He writes that cultural orgs 'that benefited from money from the #Sackler family were right to erase their links'.
But not long ago, he called them 'hugely generous arts benefactors, but from a fortune partly derived from making addictive opioids.' 🧐2/x thetimes.co.uk/article/our-cu…
And that gets us to the heart of the issue.
It was actually that the #Sacklers/Purdue profited from *intentionally* misleading people about Oxcontin's addictiveness and breaking the law.
Cultural philantropy deflected the spotlight and rehabilitated the Sackler name. 3/x
So to BP, which he says is 'pursuing a legitimate trade on which we all depend'.
And yet, BP:
- backed disinformation on the impacts of its product - fossil fuels
- lobbied to obstruct the energy transition we need
- sponsored the arts to burnish its brand
Sound familiar?
4/x
And, yes, BP also broke the law.
In fact, it was given the largest corporate criminal fine in US history as a result of its #DeepwaterHorizon disaster.
And had lied to the US Congress.
And was convicted of gross negligence.
Richard must have missed the news that day…
5/x
And a simple google search would tell you that BP's business isn't aligned with the Paris #Climate goals either.
The International Energy Agency has said we can't invest in any new oil and gas if we're to meet those goals/1.5C - and that's what BP is continuing to do.
6/x
And as for the UK taxpayer supposedly being in receipt of significant tax income from BP, well…that's not the full picture at all...
Or, when the current CEO and his predecessor both sat on the Board of the Russian state oil company Rosneft (which BP owned 20% of) alongside Putin ally Igor Sechin…
When the RSC, NPG, Royal Opera House, Edinburgh International Festival, Southbank, BFI, National Theatre, National Gallery, Van Gogh Museum, National Galleries Scotland (...the list goes on) have cut ties to fossil fuels - maybe you're on the wrong side of the argument? 10/x
I look forward to reading Richard’s piece when the @britishmuseum finally drops BP.
We can have sponsorship *and* ethics.
And we can live in a society based on fossil fuel use but demand a just transition, and call out those such as BP that stand in the way.
11/x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD | The Editorial Board at the @FT have put together an op-ed claiming 'Corporate arts patrons deserve praise not blame' and that protests against unethical sponsors and donors are counterproductive. Here's some of the flaws in their argument... ft.com/content/583a31… 1/12
The terms 'business donors', 'private patrons' and 'corporate donors' are used interchangably but are fundamentally different in nature. Crucially, the protests cited are not 'anti-business' as the piece suggests, but anti-unethical/explotative businesses e.g. arms and oil 2/12
They note that 'listed companies such as @bp_plc, @BAESystemsplc are at least overseen by shareholders and regulators'. The irony is that sponsorship deals are cheap and effective ways of deflecting attention from when regulators do catch up with unethical companies... 3/12