Others point out that these types of funding pullbacks only hurt the cultural sector. They claim that the idea of “fossil-free anything" is absurd since oil, gas, and coal are enmeshed in our economy. Let’s look at both points of view in the context of the mission/role of cultural institutions, including but not limited to museums, historic houses, libraries and archives.
Ethics and Trust in Museums
Museums have been at the forefront of this discussion. Let’s start with what museums actually do: According to the International Council of Museums, “A museum is a not-for-profit, permanent institution in the service of society that researches, collects, conserves, interprets and exhibits tangible and intangible heritage. Open to the public, accessible, and inclusive, museums foster diversity and sustainability. They operate and communicate ethically, professionally, and with the participation of communities, offering varied experiences for education, enjoyment, reflection, and knowledge sharing.”
Building on this definition, the Museums Association, the umbrella organisation for museums in the United Kingdom, includes three aligned core ethical principles in their revised Code of Ethics, which was recently ratified in early October 2025:
- Equitability and Inclusivity
- Transparency and Accountability
- Responsibility and Sustainability
Guidelines for equitable relationships with communities, valuing their workforce, and being respectful and culturally aware are incorporated into these three core principles. The code also states that “museums should act responsibly to ensure their long-term financial, environmental and social sustainability”. To do this, museums should, among other actions:
- “Consider climate and ecological impacts and social responsibility in all decision-making and organisational activities. Take action to reduce these impacts in museum operations, including protecting biodiversity and reducing carbon emissions.”
- “Maintain public trust and integrity in all museum activities by exercising due diligence in partnership building, sponsorship, and fundraising.”
- “Transition away from sponsorship from organisations involved with environmental harm (including fossil fuels), human rights abuses, and other sponsorship that does not align with the values of the museum.”
This is a significant update from the previous version of the Code of Ethics ratified in 2015, which called on museums to “proactively champion ethical behaviour” without an explicit mention of funding, fossil fuels, or climate impact.
Trust is essential for cultural institutions to remain relevant, and overall, they work hard to maintain it. Social and cultural reckonings are inspiring many institutions to find new ways to connect with their communities. Shining light on the impacts of colonisation, for example, has invited new dialogues and perspectives from marginalised peoples. These conversations are leading to new opportunities and richer connections. Trust, in essence, is part of a museum’s “brand”. At the same time, they are often financially strained, struggling to keep their doors open and free to the public.
Trust, Sponsorship, and Institutional Influence
Trust between the public and the fossil fuel industry, however, has dropped significantly as the devastating repercussions of gas, coal, and oil-related emissions damage our well-being and the health of the planet. Wildfires, floods, droughts, and other disasters exacerbated by climate change are claiming countless lives across the globe. Entire regions are becoming uninhabitable. Cultures and their cultural heritage are being destroyed. As Al Gore recently stated, “The biggest danger humanity has ever faced is the climate crisis.” As the fossil fuel industry struggles to distance itself from these impacts, companies seek to align with museums, the beacons of trust and integrity. For instance, according to Grist, ExxonMobil is one of the most charitable corporate donors to museums on the planet, as well as the fourth greatest polluter.
Consequences, Sector Responses, and Future Funding Models
These sponsorships are not without consequences. The Global Investigative Journalism Network published a piece earlier this year on how industry sponsorships contribute to climate disinformation. Greenwashing is rampant. In this symbiotic relationship, museums benefit by receiving funds they need, and the fossil fuel industry garners social license. As Dr. Gavin Grindon pointed out in a New York Times opinion piece, “these sponsorships offer businesses the attention of influential audiences, access to senior government figures at special events and the opportunity to securely intertwine themselves with ideas of national history and culture”. And as climate activist Jess Worth from Culture Unstained shared, funders have the power to dictate narratives and influence programming. The most glaring case was back in 2021, when the UK’s Science Museum accepted sponsorship for its Energy Revolution Gallery from the “Green Energy” arm of the Adani Group. Adani is a conglomerate with major holdings in coal. The museum has also accepted sponsorships from other fossil fuel corporations, including Shell, British Petroleum, and Equinor.
When the British Museum accepted a £50M British Petroleum donation in 2024, it claimed that without this funding, it would not be able to keep the doors open to the public for free. According to an interview with the museum’s director, two main criteria guided the decision to accept the funding:
- Was the money legally acquired?
- Will accepting the funds damage the museum's reputation?
Curiously, both are based on concerns about how the museum is seen, versus any internal reflections on the museum’s core values or mission. The first question could be answered rather readily, “yes”. However, laws are not written in stone: What may be legal today may not be legal tomorrow. For example, thanks to the World Health Organization Framework Convention for Tobacco Control, accepting sponsorships from tobacco companies is no longer legal in many countries. The answer to the second question is harder to pin down: Who does the museum look to for signs of shifts in the museum’s reputation? The Board of Trustees? Museum members? Museum staff? Public opinion? If from the public, which part of the public? One can only surmise who currently has the most sway, given that a member of the family who owns the petrochemical conglomerate Reliance Industries served as organising co-chair for the museum’s inaugural ball fundraising event last October. The event, which raised £2.5 million to build international partnerships, inadvertently offended an entire foreign government. Greek officials accused the museum of "provocative indifference” after seeing images of tables lavishly laden with food and drinks placed next to the treasured Parthenon Marbles.
Other museums also see the potential loss of this type of fossil fuel income as a serious threat to their existence. Several signed an open letter to the Financial Times last summer protesting the Museum Association’s 2025 Code of Ethics revisions around fossil fuel industry sponsorship. Refusing this type of corporate funding, they state, has “the potential for ‘killing off’ arts and culture in the UK”.
Yet, relying heavily on any one source of funding is dangerous. The fossil fuel industry’s financial standing, for example, is shifting. A recent report by the International Energy Agency indicates that investments in clean energy, electrification, and storage combined are currently double those in oil, gas, and coal. Institutions must diversify to stay solvent. This is also true of relying on individual donors. A recent article in the New York Times discusses the financial impacts the recent deaths of megadonors Leonard A. Lauder and Agnes Gund have had on institutions they had supported. Several museums in New York City are now left scrambling.
Ignoring an institution's core values or mission poses a danger that extends beyond mere conflicts of interest. As Timothy Henry, co-founder of Conscious Capitalism, points out, it is more important than ever to work within the framework of purpose and value. Everything else is radically uncertain. And if leadership does not consider their organisation’s mission or values during their decision-making processes, they risk damaging both external and internal relationships. The well-being of all stakeholders is jeopardised, as climate change is affecting everyone. According to a 2022 paper in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, “the consequences of climate change and responses to climate change interact with multiple dimensions of human well-being in ways that are emerging or invisible to decision makers”.
At the same time, according to the Harvard Business Review, “employees are sick of making moral compromises”. The authors describe moral injury as “a trauma response to witnessing or participating in workplace behaviors that contradict one’s moral beliefs in high-stakes situations and that have the potential of harming others physically, psychologically, socially, or economically.” While the museum field may not be deemed “high-stakes” in the sense of being responsible for imminent loss of life, the risks and pressures associated with caring for collections under the constant threats of extreme weather events is taking its toll. As awareness of the impact of carbon emissions grows, so does the acute sensitivity to leadership dissonance.
One can argue that salaries are a component of museum staff’s well-being. But when there are alternative sources to fossil fuel funding, why not take them? As reported recently in ArtNet’s Museum in Crisis series, “Institutions are expanding endowments, launching bold fundraising campaigns, and exploring innovative revenue streams such as artist print sales and auction guarantees”. Is it not time to re-evaluate, re-consider, and dare say, change how we design our funding infrastructure? Do we not have the agency to cultivate resiliency, flexibility, and adaptability?
If we look at the well-being of an organisation from the point of view of aligning values and morals, we not only better serve our communities, but ourselves as museum professionals. What if, rather than looking at divesting from funding that does not represent an institution’s values as a loss, we look at the opportunities this freedom brings? What does reimagining a museum look like? Will it allow us to connect with communities in a transformational, rather than transactional, way? Explorations are already in the works, such as impact investing, “a form of responsible finance where investors are motivated by positive social outcomes as well as financial returns”. Veronica Ferrari, head of insight at the data-driven platform InsightX, points out that “smaller companies are considered the best fit for private funding for museums as they are seen as more authentic, supportive and actively involved in the partnerships”.
Cultural institutions are also incorporating regenerative frameworks, cultivating awareness, resilience, and transformation within communities through internal restructuring and programming. Yet others are designing creativity hubs, where educators offer platforms for users to interact with their collections. Additional creative programming includes offering networking opportunities for various sectors within their immediate communities. Socially relevant courses and lecture series on topics such as well-being, like those at the Holburne Museum in Bath, are also increasingly popular.
Major institutions such as the Tate, the Royal Shakespeare Company, the Royal Opera House, and the National Portrait Gallery have not only cut ties with fossil fuel companies, but they have also been actively outspoken as to why this is important. As Frances Morris, director of the Tate Modern from 2016 to 2023, told the Art Newspaper, she is frustrated that some cultural institutions continue to ‘greenwash’ for polluting corporations. “Legislation to ban fossil fuel sponsorship is ‘crucial’”, she’s quoted as saying. Do you agree?
Acknowledgements
A depth of gratitude to Lorraine Finch, Chair of the Icon Sustainability Group for requesting this article and for her keen edits, and fellow members Dr. Helen Wilson, Alex Wade and Alice Tate-Harte for their insights. Special thanks to Kristen St. John for her sound advice throughout the writing process.