British Museum Axes Sponsorship Deal with Tobacco Firm Amid Criticism Over WHO Framework Breach
The British Museum has effectively ended its 15-year partnership with Japan Tobacco International (JTI), a move welcomed by critics who have long accused the tobacco firm of profiting from harm. The decision comes after reports emerged that the UK government had raised concerns about the deal, which some described as "deeply troubling".
According to sources, the museum's board chose not to renew the sponsorship agreement, which ended in September, following pressure from a pressure group called Culture Unstained and media reports highlighting the tobacco company's lobbying strategy. The firm still backs other prominent cultural institutions, including the Royal Academy of Arts and the London Philharmonic Orchestra.
Critics have long argued that museums should not accept funding from companies involved in harming public health. Dr Simon Opher, a Labour MP and GP, said: "There are no circumstances in which public bodies should be legitimising an industry that profits from harm." The World Health Organization's framework convention on tobacco control bars states from advertising and promoting smoking products.
The decision to end the deal with JTI marks another blow to the museum's sponsorship arrangements, which have been a subject of controversy since 2016. That year, 1,000 experts signed an open letter calling for the museum to cut ties with the tobacco firm due to its "morally unacceptable" sponsorship.
The British Museum's decision is also seen as a response to growing calls for museums to prioritize their values and ethics in accepting funding from sponsors. The Museums Association, an industry body, recently adopted a code of ethics that expects members to transition away from sponsorship by organizations involved in environmental harm or human rights abuses.
While the museum's leadership has defended its sponsorship arrangements, saying they are essential for securing financial stability, critics argue that cultural institutions have a responsibility to prioritize their values and reputation. The British Museum's director, Nicholas Cullinan, uses two criteria when evaluating donations and sponsorships: whether the money was legally acquired and whether accepting it would cause reputational damage.
The decision to axe the deal with JTI is likely to embolden critics who argue that museums should not be tied to companies involved in harming public health. As the museum continues to grapple with its sponsorship arrangements, one thing is clear: the debate over the role of cultural institutions in promoting values and ethics will only continue to intensify.
The British Museum has effectively ended its 15-year partnership with Japan Tobacco International (JTI), a move welcomed by critics who have long accused the tobacco firm of profiting from harm. The decision comes after reports emerged that the UK government had raised concerns about the deal, which some described as "deeply troubling".
According to sources, the museum's board chose not to renew the sponsorship agreement, which ended in September, following pressure from a pressure group called Culture Unstained and media reports highlighting the tobacco company's lobbying strategy. The firm still backs other prominent cultural institutions, including the Royal Academy of Arts and the London Philharmonic Orchestra.
Critics have long argued that museums should not accept funding from companies involved in harming public health. Dr Simon Opher, a Labour MP and GP, said: "There are no circumstances in which public bodies should be legitimising an industry that profits from harm." The World Health Organization's framework convention on tobacco control bars states from advertising and promoting smoking products.
The decision to end the deal with JTI marks another blow to the museum's sponsorship arrangements, which have been a subject of controversy since 2016. That year, 1,000 experts signed an open letter calling for the museum to cut ties with the tobacco firm due to its "morally unacceptable" sponsorship.
The British Museum's decision is also seen as a response to growing calls for museums to prioritize their values and ethics in accepting funding from sponsors. The Museums Association, an industry body, recently adopted a code of ethics that expects members to transition away from sponsorship by organizations involved in environmental harm or human rights abuses.
While the museum's leadership has defended its sponsorship arrangements, saying they are essential for securing financial stability, critics argue that cultural institutions have a responsibility to prioritize their values and reputation. The British Museum's director, Nicholas Cullinan, uses two criteria when evaluating donations and sponsorships: whether the money was legally acquired and whether accepting it would cause reputational damage.
The decision to axe the deal with JTI is likely to embolden critics who argue that museums should not be tied to companies involved in harming public health. As the museum continues to grapple with its sponsorship arrangements, one thing is clear: the debate over the role of cultural institutions in promoting values and ethics will only continue to intensify.
it's all clean lines and minimalism which is perfect for a place that's all about art and knowledge. anyway back to the topic at hand, i think it's awesome they're standing up against a company that profits from harming people's health. it's like, you can't put a price on your values right? 
and yeah, it's not just jti either, there are so many other companies out there doing similar stuff. we need more cultural institutions speaking out about what's important to them. 
The British Museum's about time it ditched that dirty cash 
they gotta think about what kind of ppl their sponsors are like if u r gettin $$$ from jti then u might as well be profitin off ppl gettin sick from smokin 
its not just about the benjamins, its about doin whats right and takin care of ur community
interesting how the British Museum finally took a stand against a tobacco firm after years of controversy! The fact that it ended a 15-year partnership shows they're willing to listen to critics & prioritize their values 
. I'M GLAD TO SEE CULTURE UNSTAINED STEP IN AND MAKE SOME NOISE ABOUT THIS KIND OF THING. IT JUST GOES TO SHOW THAT WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE WHEN WE STAND UP FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE IN 
. Like, I get it, museums need money to stay afloat, but can't they just be honest about who's funding them? It's not like JTI is going to donate the cash out of the goodness of their hearts... meanwhile we've got WHO framework conventions that are all about stopping tobacco companies from profiting off people's health 
. It's crazy that they had a deal with a tobacco company for 15 years - like, what were they thinking? The WHO framework convention is clear on not advertising smoking products, so it's no wonder critics were raising an eyebrow.
. The Museums Association's new code of ethics is a great start, but we need more museums to follow suit.
. It's time for museums to take a stand on what matters most: promoting values and ethics.
The more, the merrier for public health 
Now that JTI is out of the mix, I wonder if other museums will follow suit 
