FOI­2016­0039­FQ1
Internal review

ANNEX
General - Section 43 of FOIA – commercial interests
Under s.43(2) of FOIA, information is exempt from disclosure if its release
would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of SMG or
any third party, subject to the public interest test.
The conclusion of my internal review is that this exemption applies to the
amount of sponsorship paid by Statoil and Urenco relating to the
Wonderlab gallery.
Prejudice to SMG's commercial interests
SMG competes with other cultural institutions and charities to attract
corporate sponsorship and donations from private philanthropists. SMG
has a compelling commercial interest in maximising the income generated
from such partnerships and from securing value for money from such
arrangements.
Disclosure of the sponsorship amounts would be likely to prejudice those
commercial interests.
Firstly, disclosure would be likely to reveal 'to the world' the cost of
sponsorship and the associated benefits, which would be likely to
prejudice SMG's ability to obtain value for money from sponsors and would
damage SMG's bargaining position. In the case of this specific request, I
have also considered that the requester has asked for the sponsorship
amounts paid by two sponsors for two different levels of sponsorship,
further adding to the 'price list' concerns.
Secondly, disclosure of the sponsorship amounts would be likely to
damage SMG's relationships with its sponsors, to the detriment of the
success of this specific sponsorship arrangement, and also damaging our
ability to compete to secure future sponsorship from this sponsor and
other sponsors.
Prejudice to sponsor's commercial interests
Under s.43(2) of FOIA, SMG is entitled to take into account the prejudice
disclosure would cause to any person or company.
In line with SMG's duties under the s.45 of FOIA Code of Practice, SMG has
consulted with the sponsor about the ways in which disclosure may
prejudice its commercial interests. Whilst SMG has been clear that the
decision about application of the exemption is for SMG as the public
authority to take, I have considered the views expressed by the sponsor.
As a result, it is SMG's view that disclosure of the sponsorship amounts
would be likely to damage the sponsor's commercial interests by revealing
to its competitors (and the public) sensitive information about its
sponsorship of SMG, undermining its ability to compete on a level playing
field.

1

 FOI­2016­0039­FQ1
Internal review

Public interest test
Given the importance of this matter, I have considered the public interest
test with considerable care.
I have given some weight to the public interest arguments in favour of
disclosure, including those identified by the requester, such as the public
debate surrounding oil company sponsorship of cultural institutions, the
need to ensure SMG obtains value for money from sponsors (in relation to
the benefits granted), and the public interest in understanding how SMG
raises funds. I have responded to these specific points below and I have
also considered the way in which disclosure would further the general
public interest in accountability and transparency.
However, these arguments must be balanced with the public interest
arguments which support the exemption, including:


it is not in the public interest for SMG's ability to raise funds by way
of corporate sponsorship to be undermined or jeopardised, nor for
its bargaining position to be weakened. SMG uses that sponsorship
income to fund the costs of delivering world-class exhibitions, at a
time when funding from the Government is declining. If SMG fails to
be able to secure corporate sponsorship and the on-going financial
sustainability of SMG is damaged, the quality and scale of what we
are able to achieve in our exhibitions and galleries would decline,
which is not in the public interest.



it is not in the public interest for the sponsor's commercial interests
to be damaged. SMG believes that corporate sponsorship of
cultural institutions is substantially in the public interest and that
the competition between sponsors and between cultural
organisations works in the public interest. SMG believes there is a
strong public interest in private companies being able to sponsor
cultural organisations and to expect the commercially sensitive
information surrounding those arrangements to remain private.



the fact that SMG has been open about the basis upon which we
actively seek partnerships with industry and the link between
generating support from industry and our mission. I have concluded
that the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public
interest in withholding the requested information.

Specific points raised in the request for an internal review
Some further points are raised by the requester (bold, italic, numbers
added for reference) in his request for an internal review, and these are
addressed here.
I would like to request an internal review of the handling of the
response to this request. While that internal review should
address the request as a whole, I request that particular focus is
made on the justifications for not disclosing the sponsorship
amount as requested in part (2) of my request. Specifically, a full

2

 FOI­2016­0039­FQ1
Internal review

break down of the arguments considered for and against
disclosure should be included.
See above – SMG has now considered the arguments in favour of and
against disclosure.
I also ask that you consider and respond to the following
arguments:
1. That the introduction of an admission fee for 'Wonderlab: The
Statoil Gallery' when there was previously no admission fee for
the museum's interactive gallery means that the
sources/proportions of funding are not just legitimately in the
public interest, but are of significant interest in order to
understand why this shift in policy has been made despite the
securing of high-level corporate sponsorship.
This is not the case. The introduction of an admission fee for
Wonderlab is a shift in policy that is entirely unrelated to the
sponsorship arrangement. The admission charge is intended to enable
SMG to cover the running costs of the new galleries which are 60%
bigger than their predecessor. Sponsorship was sought to help SMG
fund the £6m capital cost of the new galleries. The decision to charge
admission pre-dates the securing of sponsorship from Statoil by 2
years.
1. That Statoil stands to enhance its public image and perception
through its sponsorship of 'Wonderlab: The Statoil Gallery' and
it is legitimately within the public interest to understand the
scale of its contribution that has gained the company these
public relations benefits.
Again, this is a matter relating to the assessment of the public
interests test
Brand association and the consequential public perception is inherent
to any sponsorship arrangement – it is the fundamental value
proposition for any sponsor. The sponsor has been open in its press
release concerning sponsorship of Wonderlab that amongst its
objectives "are to strengthen the mastering of STEM subjects, secure
long-term recruitment and position Statoil as a supporter of talent
development in STEM among our target groups".
SMG acknowledge that sponsorship of cultural institutions by the oil
industry is a matter of public interest and debate and that the value of
this sponsorship arrangement would legitimately be within the public
interest in this respect. As set out above, we have taken that into
account in our assessment of the public interest test for this request,
as a factor in favour of disclosure.
However, SMG has also considered the fact that the presence of debate
on a particular issue does not render that activity as wrong or
inappropriate. Statoil legally operates within the UK and SMG is within
its rights to agree a sponsorship arrangement with them.
2. That the Tate has been legally obliged to disclose sponsorship

3

 FOI­2016­0039­FQ1
Internal review

figures following two First Tier Information tribunals in relation
to their sponsorship by another oil company, BP. This has
arguably set a new precedent of greater transparency being
desirable in relation to the disclosure of sponsorship figures.
Does the Science Museum recognise this shift in precedent?
SMG recognises that the Tate has been obliged to disclose historic
sponsorship figures and that this may set a precedent in certain cases
for greater transparency over historic financial information. I have
reviewed both Information Tribunal decisions relating to Tate's
sponsorship by BP as part of this internal review, albeit it is to be noted
that each FOIA request should be treated on a case-by-case basis,
depending on the specific request made, the timing of the request, and
the specific circumstances the public authority finds itself in.
I have concluded that there are key differences between the Tate cases
and SMG’s sponsorship arrangement with Statoil which clearly
differentiates this request from the Tate decisions. For example:
 the current, live, nature of this arrangement and the timing of
this request – the sponsorship agreement was signed as recently
as February 2016 and the Wonderlab gallery has not even
opened to the public;
 the fact SMG has consulted the sponsor and the outcome of
those consultations ;
 the reliance SMG places on external funding for projects of this
nature;
 and the shared focus of SMG and Statoil on science, a point put
by SMG's Director (here, in the context of our partnership with
Shell) as follows: "when it comes to the major challenges facing
our society, from climate change to inspiring the next
generation of engineers, we need to be engaging with all the
key players including governments, industry and the public, not
hiding away in a comfortable ivory tower".
1. That the Science Museum's agreement with Statoil - and the
inclusion in that agreement that the sponsorship amount
should be a confidential term - indicates a prioritising of the
interests of a corporate sponsor over the public interest. It is
in the public interest to understand how a publicly funded
cultural institution raises funds, the nature of the business of
those it acquires funds from and also the benefits and
advantages granted to corporate sponsors. In relation to this
point, I would be grateful if that wording of the agreement in
respect of this aspect be made available.
Please find attached a copy of the contract between SMG and Statoil.
This has previously been released in response to a Freedom of
Information Act request. Please note that redactions have been made
to this document under the following exemptions: s.22 (Information
Intended for Future Publication), s.40 (Personal Information), and,
s.43(2) (Prejudice to Commercial Interests).
The inclusion of confidentiality clauses in sponsorship agreements is
standard practice to help ensure commercially sensitive information is

4

 FOI­2016­0039­FQ1
Internal review

not unduly disclosed. It is SMG’s view that there is very significant
public benefit in securing corporate funding to enable museums to
deliver a first-class public service – a benefit that could be
compromised by the disclosure of commercially sensitive information.
We do not therefore consider that the inclusion of a confidentiality
clause in the agreement indicates the prioritisation of the interests of a
corporate sponsor over the public interest.
The fact of Statoil’s sponsorship and the nature of Statoil’s business
are fully in the public domain.
The above being so, in relation to this specific request, I have decided
that SMG should not rely on s.41 of FOIA in relation to the sponsorship
amount because:
 the sponsorship amount was not 'obtained' from Statoil because
it was arrived at during a process of negotiation between SMG
and Statoil; and
 I have reviewed the comments made by the Information Tribunal
in the second Tate case about being mindful of the risk of
attempting to "contract out of FOIA".
2. That Statoil is currently engaged in pursuing the extraction of
new sources of fossil fuels. These business plans are in direct
opposition to the recently signed Paris Climate Agreement and
the global temperature rise limit agreed there. It is therefore
legitimately within the public interest to assess the measures
by which social legitimacy is conferred upon Statoil through
cultural sponsorship, despite the company's disregard for the
scientific consensus on climate change in pursuit of its
business plans.
Please refer to the response to 2 above; these points were taken into
account in considering the consideration of the public interest test to
this request.
3. Was the decision not to disclose Statoil's sponsorship amount
tested against any internal ethics or fundraising policies within
the museum? If so, please indicate when, how and the relevant
policies this decision was tested against.
All our corporate decisions – particularly those relating to sponsorship
and fund-raising - are made with reference to the principles of our
Ethics Policy. These principles are inherent to our day-to-day decisionmaking: no formal process is undertaken to evidence assessment
against them.
More generally, SMG's Director has set out SMG's general approach to
forming partnerships with corporations such as Statoil in the blog post
referred to above – see paragraph 4 of that blog.
Also, on a number of previous occasions and following complaints
made to the ICO, it has become apparent that the Science
Museum has often not provided the fullest responses possible to
FOI requests. I would be grateful therefore if an internal review
could verify that the fullest searches possible have taken place.
In undertaking this internal review, the process through which
correspondence and other relevant documentation is recorded and

5

 FOI­2016­0039­FQ1
Internal review

managed has been reviewed, through discussion with colleagues and
examination of records. Changes have been made to the recording of
correspondence with funders on the database used by the Development
team in fund-raising activities to ensure a complete record of all such
correspondence. I am content that this is an improved system and that
every reasonable effort has been made to ensure the fullest response
possible has already been made, in compliance with our obligations under
FOIA.

6