Tate Britain has been ordered to reveal how much sponsorship money it received over five years from the oil company BP after an information tribunal ruled in favour of campaigners.
The London gallery has consistently fought against attempts to force it to publish its sponsorship income, arguing that the details are commercially sensitive; campaigners say the gallery does not want people to see how “embarrassingly low” the figures were.
In December 2014, Tate was ordered to release BP sponsorship figures from 1990 to 2006, which showed it received between £150,000 and £330,000 a year over the 17-year period – a total of £3.8m.
This week, an information tribunal ordered that Tate must also disclose figures from 2007 to 2011 within 35 days. In a statement Tate said: “Tate has been notified of the tribunal’s decision, which we shall follow. We will respond within the time frame.”
The ruling came on the day after BP signed new five-year agreements worth £7.5m with four of the UK’s biggest arts organisations: the British Museum, the Royal Shakespeare Company, the Royal Opera House and the National Portrait Gallery.
Anna Galkina, a campaigner for Platform, said: “Oil branding of art is a threat to our galleries and our climate. Tate has tried to hide how embarrassingly low BP sponsorship fees were. We’re delighted that the information tribunal ruled against Tate’s secrecy.”
Earlier this year, BP announced it was ending its 26-year relationship with Tate, an organisation chaired since 2009 by the former BP chief executive Lord Browne. It followed years of regular protests by campaigners Liberate Tate, including in 2010 when gallons of oily black molasses were “spilled” at Tate’s annual summer party.
Galkina said it was ironic that the ruling came out so close to what she called “an even cheaper deal” with other arts organisations.
“This is a rip-off. BP’s pocket change buys it legitimacy and access to invaluable advertising space. Sponsorship masks BP’s role in destroying indigenous lands, arming dictatorships, and wrecking our climate. These deals cannot be allowed to go on for another five years. That’s why art interventions and protests will go on.”
Arts organisations disagree and say campaigners fail to understand how necessary commercial sponsorship is and how difficult it is to raise the money elsewhere.
A former director of the British Museum, Neil MacGregor, last year called BP the museum’s closest corporate friend. “What would you want companies to do with their profits?” he asked. “Do you want them to spend them in a way that benefits the public or not?”
The NPG, British Museum, RSC and ROH on Thursday released statements praising BP for its continued sponsorship of the arts. Alex Beard, the chief executive of the ROH, said: “BP has been and remains at the forefront of corporate investment in arts and culture in the UK, and it’s wonderful for the Royal Opera House to have their commitment for a further five years.”
The campaigners’ barrister, Julianne Morrison, told theinformation tribunal: “Tate decided to go ahead with BP’s sponsorship despite a major incident in Texas that killed 15 of BP’s workers, and despite the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010. Why did Tate renew the sponsorship? Was it right to do so? The public has a right to know the facts.”
Brendan Montague, director of Request Initiative, the group that made the original request for the figures, said artists and activists had long argued that Tate was putting BP’s interests above those of the taxpayer and visitor. “The years Tate spent obstructing this request on BP’s behalf provides another point of evidence that they are right,” he said.
