Information Appeal: BP British Museum Sponsorship

This was a Freedom of Information appeal in the context of the controversial sponsorship of high-profile cultural institutions by fossil fuel companies.  The appeal followed the British Museum’s refusal to grant a request to publish information about its sponsorship negotiations with BP under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The request was for internal memoranda regarding early stage meetings about renewing a sponsorship deal in late 2021. Our client, Dr Christopher Garrard, appealed that decision to the Information Commissioner who upheld the refusal. Believing the Information Commissioner was wrong, Dr Garrard appealed to the Tribunal successfully.

BP has been a sponsor of the British Museum since 1996. In 2021, the sponsorship agreement was coming to an end and senior officials at BP and the museum began to discuss the possibility of renewing. As negotiations commenced, internal documents were produced with the aim of assisting museum officials in discussions. These were the subject of this appeal. In December 2023 the museum formally entered into a new agreement which resulted in BP providing the museum with £50 million over 10 years.

There has been considerable controversy over fossil fuel companies sponsoring high-profile cultural institutions, both in terms the business practices of such companies, and the ethics of corporate sponsorship by them. It is against this backdrop that Dr Garrard requested the information. Dr. Garrard brought the appeal on two grounds:

1. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 contains a number of exemptions to disclosure. One is that disclosure would prejudice the commercial interests of any person. Dr Garrard argued that the Commissioner was wrong to conclude that the museum had correctly applied the ‘commercial interest’ exemption.
2. Even if the commercial interest exemption did apply, there was sufficient public interest in disclosure which outweighed applying the exemption.

Commercial Interest Exemption

On the issue of the commercial interest exemption, the tribunal found that the sponsorship relationship between the museum and BP was not purely commercial in nature. It was partly philanthropic and reputational (for BP) which were distinct from the commercial aspect of the agreement. However, it was still determined that the museum’s commercial interests would have likely been prejudiced by disclosure because it would have undermined its bargaining position at the time.

The issue of timing was crucial. The information related to high-level meetings at an early stage in negotiations and a finalised agreement was far from being achieved. The tribunal found that publishing the information at the time would have undermined the museum’s ability to obtain the best deal it could, and had the potential to undermine BP ‘s trust in in the museum, and provide insights to competitors for sponsorship.

However, the content of the individual material was scrutinised by the tribunal and it was found that the exemption did not apply to all the withheld information. As a result, disclosure was ordered for the parts where it was determined that the exemption was not engaged.

Public Interest Balance

The tribunal accepted that there is a strong public interest in transparency about how the museum manages public and private interests relating to governing and financing the Museum. This includes the museum’s role in “bestowing the imprimatur of state approval via partnership with such private interests”.

Additionally, it was found that there was strong public interest in disclosing information that revealed whether the museum was adopting an ethical approach in carrying out due diligence when renewing the sponsorship with BP. This included any information relevant to public debates happening at the time on issues such as the ethics of sponsorship by fossil fuel companies like BP.

However, the Tribunal found that there was weighty public interest in maintaining the exemption, for the purposes of allowing the museum to maximise commercial funding through securing the best possible deals. The museum’s national importance and significant constraints in receiving public funding was held to be relevant to public interest arguments for withholding the information.

In contrast, the extent to which the withheld information serves the public interest in transparency terms was held to be limited. It was held that the disclosure of ‘early stage thinking’ would not contribute to the public interest meaningfully, given that opportunity for further scrutiny would be available as the relationship progressed.

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that in relation to the material that was protected by section 43 (protection because of commercial interest), on this occasion the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption.

James Goudie KC of 11 King’s Bench Walk was instructed as counsel.