British Museum ends ‘deeply worrying’ sponsorship from Japan Tobacco | British Museum

The British Museum has ended a controversial sponsorship deal with a Japanese tobacco company after reports that the government had raised questions about the deal, which some critics described as “deeply worrying”.

The Guardian has learned that the museum’s board has chosen not to renew the 15-year partnership with Japan Tobacco International (JTI), which ended in September.

The pressure group Culture Unstained filed a freedom of information request earlier this year, which it says revealed correspondence sent in January in which the government raised questions about details of the deal.

The Department for Health and Social Care has informed the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the deal could constitute a breach of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), The Times reported.

The framework prohibits countries from advertising and promoting smoking products.

JTI’s name was recently removed from the museum’s website, a move that coincided with the release of a report published by the Tobacco Control Research Group which said the sponsorship deal was a key part of the company’s lobbying strategy. JTI still sponsors the Royal Academy of Arts and the London Philharmonic Orchestra.

The move was welcomed by critics, who have been calling for an end to the deal since 2016, when 1,000 experts signed an open letter to the British Museum and the Royal Academy over what they described as ethically unacceptable care by JTI.

Dr Allen Gallagher, co-director of the Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath, said such agreements “enable the deadly industry to use the UK’s cultural institutions as a means of trying to improve its public image”.

Labor MP Dr Simon Over, a GP, said: “I find it extremely concerning that a national cultural institution has been sponsored by a tobacco company for 15 years in clear breach of WHO guidelines.”

He said there were no circumstances in which public bodies should “legitimize an industry that profits from harm”.

A British Museum spokesman said the institution was grateful for JTI’s support and that the sponsorship was a crucial way for it to secure its financial future.

“The museum operates with public and private funding, ensuring that the remarkable collection remains free and available to the public for centuries to come,” they said.

“As a public body, we have an obligation to ensure the long-term financial stability of the Museum by securing funding from a number of sources. Their support has enabled the Museum to significantly increase access and engagement with the collection for underrepresented adults.”

The decision once again highlights the controversies surrounding the patronage of cultural institutions in the UK, which have often centered on the British Museum.

The organization came under fire when it signed a 10-year, £50m deal with BP in 2023, which was described as “astonishingly out of touch with reality”.

The Guardian understands that the museum is not conducting a review of its current sponsorship programmes, but the BP deal still hangs over the museum.

When it held its inaugural Pink Ball in October, which raised £2.5m, protests over BP’s sponsorship disrupted the event. Climate activists have previously organized several other protests at the museum.

Museum leadership continued to defend the deal. Its director, Nicholas Cullinan, said he uses two criteria to evaluate donations and sponsorship.

“The first question: Was the money obtained legally? The other question: Would accepting it harm our reputation?” He said shortly after beginning his visit to the museum. “I think you have to have very good and clear reasons for refusing money that would help keep the British Museum free to the public.”

Members of the Association of Museums, an industry body, voted last month to adopt a code of ethics that expects museums to move away from sponsorship by “organizations implicated in environmental harm — including fossil fuels — human rights abuses, and other sponsorship that is inconsistent with the museum’s values.”