If one thing is clear from the results of AP’s latest Pulse survey on the ethics of sponsorship, then it is that ‘Take the money and run’ is not a viable policy for arts organisations. Arts workers are almost unanimous in their call for organisations to consider the actions and motives of potential supporters before accepting their money. Even those who argue it is possible to turn ‘bad money into good’ Robin Hood-style, think it unwise to welcome any and all offers with open arms.
The survey asked about sponsorship and major donations in relation to four broad ethical areas: activities relating to politics, such as oppressive regimes or armaments, and those that negatively impact the environment, human wellbeing, such as tobacco or alcohol, and animals. It's clear that arts workers believe activities in all of these areas – and others beside – could potentially make a sponsor or major donor inappropriate, but there is no consensus on where the red line should be drawn.
The revealing responses disclose arts workers’ personal values. “Animal ‘testing’ may include genuinely beneficial research using animals under Home Office licence,” says one respondent. Another points out that while it may be appropriate to accept sponsorship from a Champagne or gin brand for some of an orchestra’s work, it probably shouldn’t support its children’s programmes. Some activities are judged more ‘unethical’ than others – but there’s little agreement on the hierarchy... Keep reading on ArtsProfessional