British Museum Ditches Tobacco Firm Sponsorship Amid Criticism and Scrutiny
The British Museum has officially severed ties with Japanese tobacco firm Japan Tobacco International (JTI), following a contentious 15-year partnership. The decision comes after pressure from critics, who have long argued that the museum's sponsorship of a company involved in the sale of deadly products is morally reprehensible.
The move was sparked by reports that the government had raised concerns about the deal, with some experts labeling it "deeply troubling". Culture Unstained, a pressure group, submitted a freedom of information request earlier this year which revealed correspondence sent in January highlighting these concerns.
According to The Times, the Department of Health and Social Care told the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the deal could potentially breach the World Health Organization's framework convention on tobacco control (FCTC), which bars states from advertising and promoting smoking products. This has led to widespread criticism, with many arguing that public bodies should not legitimize industries that profit from harm.
The decision marks a significant shift for the museum, which had previously defended its partnership with JTI. However, the move is also seen as part of a broader trend towards greater scrutiny of sponsorship deals in cultural institutions. Last year, the British Museum signed a £50m deal with BP, which was widely criticized for being "astonishingly out of touch".
The museum's leadership has faced pressure to review its current sponsorships, following protests and criticism from climate activists. Director Nicholas Cullinan has defended the decision to accept donations, citing two criteria: whether the money was legally acquired and whether accepting it would cause reputational damage.
However, many experts argue that sponsorship deals like this are inherently problematic, allowing industries to use cultural institutions as a way to improve their public image. As Dr Allen Gallagher of the Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath noted, such agreements "enable a deadly industry to try and improve its public image".
The decision to end the partnership with JTI is a significant step in the right direction, but it remains to be seen whether the British Museum will conduct a thorough review of its current sponsorships. As Climate activists continue to disrupt events and protests have been held at the museum, it seems clear that public bodies must be more transparent about their relationships with industry partners.
The British Museum has officially severed ties with Japanese tobacco firm Japan Tobacco International (JTI), following a contentious 15-year partnership. The decision comes after pressure from critics, who have long argued that the museum's sponsorship of a company involved in the sale of deadly products is morally reprehensible.
The move was sparked by reports that the government had raised concerns about the deal, with some experts labeling it "deeply troubling". Culture Unstained, a pressure group, submitted a freedom of information request earlier this year which revealed correspondence sent in January highlighting these concerns.
According to The Times, the Department of Health and Social Care told the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the deal could potentially breach the World Health Organization's framework convention on tobacco control (FCTC), which bars states from advertising and promoting smoking products. This has led to widespread criticism, with many arguing that public bodies should not legitimize industries that profit from harm.
The decision marks a significant shift for the museum, which had previously defended its partnership with JTI. However, the move is also seen as part of a broader trend towards greater scrutiny of sponsorship deals in cultural institutions. Last year, the British Museum signed a £50m deal with BP, which was widely criticized for being "astonishingly out of touch".
The museum's leadership has faced pressure to review its current sponsorships, following protests and criticism from climate activists. Director Nicholas Cullinan has defended the decision to accept donations, citing two criteria: whether the money was legally acquired and whether accepting it would cause reputational damage.
However, many experts argue that sponsorship deals like this are inherently problematic, allowing industries to use cultural institutions as a way to improve their public image. As Dr Allen Gallagher of the Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath noted, such agreements "enable a deadly industry to try and improve its public image".
The decision to end the partnership with JTI is a significant step in the right direction, but it remains to be seen whether the British Museum will conduct a thorough review of its current sponsorships. As Climate activists continue to disrupt events and protests have been held at the museum, it seems clear that public bodies must be more transparent about their relationships with industry partners.
Museum's new stance on JTI is about time! 
Finally doing what critics said they should've done years ago... 
... I mean, what's next? Are they gonna start letting Coca-Cola fund the Shakespeare exhibits or something?! 
It's just not right, you know? I remember when museums were supposed to be about preserving culture and art, not profiting off tobacco companies. And now it seems like we're living in a world where corporations can just swoop in and buy their way into being associated with the arts. 
It's like they're trying to spin some kind of PR magic trick! 
Newsflash: sponsorship deals like this don't fool anyone, especially when it comes to tobacco companies. We need museums that are transparent and honest about where their money is coming from. Anything less feels like a betrayal of the public trust 
. I mean, who wouldn't want to support an institution that promotes culture and learning over profiting from deadly products? It's not like JTI can just buy its way into good PR by associating with a major museum 
.
. It's not just JTI and BP – there might be other companies lurking in the shadows, waiting for an opportunity to cash in 
.
. If the museum can do it, why not other institutions and even governments? It's time to shine a light on these partnerships and make sure they're serving the public interest 
. I remember when I was in school, my parents were always telling me how bad second-hand smoke was for your health. And now we have these big museums like the British Museum partnering with them? It just doesn't sit right with me 
. And let's be real, if public bodies can't handle some scrutiny from climate activists and pressure groups, then maybe they shouldn't have taken those sponsorships in the first place 
.
. But I guess times are changing, and now it seems like anything goes as long as you're willing to pay for it 
. they should be paying us for our art and culture not profiting from it. and what's with the 'legally acquired' excuse? who decides that? 
.
. but for now, let's just say i'm glad to see JTI's money isn't lining the pockets of the Brits 
. Hope this decision sparks a bigger conversation about corporate sponsorships in museums and cultural institutions - maybe we'll see more transparency and accountability? 
.
. Now, it's up to them to do a thorough review of their current sponsorships and make sure they're not perpetuating harm in any way. Fingers crossed! 
a £50m deal with bp was already problematic but now they're just gonna keep accepting sponsorships from industries that profit off harm? it's like they're trying to give them a free marketing campaign 
doesn't seem like a step in the right direction to me, still gotta be more transparent about these deals...
. It's like they're trying to profit off a company that kills millions of people every year. The fact that the government was already pressuring them and Culture Unstained had to do FOI requests just to get some answers is wild 
. We need more of that kind of transparency in our cultural institutions 
.
I mean, about time someone told the British Museum to quit smoking (pun intended) its cash cow 
. Can't say I'm surprised though, people have been talking about this for ages. 
Now it just remains to see if they'll follow through on their promise and review all their other sponsorship deals 
instead of just following the money