Green for go: six sustainability-themed questions that rights holders should contemplate before signing a high-profile sponsorship deal

With the global economy in the doldrums and war breaking out on multiple fronts, there’s no question that the perilous state of the planet has been pushed down the news agenda. But the issue of sustainability remains a crucial one for sponsorship’s stakeholders.

For brands, a commitment to protecting the environment is now one of the chief ways in which they are judged by consumers, regulators and ever-alert lobby groups. Failure to meet expectations in areas such as carbon emissions, habitat destruction, waste and recycling can all have a negative impact on both brand engagement and the bottom line.

Rights holders also need a coherent approach to the environment in their day to day operations. But in addition, they must think carefully about sustainability when selecting sponsors and suppliers. As demonstrated in recent years by a series of high-profile oil & gas sponsorships, complacency on this point can lead to criticism and controversy.

So what should rights holders take into account before signing on the dotted line? Here are a few pragmatic points to consider before risking a reputational crisis:

What’s the trade off? The arts sector has found itself on the back foot repeatedly in recent years because of its willingness to embrace oil & gas sponsorships. It’s easy to see how this happened. The sector is strapped for cash and needs income streams to support creativity. Oil and gas giants are legal businesses willing to stump up cash – so what’s the problem? As we have all learned, however, this is an over-simplification of an issue that people are very emotional about. Protests, negative headlines, staff unease, visitor boycotts are all potential fallout from striking an insensitive deal. That’s why, in the space of just a few years, the RSC, Tate, British Museum and Royal Opera House have all cut their ties with fossil fuel companies. Any rights holder thinking of working with an oil & gas company needs to avoid approaching a deal with a preconceived position. Whatever their view on the subject, they need to ask themselves if the money they are receiving is really in the best interests of their organisation.

Are you a lightning rod for protests? Realistically, arts organisations should have realised oil & gas sponsorships would generate a backlash. Arts lovers and performers are generally a progressive cohort that are not afraid to state their views – as actor Mark Rylance proved when he quit the RSC over its association with BP. Other rights holders might feel like they are less likely to attract such opprobrium. Aramco, BP, Petronas and Gulf Oil have all managed to seal partnerships with Formula One and its teams without drawing particular attention. Clearly arts and F1 are polar opposites when it comes to oil & gas investment. But all of the rights holders that sit on the spectrum between them need to come to a clear conclusion about how such partnerships might be perceived. It’s interesting to note, for example, that UEFA was content to work with Gazprom – until the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.

Is there a positive spin? Fossil fuel giants know they are on borrowed time, so they are making huge investments in renewable and low carbon technologies – everything from wind farms to EV charging. Is this an opportunity to secure support from major brands, without attracting negative feedback? Again, it looks as though context is key. The Science Museum presents its partnerships with fossil fuel companies as part of an effort to address the climate change crisis – a case in point being its relationship with Adani Green Energy (as opposed to parent Adani). But this, along with other partnerships with Shell and Equinor, has faced fierce opposition.

Compare that with the relatively smooth response to charging network BP Pulse’s sponsorship of motoring and music festival CarFest. The latter was a no-brainer for CarFest and gave BP a chance to put its charging capabilities on show in front of thousands. 

The bottom line is that attempts to team up with the clean tech divisions of oil & gas firms will be interpreted in some quarters as rights holders being complicit in brand greenwashing strategies – which takes them back to point one: what's the trade off?

Or perhaps a better way? Sponsorship is about building awareness and engagement – but it doesn't always need to involve shouting from the rooftops. B2B sponsorships, which focus on corporate hospitality or staff-related goals, can be powerful platforms – without presenting a provocative or polarising view to the world. Environmental protesters don't want to see fossil fuels normalised in entertainment or educational environments, but perhaps might be more tolerant (or less incensed) in the context of a professionally-focused event or summit. There’s still a risk that such activity might seem like greenwashing to the outside world (think Coca-Cola’s sponsorship of the COP climate summit), but b2b conversations are more nuanced, less confrontational. An arts organisation could, for example, create a behind closed doors b2b event where an oil company talks to financial services players about its renewables strategy.

Have you done due diligence on other categories? Oil & Gas sponsorships draw most of the ire of environmental protestors. But how should rights holders view automotive and airline companies – both major polluters? What about the fashion industry – which is responsible for huge volumes of carbon emissions thanks to fast fashion. Common sense tells us that rights holders can’t ditch every environmentally dubious category – but it probably does make sense to investigate the environmental record of individual companies. Is your proposed partner a paragon or a pariah when it comes to climate change? What does its latest company report have to say about its action on the environment? Clearly money talks in the case of big sponsorship deals – but do you really want to spend the next contractual cycle fending off criticism of your new partner’s behaviour, or scraping paint and superglue off the front of your buildings? It’s not beyond the bounds of probability that signing up a brand with a bad track record on sustainability will dissuade other sponsors from backing you.

Can you test the waters first? If you’re in doubt about the potential reaction to a new partner, then why not experiment? Don’t jump in with a  naming rights deal when you could create a trial partnership – a short-term sponsorship based around a temporary event. Short term partnerships are a chance to do some research and weight up the pros and cons. If the auspices look good, then the next step can be a game-changing activation.

Final thought: a pause for self-reflection

Most of the above points are about making sure a right holder’s choice of sponsor(s) doesn’t bring unexpected negative headlines. But what about your own standards of sustainability? Do your employees switch off the lights, take out the trash and cycle to work? Do you harvest rainfall and reuse materials? Like brands, rights holders are also increasingly subjected to analysis to ensure they are environmentally-conscious. If word gets out that you’re not taking this area seriously, then you could alienate brands that are committed to going green. In the long-term, as sustainable/low emissions industries grow, this may prove more damaging.

Interested in sponsorship and sustainability? Why not come along to Women In Sponsorship’s environmentally-themed event at the House of Sport on January 22^nd.  - https://bit.ly/46eAHPK.  You could also consider entering the the UK Sponsorship Awards 2024’s Environmental & Sustainability Category - www.sponsorship-awards.co.uk

For further details contact Rosemary Sarginson on rosie@sponsorship-awards.co.uk