I am writing in response to the letter you carried (4 April) regarding BP’s support for the British Museum. Each year, BP’s products and services provide millions of people across the UK with heat, light and mobility. We directly employ some 15,000 people in the UK and our activities support well over 100,000 further jobs. Around 0.5% of UK GDP is supported by BP’s activity.
As a major UK-based company, we think it is right that we contribute to British society in many ways, including culture. Over two million people a year enjoy the BP-supported exhibitions at the British Museum and other cultural events that we support. BP’s position on climate change is clear and long-standing: global action is needed, it is a complex issue and meeting the challenge will require efforts by all – governments, companies and consumers. BP is playing its part by advocating a price on carbon, providing lower carbon products such as natural gas and renewables, pursuing energy efficiency and supporting research. BP is proud to have been a partner of the British Museum for over 20 years. We look forward to continuing our relationship.
Peter Mather
BP group regional vice president, Europe, and head of country, UK
• A simple suggestion for the 100 wealthy celebrities who signed this letter. Rather than parading their consciences on the letters page of the Guardian why don’t they do something useful. Find out how much the British Museum benefits from BP funding each year. Then undertake to collectively not just match but significantly surpass that sum over the next 10 years, each of them setting up direct debits on the understanding that the museum ceases its financial link with BP.
Daniel Cunningham
Brighton
• When any public company gives money to an arts or cultural organisation, as BP has to many eminently worthy recipients, it is spending its shareholders’ money. However, they are seldom, if ever, asked to approve such payments in advance. In the interests of transparency, shareholders should approve corporate sponsorship before it is handed out, and should be told in detail exactly what it will be spent on before they agree to it. This may make those who stand to benefit squeal with alarm, but they cannot expect blank cheques. Shareholders have the right to be consulted about discretionary non-essential expenditure, and should exercise it on the basis of opting in rather than endorsing a company report after it has been committed. Since the taxpayer indirectly subsidises the same payments, which effectively reduce receipts from corporation tax and income tax on distributed dividends, there should be more scrutiny applied to business sponsorship generally.
Michael Liversidge
Bristol
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
