Complaint to the Science Museum Group

STATEMENT OF SUPPORT

This formal complaint, compiled by Culture Unstained and supported by the undersigned, outlines how the Science Museum Group’s corporate partnerships with the fossil fuel companies BP, Shell and Statoil undermine its integrity as a scientific institution and are in conflict with both the museum’s own Group Ethics Policy and relevant policies governing the wider museums sector.

On its website, the Science Museum Group highlights how a corporate partnership with the museum will allow companies to ‘demonstrate their commitment to addressing some of the most urgent scientific challenges of our time’.

But even though these three companies have been aware of the urgent challenge of global warming for decades, they have all demonstrated through the ongoing pursuit of new sources of fossil fuels incompatible with meaningful climate change mitigation that they are unwilling to respond in a constructive way to the scientific consensus on climate change.

Furthermore, these companies have often worked to undermine action in line with that scientific consensus, by supporting the spread of disinformation, lobbying against environmental regulations and opposing clean energy solutions that would threaten their ongoing interests in fossil fuels.

By associating with the Science Museum Group, these companies hope to gain a ‘social license to operate’; a perception among both policy-makers and the wider public that they are responsible companies engaged in activities that respect people and the environment, and that they are in alignment with the scientific consensus on climate change and, by extension, the goals set out in the Paris Climate Agreement.

When some of the biggest ongoing contributors to climate change - and supporters of disinformation and inaction - partner with museums of science, they undermine public confidence in the validity of institutions responsible for transmitting scientific knowledge. And when museums partner with companies that have been involved in corruption, violating human rights standards and disregarding the rights of Indigenous and frontline communities, this undermines the standing of the sector as a whole.

Such associations create an unacceptable level of harm to the Science Museum Group’s relationships with its visitors, stakeholders and the wider public, as well as to its independence and integrity as a scientific institution.

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 The evidence in this complaint outlines how:

• the museum’s due diligence reports fail to take full account of the companies’ contributions to climate change, lobbying against climate legislation, ties to the spread of climate science disinformation, corruption, violating human rights standards and disregarding the rights of Indigenous and frontline communities • partnerships with BP, Shell and Statoil/Equinor harm the museum’s duty to its key stakeholders, specifically the scientific research community and young people • partnerships with these companies both legitimise the activity of these companies and increase the likelihood of undue influence and self-censorship around communicating climate science

We request that the trustees of the museum take full account of this complaint and the evidence it cites and take steps to safeguard the reputation and standing of the Science Museum Group through:

• evaluating the full range of evidence of these companies' activities in relation to the values and principles laid out in its Ethics Policy • given the urgency of climate change and the seriousness of climate science disinformation, to identify these issues as significant areas of concern and act accordingly • committing to end these relationships as early as is legally possible

Supporters

(Institutional affiliations for identification purposes only.)

1. Emeritus Professor Keith Barnham, 10. Dr Matt Folley, Senior Research Fellow, Distinguished Research Fellow, Physics Marine Renewable Energy Group, Queen’s Department, Imperial College London University Belfast 2. Nnimmo Bassey, Director, Health of Mother 11. Dr Peter C. Frumhoff, Director of Science and Earth Foundation and winner of the Right Policy, Chief Climate Scientist, Union of Livelihood Award, Nigeria Concerned Scientists 3. Dr Alice Bell, climate campaigner and writer 12. Dr Andy Fugard, Senior Lecturer in Social 4. Professor Sarah Bell, Professor of Science Research Methods, Birkbeck, Environmental Engineering, UCL University of London 5. Dr Jason Box, expert in atmosphere-ice 13. Dr James Hansen, Director of Program on interactions and physical climatology of Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, Greenland Earth Institute, Columbia University 6. Dr Chris Brierley, Senior Lecturer in Climate 14. Professor Tim Jackson, Professor of Science, UCL Sustainable Development and Director of the 7. Dr Sarah R Davies, Associate Professor, Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Department of Media, Cognition and Prosperity, University of Surrey Communication, University of Copenhagen 15. Professor David A. Kirby, Programme Director 8. Dr Deirdre Duff, Molecular Biologist for MSc in Science Communication, University 9. Gaute Eiterjord, Chair of Natur og of Manchester Ungdom/Nature and Youth, Norway

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 16. Jeremy Leggett, author, solar entrepreneur 32. Drew Pearce, Progressive Science Institute and advocate 33. Professor Kate E Pickett, Professor of 17. Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair in Epidemiology, University Champion for Cognitive Psychology, University of Bristol Research on Justice and Equality, and Deputy 18. Professor Simon Lewis, Chair in Global Change Director of the Centre for Future Health, Science, University College London University of York 19. Dr Barbara Magennis, Science Teacher 34. Sir Jonathon Porritt, environmentalist and 20. Dr Michael Mason, Associate Professor, writer Department of Geography and Environment, 35. Professor Malcolm J W Povey, Professor of LSE Food Physics at University of Leeds 21. Professor James J. McCarthy, Professor of 36. Kate Raworth, Senior Visiting Research Oceanography, Harvard University; Former Associate, Environmental Change Institute, Director, Museum of Comparative Zoology; University of Oxford Former President, American Association for 37. Dr Beth Rice, Imperial College the Advancement of Science 38. Alom Shaha, science teacher and writer 22. Dr David McCoy, Professor of Global Public 39. Andrew Simms, co-director of the New Health, Queen Mary’s University London Weather Institute 23. Professor Bill McGuire, Professor Emeritus of 40. Hannah Smith, Co-director: research and Geophysical & Climate Hazards at UCL campaigns, People & Planet 24. Dr Felicity Mellor, Senior Lecturer in Science 41. Dr Geoffrey Supran, Post Doctoral Fellow at Communication, Imperial College Harvard University & Post Doctoral Affiliate at 25. Professor Hugh Montgomery, UCL Professor Massachusetts Institute of Technology of Intensive Care Medicine; Consultant 42. Lazarus Tamana, Movement for the Survival of Intensivist, Whittington Hospital; Head, Centre the Ogoni People for Human Health and Performance; Director 43. Hugh Warwick, naturalist and author of Research, Institute for Sport, Exercise and 44. Dr Philip Webber, Chair, Scientists for Global Health Responsibility 26. Dr Frances Mortimer, Director, Centre for 45. Dr Stephen Webster, Director, Imperial Sustainable Healthcare College Science Communication Unit 27. Sophie Neuburg, Executive Director, Medact 46. Benny Wenda, West Papua independence 28. Professor Jonathan Oppenheim, Professor of leader and Chair of the United Liberation Quantum Theory, UCL Movement for West Papua 29. Professor Naomi Oreskes, Professor of the History of Science, Harvard University 30. Chris Packham, naturalist and broadcaster 31. Dr Stuart Parkinson, Executive Director of Scientists for Global Responsibility

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 COMPLAINT TO THE SCIENCE MUSEUM GROUP

Contents

A. INTRODUCTION

B. BACKGROUND

(1) The oil industry and its relationships with the Science Museum Group (2) The companies’ purpose: a social license to operate (3) The Science Museum Group’s understanding of the relationships (4) The role of the companies in driving climate change (5) The companies as funders of climate science denial and obstacles to effective climate action (6) The role of the companies in lobbying against legislation to mitigate climate change (7) The companies’ operational impacts on communities, ecosystems and human rights (8) Achieving effective climate action: legal action and calls for divestment from fossil fuel companies (9) Widespread public opposition to oil sponsorship of cultural and scientific institutions

C. RELEVANT POLICIES AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

(1) The Science Museum Group’s own policies and procedures (2) External legal obligations and policies

D. BREACHES

E. REMEDIES

F. EXHIBITS

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018

A. INTRODUCTION

1. This is a complaint to the Science Museum Group ('the SMG') about its current corporate partnerships and/or sponsorship agreements with British Petroleum plc. ('BP'), Royal Dutch Shell ('Shell'), and Statoil/Equinor ('Statoil/Equinor'), hereafter referred to as 'the companies'. These partnerships are in breach of not only the Museum’s own internal procedures and policies, namely the Group Ethics Policy (2017), but also the policies of sector-wide bodies as well as its legal obligations. The breaches at issue are set out in detail in Section D of this complaint.

2. This complaint has been researched, compiled and drafted by Culture Unstained.

3. As outlined in Section E below, the action that the SMG should take to rectify the breaches set out in Section D is as follows:

a. review, revise and update its due diligence reporting on BP, Shell and Statoil/Equinor, ensuring that a robust and consistent methodology is employed in all cases in a way that is proportional to the scale of the current or proposed relationships; and

b. take full account of the evidence available, including the issues raised in this complaint, and implement a strategy for identifying all relevant 'areas of concern' free of any pre-existing bias or any potential conflicts of interest; and

c. carefully test those 'areas of concern' and the evidence behind them against the SMG’s mission, values and Group Ethics Policy, clearly identifying where any ethical conflicts lie;

4. Having done so, the Museum should remedy the ethical conflicts identified by either: (a) terminating its existing relationships with BP, Shell and Statoil/Equinor; or (b) if that is not contractually possible, committing to terminating the relationships at the expiry of the agreements currently in force. The Board of Trustees, as well as the Director and management team, must be prepared to take this action, as is consistent with their legal obligations.

5. In order to restore public trust and protect its reputation, the Science Museum Group should also:

a. revise its Group Ethics Policy to specify explicitly the ethical and scientific standards that are expected of those the SMG will partner with, and ensure that decisions regarding potential corporate partnerships are tested against those criteria in addition to the potential for any reputational risk;

b. revise its Due Diligence process to ensure that a robust and consistent methodology and approach is applied to all proposed partnerships and any ‘areas of concern’ are correctly identified and fully investigated.

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 6. The Museum is asked to respond to this complaint within 20 days informing the signatories of how it will be addressed by the SMG. We consider that it is appropriate for this complaint, in the light of its subject matter and seriousness, to be escalated directly to the Board of Trustees of the Science Museum Group and considered at their next scheduled meeting.

If no response is received and/or the response provided is inadequate as it fails to address the concerns raised herein, we will then refer this matter to the relevant regulatory sector-wide bodies.

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 B. BACKGROUND

(1) The oil industry and its relationships with the Science Museum Group

7. The oil industry has had both direct and indirect relationships with the Science Museum over the course of its history, given the museum's exhibitions and research on a range of related areas. In 1984, the Science Museum established its own Board of Trustees and now the larger group of museums (Science Museum, National Railway Museum, National Science and Media Museum, Museum of Science and Industry and Locomotion) form the Science Museum Group (SMG).

8. Today, it is the SMG as a whole which is a non-departmental public body, operating at arm's length from its sponsor the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The Board of Trustees is the corporate body of the SMG. The SMG shares a mission and set of values, as well as an Ethics Policy which specifies the Group’s approach to funding and sponsorship. Consequently, any decisions regarding a sponsorship deal or corporate partnership with an institution within the group is ultimately accountable to the Board of Trustees and the SMG as a whole.1

9. The corporate partnerships and sponsorship deals agreed between BP, Shell and Statoil/Equinor and the SMG have largely focused on those galleries, exhibitions and events that offer platforms for targeting young people and shaping their perceptions of energy issues and the fossil fuel industry. Both BP and Shell’s partnerships with the SMG have also provided opportunities for engagement and interaction with schools and shaping the STEM education agenda.

10. BP sponsored the Science Museum’s interactive Energy Gallery, formally referred to as BP Energy – Fuelling the Future from 2003-2009. BP was directly involved in the development of the content for the interactive Energy Gallery and formed an Advisory Board of ten members of its staff headed by its Vice President Peter Mather with the purpose of informing and shaping the gallery’s content. BP subsequently commissioned the museum to create a gallery directly based on the Energy Gallery at the Sangachal Visitors Centre in Azerbaijan, with the purpose of promoting its business in Azerbaijan and strengthening its ties to the country and its leadership. BP further sponsored BP Talk Science in 2007-10 and the BP Kits for Science Clubs project in 2008-9.2

1 See: https://group.sciencemuseum.org.uk/about-us/ 2 See: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fp4q8l60f98qvl8/AADv6AXj3h9kw82KprLPTcpua?dl=0&preview=31.+BP%27s+pro motional+material+for+Science+Museum+%27Energy%27+gallery+-+online+document+no+longer+available.pdf

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 11. From 2013-17, BP funded and participated in Enterprising Science, a collaborative research project between BP, the Science Museum, Kings College London and University College London’s Institute of Education.3

12. BP launched the Ultimate STEM Challenge competition in 2014 in partnership with the Science Museum, a competition for secondary school children that continues to run annually.4

13. In 2015, BP sponsored the Science Museum’s Cosmonauts: Birth of the Space Age exhibition, which led to the Science Museum’s director receiving the Pushkin Medal from Russian President Vladimir Putin.5 BP’s current corporate partnership with the Science Museum – which includes the Ultimate STEM Challenge – ends in 2021.

Shell

14. Shell was sponsor of the Science Museum’s Shell Launchpad, the museum’s interactive science gallery for children, from 2007-2010 and from 2010-15 was a sponsor of the climate science gallery, Atmosphere.

15. Emails disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act in 2015 revealed that Shell had sought to directly influence the presentation of the Atmosphere gallery as well as aspects of the wider events programme. This case has subsequently been cited as a tangible example of where a corporate sponsor breached core standards around editorial integrity and was the basis of a front-page story in The Guardian. 6

16. Shell remained a corporate partner of the Science Museum until the end of 2016 then continued in partnership with the Science Museum until 2017 due to its inheritance of the Building Bridges project from BG plc following its takeover by Shell in 2016.

17. The status of Shell’s relationship with the SMG remains unclear as the company’s logo remains on the SMG’s website despite the SMG confirming in response to a Freedom of Information request that it is ‘not currently in contract’ with Shell. However, material disclosed in response to that request demonstrates that the SMG continues to engage with Shell about possible future partnerships. See Exhibit 1.

Statoil/Equinor

18. In 2016, Statoil became the title sponsor of Wonderlab: the Statoil Gallery in the Science Museum. The interactive gallery for children and young people is a successor

3 See: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/education/research/Research- Centres/cppr/Research/currentpro/Enterprising-Science/index.aspx 4 See: https://www.bp.com/en_gb/united-kingdom/bp-in-the-community/stem-education/our-programmes- and-partnerships/ultimate-stem-challenge.html 5 See: https://cultureunstained.org/crudeconnections-sponsorship/ 6 See: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/31/shell-sought-influence-direction-science-museum- climate-programme

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 to Launchpad but, unlike its predecessor, requires an entry fee to visit. The current sponsorship agreement ends in 2021.7

(2) The companies’ purpose: a social license to operate

19. The companies’ purpose in sponsoring high-profile cultural institutions is not, as might be the case with other donors, philanthropic, but undertaken in order to enhance both their public perception and their reputation among strategically valuable groups and audiences. Through cultural, academic and science sponsorship programmes, BP, Shell and Statoil/Equinor have been able to engage with key groups, such as UK policy makers, members of foreign governments and opinion-formers in the media, often at strategically valuable moments.

20. By associating their brands with iconic institutions, the companies are able to sustain their so-called ‘social license to operate’. This is an industry term for the perception of the company as ethical, responsible and integral to society.8 With that social license to operate, the companies are better able to acquire the political and social consent required to pursue high-risk business practices, such as high-risk ultra-deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico or the continuation of fossil fuel extraction in an era of accelerating climate change. Cultural, academic and science sponsorship represents an essential part of the companies’ broader lobbying and engagement strategies, underpinning their wider business interests.

21. This dimension of sponsorship programmes is something that has been acknowledged, both publicly and privately, by the companies:

a. At a previous AGM, BP highlighted to its shareholders that it approached its sponsorship programme, in this case for the London 2012 Olympics, like any other part of its business, ‘going through exactly the same process as we would for any investment’.9 In an interview with The Times in 2016, BP’s Regional Vice President Peter Mather also conceded that ‘When there is an option, naturally we are going to try to match a particular exhibition with somewhere we have an interest’.10

b. The campaign group Art Not Oil published an extensive report in May 2016, drawing upon Freedom of Information disclosures.11 It documented multiple instances where BP had sought to use its cultural sponsorship as a tool for meeting, entertaining and lobbying strategically valuable policy-makers, as well as exerting influence over institutional event programmes and exhibitions, thereby maximising the return on its sponsorship.

7 See: https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/see-and-do/wonderlab-statoil-gallery 8 See: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/media/speeches/obtaining-social-license-to-operate.html 9 See: https://www.no-tar-sands.org/2012/04/uk-tar-sands-networks-questions-to-the-2012-bp-agm/ 10 See: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bp-v-the-luvvies-the-battle-over-britains-biggest-corporate-sponsor- bmj797gxq 11 See: http://www.artnotoil.org.uk/sites/default/files/BPs%20Corrupting%20Influence.pdf.pdf

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 (3) The Science Museum Group’s understanding of the relationships

22. The SMG, like other cultural institutions, is fully aware that entering into a relationship with a corporate partner or sponsor is transactional in nature, and that implicit in accepting a sponsorship deal is a tacit support of and endorsement for the sponsor’s business activity. On its website, the SMG highlights the key benefits that a corporate sponsor can expect through a relationship with the Group. They include:

• Achieve your business objectives in creative and tangible ways • Showcase your ingenuity and innovation and engage directly with visitors • Develop unique employee, customer and stakeholder engagement opportunities • Demonstrate your commitment to addressing some of the most urgent scientific challenges of our time

'The convening power of our museums also provides a powerful platform from which to speak to stakeholder groups, including your customers, industry leaders, academics and government.'12

This tacit endorsement of corporate partners and sponsors is further reflected in the SMG’s Group Ethics Policy, as outlined in paragraph 91 of this complaint.

23. The SMG’s endorsement of its corporate partners and sponsors is not limited to providing the positive benefits outlined above but involves taking measures to ensure that corporate partners and sponsors are protected from criticism. This is specifically stated in paragraph 6.5 of the SMG’s current sponsorship contract with Statoil/Equinor:

‘SCMG [Enterprises], 13 the Trustees, and each of them shall take reasonable care not at any time during the Term to make any statement or issue any publicity or otherwise be involved in any conduct or matter that may reasonably be foreseen as discrediting or damaging the goodwill or reputation of the Sponsor.’

See Exhibit 2.

24. This protection of the sponsor’s interests is also underscored by the inclusion of a specific confidentiality clause within the contract with Statoil/Equinor as paragraph 18.1:

‘Each Party agrees to maintain secret and confidential (i) the terms of this Agreement and (ii) any confidential information of or about any other Party obtained pursuant to this Agreement or otherwise prior to it and in contemplation of it…’14

12 See: https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/about-us/support-us/corporate-partnerships 13 SCMG Enterprises Limited is a company wholly owned by the Trustees of the SMG, ‘incorporated for the purposes (inter alia) of carrying on trading activities and raising funds for and on behalf of the Trustees for the benefit of the Science Museum’, as stated in the contract with Statoil. 14 Ibid.

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 25. Emails between the SMG and Shell in 2017 disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act also reflect the SMG’s interest in pursuing close collaboration with corporate partners and in such a way that actively supports the strategic interests of those partners. See Exhibit 3.

(4) The role of the companies in driving climate change

26. The Paris Climate Accord, which was agreed in 2015 by 195 national governments, identified steps to limit global temperature rise to well below 2°C; what has been agreed internationally as an achievable ‘safe limit’ for global warming. However, the Accord also included an aspiration to limit warming to 1.5°C, acknowledging that even at 2°C many severe climate impacts and potential feedback effects will be unavoidable.

27. If countries are serious about staying below either of these limits, research estimates that approximately 80 percent of proven fossil fuel reserves will need to be left in the ground. This represents a serious challenge to the fossil fuel industry based on its current activity.15 Specifically, in its report ‘The Sky’s Limit’, the research organisation Oil Change International (OCI) identified that to meet the 2°C limit:

'No new fossil fuel extraction or transportation infrastructure should be built, and governments should grant no new permits for them. Some fields and mines – primarily in rich countries – should be closed before fully exploiting their resources, and financial support should be provided for non-carbon development in poorer countries.’16

And, crucially, that:

'The oil, gas, and coal in already-producing fields and mines are more than we can afford to burn while keeping likely warming below 2°C. The oil and gas alone are more than we can afford for a medium chance of keeping to 1.5°C.'

28. The business models of BP, Shell and Statoil/Equinor overwhelmingly rely on the sustained use of fossil fuels over coming decades which, if realized, would be incompatible with limiting global warming to a safe level. This situation is being described as a ‘carbon bubble’, where the market value of the companies is based on the reserves of oil and gas they have left to extract and sell. If many reserves need to be left in the ground, the value of the companies is misleading and represents a form of financial bubble. These fossil fuel reserves will become ‘stranded assets’ – items the companies own but will never be able to extract or sell. In research published in Nature this year, the carbon bubble has been estimated at between $1 and $4 trillion, accounting for a significant proportion of the global economy.17

15 See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/keep-it-in-the-ground-blog/2015/mar/25/what-numbers- tell-about-how-much-fossil-fuel-reserves-cant-burn 16 See: http://priceofoil.org/2016/09/22/the-skys-limit-report/ 17 See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0182-1

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 BP

29. As of 2018, BP has reserves equivalent to more than 18 million barrels of oil.18 In 2015, it spent $20 billion on projects worldwide, with all but a tiny fraction going into fossil fuel projects.

30. Across the globe, BP is involved in the exploration and production of new sources of fossil fuels, as well as scaling up production and infrastructure within existing fields. Earlier this year numerous new oil and gas projects came online in Egypt, Oman and the Gulf of Mexico which led to a quadrupling of profits, the company's most profitable phase since the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010.19

31. BP is currently playing a leading role in the construction of a 3,500 kilometre pipeline network that will carry gas from Azerbaijan to Turkey this year, and to Europe from 2020, known as the 'Southern Gas Corridor'.20 The pipeline is Europe's biggest current energy project and projections suggest it is likely to only be profitable if Europe exceeds current projections of its gas demand in the coming decades, rather than working to reduce that demand in line with Paris targets. A study released by Bankwatch in January 2018 has shown that, due to fugitive methane emissions and burning of gas, the Southern Gas Corridor’s climate footprint could be comparable to that of coal, one of the most polluting and emission-intensive sources of energy.21

32. BP recently highlighted its return to the solar industry after having shut down its solar operations six years ago citing lack of profitability. BP’s interests in renewable energy are often overstated as part of the company’s wider communications strategy, in order to suggest a consistency with current efforts to respond to the climate crisis. The $200m stake BP bought in solar firm Lightsource last December represents a tiny fraction of BP’s $15bn-17bn total spend in 2017.22

33. At the time of shutting down its interests in solar energy six years ago, BP made investments in the highly polluting tar sands in Canada. The company retains three interests in the Athabasca region of Alberta today, including a 50% stake in the Sunrise project which currently produces over 36,000 barrels a day and is projected to operate for 40 years. BP also operates the Toledo refinery and the 1,400 acre Whiting Refinery which both process tar sands crude oil. 23 BP has also undertaken joint ventures with Kinder Morgan, the company behind the controversial TransMountain pipeline in Canada.24

Shell

18 See: https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/investors/bp-fourth-quarter-2017-results.pdf 19 See: https://www.ft.com/content/39dac0a8-0b10-11e8-8eb7-42f857ea9f09 20 See: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/media/latest-news/inauguration-tanap-pipeline-turkey.html 21 See: https://bankwatch.org/press_release/controversial-turkish-azerbaijani-gas-pipeline-gets-major-eu-loan 22 See: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/15/bp-returns-solar-power-stake-lightsource 23 See: https://www.bp.com/en_ca/canada/who-we-are/oil-sands.html and https://www.bp.com/en_us/bp- us/what-we-do/refining/whiting.html 24 See: http://ir.kindermorgan.com/press-release/kinder-morgan-and-bp-form-joint-venture-limited-liability- company-purchase-us-terminal

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 34. Shell produces 3.7 million barrels of oil equivalent every day, and is active in all areas of the fossil fuel industry, including exploration and production, refining, transport, distribution and marketing, power generation and trading. Shell plans to put just 4-7% of its capital investment into 'New Energies' in 2018-20.25 Recent data shows that Shell’s emissions have risen to their highest level since 2014.26

35. Until recently, Shell effectively rejected the idea that the world would make serious efforts to prevent climate change. Then, in March 2018, the company released a new climate change scenario. Known as the 'Sky' scenario, the report outlines how the company thinks the world can prevent warming of more than two degrees. However, it does not outline a managed decline of fossil fuels in line with the necessary transition to renewable energy to stay below the 2°C limit.27

36. The report maintains the company’s fossil fuel use at current levels and relies heavily on the possible development of as-yet-unproven technologies to actively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as well as a dramatic turnaround in the effectiveness of carbon capture and storage (CCS).

According to OCI researcher Greg Muttit:

'In 2070, the Shell scenario has 8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide sucked out of the atmosphere, which (if the technology works) could require a land area up to five times the size of India. Another 10 billion tonnes is captured when emitted. This combined 18 billion tonnes is equivalent to about half of today’s emissions.

Carbon-sucking technologies so far exist only in theoretical models. Carbon-capturing technologies have been tested in pilot projects, most of which have been unsuccessful, leading governments and companies who previously advocated for the technologies now to cancel projects and funding. In the words of Francesco Starace, Italian energy company Enel's CEO, 'I think [CCS] has not been successful. It doesn’t work, let’s call it what it is – it is simply too expensive, too cumbersome, the technology didn’t fly.'28

Statoil/Equinor

37. Statoil/Equinor has a significant global presence, operating in 30 countries worldwide. It produces around 70 per cent of oil and gas on the Norwegian continental shelf, and plans to maintain this trajectory.29 Despite recently removing the word ‘oil’ from its name, the company intends to remain a central player in the fossil fuel industry.

25 See: https://www.shell.com/investors/news-and-media-releases/investor-presentations/2017-investor- presentations/2017-management- day/_jcr_content/par/textimage.stream/1511859103150/9918f5551843aba0799bd700ca80cd93918a232716990 d8e738b40982da1f02c/shell-2017-management-day-presentations.pdf 26 See: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-09/shell-s-climate-push-fails-to-cut-emissions-as-u- s-plants-added 27 See: http://priceofoil.org/2018/03/28/shell-game-oil-company-says-climate-future-is-fossil-fuelled/ 28 Ibid. 29 See: https://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL8N15D28Z

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 38. Since 2017, the company – which is two-thirds owned by Norway’s government – has publicly promoted its plans to allocate 15 to 20 percent of its annual investment to renewables by 2030.30 Conversely, this means that the company plans around 80% of its portfolio to remain in fossil fuel extraction and production over the coming decade.31

39. In December last year, Statoil announced plans to create the Johan Castberg oil field off the northern coasts of Norway and Russia in the Arctic Barents Sea. Before a drop in the oil price forced it to downscale the plan, the company claimed the underwater layout of the project was going to be the largest of any new offshore venture worldwide.32 Furthermore, the Mariner oil field project, located in the UK's North Sea, will see development by the end of 2018 that will enable drilling for oil for 30 more years.33

40. Statoil/Equinor’s extensions of fields often include preparations for the tie-in of future discoveries, demonstrating its intention to drill for new sources of oil and gas in the long-term. One such project is the Peregrino field initiative. This is the company's largest international operation, situated approximately 85km off Brazil. The second phase of development, which will begin by the end of 2020, involves drilling 15 new oil wells.34

(5) The companies as funders of climate science denial and obstacles to effective climate action

41. All three companies are members of powerful trade associations and industry groups that have spread disinformation in relation to climate science and have actively sought to weaken progress towards effective action on climate change. BP and Shell in particular have a long history of uniting with other fossil fuel companies to negatively influence climate policy and exaggerate the public perception of doubt and uncertainty in relation to climate science.

42. As scholars, investigative journalists, lawyers, and environmental organisations have shown, there is overwhelming evidence that many of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies have variously spent decades deliberately misleading the public and stifling policy through disinformation and lobbying. This is the consensus of historians and social scientists expert in this area.35 In 2015, for example, the Union of Concerned

30 See: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-statoil-emissions-idUSKBN16G1KC 31 See: http://www.desmog.co.uk/2017/03/10/Statoil-Claims-to-Care-About-Climate-Change-Commits-Future-to- Oil-and-Gas 32 See: https://www.epmag.com/statoil-delivers-59-billion-plan-arctic-johan-castberg-project-1672551 33 See: http://www.equinor.com/en/where-we-are/united-kingdom.html 34 See: http://www.equinor.com/en/where-we-are/brazil.html 35 See for example: - Oreskes N and Conway E M Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (New York: Bloomsbury Press) (2010) - Michaels D Doubt is their product (Oxford: Oxford University Press) (2008) - Mulvey K et al. The Climate Deception Dossiers. Union of Concerned Scientists (2015)

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Scientists published the 'Climate Deception Dossiers' – 85 internal fossil fuel industry memos that reveal a coordinated campaign of disinformation, underwritten by BP, Shell and others. The evidence includes forged letters to Congress, secret funding of a supposedly independent scientist, the creation of fake grassroots organizations and multiple efforts to deliberately manufacture uncertainty about climate science.36

43. Much of this denial was spread through industry organisations and front groups. BP and Shell were active members of one of the most egregious - the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) - which has repeatedly misled US legislators by misrepresenting climate science, blocking renewable energy, and drafting bills - many of which are now law – that attacked environmental regulations.37

44. All three companies are still members of the American Petroleum Institute, one of North America’s most powerful industry lobby groups actively involved in spreading climate science denial and opposing climate legislation.38 In 1959, the API was explicitly warned by physicist Edward Teller about the catastrophic effects that would be caused by fossil-fuel-induced global warming.39 Over the next 30 years, the American Petroleum Institute quietly monitored climate science. For example, in 1968, it commissioned a private report from Stanford Research Institute, which informed the industry that ‘significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000 [...] there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe.’40 In 1979, the API created an industry-wide group called the CO2 and Climate Task Force. According to internal memos, it was informed in 1980 that fossil fuels would lead to a 1 degree Celsius global temperature rise by 2005 and 5 degree rise by the middle of this century with ‘globally catastrophic effects’.41 Yet despite this longstanding knowledge of its products' harms, when governments around the world moved to curtail the production and use of fossil fuels in the late 1980s, the API initiated a national campaign of disinformation and denial. The API became instrumental in leading the Global Climate Coalition, a collection of fossil fuel and other commercial interests that blocked passage of climate policies using a range of tactics including front groups, think tanks, and targeted political campaigns. This group sought to corrupt the scientific community through selective funding, and it disseminated disinformation to the public through the national media. Notably, the API insisted to the public that the link between fossil fuels and global warming was uncertain, despite its knowledge of this connection for decades.42 The API's ongoing influence is evident today in U.S. Republican Party policy, from

- Björnberg K E, Karlsson M, Gilek M and Hansson S O 2017 Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015 J. Clean. Prod. 167 229–41 - Hoggan J, Littlemore, R Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (2009) 36 See: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel- industry-memos 37 See: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-6_ALEC.pdf 38 See: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-2_API-Climate- Science-Communications-Plan.pdf 39 See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its- hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming and https://apps.publicintegrity.org/united-states-of-petroleum/century-of-influence 40 See: https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/16 41 See: http://www.climatefiles.com/climate-change-evidence/1980-api-climate-task-force-co2-problem/ 42 See: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/15/50-years-climate-change-denial

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 defeating carbon taxation to building pipelines, and from pulling out of the Paris Agreement to drilling in pristine and vulnerable ecosystems such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

45. In recent years, all three companies have accepted the scientific consensus on climate change in their direct public communications, and all are members of the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, a coalition of ten of the world’s largest polluters. Their regular statements of intent in the run-up to UN climate talks are often criticised as little more than ‘greenwashing’ exercises, with the primary purpose of avoiding regulation by presenting an environmentally responsible image to the public, while resisting calls for action commensurate with the science of climate change mitigation, such as targets on climate reporting, phasing out of fossil fuel exploration and extraction or issuing concrete, large-scale investment pledges for renewables.43 Instead, many of the companies remain actively involved in obstructing efforts to take action on climate change.

46. A report released by thinktank InfluenceMap in 2015 showed a major disconnect between expressed climate intentions and actual action of key players in the oil industry.44 For example, BP and Shell publicly support applying a cost to carbon emissions, but at the same time fund trade organisations that have moved to block carbon pricing legislation. They often overstate the realistic prospects of CCS, which gives the public perception of seeking to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions whilst, in reality, seeking to maintain levels of fossil fuel extraction and production.

(6) The role of the companies in lobbying against legislation to mitigate climate change

47. BP, Shell and Statoil/Equinor have undertaken, and continue to undertake, extensive lobbying and engagement strategies with the purpose of prolonging the extraction and production of fossil fuels as well as obstructing policies and frameworks that would support the expansion of renewable energy.

48. BP has repeatedly been involved in opposing legislation intended to curb greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change. In 2015, the company was identified as ‘Europe’s fiercest corporate opponent of action on climate change’ in a list of the world’s 100 top global companies' lobbying activities. In 2017, BP spent in excess of €2.75 million on direct lobbying of EU institutions.45 In 2009, the year before its

43 See: https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/3020027/ogci-is-there-any-substance-behind-the-oil- sectors-low-carbon-work 44 See: https://influencemap.org/report/Big-Oil-the-Price-of-Carbon-and-Obstruction-of-Climate-Regulations 45 See: http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do?id=3394026642- 58&isListLobbyistView=true

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, BP spent $16 million on lobbying the US Federal government.46

In the past, BP has been part of business groups and alliances promoting climate denial and scepticism. As recently as 2015, BP’s Political Action Committee was shown to be supporting prominent climate sceptics such as Republican Senator, Jim Inhofe, with BP CEO Bob Dudley making financial contributions himself.47

Shell

49. Confidential documents dating back to the 1980s have recently been revealed showing Shell was fully aware of the dangers posed by climate change 30 years ago.48 An internal briefing in 1988 warned that 'by the time global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilize the situation'.49

The company was also alerted internally to the ‘major social, political, and economic changes’ that climate change would bring, and predicted a future in which catastrophic weather events and mounting public concern would ultimately lead to lawsuits against governments and fossil fuel companies, encouraged by growing protest movements.50

Despite its early awareness of the potential impacts of climate change, Shell spread doubt about the validity of climate science, talked of 'clean coal' and supported climate ‘sceptics’ who believed 'concerns over global warming to be exaggerated and misguided', as stated in a 1994 report. See section B(5) for further information.

Shell’s core business remained the extraction and production of fossil fuels over the subsequent decades. Despite this, it orchestrated a number of extensive PR campaigns and marketing strategies that focused on 'community engagement' in order to overemphasize its interests in renewable energy.51 This trend persists today as part of the company’s current ‘Make the Future’ marketing campaign and events programme.

In 2017, Shell spent in excess of €4.5 million on direct lobbying of EU institutions.52

Statoil/Equinor

46 See: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/may/02/bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spills 47 See: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/22/climate-sceptic-us-politician-jim-inhofe-bp- political-action-committee 48 See: http://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/05/17/shell-knew-charting-thirty-years-corporate-climate-denialism 49 See: http://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/04/04/internal-shell-oil-climate-documents-revealed 50 See: http://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/04/04/here-what-shellknew-about-climate-change-way-back-1980s 51 See: http://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/04/11/how-shell-greenwashed-its-image-internal-documents-warned- fossil-fuels-contribution-climate-change 52 See: http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do?id=05032108616- 26&isListLobbyistView=true

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 50. In 2017 Statoil/Equinor spent around $1.1 million on lobbying in the US and, according to OpenSecrets.org, much of its lobbying activity was focussed on proposed sanctions on Russia, Iran and other countries.53 The company is currently involved in drilling the Domanik formation in partnership with Russian state oil company Rosneft. Initially identified as a ‘shale formation’ in 2013, Statoil rebranded it a ‘limestone formation’ in 2014 after exploration of such shale deposits were prevented by EU and US sanctions.54

Statoil spent in excess of €3 million on lobbying the EU in 2017.55

(7) The companies’ operational impacts on communities, ecosystems and human rights

51. The negative environmental and social impacts of BP, Shell and Statoil/Equinor's operations are widely documented. A number of these have been acknowledged within the SMG’s own due diligence reports. See section D(1). The following summarises several significant incidents in relation to each company.

52. On the 20th April 2010, an explosion on the BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig killed 11 workers and led to 3.19 million barrels of oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico. Under a settlement agreed in 2012, BP pled guilty to:

• 11 felony counts of misconduct or neglect related to the deaths in the explosion • 1 misdemeanour violation of the Clean Water Act • 1 misdemeanour violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act • 1 felony count of obstruction of Congress over its statements about the flow rate56

BP subsequently agreed to pay a record $18.7 billion in fines in relation to the spill, the largest corporate settlement in US history. In 2014, Judge Carl Barbier ruled that BP’s ‘gross negligence’ and ‘wilful misconduct’ had led to the Gulf of Mexico spill.57 Although hit with a total of $65 billion in fines, clean-up and compensation, BP was able to write off $11.2 billion of its clean-up costs against US tax.58

53 See: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientbills.php?id=D000057172&year=2017 54 See: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-rosneft-domanik-statoil/exclusive-sanctions-gap-lets-western- firms-tap-russian-frontier-oil-idUSKBN1AI1RQ 55 See: https://lobbyfacts.eu/representative/e51de06c03384f3291e5afedb3c97216/statoil-asa 56 See: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/business/global/16iht-bp16.html 57 See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/02/bp-will-pay-largest-environmental-fine-in-us- history-for-gulf-oil-spill 58 See: https://www.ecowatch.com/will-u-s-taxpayers-foot-the-bill-for-bp-oil-spill-cleanup-1881643901.html

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 A study undertaken in 2010 anticipated that the effects of the oil spill on travel and tourism in the Gulf Coast region could last up to three years and cost up to up to $22.7 billion.59 In 2012, it was estimated that the total economic damage to fishing- dependent industries could cost $8.7 billion and around 22,000 jobs over the subsequent seven years.60

53. On the 23rd March 2005, an explosion at BP’s Texas City Refinery killed 15 workers and injured 170 others. BP initially paid $21.3 million in fines to the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). In October 2009, the OSHA announced that it was additionally fining BP $87.4 million relating to 270 notifications that had been issued to the company for ‘failure to correct hazards’ and because it had also identified 439 new ‘wilful violations’ by BP in its operation of the refinery.61

54. In September 2008, a blowout occurred at one of BP’s platforms in the Azeri-Chirag- Ganesh [ACG] gas field in the Caspian Sea, causing 212 workers to be evacuated as part of the ‘largest emergency evacuation in BP’s history’. The blowout was similar in nature to that which caused the Deepwater Horizon disaster two years later. A US Embassy cable from the time noted that BP had been ‘exceptionally circumspect in disseminating information about the ACG gas leak, both to the public and to its ACG partners.’62

55. In December 2015, an internal BP safety report seen by the FT outlined a series of serious shortcomings of the company’s safety standards since Deepwater Horizon, as well as giving details of a number of ‘high potential’ or ‘high po’ incidents. These are generally considered to be a ‘near miss’ where ‘on another day it is likely that lives would have been lost.’63 Marine engineering expert Professor Robert Bea from the University of California, Berkeley, asserted that ‘there’s persistent evidence that BP is not paying sufficient attention to these critical safety measures.’64

56. BP has secured lucrative deals under successive administrations in Egypt regardless of their human rights records, from former dictator Hosni Mubarak to current President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, elected following a military coup. BP was initially forced to put a flagship project on hold when, in 2011, residents of the town of Idku mobilised against a plan to build a mega-gas plant next to their homes. After long delays, the local resistance forced BP to concede. Since then, a repressive anti-protest law was introduced in 2013 and counter-terrorism laws tightened in 2015. BP signed the final

59 See: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/07/22/gulf.oil.travel.impact/ 60 See: http://usa.oceana.org/our-work/climate-energy/offshore-drilling/gulf-oil-spill-information-center/the- spill-by-the-numbers 61 See: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/oct/30/bp-texas-city-safety-fine 62 See: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/15/wikileaks-bp-azerbaijan-gulf-spill See also: http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2037830,00.html 63 See: https://www.ft.com/content/a62438fc-be36-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080 64 Ibid.

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 agreement for the project to go ahead as originally planned in 2015, at a time when public opposition had become all but impossible.65

57. BP’s concessions in Tangguh, Bintuni Bay, West Papua - which is occupied by the Indonesian government – contain around 14.4 trillion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas (LNG). BP’s investments and operations in West Papua help to legitimise its occupation by Indonesia, and in 2012 BP gave US $69,000 in security-related payments to the Indonesian government.66 According to West Papuan independence leader Benny Wenda:

‘BP is operating in the middle of a genocide. Since 1963, hundreds of thousands of West Papuans have been killed by the Indonesian occupation, either directly by government forces or through the loss of their homes, their lands and their livelihoods. The money that BP pays to the Indonesian government helps them to buy weapons and ammunition that are used to harass, intimidate and kill my people.’67

58. BP sold its assets in Colombia eight years ago following the Deepwater Horizon disaster. However, concerns persist about BP’s time in Colombia, its impacts on communities and the need for truth and justice regarding the links BP may have had to human rights violations. BP made numerous payments to the Ministry of Defence, the Colombian Army and others in order to protect its oil facilities.68 In 2006, BP paid millions to a group of Colombian farmers following their allegation that the construction of the Ocensa pipeline – a joint venture pipeline company at the time part owned and operated by BP – had damaged the environment.69 BP has also been accused of benefitting from the human rights abuses perpetrated by paramilitary groups in Colombia. In 2002, Gilberto Torres, a trade union leader working for Ocensa was kidnapped and tortured by paramilitaries. He was held for 42 days, and only released after fellow oil workers shut down pumping stations and refineries across Colombia in protest. He believed his abduction was ordered and assisted by the security arm of Ocensa, and subsequently took legal action against BP for the part it played in his ordeal.70

59. BP’s Argentinian subsidiary – Pan American Energy – plans to undertake the controversial and carbon-intensive practice of fracking at 37 new wells in Patagonia. This is despite BP ruling out fracking in the UK because it would 'attract the wrong kind of attention'. Argentina has the world’s second biggest reserve of shale gas, leading to the project

65 See p9 from: https://cultureunstained.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/bad-company-bp-human-rights-and- corporate-crimes-culture-unstained-june-20171.pdf 66 See p14 from: https://cultureunstained.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/bad-company-bp-human-rights-and- corporate-crimes-culture-unstained-june-20171.pdf 67 See: http://www.desmog.co.uk/2017/06/19/bp-s-close-association-countries-accused-human-rights-abuses- puts-national-portrait-gallery-sponsorship-risk 68 See p17 from: https://cultureunstained.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/bad-company-bp-human-rights-and- corporate-crimes-culture-unstained-june-20171.pdf 69 See: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bp-pays-out-millions-to-colombian-farmers- 6094738.html 70 See: https://www.waronwant.org/media/colombia-high-court-ends-trade-unionist%E2%80%99s-case-against- bp

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 being described as a 'carbon bomb'. Many local communities oppose BP's plans; over fifty local municipalities in Argentina and the entire province of Entre Ríos have enacted local fracking bans. There are fears that local groundwater will be contaminated, and Indigenous Mapuche communities will lose their land rights. Pan American Energy is also alleged to have been connected to a $300 million bribe in 2007 as well as resisting calls for it to clean up groundwater contamination.71

60. In June 2018 there was an ‘unauthorized discharge’ of about 136 cubic metres of synthetic drilling mud from BP Canada’s Aspy D-11 exploration well 330km off the coast of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Chief Terrance Paul of the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Chiefs commented: ‘We want to know how this could happen, what effect it could potentially have on our fisheries and what they are going to do to address that. Incidents like this are unacceptable in Mi’kma’ki’.72

Shell

61. In 2009, Shell agreed to settle a legal action for $15.5 million in which it was alleged that the company had ‘collaborated in the execution of the writer Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other leaders of the Ogoni people of southern Nigeria’. The families of the Ogoni Nine, who mounted the lawsuit, alleged that Shell had conspired with the military government to capture and hang the men, as well as ‘to have provided the Nigerian army with vehicles, patrol boats and ammunition, and to have helped plan raids and terror campaigns against villages’.73

62. Shell admitted liability for two massive oil spills in Bodo village in Ogoniland on the 3rd August 2011, following a class action lawsuit filed at the High Court in London.74 In the same week, a report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) into the ecological impact of oil spills in Ogoniland found that Shell has fallen below its operating standards and covered up the full extent of its pollution. UNEP recommended an initial fund of $1 billion to start the clean up process in the region.75

63. In March this year, Amnesty International reported that ‘Shell and Eni claim they are doing everything they can to prevent oil spills [in the Niger Delta, but research] found that the companies often ignore reports for months on end.’76 In 2015, Amnesty International and the Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD) reported that claims made by Shell that it had cleaned up heavily polluted areas of the Niger Delta were ‘blatantly false’.77

71 See: http://platformlondon.org/p-publications/bp-fracking-argentina/ and also: http://www.desmog.co.uk/2017/12/07/bp-labelled-irresponsible-its-plans-frack-patagonia 72 See: https://www.thestar.com/halifax/2018/06/24/mikmaq-chiefs-voice-concern-over-bp-drilling-off-nova- scotia-coast.html 73 See: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jun/08/nigeria-usa 74 See: https://www.ft.com/content/4209f536-bde8-11e0-ab9f-00144feabdc0#axzz1UFLsm4lv 75 See: https://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/OEA/UNEP_OEA.pdf 76 See: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/nigeria-amnesty-activists-uncover-serious- negligence-by-oil-giants-shell-and-eni/ 77 See: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/11/shell-false-claims-about-oil-pollution-exposed/

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 64. Shell is currently facing charges of international corruption – alongside Eni and 13 individuals including its current and previous top executives – over its involvement in the Nigerian oil block OPL 245. Evidence suggests that the company took part in a scheme which ‘deprived Nigeria and its people of $1.1 billion’.78

Statoil/Equinor

65. Statoil/Equinor plans to drill between 25 and 30 wells in Norwegian waters this year, and five or six of these are expected to be in the Arctic Barents Sea. Drilling in Arctic conditions is considered extremely high risk with limited to no effective technologies available for dealing with the impacts of a potential oil spill.79

66. Despite widespread public opposition from local groups and Indigenous communities, Statoil/Equinor plans to undertake exploratory drilling in the Great Australian Bight, an internationally renowned whale sanctuary Before dropping its own plans to drill in region in 2016, BP’s own modelling indicated that an oil spill could pollute up to 750km of coastline and drilling had the potential to disrupt endangered whale migration.80

67. In 2006, Statoil admitted ‘bribing an Iranian official in exchange for lucrative oil and gas rights in Iran’ for a total of $5 million. Under an agreement with the US Department of Justice and the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Statoil agreed to pay a $21m penalty made up of ‘a $10.5m fine and $10.5m disgorgement of profits’.81

68. In 2016, Statoil had discussions with Norway’s white-collar crimes police unit to explain payments of $48.9 million that it had made towards a research and technology centre in Angola which is yet to be built but was agreed as part of a larger oil contract with the state oil company, Sonangol. In 2017, US stock market watchdog the Securities and Exchange Commission also launched an informal investigation into BP’s payments towards the same research centre as part of its own lucrative deal.

(8) Achieving effective climate action: legal action and calls for divestment from fossil fuel companies

69. In recent years, it has been recognised that effective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit the impacts of climate change requires a broad societal shift away from the use of fossil fuels. Essential to that is a shift in the public perception and treatment of fossil fuel companies. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has emphasised the

78 See: https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/oil-gas-and-mining/shell-knew/ and https://www.globalwitness.org/en/blog/shell-and-eni-go-trial-new-chapter-opens/ 79 See: https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-statoil-outlook/statoil-to-drill-five-six-wells-in-arctic-barents-sea-in- 2018-idUKKBN1DS0WO 80 See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/07/impending-blight-how-statoils-plans- threaten-the-great-australian-bight 81 See: https://www.ft.com/content/5451c3ee-5aed-11db-8f80-0000779e2340

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 need for major public and private institutions to ‘break ties with corporations financing the injustice of climate change’.82

70. Funds with a collective value of $6.15 trillion have committed to divest from fossil fuels, including889 institutions and over 58,000 individuals. Around 40% of UK universities have now divested from fossil fuels.83

71. In 2015, the Carbon Tracker Initiative research group calculated that up to $2 trillion of planned capital expenditure by fossil fuel companies should not be approved in order to avoid becoming so-called ‘stranded assets’, as governments take steps to keep greenhouse gas emissions within safe limits.

72. In January of this year, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that the city would divest its pension funds of $5 billion of investments in fossil fuels and launched a lawsuit against five fossil fuel companies – including BP and Shell – with the aim of ‘shifting the costs of protecting the city from climate change impacts back on to the companies that have done nearly all they could to create this existential threat’.84 The city is just one of around a dozen communities in the US where lawsuits have been filed against fossil fuel companies on the basis of fraud as well as seeking compensation for climate change damages.85 There are more than 1000 climate- related legal cases worldwide, with fossil fuel companies carrying significant potential liability.86

73. In March, London Mayor Sadiq Khan called on local authorities from across the city to join him in fighting climate change by divesting their pension funds from fossil fuels. He also restated his manifesto commitment to:

‘…Take all possible steps to encourage the London Pension Fund Authority to divest its remaining investments in fossil-fuel industries that damage the environment and lead to climate change.’ [Emphasis added]87

74. There has been significant opposition to ‘the colonisation of academia by the fossil fuel industry’, notably in the UK and the US. Its direct impact was highlighted by the personal intervention of BP CEO Bob Dudley in advance of Cambridge University’s recent controversial decision not to divest from fossil fuels.88 Recent research has also highlighted the full extent of funding and involvement of fossil fuel companies in US climate policy research, with researchers Benjamin Franta and Geoffrey Supran noting that:

82 See: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/10/divest-fossil-fuels-climate-change-keystone- xl 83 See: https://peopleandplanet.org/fossil-free 84 See : https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/10/new-york-city-plans-to-divest-5bn-from-fossil- fuels-and-sue-oil-companies 85 See: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04042018/climate-change-fossil-fuel-company-lawsuits-timeline- exxon-children-california-cities-attorney-general 86 See: http://climatecasechart.com 87 See: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-calls-for-boroughs-to-divest-pension-funds 88 See: https://www.ft.com/content/1087eda4-47e0-11e8-8ee8-cae73aab7ccb

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 ‘…When ‘“independent” research to stop climate change is in fact dependent on an industry whose interests oppose that goal, neither the public nor the future is well served.’89

75. The growing movement for ‘Fossil Free Culture’, which calls upon museums, galleries and theatres to cut their sponsorship ties to the fossil fuel industry, is an integral part of the wider global divestment movement. Active campaigns exist in the UK, US, France, Norway, the Netherlands and Canada. In just the past few years, its successes have included:

a. The announcement in 2016 that BP’s sponsorship of both the Tate galleries and Edinburgh International Festival would come to an end.90

b. The end of Royal Dutch Shell’s prominent sponsorship of the ‘Shell Classic International’ concerts series at the Southbank Centre in London.91

c. The decision by the Canadian Museum of History not to renew a sponsorship deal with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).92

76. Related to this, successful and impactful campaigns have also been mounted around scientific and political institutions:

a. The resignation of oil billionaire, David H Koch, from the board of the American Museum of Natural History, following an open letter by almost 150 scientists and academics citing his position on the board while expressing deep concern at ‘the links between museums of science and natural history with those who profit from fossil fuels or fund lobby groups that misrepresent climate science’.93

b. Following a campaign involving more than 60,000 scientists, activists and others in 2016, Exxon withdrew its sponsorship of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), after the company’s links to the spread of climate disinformation were highlighted in a letter by over 250 geoscientists.94

c. In January 2018, more than 200 scientists and other academics who have advocated policy action on climate change endorsed an open letter that calls on the American Museum of Natural History to remove Rebekah Mercer from its board due to her ties to anti-science propaganda and the funding of climate science disinformation.95

89 See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/mar/13/the-fossil-fuel- industrys-invisible-colonization-of-academia 90 See both: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/mar/11/bp-to-end-tate-sponsorship-climate- protests and also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-35977127 91 See: http://platformlondon.org/2014/01/24/shell-no-longer-sponsoring-southbank-classic-series-a-timeline/ 92 See: http://rightsideofhistory.ca 93 See: https://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/david-h-koch-leaves-natural-history-museum- board/?_r=0 94 See: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05122016/exxon-agu-conference-climate-change-denial 95 See: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/rebekah-mercer-natural-history-museum.html

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018

d. In June 2018, the Democratic National Committee in the US confirmed that it would no longer accept donations from the fossil fuel industry.96

(9) Widespread public opposition to oil sponsorship of cultural and scientific institutions

77. Oil sponsorship of arts, cultural and scientific institutions, as has already been highlighted, is not an isolated or niche concern. Opposition to sponsorship deals with fossil fuel companies has gained widespread support in recent years. While the first reported creative protest against oil sponsorship took place in 2003 in response to the BP Portrait Award, multiple groups, campaigns and tactics have proliferated since. Crucially, the activity of arts activists and other campaigners has prompted a broader debate about funding and ethics across the cultural sector, with many high-profile figures now backing the calls of campaigners.

Tate

78. Following a sustained and high-profile campaign by performance art collective Liberate Tate, campaigns and research organisation Platform and other groups, it was announced in 2016 that BP’s sponsorship of Tate galleries would come to an end after 26 years.97 As part of that campaign, Tate was forced to reveal the true scale of BP’s sponsorship payments to the gallery following an Information Tribunal. BP’s payments were significantly smaller than many had previously been thought – just £350,000 per year in 2007-2011. BP attributed its decision to end its sponsorship of Tate to the low oil price and a ‘challenging business environment’, but the company planned to increase its CEO’s remuneration in 2016 by significantly more than the value of the Tate sponsorship deal before the plan was opposed by shareholders.98

96 See: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/dnc-ban-fossil-fuel-donations_us_5b20116ae4b09d7a3d77d094 97 See: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/mar/11/bp-to-end-tate-sponsorship-climate-protests 98 See: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/aug/31/tate-paid-350000-pounds-a-year-bp- sponsorship-figures-reveal

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 The British Museum

79. In April 2016, around one hundred high-profile cultural figures called on the British Museum’s new director to abandon its relationship with BP in a letter to The Guardian.99 The museum has faced numerous creative and large-scale protests from activist theatre group BP or not BP? and others, with a notable escalation over the past 4 years. A report published in 2017 alleged that the museum had breached its own internal rules in its decision to renew BP’s sponsorship.100

Southbank Centre

80. In January 2014, it was announced that Shell would no longer be sponsor of the Southbank Centre’s ‘Shell Classic International’ concert series. This followed a sustained campaign of creative interventions by groups such as Rising Tide and Shell Out Sounds, engagement activity by the organisation Platform and a letter printed in the Guardian calling for an end to the sponsorship deal.101

The National Portrait Gallery

81. The National Portrait Gallery has faced regular opposition to its relationship with BP, with young campaigners ‘Children Against Global Warming’ holding a protest performance in the gallery, as well as interventions from Liberate Tate and members of the wider Art Not Oil coalition. The national tour of the BP Portrait Award has also encountered creative protests during its display at the Scottish National Portrait Gallery in Edinburgh and at the Ulster Museum in Belfast. Criticism of BP sponsorship of the Gallery is regularly voiced by visitors and others via social media. Many artists have spoken out against the partnership, notably Raoul Martinez who has been shortlisted for the award three times.102 In 2017, artist Henry Christian-Slane donated part of his prize money for the BP Young Artist award to Greenpeace in protest at BP’s sponsorship of the award.103

The Science Museum

82. In October 2016, over fifty scientists and policy-makers called on the Science Museum to rethink its sponsorship deal with Statoil in a letter to The Guardian, and the launch of Wonderlab: the Statoil Gallery saw an intervention by campaigners from the UK and youth activists who had travelled from Norway to oppose the partnership.104 The Science Museum has also faced creative protests in relation to its partnerships with BP and Shell.

99 See: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/apr/03/mark-ruffalo-british-museum-drop-bp-sponsorship- letter-oil 100 See: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-museum-bp-sponsorship-deal-art-not-oil- broke-own-rules-trustees-foi-a7340801.html 101 See: http://www.internationalartsmanager.com/news/arts/end-of-shells-southbank-sponsorship.html 102 See: https://cultureunstained.org/2018/06/11/7-things-you-should-know-about-the-bp-portrait-award/ 103 See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/08/artist-donates-part-of-bp-prize-money-to- greenpeace-in-oil-sponsorship-protest 104 See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/10/science-museum-condemned-for-oil- company-sponsorship

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018

Wider cultural sector

83. In recent years, a growing consensus has emerged within the cultural sector around the issue of oil sponsorship, and ethical sponsorship more broadly. This includes:

a. Four hundred artists and arts organisations pledging to be ‘Oil Sponsorship Free’, with many revising or updating internal ethics policies to recognise this shift in ethical standards.105 This included one of Norway’s most popular music festivals, Øyafestivalen.

b. In response to the renewal of BP’s sponsorship of the British Museum, National Portrait Gallery, Royal Opera House and Royal Shakespeare Company in 2016, 217 arts and culture professionals, scientists and campaigners signed a letter to The Times calling for the deals to be cancelled.106

c. The PCS Union passing a motion to formally support the campaign against oil sponsorship of arts and cultural institutions in the UK.107

d. Arts Professional magazine undertook an in-depth survey into the issue of ethical sponsorship in 2018 in response to the growing interest in this area prompted, in part, by the growing movement against fossil fuel funding of arts and cultural institutions.108

105 See: http://oilsponsorshipfree.org/ 106 See: http://www.artnotoil.org.uk/blog/200-sign-letter-demanding-end-bp-sponsorship 107 See: https://bp-or-not-bp.org/2015/05/20/gallery-and-museum-workers-vote-to-oppose-oil-sponsorship/ 108 See: https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/pulse/survey-report/pulse-report-ethics-arts-sponsorship

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018

C. RELEVANT POLICIES AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

(1) The SMG’s own policies and procedures

84. The SMG’s vision is:

‘A society that celebrates science, technology and engineering and their impact on our lives, now and in the future’

The SMG’s mission is:

• Creative exploration of science, technical innovation and industry, and how these made and still sustain modern society • Building a scientifically literate society, using the history, present and future of science, technology, medicine, transport and media to grow ‘science capital’ • Inspiring the next generations of scientists, inventors and engineers

The SMG’s strategic priorities are:

• Grow ‘science capital’ in individuals and society • Grow our audiences and exceed their expectations • Sustain and grow our world-class collection • Extend our international reach • Transform our estate • Harness the potential of digital • Increase income

In its Annual Review 2016-17, the SMG states that:

‘We aspire to the highest international museum standards in the care and preservation of collections, scholarship, programming, learning and advocacy for our subject areas.’ 109

85. The SMG’s ‘public task’, defined in accordance with the National Heritage Act 1983, specifies that the SMG shall:

‘(a) care for, preserve and add to the objects in their collections, (b) secure that the objects are exhibited to the public, (c) secure that the objects are available to persons seeking to inspect them in connection with study or research, (d) generally promote the public’s enjoyment and understanding of science and technology and of the development of those subjects, both by means of the Board’s collections and by such other means as they consider appropriate, and (e) provide education, instruction and advice, and carry out research.’110

109 See: https://group.sciencemuseum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/SMG-Annual-Review-2016-17.pdf 110 See: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/47/section/10

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018

The National Heritage Act 1983 does not make explicit reference to corporate sponsorship or partnerships as a means of income generation although subsection (3) notes:

‘Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board may do such things (including requiring payment for admission or for other services or for goods provided by them) as they think necessary or expedient…’

Of relevance to this complaint is subsection (6) as relates to the use of premises by those who have agreed corporate partnerships or sponsorship agreements with the SMG:

‘The Board may allow premises occupied or managed by them to be used by other persons (for payment or otherwise) for purposes not connected with the functions mentioned in subsection (1) if the Board are satisfied that to do so would not conflict unduly with those functions.’ [Emphasis added]

86. The Sustainable Development Policy currently published on the SMG’s website was approved in October 2010 as the policy of the National Museum of Science and Industry. The full policy is available as Exhibit 4.111 It states that:

‘…We are committed to improving the environmental and ethical performance of all our activities, and encouraging others to reduce their impact…’

And to achieve that by undertaking steps that include:

• Helping our audiences understand environmental & climate science and engaging them with ways in which they can minimise their environmental impact. • Reducing our energy demands and using renewable power sources whenever practicable. • Considering, and aiming to minimise, the full impact on the environment of any new venture or project, including the policies and practices of any contractors and suppliers. • Encouraging suppliers and contractors, through appropriate specifications, to develop and supply environmentally preferable goods and services.’

And concludes by stating that (emphasis added):

‘In summary, we will take into account sustainability issues when making strategic and operational decisions.’

87. The SMG has a Group Ethics Policy, last updated in December 2016. That policy is also accompanied by a Due Diligence Process adopted on the 30th April 2017. The Group Ethics Policy can be viewed in full as Exhibit 5.112

111 See: https://group.sciencemuseum.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2017/06/sustainable_development_policy.pdf

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018

88. The Group Ethics Policy part (1) states that the Group:

‘…Respects the professional and ethical principles that cover all internal and external relationships with regard to SMG being a public sector and charitable body as well as a cultural, academic, scientific and educational institution.’

89. The Group Ethics Policy part (2) also states that:

‘SMG depends on the trust and confidence of all those with whom the Museum and its subsidiaries come into contact in order to fulfil its purpose. This trust and confidence depends on the Museum’s reputation for acting ethically, with integrity and to the highest professional standards.’

90. The Group Ethics Policy part (5) on Fundraising states that:

‘There may be occasions when SMG will have to turn down opportunities of external funding, including gifts in kind and objects, where SMG believes that acceptance could have a detrimental effect on its reputation.’

And also:

‘SMG will not accept donations, sponsorship or grants where the donor has acted, or believed to have acted, illegally in the acquisition of funds.’

‘[The Museum] will not seek or accept donations or sponsorship where acceptance of funds would:

o harm the Science Museum Group’s duty to other benefactors, partners, visitors or stakeholders

o creation of unacceptable conflict of interest

o materially damage the reputation, independence and integrity of the Science Museum Group

o detrimentally affect the ability of the Science Museum Group to fulfil its mission in any way, including interference in the editorial freedom of Science Museum Group in its exhibitions and programme

In general, any sponsor, donor or grantor should appreciate and support SMG’s values, mission and objectives.’

91. In part (6) of the Group Ethics Policy on Commercial arrangements, the SMG notes:

112 See: https://group.sciencemuseum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Group-Ethics-Policy.pdf

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 ‘SMG enters into a variety of commercial arrangements and activities with a wide range of partner institutions, companies and individuals… Any such commercial arrangement or activity in and of itself does not represent an endorsement of the aims, goals or principles of the partner organisation.’

Part (5) Fundraising and part (6) Commercial arrangements are clearly delineated within the Group Ethics Policy. As such, it can be reasonably inferred from the policy that fundraising partnerships – unlike commercial arrangements – do represent an endorsement of the aims, goals or principles of the partner organisation, as no equivalent clarification is made within this section.

92. Appendix A: Due Diligence Process, which accompanies the Group Ethics Policy states that:

‘Relationships with funders should be subject to prior and continuing consideration in order to confirm that they support SMG’s mission, vision and strategic aims and are consistent with our overall objectives.’

(2) External Legal Obligations and Policies

93. Before accepting new or renewed sponsorship deals, the SMG has an obligation to undertake a thorough and well-documented process of due diligence when assessing potential corporate partners, a requirement specified by the Museums Association’s ‘Code of Ethics’, the Institute of Fundraising’s ‘Code of Fundraising Practice’ and a standard of scrutiny expected by the Charities Commission.

The Code of Fundraising Practice

94. The SMG’s trustees not only have powers according to the SMG’s own policies but legal duties also. The SMG is an exempt charity and the trustees therefore have a duty to ensure the Group is run in accordance with its own constitution and all relevant laws.

95. The Charities Commission ‘expects all charities that fundraise to fully comply with the Code [of Fundraising Practice]’.113 L11.2 (a) from the Code of Fundraising Practice notes the following legal requirement:

‘Trustees MUST* ensure that the charity’s assets and resources are used only for the purposes of the charity and that the charity is run in accordance with its constitution, charity law and all other applicable laws and regulations.’ [Emphasis added]114

113 P6, Section 3 from ‘Guidance – Charity Fundraising: A Guide to Trustee Duties (CC20)’, Charities Commission. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/566105/CC20.pdf 114 L11.2 (a) from ‘Key Requirements – Trustee Duties’, Code of Fundraising Practice, Fundraising Regulator’s website. [Asterisk denotes a legal requirement, as identified by the Fundraising Regulator.] See: https://www.fundraisingregulator.org.uk/l11-0-trustee-duties/

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 96. Article 12.3 (a) of the ‘Code of Fundraising Practice’ states that:

‘Organisations MUST carry out a process of due diligence, proportionate to the scale of the relationship, before engaging in a partnership.’ [Emphasis added]115

97. Article L11.2 (b) in the Code of Fundraising Practice makes clear that:

‘Trustees have ultimate responsibility for everything the charity does. The trustees are responsible for the vision, mission and management of the charity. While they may delegate in some circumstances, it is the trustees who are accountable if things go wrong.’116

Duties of trustees under Charity Law

98. In its guidance, the Charities Commission lays out the responsibilities of trustees of charities. It specifies the following:

‘Before decisions are made about whether an agreement with a commercial partner is in your charity’s best interests you should have effective systems in place to ensure that…the partner is a suitable and appropriate body to work with – a significant aspect of a trustee’s legal duty to protect charitable assets, and to do so with care, means that there should be proper due diligence checks on those organisations that work closely with the charity; ensuring that the appropriate level of research and checks are carried out will help you and your co-trustees to satisfy yourselves about the solvency, integrity and reputation of the partner and their ability to deliver to an acceptable standard.’ [Emphasis added]117

99. The SMG’s trustees have a legal duty to safeguard the SMG’s reputation and manage risks. The Charities Commission also specifies that for more significant partnerships, a more extensive process of due diligence is required:

‘Other donors give significant grants to charity and the charity may have a close working relationship with them. It is for significant donors like these that trustees are likely to need to carry out further due diligence and take steps to identify and verify the identity of the donor so they can assess any risks.’ [Emphasis added]118

115 12.3. (a) ‘Preparation’, from ‘Code of Fundraising Practice’, Fundraising Regulator’s website. See: https://www.fundraisingregulator.org.uk/12-0-corporate-partners/ 116 L11.2 (b) from ‘Key Requirements – Trustee Duties’, Code of Fundraising Practice, Fundraising Regulator’s website. See: https://www.fundraisingregulator.org.uk/l11-0-trustee-duties/ 117 Article 5.3 from ‘Guidance – Charity Fundraising: A Guide to Trustee Duties (CC20)’, Charities Commission. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/566105/CC20.pdf 118 Article 5.1 from Chapter 2, ‘Compliance Toolkit: Protecting Charities from Harm’, Charities Commission. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/protecting-charities-from-harm-compliance-toolkit

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 100. Much of what is laid out by the Charities Commission is given as best practice but it is by undertaking these steps that trustees can be said to have fulfilled their legal obligations. Crucially, the Charities Commission suggests that for significant donors – which the SMG believes Shell, BP and Statoil to be – trustees will likely need to carry out or request more in-depth or extensive due diligence checks, above and beyond what would be considered standard practice.

Institute of Fundraising’s Guidance

101. Further to this, the Institute of Fundraising’s ‘Guidance on working with business’ outlines what should be considered standard practice in terms of decision-making processes relating to arrangements with corporate partners:

‘A policy on working with companies, agreed by the trustees, is essential for a charity to be able to engage effectively with the corporate sector. The policy should define the parameters of associations across all types of corporate and partnership activity. However this is just the first step. There needs to be a process for decision-making, including a clear delegation of responsibilities, since working with companies is the classic example of where value judgements need to be made. All those responsible for the development of these relationships should be given specific instruction on the charity's boundaries on corporate engagement and at what point the decision making body decides whether or not an initiatives should proceed. The complexity of the issues that need to be addressed will define the process.’119

Museums Association’s ‘Code of Ethics’

102. The SMG abides by the Museums Association Code of Ethics.120 The Museums Association expects museums to seek support from organisations whose ‘ethical values are consistent with those of the museum’. In order to do this, the SMG needs to have demonstrated that its ethical values are consistent with sponsorship relationships with BP, Shell and Statoil/Equinor.

103. Article 3.6 of the Museums Association’s Code of Ethics specifies that museums should:

‘Carefully consider offers of financial support from commercial organisations and other sources in the UK and internationally and seek support from organisations whose ethical values are consistent with those of the museum. Exercise due diligence in understanding the ethical standards of commercial partners with a view to maintaining public trust and integrity in all museum activities.” [Emphasis added]121

119 ‘Charities Working With Business’, from the Institute of Fundraising. See: http://www.institute-of- fundraising.org.uk/code-of-fundraising-practice/guidance/charities-working-with-business-guidance/ 120 ‘Code of Ethics’, Museums Association. See: http://www.museumsassociation.org/download?id=1155827 121 Ibid.

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 104. In their Additional Guidance document accompanying the Code of Ethics, the Museums Association specifies the following:

‘When considering partnerships or sponsorships, museums should consider whether the non-museum partner’s activities and ethos are aligned with those of the museum. It is the responsibility of the museum to conduct due diligence on potential and current partners and understand their ethical standards to ensure that public trust can be upheld, and that neither the institution nor the sector are brought into disrepute. Where this is not the case, the museum should consider seeking alternative partners or sponsors.’ [Emphasis added]122

105. On the Museums Association’s website, it elaborates on this issue through a case study where a fictitious oil company attempts to sponsor a museum. In this case study, the expectations of how such a decision-making process should be undertaken are made clear:

“…The museum ought to actively seek out support from organisations whose values chime with those of the museum, rather than those whose values appear at odds with those of the museum. The museum will also need to conduct thorough and well documented research to demonstrate that they have understood the nature of the company’s business, and any claims made against it. The museum must also make a judgment about whether the involvement of the oil company is a reputational risk that will damage the museum’s standing with the public.”123 [Emphasis added]

122 Additional Guidance to ‘Code of Ethics’, Museums Association. See: http://www.museumsassociation.org/download?id=1173810 123 Case Study: ‘Ethical Dilemmas – Sponsorship’, Museums Association website. See: http://www.museumsassociation.org/ethics/26012016-ethical-dilemmas-sponsorship

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 D. BREACHES

(1) SMG’s due diligence reporting

106. Following a Freedom of Information request to the SMG made on the 10th May 2018 for details of its due diligence processes in relation to the ‘last two formally agreed partnerships or sponsorship agreements made with each company’, one report per company was disclosed. These due diligence reports are included as Exhibit 6.

107. Following a Freedom of Information request to the SMG made on the 6th July 2017 requesting details of its due diligence process in relation to BP’s 2015-16 sponsorship of the Cosmonauts: Birth of the Space Age exhibition, the SMG confirmed that no such report or record of due diligence existed. The SMG highlighted that its current Ethics Policy, which requires such a process to be undertaken, was ratified by the Board of Trustees in 2017, and the earlier version of the Ethics Policy, which was in force at the time:

‘…Did not contain the same due diligence requirements as our current policy’

This previous version of the Ethics Policy is included as Exhibit 7.

108. The disclosure of a due diligence report on Statoil dated 31st May 2016 indicates that due diligence processes and related record-keeping were inconsistent or selective prior to the ratification of the new Group Ethics Policy.

109. The disclosure of a due diligence report on Shell dated 11th May 2018 raises the possibility that the report was only created or revised as a consequence of a Freedom of Information request being received the day before, despite the SMG having been in partnership with Shell for many years until December 2017, and revealing that it continued to engage with the company about possible future collaboration subsequently. See Exhibit 8.

110. These disclosures by the SMG indicate that the partnerships made prior to the ratification of the updated Group Ethics Policy were not subjected to proper scrutiny or a meaningful process of due diligence. In relation to the Museums Association’s Code of Ethics, the SMG did not exercise due diligence in understanding the ethical standards of the three companies, despite the existence of substantive concerns about them. The SMG therefore proceeded to form, renew and continue these partnerships without adhering to expected sector-wide standards.

111. By failing to ensure that the due diligence and decision-making processes were conducted properly prior to 2017, the SMG’s trustees had been neglecting their legal duty to safeguard its reputation. During this period, areas of concern, including those set out in the complaint, should have been raised, scrutinised and identified as creating an unacceptable level of risk to the SMG’s integrity, its reputation and that of the wider sector. Historically, the three oil companies have been considered ‘significant donors’, with both BP and Shell directly involved in influencing or informing the content of exhibitions at the SMG, and Statoil being granted title rights

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 as sponsor of Wonderlab. The SMG therefore failed to fulfil the standards set out by the Charities Commission, as noted in paragraphs 45 and 46 of this complaint, where the SMG should have ensured that both ‘the appropriate level of research’ was carried out and that ‘further due diligence checks’ were made given the apparent significance of the partnerships.

112. While the due diligence reports disclosed by the SMG demonstrate that processes of due diligence have more recently been undertaken, the reports fail to:

a. Fully assess evidence of the oil companies' ongoing contribution to climate change; specifically, the inconsistency of their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions with sustaining a stable climate in line with the goals set out in the Paris Climate Accord;

b. Acknowledge the companies' historical involvement in spreading climate disinformation and current lobbying activities, both directly and through industry groups, against effective climate policies in line with the scientific consensus on climate change;

c. Identify the full range of potential concerns around each company that are in the public domain, including those cited in this complaint;

d. Provide sufficient depth and insight into the cases that have been cited;

e. Identify all relevant areas of concern, and clearly relate them to the SMG’s internal policies and those of sector-wide bodies.

113. Consequently, the SMG has failed to undertake a ‘careful review of proposed and ongoing relationships’ as set out in Appendix A of the Group Ethics Policy. [Emphasis added]. The due diligence reports run counter to the guidance set out by the Museums Association as they fail to demonstrate that the SMG has fully understood the nature of the three companies' businesses, the claims made against them and whether their ‘activities and ethos are aligned with those of the museum’.

(2) Breaches and conflicts with the SMG’s own policies and external obligations

114. The SMG’s continued partnerships and/or relationships with the three companies breach the Group Ethics Policy.

115. Firstly, it is not in the best interests of the Group to accept funding from fossil fuel companies given the widespread concerns outlined in Section B above. Not only are these three companies significant contributors to climate change, one or more of them have obstructed climate legislation, engaged in corruption and committed grave safety violations, causing untold environmental harm.

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 116. In some cases, the companies have tangible links to the spread or promotion of climate disinformation. By undermining the pursuit of scientific literacy, they cannot be said to ‘appreciate and support SMG’s values, mission and objectives’, or appreciate the role and status of scientific institutions. The values of the companies are in direct conflict with the SMG’s public task ‘to promote the public’s understanding of science’.

117. The examples included in this complaint demonstrate that the oil companies are not committed in any meaningful way to addressing perhaps the most urgent scientific challenge of our time, that of climate change. For the SMG to knowingly provide a platform for these companies to falsely claim such a commitment to their ‘customers, industry leaders, academics and government’ undermines the Group’s integrity and standards as a scientific institution. Consequently, these partnerships violate or are inconsistent with the clear criteria and approach set out in the Group Ethics Policy.

118. There are numerous past and current examples of litigation against all three companies' environmental impacts and corrupt activity, some of which are acknowledged within the due diligence reports disclosed by the SMG. The scale, significance and regularity of such criminal activity indicates that such transgressions are factored into their business plans. It is from the profits of such activities that the funds paid to the SMG are drawn and therefore any such corporate partnership with these oil companies legitimises these unethical business practices and conflicts with the spirit of the Group Ethics Policy as regards the acquisition of funds.

119. Fundamentally, partnerships with these companies are in breach of the Group Ethics Policy because they are damaging to the SMG’s ‘duty to its benefactors, partners, visitors or stakeholders’. In particular:

a. Scientists and members of the science community who expect the Science Museum to uphold the highest possible standards in terms of independence, scrutiny and communication of scientific knowledge.

b. Young people, especially young visitors who look to the SMG to help develop their scientific literacy. This is particularly concerning in relation to their ability to respond to climate change, including critically assessing its causes and understanding the obstacles to effective solutions.

c. Communities directly impacted by climate change and the operational activity of these companies. As part of the SMG’s strategic goal of extending its international reach, it bears an ethical responsibility to such groups as well as any direct 'source communities’ that may also be affected.

120. Many of the cases highlighted in section B(7) are clearly acknowledged within the relevant SMG due diligence reports, but the SMG has failed to then enforce its Group Ethics Policy and reject or curtail these partnerships.

121. There is evidence that some of the companies in question have sought to and in some cases succeeded in directly influencing the presentation and content of exhibitions, to the extent that the SMG’s editorial independence and integrity have been called into

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 question. The nature and terms of some of the corporate partnerships have also created situations in which the potential for self-censorship to occur has been notably heightened.

122. Paragraph 6.5 of the SMG’s contract with Statoil/Equinor requires Science Museum staff and trustees to ‘take care [not to] make any statement or issue any publicity or otherwise be involved in any conduct or matter that may reasonably be foreseen as discrediting or damaging the goodwill or reputation of the Sponsor’. Because of the nature of the sponsor's business, this clause increases the likelihood of self-censorship and curtails staff and trustees' ability to comment freely upon the issues raised in this complaint, such as the role of fossil fuel companies in driving climate change and the scientific consensus around the need to rapidly transition away from oil, gas and coal. 124 This clause goes against the ethos set out in paragraph 1.2 of the Museums Association’s ‘Code of Ethics’ which states that museums should ‘ensure editorial integrity in programming and interpretation’ and ‘resist attempts to influence interpretation or content by particular interest groups, including lenders, donors and funders.’ 125 These concerns are heightened by past attempts by Shell to avoid the possibility of reasonable scrutiny of their business activities within the museum’s events programme. See paragraph 124.

123. BP was directly involved in the development of the content for the interactive Energy Gallery, and as noted above, BP subsequently commissioned a similar gallery directly based on the Energy Gallery at the Sangachal Visitors Centre in Azerbaijan with the purpose of promoting ‘[Azerbaijan’s] role in the world’s oil and gas industry’. Hannah Redler, the project leader of the Science Museum gallery in London when it was conceived and designed, said at the time:

‘We always ask our sponsors for help but we are not always able to mine them for information.’126

BP formed an Advisory Board of ten members of its staff headed by its Vice President Peter Mather with the purpose of informing and shaping the gallery’s content. The Science Museum’s sponsorship liaison manager at the time of the Energy Gallery’s design and delivery commented that:

‘The Science Museum’s goal is to maximize its relationship with BP… We would like to help them meet their objectives on different levels, including corporate responsibility, education strategy and global strategy. This is not an unusual approach for us, but not every funder is BP. Together we are looking to push the frontiers of the relationship.’127

124. Emails disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act in 2015 showed that Shell had sought to directly influence the presentation of the Science Museum’s climate science

124 See Exhibit 2. 125 See: https://www.museumsassociation.org/download?id=1155827 126 See: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fp4q8l60f98qvl8/AADv6AXj3h9kw82KprLPTcpua?dl=0&preview=31.+BP%27s+pro motional+material+for+Science+Museum+%27Energy%27+gallery+-+online+document+no+longer+available.pdf 127 Ibid.

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 gallery, Atmosphere, as well as aspects of the wider events programme.128 The most concerning examples included:

a. An email dated 8 May 2014 where a Shell employee receives an update from the Science Museum and replies ‘Regards the rubbish archive project [an interactive exhibition examining waste in the context of climate change], xxx and I have some concerns on this exhibition particularly as it creates an opportunity for NGOs to talk about some of the issues that concern them around Shell’s operations… Could you please share more information with us on the symposium event planned for September? As you know we receive a great deal of interest around our art sponsorships so need to ensure we do not proactively open up a debate on the topic. Will it be an invite only event?’ [Emphasis added].

b. An email from a Shell employee which states that, ‘there is now a CCS [Carbon Capture and Storage] video that is currently being produced based on Shell’s CCS video’ for the Atmosphere gallery. [Emphasis added].

c. In a discussion over email of how to display a report by James Lovelock, a Shell employee said ‘In terms of the broader content, for me what was really interesting was how Lovelock sketched out the big trends driven by a rising population – in terms of energy use, urbanization, public transport, communications, etc. I wondered if this was something you wanted to reflect? If possible I’d prefer the wording not to focus on pollution and environmental damage’.129 [Emphasis added]

125. For the reasons outlined above, BP, Shell and Statoil/Equinor are not consistent with the SMG’s ethos, ethical values and the ‘promotion of the public’s understanding of science and technology’.

128 See: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/31/shell-sought-influence-direction-sciencemuseum-climate-programme 129 The emails highlighted can be viewed at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ddz2fg9vwzt7x31/shell%20science%20museum%20foi%20-%20highlights.pdf?dl=0

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 E. REMEDIES

126. In order to remedy these breaches and conflicts, the SMG should:

c. carefully test those 'areas of concern' and the evidence behind them against the SMG’s mission, values and Group Ethics Policy, clearly identifying where any ethical conflicts lie;

127. Having done so, the SMG should remedy the ethical conflicts identified by either: (a) terminating its existing relationships with BP, Shell and Statoil/Equinor; or (b) if that is not contractually possible, committing to terminating the relationships at the expiry of the agreements currently in force. The Board of Trustees, as well as the Director and management team, must be prepared to take this action, as is consistent with their legal obligations.

128. In order to restore public trust and protect its reputation, the Science Museum Group should also:

129. The Museum is asked to respond to this complaint within 20 days informing the signatories of how it will be addressed by the SMG. We consider that it is appropriate for this complaint, in the light of its subject matter and seriousness, to be escalated directly to the Board of Trustees of the Science Museum Group and considered at their next scheduled meeting.

130. If no response is received and/or the response provided is inadequate as it fails to address the concerns raised herein, we will then refer this matter to the relevant regulatory sector-wide bodies.

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Gmail - FOI/2018/0026 - Response 24/05/2018, 14:14

Chris Garrard

F. FOI/2018/0026EXHIBITS - Response 1 message SCM Freedom of Information Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:53 PM ExhibitTo: Chris 1 - FreedomGarrard of Information response issued by the Science Museum Group in relation to Shell partnerships

Dear Dr Garrard,

FOI/2018/0026

Thank you for your Freedom of Information (FOI) request dated 24 April 2018, and later clariﬁed 10 May 2018.

In relation to your three part request we have prepared the following:

1. We have attached copies of correspondence between Science Museum and Royal Dutch Shell since August 2017. We have applied redactions to the correspondence in line with FOI legislation. These redactions include Sec 40 the removal of personal data, Sec 43 information that impacts the commercial interest of the parties, Sec 22 information that is intended for future publication, Sec 41 information that was provided in conﬁdence and, Sec 38 information that would be likely to endanger individuals’ safety.

2. We are in discussion with Shell about delivering some Science Museum outreach activity at Make the Future 2018, any correspondence on the matter has been included here. Our outreach team deliver charged for sessions for schools, communities and festivals around the UK. The aim is to inform and inspire young people with STEM subjects, but also to raise income to ﬁnancially support the substantial learning offer of the Museum.

3. We are not currently in contract with Shell, but, as with any of our corporate relationships, we continue to engage them in a conversation about areas of shared interest, such as the STEM skills gap. The Museum is ideally placed to help address the chronic shortage of young people studying STEM subjects to A-Level and beyond, but it is only through talking to and working with industry, government departments, trusts, foundations, and individuals, that we are able to continue our work in this area. We have attached copies of our previous contracts as requested that include; Shell’s Corporate Membership Contract (2016), Atmosphere Gallery Sponsorship Contract (2009) and, an amendment to our past Building Bridges contract, transferring ownership from BG International to Shell (2016). We have applied redactions to the correspondence in line with FOI legislation. These redactions include Sec 40 the removal of personal data and, Sec 43 information that impacts the commercial interest of the parties.

If you are dissatisﬁed with the handling of your request for further information, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of receipt of the response to your original letter and should be addressed to: freedomoﬁ[email protected]

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5c657dc65e&jsver=FPv…view=pt&search=inbox&th=1638d7e34f54a76f&siml=1638d7e34f54a76f Page 1 of 3

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Gmail - FOI/2018/0026 - Response 24/05/2018, 14:14

Please remember to quote the reference number FOI/2018/0026 in any future communication about this request.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision (please be aware that the Commissioner will be unlikely to make a decision until you have been through our internal complaints procedure ﬁrst). The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner's Ofﬁce, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION TEAM

Science Museum Group

Part of the Science Museum Group, which also includes: National Science and Media Museum, Bradford; Museum of Science and Industry, Manchester; National Railway Museum, York; Locomotion, Shildon

Don’t miss Illuminating India – a season of exhibitions and events

For updates on all Science Museum news and events sign up to our free e-newsletter at www.sciencemuseum.org.uk

This e-mail and attachments are intended for the named addressee only and are confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately, delete the message from your computer system and destroy any copies. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not reflect the views of the Science Museum Group. Please note that any information sent, received or held by Science Museum Group may be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.

4 attachments https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5c657dc65e&jsver=FPv…view=pt&search=inbox&th=1638d7e34f54a76f&siml=1638d7e34f54a76f Page 2 of 3

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018

Exhibit 2 – Page 9 from the SMG’s sponsorship contract with Statoil Full contract available at: http://www.cultureunstained.org/smgcomplaint

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Exhibit 3 – Email correspondence between SMG and Shell on collaboration (2017)

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Exhibit 4 – NMSI Sustainable Development Policy (as published on the SMG website)

NMSI Sustainable Development Policy

The National Museum of Science and Industry corporate vision is to be the most admired museums in the world and thus to be a source of pride to our public, supporters and staff.

To achieve this vision we are committed to improving the environmental and ethical performance of all our activities, and encouraging others to reduce their impact, through:-

• Helping our audiences understand environmental & climate science and engaging them with ways in which they can minimise their environmental impact.

• Reducing our energy demands and using renewable power sources whenever practicable.

• Considering, and aiming to minimise, the full impact on the environment of any new venture or project, including the policies and practices of any contractors and suppliers.

• Sourcing and using materials and products, where specification, design and function allow, that will have the minimum environmental impact.

• Minimising waste, and progressively improving re-use and recycling.

• Promoting and enhancing bio-diversity within NMSI estate where opportunity allows.

• Taking into account the ethical and social impacts of our supply chain and operations, opting for best practice where opportunity allows.

• Encouraging all our staff and volunteers to be environmentally conscious, and training relevant employees in environmental practices and legislation that applies to NMSI activities.

• Encouraging suppliers and contractors, through appropriate specifications, to develop and supply environmentally preferable goods and services.

• Ensure compliance with environmental legislation and, where practicable, good practice, and UK Government protocol to promote the sustainable use or protection of natural resources.

• Planning for, and where possible adopting a life-cycle approach to sustainability for all new projects or operational activities, to demonstrate a long-term commitment to environmental objectives.

In summary, we will take into account sustainability issues when making strategic and operational decisions. We seek to deliver the policy over a three-year programme, culminating in a published annual report. This policy is supported by a set of guidelines and examples of good-practice from across the sector.

Document –NMSI SD Policy v7, Author Matt Moore, 07.10.10, APPROVED

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Exhibit 5 – SMG’s Group Ethics Policy

GROUP ETHICS POLICY - UPDATED December 2016

Summary/key points

1. Context

SMG is governed by the Heritage Act (1983) as well as UK and international law, and respects the professional and ethical principles that cover all internal and external relationships with regard to SMG being a public sector and charitable body as well as a cultural, academic, scientific and educational institution.

This policy applies to all representatives of SMG, paid or otherwise, including:

• Staff • Trustees • Advisors • Volunteers

2. Principles and behaviours

SMG’s principal aim and statutory purpose is to care for, preserve and add to the collections that we display for public benefit. SMG therefore has a duty to be transparent, accountable, and to always act in the public interest.

SMG depends on the trust and confidence of all those with whom the Museum and its subsidiaries come into contact in order to fulfil its purpose. This trust and confidence depends on the Museum’s reputation for acting ethically, with integrity and to the highest professional standards.

All representatives of SMG; paid or otherwise, are expected to act in accordance with the following behaviours:

• Honesty (not to mislead) • Integrity • Impartiality • Mutual respect • Avoids personal gain • Avoids conflict of interest

All representatives of SMG paid or otherwise, are expected to understand their responsibilities and follow appropriate policies and procedures as set out in the Code of Conduct for SMG Staff (2013), Code of Best Practice for Members of the Board of Trustees (2011) and the Seven Principles of Public Life (Nolan Committee, March 1996).

3. Procedures

In furtherance of these principles all Trustees and senior staff of SMG shall make known to the Board chair or Director (as appropriate) any:

• actual, potential or perceived conflict between their own and SMG’s interests;

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 • actual, potential or perceived pecuniary interests (including fundraising or investment dealing) of theirs or of any member of their close family or friends which may be, or perceived to be, in conflict with the interests of SMG; • actual, potential or perceived conflicts between the interests of SMG and any relevant private entity.

SMG will maintain registers of interests for all Trustees, Directors and senior staff.

4. Collections

All representatives of SMG are expected to follow appropriate policies and procedures as set out in the Collections Development Strategy, Museum Acquisition & Disposal Policies, Conservation Policy, Collections Information & Access Policy, and Operating Historic Exhibits Policy.

In summary, the ethical provisions in these policies state that SMG will:

• undertake due diligence to acquire valid title, and satisfaction that an item has been acquired or borrowed in compliance with the laws of each country through which it has passed; • reject any items that have been illicitly collected or traded as defined in cultural property legislation, or natural conservation legislation; • comply with legislation and guidance for the care of human remains in museums; • use and report upon the National Museum Directors’ Conference ‘Spoliation of Works of Art during the Holocaust and World War II period: Statement of Principles and Proposed Actions’; • obtain all statutory licences and permits necessary to comply with legislation and regulations to hold and use an item in the collection; • care for, conserve and use items in the collection appropriately, and reduce natural deterioration, as far as reasonably practicable; • establish sound curatorial reasons before consideration is given to the disposal of any item in the collection, and not undertake disposal principally for financial reasons, except in exceptional circumstances.

5. Fundraising

SMG actively seeks to work in partnership with external organisations and individuals to achieve shared objectives. To ensure SMG only solicits, accepts and stewards gifts from legitimate and acceptable sources, it maintains a process for fundraising and due diligence, and this is outlined in Appendix A.

• There may be occasions when SMG will have to turn down opportunities of external funding, including gifts in kind and objects, where SMG believes that acceptance could have a detrimental effect on its reputation.

• SMG will not accept donations, sponsorship or grants where a donation is made anonymously, through an intermediary, who is not prepared to identify the donor to SMG. SMG should avoid agreeing to requests for anonymity that conceal a conflict of interest, real or perceived, or that raise other ethical concerns.

• SMG will not accept donations, sponsorship or grants where the donor has acted, or believed to have acted, illegally in the acquisition of funds.

• SMG will not seek or accept donations or sponsorship where acceptance of these funds would damage its effective operation, including:

- harm to SMG’s duty to other benefactors, partners, visitors or stakeholders - creation of unacceptable conflict of interest

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 - materially damage the reputation, independence and integrity of SMG - detrimentally affecting the ability of SMG to fulfil its mission in any way, including interference in the editorial freedom of SMG in its exhibitions and programmes.

• In general, any sponsor, donor or grantor should appreciate and support SMG’s values, mission and objectives.

• SMG will recognize donor, sponsor or grantor support according to agreed standards, generally based on the level of support received.

• SMG reserves the right to consult and take advice from any relevant individual, business or organisation in the development of a gallery, exhibition, event or other cultural offering, including from sponsors, donors and partners, whilst always maintaining editorial freedom.

• Where SMG has applied for grants from an organisation, it will fulfil the terms and conditions of that grant.

• SMG must ensure that a relationship of trust is established with all funders by respecting confidentiality with collection and communication of relevant information only.

6. Commercial arrangements

SMG enters into a variety of commercial arrangements and activities with a wide range of partner institutions, companies and individuals, including but not limited to the hiring out of venues and spaces from across the SMG estate. The principle of impartiality will apply to all such arrangements, irrespective of age, sex, sexual orientation, race, creed, range of ability, language or religious belief.

Any such commercial arrangement or activity in and of itself does not represent an endorsement of the aims, goals or principles of the partner organisation. Partners cannot use any SMG museum logo or any elements of its brand identity in any of its advertising or publicity for the event without the prior written approval of SMG; the partner will also ensure that advertising and publicity material does not imply that the commercial activity event is endorsed, supported or organised by SMG without the prior written approval of SMG.

SMG reserves the right, at its own discretion, to refuse a booking in exceptional circumstances, including but not limited to:

- the commercial arrangement or activity brings, or is perceived to bring, SMG into disrepute because the partner’s activities are criminal or illegal - partners or their guests may behave, or be anticipated to behave, in a way that would put our collections at risk or constitute a breach of the law, or cause a nuisance - partners seek to sell tickets for the activity without the prior written approval of SMG - the activity aims to achieve public profile through press or marketing that takes advantage of SMG’s status and reputation, or is otherwise perceived to be seeking to exploit SMG’s reputation, without the express permission of SMG. - the activity will disrupt the normal operation of the museum, affect museum visitors or put SMG collections at risk - the activity is political and breaches government guidelines relating public sector impartiality.

An outline of the escalation route and decision-making process for commercial events bookings is included in Appendix B.

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018

Appendix A: Due Diligence Process

Science Museum Group, UPDATED 30 April 2017

SMG seeks and encourages funding from a range of sources including individuals, companies, charitable trusts and foundations and statutory funders.

Relationships with funders should be subject to prior and continuing consideration in order to confirm that they support SMG’s mission, vision and strategic aims and are consistent with our overall objectives.

Careful review of proposed and on-going relationships is required to mitigate the risk of ethical issues causing damage to the SMG’s reputation, reducing our ability to secure funding and reducing its capacity to develop beneficial relationships in the future.

Responsibility for the review of proposed funding rests with the Development Department, reporting to the Director of Development.

Our threshold for the due diligence process to be activated is £50k at the Science Museum, the National Railway Museum, Museum of Science and Industry and the National Science & Media Museum. The due diligence process will be triggered at a lower level if we are alerted to specific risks.

What should due diligence include, when is the process activated and who does it?

Due diligence research will be carried out by the research and analytics team within the Development Department. The due diligence procedure is activated when we are considering making a request for funding of £50k+ at the Science Museum, the National Railway Museum, Museum of Science and Industry and the National Science & Media Museum.

It will include:

• A summary of our existing relationship • Gift information – where is the money coming from, how much and what for • Source of wealth/income • Giving history/benchmark against similar organisations (who else are they funding) • Negative/positive press • Highlight any areas for concern

Referral Process

The Research and Analytics Team within the Development Department conduct the research to the agreed format, checking resources in the public domain listed below.

The report goes to the Development Director in the first instance who will assess and decide if a referral to SMG Director and the Director of External Affairs is necessary.

If SMG Director and the Director of External Affairs have concerns they will refer to the Board of Trustees for final decision.

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018

Development Department - Due Diligence Report

Date:

1. Name of donor/prospect:

2. Existing Relationship to Museum:

3. Gift Information (where it is coming from, amount and what for):

4. Source of Wealth:

5. Giving history/Associations with other benchmark organisations (examples of partnerships, major philanthropic gifts):

6. Negative/Positive Press:

7. Any Areas of Concern:

Source Checklist Y/N Information Checked

Charity Commission (or other relevant Legal status of charity, organisation for non-UK donors) latest accounts filed Companies House (or other relevant Disqualified directors organisation for non-UK donors) http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/dirsec Factiva (general press) Negative & positive press Dow Jones Risk & Compliance Dow Jones Sanction & Watch lists, Politically exposed persons, known criminal associates Any other sources

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Process

1. Fundraiser to request the research team do a due diligence check on a potential funder once they are close to ask stage and they meet the threshold criteria (£50k across all museums: the Science Museum, the National Railway Museum, Museum of Science and Industry and the National Science & Media Museum. The due diligence process will be triggered at a lower level if we are alerted to specific risks).

2. Fundraiser to fill out sections 1 -3 of due diligence report

3. Research team to complete report within agreed time frame.

4. The report goes to the Development Director in the first instance who will assess and decide if a referral to SMG Director and the Director of External Affairs is necessary.

5. If SMG Director and the Director of External Affairs have concerns they will refer to the Board of Trustees for final decision.

6. This trail will be recorded on Raiser’s Edge using the attribute Due Diligence Process which has a drop down menu as follows: • Request for due diligence • With research team • Referred to Development Director • Referred to SMG Director and the Director of External Affairs • Referred to Board of Trustees • Cleared • Rejected.

We will date and record who has requested the report to be done – example below.

The Due Diligence Report is also saved on Raiser’s Edge in the notes tab.

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Appendix B: Commercial Events Bookings

Science Museum Group, November 2016

Escalation route and decision-making process

• Events team deal with initial booking enquiry and escalates to Events Manager (North or South) in the first instance;

• Events Manager reviews booking enquiry and refers to Group Head of Commercial Operations should they have any concerns;

• Group Head refers to Commercial Director, who will assess and decide if a referral to the SMG Director of Corporate Services and SMG Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer (as the responsible Executives for SMG Enterprises) is necessary;

• If necessary, the SMG Deputy Director will escalate to the SMG Director and Director of External Affairs;

• If SMG Director and the Director of External Affairs have concerns they will refer to the Board of Trustees for a final decision;

• Event booking is accepted or rejected accordingly.

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Exhibit 6 – Due diligence reports disclosed by the SMG in response to a Freedom of Information request made 11th May 2017 on BP, Shell and Statoil

a) Due Diligence Report on BP, dated 30.03.17

Development Department - Due Diligence Report BP

Name of donor/prospect: BP

Existing Relationship to Museum: Funding partner for Enterprising Science project

Gift Information (where it is coming from, amount and what for): Approx for SMG Science Engagement Academy. Likely to come from community investment team.

Source of Wealth: BP is an oil and petrochemicals firm which supplies customers with fuel for transportation, energy for heat and light, lubricants to keep engines moving, and the petrochemicals products used to make products such as paints, clothes and packaging.

BP was established in the UK in 1909, after its founder first identified oil in Persia in 1908, and the global headquarters for the firm’s parent company, BP plc. are in London.

BP is one of the world’s largest energy companies, as well as being one of the biggest companies in the UK. BP now operates in more than 70 countries worldwide, employing over 80,000 people. BP plc. is the parent company of 93 BP subsidiaries, some of which also have their own subsidiaries. The business is separated into two distinct areas: Upstream (finding, developing and extracting oil and gas) and Downstream (transporting and trading, manufacturing, and marketing). After an early focus on the Middle East, upstream exploration now takes place in a number of countries including the USA, UK, Russia, Norway, Canada, South America and Asia. The company also has midstream activities in three major pipelines (the Trans Alaska pipeline system, the Forties, and the Central Area Transmission System). BP also operates a Renewables business sector, which is the largest amongst the major oil and gas firms, and which focuses on biofuels from Brazilian sugar cane and offshore wind.

BP brands also include Aral (a German fuel company); Castrol (motor oil); ampm (US convenience stores); and Wild Bean Café (cafes found in UK BP petrol stations). BP also owns a 19.75% stake in Russian oil and gas company Rosneft, with whom they have reciprocal agreements to jointly explore Russian oil fields.

BP plc. (the global parent company) had a turnover of £150.9bn in FY2015 but made a loss of £6.4bn overall. Turnovers in the four previous years had ranged between £227bn and £241bn, so the FY15 turnover was significantly lower, which the company attributes in its Annual Report to lower Upstream profits compared to previous years, which was only partially offset by increased Downstream earnings. The overall loss is partly attributable to these drops in profits, as well as to lower oil and gas prices, but also in large part due to claims arising from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. (Source: Annual Report 2015)

Financial reports for the latest quarter (Q4 2016) reveal quarterly profit of £497m. Figures comparing the actual year of 2016 with the year of 2015 showed that an overall profit of £115m, compared to a loss of £6.4bn in the same period of 2015. (Source: BP press release 07/02/17 – ‘Group results Fourth quarter and full year 2016’)

BP currently lists 141 institutional shareholders, of which the following own more than 1% of shares:

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018

(Source: MINT, accessed 30/03/17)

Giving history/Associations with other benchmark organisations (examples of partnerships, major philanthropic gifts):

CULTURAL BP gave £10m in five-year deals running up to 2017 to four organisations: the British Museum; the National Portrait Gallery; the Royal Opera House; and Tate Britain. (Source: BBC News 28/07/16)

“In support of our strategy, we recently announced a further five year investment of £7.5 million from 2018 for a range of projects at the British Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, the Royal Opera House and the Royal Shakespeare Company.” This confirms support for these organisations until 2022. (Source: BP website)

British Museum BP is one of the British Museum's longest-standing partners, supporting the public programme on an annual basis since 1996 and encouraging over 4 million visitors to attend an exhibition, display or activity. Sponsored exhibitions: Sunken Cities: Egypt’s Lost Worlds; Indigenous Australia: enduring civilisations; Ming: 50 years that changed China; Vikings: Life and Legend; Shakespeare: Staging the World.

Royal Opera House BP and the Royal Opera House (ROH) have worked together for 28 years, making this the ROH's longest corporate partnership. For the last 16 years, BP has supported the free Big Screens live relays of opera and ballet performances direct from Covent Garden to an increasing number of sites across the country. In 2016 around 23,000 people watched BP Big Screens in 14 locations across the UK.

National Portrait Gallery BP is the most enduring corporate supporter of the National Portrait Gallery. Indeed, the Gallery's annual BP Portrait Award, the world's most prestigious competition of its kind and aimed at encouraging artists to develop portraiture in their work, is now in its 28th year of sponsorship by BP.

Royal Shakespeare Company BP's relationship with the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) began in 2011 with support for The World Shakespeare Festival, a UK-wide, eight month celebration, produced by the RSC as part of the cultural celebrations for the London 2012 Olympics.

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018

The World Shakespeare Festival reached 1.8 million people as UK and international artists and producers explored Shakespeare as the world's playwright. It resulted in 69 productions, seven exhibitions, six film screenings, nine short plays, 263 amateur shows and 28 digital commissions and films.

In 2013, following this success, BP became the Project Partner for the RSC's £5 ticket scheme for 16- 25 year olds. In 2015, the BP 16-25 Shakespeare Pass was introduced. This enables young people in that age group to see five RSC productions in the Company's home town of Stratford-upon-Avon for just £20.

Hull City of Culture 2017 BP was the first major corporate partner to support Hull UK City of Culture 2017 which launched on the 1st January 2017. BP Cultural Visions Lecture series - in collaboration with the University of Hull, BP is running a series of lectures designed to spark reflections about culture.

Tate Britain BP had worked with Tate Britain since the beginning of 1990. The partnership ended February 2017 and there was speculation in press that this was connected to protests from climate change activists. (Source: FT https://www.ft.com/content/fc89bc54-e78f-11e5-bc31-138df2ae9ee6). FOI requests had shown that BP gave Tate £3.8m over a period of 17 years, averaging £224k per year. (Source: The Guardian, 26/01/15)

Edinburgh International Festival BP sponsored the Festival for 34 years, but in 2016 it was confirmed that this partnership had ended.

Natural History Museum BP supported the NHM from 1990 – 2013 (based on FOI request and annual reports; BP no longer mentioned as donor after FY13). In 2009 they were paying approx. £30k for a year of corporate membership. (Source: NHM annual report and https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/funding from bp)

STEM

Engineering Development Trust BP supports mentoring and coaching related to STEM subjects through sponsorship of the Engineering Development Trust’s Go4SET, Engineering Education Scheme and Headstart programmes and also the CREST awards from the British Science Association. (Source: BP website)

Exact amount given by BP unknown. In 2015, the Engineering Development Trust received £177.6k in total for unrestricted sponsorship. (Source: Charity Commission - http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends66/0001156066 AC 20150831 E C.PDF)

Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering BP is a founder donor to the Queen Elizabeth Prize (QEP), contributing £2m over 5 years. The QEP is a biannual global prize recognising and celebrating outstanding advances in engineering that have changed the world.

HIGHER EDUCATION/RESEARCH

University of Manchester In 2012 BP established a $100m International Centre for Advanced Materials (BP-ICAM), based at The University of Manchester, to support fundamental science and the engineering application of advanced materials for use in the energy sector. The ten-year investment will see Manchester acting as the ‘hub’ of the Centre, with ‘spokes’ in three world-leading universities – University of Cambridge, Imperial College London and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign – which have specific areas of expertise. (Source: http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=15003 http://www.icam-online.org/about-us/the-icam-story/)

Royal Academy of Engineering

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018

BP has committed to supporting the Academy’s Enterprise Hub for the next three years [announced October 2016], helping to grow programmes that identify and develop the UK’s most promising engineering and technology entrepreneurs. (source: RAE press release, 10/16). The RAE’s annual report confirmed that they had received £1.2m towards the Enterprise Hub in FY16. (Source: http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends74/0000293074 AC 20160331 E C.PDF)

Chatham House BP are listed as a Corporate Member of Chatham House : “the Royal Institute of International Affairs, is an independent policy institute based in London. Our mission is to help build a sustainably secure, prosperous and just world” Major Corporate Partnership is from and BP are listed as “Partners” which has no publicly specified value.

>donations received in most recent year). (Source: Chatham House website and Annual Review 2015/16)

SOCIAL/COMMUNITY

BP is a founding partner of the ‘arc’ programme from Business in the Community, which began in September 2011 to create an employment legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The aim of arc is to create 1,000 new jobs in each area where it operates, by supporting the growth of social enterprises in local communities. (Source: BP website)

Matched Donations UK communities benefited from nearly $4m in 2015 of employee contributions matched by the BP Foundation, and over 34,650 hours were volunteered by UK-based employees.

SPORTS

Olympics/Paralympics Between 2008 - 2016 BP was a partner of the British Olympic Association and the British Paralympic Association. BP began its association with Olympic and Paralympic sport when it became a partner of the London 2012 Games. Since then BP has supported a number of high-profile sporting events, including the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games. BP is also a partner of the International Paralympic Committee, the governing body for the Paralympic Movement until 2020. Between 2011- 2016 they sponsored the following athletes: • Jessica Ennis-Hill, heptathlete - London 2012 Olympic champion, Olympic silver medallist at Rio 2016 and reigning World champion • Lizzie Deignan, cyclist - Commonwealth champion and Olympic silver medallist at London 2012 • Richard Whitehead, runner - double Paralympic champion, triple World champion and world record holder across multiple distances • Stef Reid, long jumper - multiple Paralympic medallist and former European champion in the long jump T44 (Source: http://www.bp.com/en_gb/united-kingdom/bp-in-the-community/sports-partnerships.html)

British Paralympic Association annual report for FY16: “In total our commercial partners supported the BPA through sponsorship arrangements with BPE totalling £1,195,234 (2015: 51,141,204), and value in kind —donated goods and services - totalling goods and services is assessed at £676,230 (2015:5232,478).” Twelve commercial partners in FY16 = average sponsorship contribution of £100k. [BPE = British Paralympic Enterprises Limited. This is a wholly-owned trading subsidiary of BPA and its principal activity is sports administration and trading.] (Source: http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends85/0000802385 AC 20160331 E C.PDF)

Negative/Positive Press:

Deepwater Horizon oil spill An explosion at BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 resulted in a major oil spill and the loss of 11 crew members lives. The oil spill has been described as the worst

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018

environmental disaster in the US, with roughly 3.2 million barrels (134 million gallons) of crude oil spilling over the course of 87 days, staining 1,100 miles of coastline. However, more recent reports have suggested that the environmental impact has not been as severe as originally feared. (Source: The Telegraph, 20/04/15)

The Guardian reported in the June 2016 that BP had so far set aside $56.4bn to cover settlements, fines and clean-up costs, including: $4bn settlement of criminal charges; an estimated $12.9bn for businesses and individuals; and an $18.7bn environmental settlement. They added that BP also estimates that the cost of responding to the spill and the oil clean-up reached $14bn. (Source: The Guardian, 3/6/16)

• The US Securities and Exchange Commission took BP to the Supreme Court in 2012 on charges of securities fraud around the oil spill, resulting in BP agreeing to pay a $525m penalty to settle the case. (Source: SEC litigation release 15/11/12). In 2014 a group of shareholders took a class action law suit to the US federal district court claiming that BP underplayed the severity of the oil spill. The claimants were awarded $175m, payable during 2016-17, which was far less than the $2.5bn the claimants were seeking. (Source: The Guardian, 3/6/16) • BP reached agreements in principle with the United States federal government and five Gulf states in July 2015 to settle all federal and state claims arising from the Deepwater Horizon accident and oil spill. In addition, BP also settled the vast majority of claims made by local government entities. Subjct to agreement by the court, payments under the terms of the agreements will be made at a rate of around $1.1bn a year for the majority of the 18-year payment period. By the end of 2015 the payments made by BP to settle such claims amounted to $55.5bn. (Source: BP Annual Review 2015, p. 41) • The Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC) was established to act on behalf of individual and business plaintiffs in the multi-district litigation proceedings in federal court in New Orleans (MDL 2179). In 2012 BP reached settlements to resolve the substantial majority of legitimate individual and business claims and medical claims stemming from the incident. Approximately $2.3 billion was paid out under the PSC settlements during 2015. Claims continue to be assessed and paid. (Source: BP Annual Review 2015, p. 42) • In April 2011 BP committed to provide $1 billion in early restoration funding to expedite recovery of natural resources injured as a result of the incident. By the end of 2015 BP had provided approximately $762 million to support restoration projects, with the remaining $238 million expected to be funded in 2016. The federal and state settlements referred to above include more than $7 billion to resolve all natural resource damage claims, which is in addition to this $1 billion. In May 2010 BP committed $500 million over 10 years to fund independent scientific research through the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative. BP had contributed $278 million to the programme by the end of 2015. (Source: BP Annual Review 2015, p. 42)

Other environmental issues • BP has suffered a number of other oil rig explosions, including: o 2005 – an explosion at Texas City killed 15 workers and injured 180 more. The explosion occurred when hydrocarbon liquid and vapor were released from a "blowdown stack" and ignited. BP admitted that safety procedures were ignored. BP paid over $2bn (£1.26bn) to settle legal claims from the explosion, as well as $71.6m for worker safety violations and $100m in pollution fines. o 2006 - Two leaks at BP's Prudhoe Bay oilfield in Alaska in March and August of 2006 created a large spill in Prudhoe Bay. According to the US government, BP failed to heed warning signs of imminent internal corrosion. BP in 2007 agreed to pay a $12m criminal fine, $4m in community service payments and $4m in criminal restitution to Alaska. A further 2009 oil spill onto the tundra adjacent to Prudhoe Bay also took place in 2009. o 2011 - Pipeline leaks oily material onto the tundra at BP's Lisburne field in the US. BP said a pipeline ruptured during testing and spilled a mixture of methanol and oily water onto the tundra. o 2012 - Explosion during maintenance on a pipeline at BP's Pinon natural gas compressor station near Bayfield in western Colorado kills one worker and injures two others. (Source: The Telegraph, 15/11/12)

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018

• A 2011 class action law suit by the residents of a Nevada town next to an abandoned copper mine was successful in claiming $19.5m in settlement based on allegations of toxic chemical leakage. The mine was owned by Atlantic Richfield Co. and its parent BP America Inc. (Source: AP, 06/11/13) • In 1999 BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. pleaded guilty to one felony count related to the illegal disposal of hazardous waste on Alaska’s North Slope, and it agreed to spend $22 million to resolve the criminal case and related civil claims, as well as the maximum criminal fine of $500,000. (Source: EPA press release 23/09/99) • BP was ordered to pay $81m to the South Coast Air Quality Management District in 2005, including $30m for a new community outreach program. The fine was imposed due to illegal escape of toxic gases from its Carson refinery over a 10 year period. (Source: LA Times, 18/03/05) • BP was taken to the UK high court by a group of Colombian farmers in 2015 for allegations of land contamination and damage caused by the construction of the Ocensa oil pipeline across their land in the mid-90s. (Source: FT, 12/10/14)

Environmental protests • Environmental activists have protested about BP’s sponsorship of cultural sector organisations, including: o In May 2016 85 Greenpeace activists scaled the façade of the British Museum to protest about BP’s sponsorship of the Sunken Cultures exhibition, unfurling large banners carrying the names of cities and regions hit by flooding, storms and rising seas. (Source: The Independent, 9/5/16). A further ‘mermaid flashmob’ protest took place in September of that year and other protests disrupted the opening day and launch events (Source: Artnotoil.org.uk) o In 2010 activists from the group Culture Beyond Oil poured an ‘oil-like substance’ around exhibits at both the British Museum and Tate Britain. (Source: BBC News, 13/7/10) o In 2016 performers from Art Not Oil invaded the BP-sponsored Royal Opera House screening of the new Frankenstein ballet in Trafalgar Square. Dressed as oily monsters, they addressed the crowd during the interval and then, in the final act, guerrilla projectioneers Feral X shone the words "Drop BP" down Nelson's Column. (Source: Artnotoil.org.uk)

Fraud, trading and compliance issues • In 2004 the CFTC fined BP $100,000 for an employee’s illegal ‘wash trades’.(Source: CFTC Enforcement Orders & Complaints 04/11/04) • In 2007 BP was fined $7m by the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commisssion, resolving findings under the Commission’s Open Access Transportation requirements that prohibit buy/sell natural gas transactions; prohibit flipping of short term capacity releases between affiliated shippers; and require natural gas shippers have title to the gas. (Source: FERC Approved Settlement Civil Penalty Actions List, 25/10/07) • In 2016 BP was fined $20.16 million and ordered to disgorge another $207,169 by FERC after the agency found affiliates of the company had ‘gamed’ the market for natural gas at the Houston Ship Channel (HSC) in 2008 after Hurricane Ike. (Source: NGI's Daily Gas Price Index, 12/07/16) • In 2013 the EU dropped a major anti-trust investigation into Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Statoil regarding alleged manipulation of fuel benchmarks, citing lack of evidence. (Source: Bloomberg, 7/12/15).

International controversies • BP is on the Iowa Board of Regent Scrutinized Companies List and the Government Accountability Office report of companies alleged to have worked with Iran. The GAO reports that they investigated BP for public claims that they sold oil to Iran in 2009-10, but BP denies they made any sales after 2008. (Source: Iowa Board of Regent Scrutinized Companies List, 30/06/12; Government Accountability Office report of companies alleged to have worked with Iran, 03/09/10) • In 2011 the Libyan former foreign minister, Abdulati al-Obeidi, told the BBC that Tripoli granted large oil concessions to BP on the understanding the Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018

Lockerbie bomber, would be returned home. The Telegraph reported that BP admitted to lobbying for a deal over the controversial prisoner transfer agreement amid fears any delays would damage its “commercial interests”, but denied it had been involved in negotiations concerning Megrahi’s release. (Source: The Telegraph, 07/09/11)

Any Areas of Concern: Potential reputational impact associated with the firm’s environmental impact.

Source Checklist Y/N Information Checked

Charity Commission (or other relevant N/A Legal status of charity, organisation for non-UK donors) latest accounts filed Companies House (or other relevant Y Disqualified directors organisation for non-UK donors) http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/dirsec Factiva (general press) Y Negative & positive press Dow Jones Risk & Compliance Y Dow Jones Sanction & Watch lists, Politically exposed persons, known criminal associates Any other sources Y BP Annual Report 2015 BP website accessed 30/03/16

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 b) Due Diligence Report on Shell, dated 11.05.18

Due Diligence Report: Shell

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited Name of donor/prospect: (Shell)

Existing Relationship to Museum:

Shell have previously sponsored galleries at the Science Museum: for Launchpad in 2005; and for Atmosphere gallery in 2009. They also paid in 2016 for a Science Museum Corporate Membership. In 2015, BG Group pledged a gift of to support the SM Learning programme “Building Bridges” and Shell continued this partnership when they acquired BG Group in 2016. Gift Information (where it is coming from, amount and nature of funding relationship, i.e. whether money will be used for specific purpose or unrestricted income):

Source of Wealth:

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited Shell International Limited is a 100% owned business of the Royal Dutch Shell plc group of companies. Its principal activities are providing Real Estate, Legal, Finance, and other services to the Group.

For the year ended 31 December 2016, the company had a loss of £9.7 million (2015: profit of £3.8 million).

Parent Company From 1907 until 2005, Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and The “Shell” Transport and Trading Company, p.l.c. were the two public parent companies of a group of companies known collectively as the “Royal Dutch/Shell Group”. Operating activities were conducted through the subsidiaries of these parent companies. In 2005, Royal Dutch Shell plc became the single parent company of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and of The “Shell” Transport and Trading Company, p.l.c., now The Shell Transport and Trading Company Limited. Royal Dutch Shell plc (the Company) is a public limited company registered in England and Wales and headquartered in The Hague, the Netherlands.

Shell is an international energy company with expertise in the exploration, development, production, refining and marketing of oil and natural gas, as well as in the manufacturing and marketing of chemicals. It is one of the world’s largest independent energy companies in terms of market capitalisation, cash flow from operating activities, and production levels. The company strategy is “to strengthen our position as a leading energy company by providing oil and gas and low-carbon energy as the world’s energy system changes”.

Total revenue for the year ending 31/12/2017 was $305.2 billion. Income after taxation was $13.4 billion in 2017 (2016: $4.8 billion): after adjusting to reflect the cost of supplies, total segment earnings were $12.5 billion in 2017 (2016: $3.7 billion).

Shell divide their business into four segments for reporting purposes: Integrated Gas: accounting for $36.7 billion revenue in 2017 (2016: $29.2 billion) Upstream: accounting for $40.2 billion revenue in 2017 (2016: $32.9 billion) Downstream accounting for $269 billion revenue in 2017 (2016: $203.6 billion) Corporate accounting for $51 million revenue in 2017 (2016: $74 million)

The Downstream business segment has the highest revenues and is where the company identifies that it can be most competitive: to this end they have a portfolio optimisation strategy which will see the company deliver $30 billion of divestments between 2016 – 2018.

Bureau van Dijk lists 146 shareholders for Royal Dutch Shell PLC: listed below are the top 35, those reported to own more than 0.5% of total shares.

Private & Confidential 1

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Due Diligence Report: Shell

(Source: Mint, Bureau van Dijk)

In their Annual Report, Shell list significant direct and indirect shareholdings for investors with over 3% of company shares: this corresponds with the top 7 from Bureau van Dijk’s figures though some of the exact percentage of shareholdings are slightly different to figures dated 2016 above. Giving history/Associations with other benchmark organisations (examples of partnerships, major philanthropic gifts):

STEM Education in the UK Shell have partnered with Tomorrow’s Engineers (led by the engineering community) since 2014, pledging support of over and renewing this in 2017: “to give hands-on engineering experience and career information to more than 160,000 children by 2020.” Supporter of Year of Engineering: value of support unclear. Scottish Council for Development and Industry (SCDI) set up Young Engineers and Science Clubs (YESC)

Private & Confidential 2

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Due Diligence Report: Shell

Geobus: programme supporting Earth Science teaching in secondary schools throughout Scotland - Shell is one of 7 sponsor organisations and businesses as well as the University of St Andrews and the Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) Girls in Energy Founding donor of the biannual Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering (QEPrize)

UK Corporate Membership Chatham Hous

Engineering UK National Theatre WISE Campaign

Museum/Cultural Sector Sponsorship Founding sponsor, Museum of Brands Former sponsor, National Gallery, including Rembrandt: The Late Works (October 2014 – January 2015) Former sponsor, Natural History Museum’s Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition: over two years (2006 – 2008) Negative/Positive Press: Risk Factors outlined by Shell in its 2017 Annual Report which currently or may in the future generate negative press Shell and ExxonMobil are 50:50 shareholders in Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V. (NAM). An important part of NAM’s gas production comes from the onshore Groningen gas field, in which EBN, a Dutch government entity, has a 40% interest and NAM a 60% interest. Since 1995, production from the Groningen field has caused earthquakes. Some of these earthquakes have caused damage to houses and other structures in the region, resulting in complaints and lawsuits from the local community. Since 2013, the Minister of Economic Affairs has imposed curtailments on production from the Groningen field in order to mitigate the seismicity risks. In January 2018, there was another earthquake and a further curtailment of production is likely. Additional earthquakes, lawsuits and further significant curtailments of production could have a material adverse effect on NAM and therefore could impact earnings, cash flows and financial condition. Antitrust and competition laws apply to Shell and its joint ventures and associates in the vast majority of countries in which we do business. Shell and its joint ventures and associates have been fined for violations of antitrust and competition laws. These include a number of fines in the past by the European Commission Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP). Due to the DG COMP’s fining guidelines, any future conviction of Shell or any of its joint ventures or associates for violation of European Union (EU) competition law could result in significantly larger fines and have a material adverse effect on us. Anti-bribery, anti-corruption and anti-money laundering laws apply to Shell, its joint ventures and associates in all countries in which we do business. Shell and its joint ventures and associates in the past have been fined for violations of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Any future violation of anti- bribery, anti-corruption or anti-money laundering laws could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, cash flows and financial condition. In some countries, governments and regulators have filed lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for costs associated with climate change. While we believe these lawsuits to be without merit, losing any of these lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, cash flows and financial condition.

Negative Press identified by SMG:

Human Rights In November 2017, Amnesty International published a report called Nigeria: A Criminal Enterprise? Shell’s Involvement in Human Rights Violations in Nigeria in the 1990s. Based on the contents of their report, Amnesty called on the governments of Nigeria, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom to investigate (with a view to prosecution) Shell’s potential involvement in crimes linked to human rights violations committed by Nigerian security forces in Ogoniland in the 1990s. The Nigerian division of Shell has released an email statement stating Shell “did not collude with the authorities to suppress community unrest and in no way encouraged or advocated any act of violence in Nigeria.”

Private & Confidential 3

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Due Diligence Report: Shell

(Sources: Amnesty International 28/11/2017; The Independent 28/11/2017; The Guardian 28/11/2017)

In March 2018, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and 44 of the world’s biggest producers of fossil fuel products were summoned by the Philippines Commission on Human Rights to provide evidence at a two-day hearing in Manila on the human rights impacts of climate change. The Commission can make recommendations to the Filipino authorities and those found to have breached human rights, but it cannot award damages and it has no enforcement powers. (Source: The Independent 08/03/2018)

Corruption and Undue Influence Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Eni SpA (Italian oil company) are facing trial in Italy over bribery charges relating to a $1.1 billion payment for the acquisition of Nigerian oil block OPL 245 (Nigerian oil field). Much of the money is claimed to have been divided up between Nigerian government officials. The trial is due to start on 14/05/2018. Following the preliminary trial, a Shell spokesperson said: “We are disappointed by the outcome of the preliminary hearing and the decision to indict Shell and its former employees. We believe the trial judges will conclude that there is no case against Shell or its former employees.” - This same matter is also the subject of a pending trial in Nigeria, and investigations in the Netherlands. Shell state that they have submitted the investigation to US authorities and Britain’s Serious Fraud Office. (Sources: Nasdaq.com 20/12/2017; Bloomberg 06/03/2018; Reuters 13/03/2018)

In November 2017, reports emerged that members of the Department of International Trade had attempted to lobby on behalf of Shell and BP in meetings with Brazilian government. The Brazilian government made a proposal for up to $300 billion in tax relief for developing offshore oil and gas and BP and Shell were granted drilling licenses. (Sources: The Independent 20/11/2017; Unearthed 29/11/2017)

Shell were previously criticised for their connection to American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), a non-profit organisation which drafted model legislation denying any human contribution to climate change. They discontinued their membership of the Council in 2015. Shell remain a member of the American Petroleum Institute (API), which is alleged to obstruct climate change policies. (Source: The Guardian 07/08/2015; The Independent 11/04/2016; Current Membership List of API)

In 2004, Shell was found to have violated reporting, record-keeping and anti-trust rules, including overstating the size of their oil reserves by about 20%. The company paid almost $150 million in fines imposed by American and British regulators, fired three senior executives, and adopted some corporate governance changes to settle shareholder lawsuits. (Sources: The Wall Street Journal 02/11/2014; The Globe and Mail 02/09/2005)

Environmental Issues Shell is subject to legal action relating to climate change: In January 2018, NYC sought to claim compensation from BP Plc, Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp., and Shell Plc for dramatic climate change impacts. In May 2018, the companies have asked the judge overseeing the trial to dismiss the charges. A hearing will take place in June 2018 to consider this. Similar suits have been filed in Oakland and San Francisco, and motions to dismiss will be considered on 24 May. (Source: Bloomberg 10/01/2018 and 04/05/2018) In April 2018, Friends of the Earth in Netherlands have threatened legal action, intending to compel Shell to amend its business practices to meet the climate goals of the Paris Agreement. A spokesperson for Shell said the company strongly supported the Paris agreement, “but we believe climate change is a complex societal challenge that should be addressed through sound government policy and cultural change… not by the courts.” - A Dutch news organisation released internal company documents including a calculation that Shell’s products alone were responsible for 4% of total global carbon emissions in 1984. - Shell has said that its position on climate change has been a “matter of public record for decades” and reiterated their support for the Paris Agreement. The case is ongoing.

Private & Confidential 4

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Due Diligence Report: Shell

(Source: Friends of the Earth Netherlands/Milieudefensie 04/04/2018; The Guardian 04/04/2018; The Independent 08/04/2018)

The company has been criticised for its handling of oil spills in the past. Shell has admitted liability in certain instances, paying a fine of £22,500 for a North Sea spill in 2011, and paying £55 million in 2015 to communities affected in the Niger Delta. Shell has also been criticised and fined by environmental agencies, including being issued with improvement notices by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the UK. (Sources: BBC News 19/08/2011; The Independent 24/11/2015; Reuters 07/01/2015; The Guardian 17/05/2015; The Journal 05/09/2016; BBC News 29/05/2014; The Guardian 01/05/2010)

Sponsorship/Partnerships Shell’s cultural sponsorships, and some commercial partnerships, have been the subject of protest: In spring 2018, the Scottish Greens and environmental groups Friends of the Earth Scotland, People and Planet Edinburgh, and Scientists for Global Responsibility argued that the Edinburgh Science Festival should cut ties with Shell and all companies involved in the fossil fuel industry. They disagreed with the choice of Shell as a major sponsor for family-friendly low carbon village “EcoVille” at the festival and activists protested in person at the site in April 2018. In response, Shell has stressed that it is planning to cut the net carbon footprint of its energy products in half by 2050.“We look forward to the Edinburgh Science Festival and inspiring people on this important topic.” (Sources: Herald Scotland 25/02/2018; CommonSpace 12/04/2018) Prolonged campaigns protesting Shell’s plans to drill in the Arctic resulted in Lego ending their marketing relationship which began in the 1960s (Source: The Guardian 09/10/2014) Prolonged campaigns forced Shell to leave climate change project, the Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leader Group (Source: Financial Times 11/09/2015).

News coverage Shell and SMG News coverage has previously focused on the Science Museum’s relationship with Shell. Allegations were made that Shell tried to influence the content of the Atmosphere gallery. These were refuted by Ian Blatchford and a Shell spokesperson: “Blatchford said: ‘I can confirm that not a single change to an exhibition resulted from these email exchanges.’ […] ‘We [Shell] have occasionally made wider suggestions regarding the Climate Changing programme but at all times the Science Museum retained full editorial control over its plans and content.’” (Sources: The Guardian 31/05/2015; Wired 01/06/2015; Artnet 02/06/2015) Any Areas of Concern: See above: ongoing court cases and investigations; previous press scrutiny over undue influence of SMG curatorial policy.

Private & Confidential 5

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Due Diligence Report: Shell

Source Checklist Y/N Information Checked Charity Commission (or other relevant organisation for non- n/a Legal status of charity, latest accounts filed UK donors) Companies House (or other relevant organisation for non- UK donors) Y Disqualified directors http://wck2.companieshouse.g ov.uk/dirsec Factiva (general press) Y Negative & positive press Dow Jones Sanction & Watch lists, politically exposed persons, Dow Jones Risk & Compliance Y known criminal associates Statement on company’s own website or https://www.modernslaveryregistry.org/ Modern Slavery Act Statement

dated within last 12 months Statement dated 14/03/2018: (if commercial organisation Y https://www.shell.com/uk-modern-slavery- supplying goods/services with act/ jcr content/par/textimage.stream/1521107545532/780f905f0fc9 turnover over £36 million) ec43f6b371ea0446d54d0269c1ae028cc3decdb2599a06a5e582/state ment-under-the-uk-modern-slavery-act-for-financial-year-2017.pdf Mint (accessed 04/05/2018) https://www.shell.com/media/annual-reports-and- publications.html#iframe=L3JlcG9ydC1ob21lLzIwMTcv https://reports.shell.com/annual-report/2017/ https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03075807 https://www.shell.co.uk/sustainability/society.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvAz4GPTjj8 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/funding from bp Any other sources Y http://www.museumofbrands.com/whats-on/news/announcing-shell- as-new-founding-sponsor-of-the-museum-of-brands.html?page=2 https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/whats-on/exhibitions/rembrandt- the-late-works https://www.chathamhouse.org/membership-subscriptions/corporate- membership/corporate-list https://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/support-us/corporate-support https://www.engineeringuk.com/corporate-membership/corporate- members/ http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16046351.Science festival sla mmed over polluting sponsors/ https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/12642/activists-demand- edinburgh-science-festival-cease-greenwashing-fossil-fuel- companies https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/09/lego-ends- shell-partnership-following-greenpeace-campaign https://www.ft.com/content/d63ea0c0-57dc-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/31/shell-sought- Press Sources Y influence-direction-science-museum-climate-programme http://www.wired.co.uk/article/museum-corporate-sponsors- influencing-climate-issues https://news.artnet.com/exhibitions/shell-influence-london-sciencemuseum-climate-change-303769 https://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/funders-and-our-climate-science- gallery/ http://www.nasdaq.com/article/update-royal-dutch-shell-says- disappointed-in-indictment-in-italy-over-alleged-bribery-in-nigeria- cm894618

Private & Confidential 6

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Due Diligence Report: Shell

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-06/the- disappearing-1-1-billion-behind-shell-eni-trial-quicktake https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-nigeria-shell-eni/shell-eni- preempt-any-u-s-probe-over-nigeria-with-filings-idUSKCN1GP1EJ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shell-nigeria-court/appeal-court- rules-nigerians-cannot-pursue-shell-spill-claim-in-england- idUSKCN1FY1V0 https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/11/investigate-shell-for- complicity-in-murder-rape-and-torture/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/shell-nigeria- murder-rape-military-amnesty-international-investigation-oil-giant- a8079596.html https://www.theguardian.com/global- development/2017/nov/28/amnesty-seeks-criminal-inquiry-into-shell- over-alleged-complicity-in-murder-and-torture-in-nigeria https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-10/exxon-bp- chevron-should-pay-for-climate-costs-new-york-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-04/oil-companies- ask-judge-to-kill-nyc-s-global-warming-lawsuit https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/philippines-climate- change-worlds-biggest-corporations-responsibility-global-warming- carbon-majors-a8241851.html https://en.milieudefensie.nl/news/friends-of-the-earth-netherlands- starts-climate-lawsuit-against-shell https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/shell-predicted- climate-change-fossil-fuel-industry-1980s-global-warming-oil- a8294636.html https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB109935167145161655 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/shell-to-settle- lawsuits-over-oil-reserves-scandal/article18246757/ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/17/shell- climate-change-rhetoric-the-real-story http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14576663 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shell-nigeria-spill/shell-to-pay-out- 83-million-to-settle-nigeria-oil-spill-claims-idUSKBN0KG00920150107 https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/shells-22500-fine-for- north-sea-oil-spill-slammed-as-paltry-by-campaigners-a6747536.html https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/07/royal-dutch- shell-alec-climate-change-denial https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/royal-dutch- shell-exxon-american-petroleum-institute-western-states-petroleum- association-lobbying-a6978336.html http://www.api.org/membership/members#S http://www.thejournal.ie/shell-fined-gas-flare-corrib-2965027- Sep2016/ https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/may/01/bp-shell-north- sea-oil-rigs-health-and-safety-executive http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland- 27618512

Private & Confidential 7

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 c) Due Diligence Report on Statoil, dated 31.05.16

Private and Confidential

Development Department - Due Diligence Report Statoil ASA

Name of donor/prospect: Statoil ASA

Existing Relationship to Museum: Statoil signed a contract with the Museum in 2016, sponsoring the new Interactive Gallery at title rights level.

Gift Information (where it is coming from, amount and what for):

Source of Wealth: Statoil ASA explores, produces, transports, refines and markets petroleum and petroleum-derived products. Statoil is 67% owned by the Government of Norway.

The company operates through four segments:

• Development & Production Norway • Development & Production North America • Development & Production International • Marketing Processing & Renewable Energy

The Development & Production segments, are organized based on a regional model with geographical clusters or units are responsible for the commercial development of the oil and gas portfolios within their respective geographical areas. The Marketing Processing & Renewable Energy segment is responsible for marketing and trading of oil and gas commodities, electricity and emission rights, as well as transportation, processing and manufacturing of the above mentioned commodities, operations of refineries, terminals, processing and power plants, wind parks and other activities within renewable energy. The company was founded on September 18, 1972 and is headquartered in Stavanger, Norway. Statoil had a net income in 2014 of 21,900b NOK. In 2015 the company had a negative net income of 37.3b NOK. The significant decrease from 2014 to 2015 was mainly due to the reduced commodity prices, leading to lower earnings and impairment losses.

Despite the growth in Statoil's international footprint, the company still sources c.69% of its production from the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) of which c.54% is natural gas. Statoil also markets gas belonging to the Norwegian State (SDFI) – gas marketed by Statoil accounts for c.70 per cent of total Norwegian gas exports. Statoils gas business is largely a piped gas business with just one Liquefaction facility (Snohvit LNG). The offshore pipeline system in NCS extends a total of 8,100 kilometers with six landing points located in France, Germany, Belgium and the UK. Statoil’s European gas earnings are reported within two business segments. Gas volumes are 'sold' internally by Upstream (DP) Norway to the MPR (includes Gas Trading) segment at an internal transfer price. The MPR segment then looks to maximize the value that can be derived from these volumes whilst meeting Statoil's supply obligations under the long-term supply contracts. (JP Morgan 19/06/15) Giving history/Associations with other benchmark organisations (examples of partnerships, major philanthropic gifts): April 2015 Statoil donated NOK 1 million to the Red Cross to support their disaster relief work in Nepal after the earthquake.

Their flagship programme is Heroes of Tomorrow, through which they sponsor science education, sports and culture. Through this programme they have supported The Norwegian Centre for Science Education, Science Centre of Northern Norway, First Lego League, and Teach First Norway, among others. Statoil has sponsorship agreements with the Science Centre of Northern Norway and

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Private and Confidential

Nordland county municipality totalling nearly NOK 16 million. They are also giving NOK 10.8 million over five years to boost geoscience education. Statoil has spent five million kroner developing and equipping the Newton Energy Room in Trondheim, this is a pilot project, which if successful will form part of a larger project to establish additional Newton Energy Rooms. The rooms are meant as an alternative to the classroom and will function as resource centres in science subjects for local schools. They support Teach First Norway, a collaborative project between the City of Oslo, the University of Oslo and Statoil. The new candidates all hold a master's degree in science and mathematics subjects. They also support FIRST LEGO League (FLL) , an international competition organised by FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) for elementary and middle school students. Statoil are active philanthropically outside of Norway in countries where they have operations. For example, in 2014 Statoil Tanzania donated 125 desks to two primary Schools in Mtwara region as part of the company's social investment programme. Statoil's long term ambition is to focus on higher education where it is currently financing 31 Masters' students and one PhD student studying petroleum engineering, geo-science and finance in Norway and Tanzania. Statoil also has a relationship with the University of Dar es Salaam and the University of Dodoma, where the company arranges for guest lecturers in science to visit and for geo-science field trips for students.

Negative/Positive Press:

The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) grants Statoil a drilling permit for more North Sea wildcat wells – May 2016, Statoil will drill two new wildcat wells from the Songa Delta drilling facility in the North Sea. An appraisal well will also be drilled, if a discovery is made (31/05/2016 Energy Voice).

Thirteen Statoil employees die in helicopter crash – May 2016, An Airbus helicopter H225 Super Puma, formerly known as a Eurocopter EC225 crashed off the coast of Norway after picking up passengers from a Statoil oil platform. The group on board included 11 Norwegians, one Italian and one British citizen, according to authorities. (02/05/2016 UPI).

GE/Statoil Sustainable Energy Collaboration – February 2015, GE and Statoil announced a new collaboration to accelerate the development of more environmentally and economically sustainable energy solutions to help fuel the future. This joint technology-focused program is aimed at driving an industrial response to some of the biggest challenges facing global oil and gas production, including flaring, CO(2) and methane emissions, and water usage, while also optimizing business operations. "The challenge of achieving more efficient and sustainable energy production is too large for one entity to address alone," said Eldar Saetre, President and CEO of Statoil. "The private sector has a responsibility to leverage its skills and expertise to contribute to the development of new solutions. Collaboration is a key component to achieving important positive change. This initiative with GE is a good example of an innovative approach to accelerate innovation and help address the energy needs of today and for the future." (13/02/2015 Energy Weekly News). Gudrun, North Sea incident - In May 2015 a natural gas condensate leak at Statoil's Gudrun platform in the North Sea in February came close to causing a deadly accident, the company's own investigation concluded. Statoil said its investigation classified the incident as having the highest degree of seriousness, Red 1, which could have led to fatalities (Reuters 20/05/15). A leak at Statoil's liquefied natural gas plant in the Norwegian Arctic in January 2015 could have caused an explosion, killing workers and seriously damaging the facility, the Petroleum Safety Authority said on Thursday. The four-month investigation also concluded that Statoil took too long to reduce pressure in the LNG unit as 12 minutes passed between the sounding of the alarm and the decision to depressurize. In response to the regulators' finding, Statoil said it had introduced a new internal control mechanism to deal with gas leaks and had inspected other equipment for signs of fault to avoid future leaks. The 5 leak shut the facility for three days and up to 750 kg of gas escaped, the watchdog said. Oseberg A platform leak - In 2014 The gas leak at Statoil's Oseberg A platform in June could have had a deadly outcome writes the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority (Ptil) in its investigation report. It also highlights lacking risk evaluations and work processes for wells and the processing facility at Oseberg. Statoil's Director of information Ørjan Heradstveit says the company has initiated a follow up of the breaches found by the Authority. He said both the Authority and the company's own

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Private and Confidential investigation of the incident show that it could not have turned into a major crisis as the leak itself was relatively small. (Source: 12/01/14 Esmerk Norwegian News). New Zealand - Statoil operates with a 100% equity share in petroleum exploration permits 55781 and 57057 in the Reinga Basin offshore Northland’s west coast. The licences were awarded in the New Zealand Block Offer 2013 and 2014 respectively. The permits cover 11,670 square kilometres and are located approximately 100 kilometres from shore to the west of New Zealand's North Island, in water depths ranging from 1,000 to 2,000 metres. In the New Zealand Block Offer 2014 Statoil was also awarded 50% working interest in blocks 57083, 57085 and 57087 with Chevron as operator. The permits are located in the East Coast and Pegasus basins, southeast off New Zealand’s North Island. The permits cover more than 25,000 square kilometres and sit in water depths between 800 and 3,000 metres. The initial phase of the project will consist of data collection. In December 2014 Greenpeace protesters sealed off the entrance to the Statoil energy company in Wellington. (10 December 2014 Radio New Zealand News) in protest at deep sea oil drilling and the threat to climate change from burning fossil fuels. “Norwegian oil giant Statoil has a permit to drill in the deep waters off the beautiful west coast of Northland. It is an area of outstanding beauty, a migratory path for whales, the home of many Maori tribal groups and a paradise for surfers. . . The catastrophic oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico showed us the risks of deep sea drilling. And it showed that the price of an accident is borne by the wildlife, coastal communities and economy. New Zealand doesn’t need to take this risk” (http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/take-action/Take-action- online/Statoil_Northland/). Algeria - Statoil Algeria AS is held by majority state-owned Statoil ASA (70%). In 2013 terrorists attacked the gas plant at Amenas (operated jointly by BP, Sonatrach and Statoil). During the attack 40 people were killed. On 12/09/13 Statoil published an external report on the terrorist attack. The report is highly critical of security at the plant and concludes that Statoil and partners Sonatrach and BP relied too heavily on the Algerian military to safeguard the plant. According to the report it was merely coincidental that the attack did not end in a major gas explosion. A stray bullet that hit a transformer resulted in a chain reaction that created a power outage in the production facility, which prevented an explosion. Alaskan Arctic - ConocoPhillips, Eni and the Norwegian oil giant Statoil all suspended their Alaskan Arctic drilling plans. Shell is still going ahead with theirs. . Angola - Global Witness warns of extreme risks for corruption in the oil sector in Angola, which is Norwegian state-controlled oil company Statoil's largest market outside Norway. Barnaby Pace in Global Witness says that companies like Statoil have to be sure of the identity of their partners and avoid partnerships with companies that may have politicians or bureaucrats as owners. Two partners of Statoil will not provide information about their shareholders, but according to the newspaper one is tied to Vice President Manuel Domingos Vincente and the other to a central oil politician. Iran - In July 2008, the U.S. State Department launched an investigation into Statoil's dealings in Iran to determine if the company had violated the Iran Sanctions Act. In a letter from the U.S. State Department dated 1 November 2010, Statoil was informed that it was no longer considered a company of concern with regard to its Iran-related activities.

Any Areas of Concern:

Health and safety incidents noted above.

New Zealand drilling permits noted above.

Source Checklist Y/N Information Checked

Charity Commission (or other relevant n/a Legal status of charity, organisation for non-UK donors) latest accounts filed Companies House (or other relevant y Disqualified directors organisation for non-UK donors) http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/dirsec Factiva (general press) y Negative & positive press

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Private and Confidential

Dow Jones Risk & Compliance y Dow Jones Sanction & Watch lists, Politically exposed persons, known criminal associates Any other sources y Greenpeace, Corporate Watch, Friends of the Earth

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Exhibit 7 – SMG Group Ethics Policy (previous version, 2012)

Science Museum Group Ethics Policy

1 Introduction

This policy sets out the standards of conduct that are expected from all SMG representatives, that is its Trustees, advisors, staff and volunteers, including those employed at the Science Museum, National Railway Museum, National Media Museum and SMG Enterprises.

The policy’s standards relate and apply to all SMG’s relationships including (but not limited to): cultural, academic and commercial.

This policy is supplemented by the Code of Conduct for SMG Staff (Including Whistleblowing Policy) (2010), the Museums Association Code of Ethics (2007), ICOM’s Code of Ethics for Museums Worldwide and the Seven Principles of Public Life (Nolan Committee, March 1996). It is also supported by the SMG Collections Management Strategy Statement (2011), Audience Plans (2012), SMG Strategic Plan (2012) and specific legislation and guidance documents listed in the appendix.

2 Ethical Principles

2.1 SMG’s principal aim and statutory purpose is to care for, preserve and add to the collections that we display for public benefit. SMG therefore has a duty to be transparent, accountable, and to always act in the public interest

2.2 SMG depends on the trust and confidence of all those with whom the Museum and its subsidiaries come into contact in order to fulfil its purpose. This trust and confidence depends on the Museum’s reputation for acting ethically, with integrity and to the highest professional standards

2.3 SMG expects its representatives to act from the highest standards of integrity and professionalism in all actions, activities and relationships

2.4 No individual should use his or her position in SMG for personal gain or to benefit another at the expense of the Museum, its mission, its reputation or the public which it serves

2.5 Where conflicts of interest arise – actual, potential or perceived – the duty of loyalty must not be compromised

2.6 All SMG representatives must;

2.6.1 conduct themselves according to applicable domestic and international law 2.6.2 apply the ethical standards governing their particular profession and role (to include non-professional roles such as Trustee, volunteer, etc) 2.6.3 act with honesty and integrity, and never knowingly mislead any person 2.6.4 recognise and acknowledge the contributions of others to the work and support of SMG 2.6.5 be impartial, i.e. (i) declare and make known any personal interests, (ii) not give or receive any inducements which could, or could be seen to be in conflict with the interests of SMG, (iii) not provide any services that could or could be seen to be in conflict with the interests of SMG, (iv) adhere to the Seven Principles of Public Life

Ratified by Board of Trustees: 8th March, 2012

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018

3 Procedures

3.1.1 In furtherance of these principles all Trustees and senior staff of SMG shall make known to the Board chair or Director (as appropriate) any:

3.1.2 actual, potential or perceived conflict between their own and SMG’s interests 3.1.3 actual, potential or perceived pecuniary interests (including fundraising or investment dealing) of theirs or of any member of their close family which may be, or perceived to be, in conflict with the interests of SMG 3.1.4 actual, potential or perceived conflicts between the interests of SMG and any relevant private entity

3.1.5 SMG will maintain registers of interests for all Trustees, Directors and senior staff

3.1.6 All Trustees, Directors, staff and volunteers are expected to understand their responsibilities and follow appropriate policies and procedures as set out in the Code of Conduct for SMG Staff and SMG Code of Best Practice for Members of the Board

4 Ethical Fundraising

SMG actively seeks to work in partnership with external organisations and individuals to achieve shared objectives. All fundraising will take place within the context of the Institute of Fundraising’s Code of Fundraising Practice and the Museums Association Code of Ethics.

There may be occasions when SMG will have to turn down opportunities of external funding, including gifts in kind and objects where it is believed that acceptance could have a detrimental affect on SMG’s reputation:

4.1 SMG will not accept donations, sponsorship or grants where a donation is made anonymously, through an intermediary, who is not prepared to identify the donor to SMG. SMG should avoid agreeing to requests for anonymity that conceal a conflict of interest, real or perceived, or that raise other ethical concerns

4.2 SMG will not accept donations, sponsorship or grants where the donor has acted, or believed to have acted, illegally in the acquisition of funds

4.3 SMG will not seek or accept donations or sponsorship where acceptance of these funds would damage its effective operation, including:

4.3.1 Harm to SMG’s relationship with other benefactors, partners, visitors or stakeholders 4.3.2 Creation of unacceptable conflict of interest 4.3.3 Materially damage the reputation, independence and integrity of SMG 4.3.4 Detrimentally affect the ability of SMG to fulfil its mission in any way, including interference in the editorial freedom of SMG in its exhibitions and programmes

4.4 In general, any sponsor, donor or grantor should appreciate and complement SMG’s values, mission and objectives

4.5 SMG will recognize donor, sponsor or grantor support according to agreed standards, generally based on the level of support received

4.6 Where SMG has applied for grants from an organisation, it will fulfil the terms and conditions of that grant

Ratified by Board of Trustees: 8th March, 2012

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 4.7 SMG must ensure that a relationship of trust is established with all funders by respecting confidentiality with collection and communication of relevant information only

Appendix: Seven Principles of Public Life

Selflessness: Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.

Integrity: Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them I the performance of their official duties.

Objectivity: In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards or benefits, holders of public office should make choices based on merit.

Accountability: Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Openness: Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

Honesty: Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in any way that protects the public interest.

Leadership: Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

Ratified by Board of Trustees: 8th March, 2012

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Appendix: legislation and guidance documents

Seven Principles of Public Life – Nolan Committee, March 1996

Code of Ethics – Museums Association, 2008

Code of Ethics for Museums – ICOM, 2006

Code of Practice – Institute of Fundraising

Code of Conduct for SMG Staff (Including Whistleblowing Policy) – SMG, 2010

SMG Collections Management Statement – 2011

The following is a list of legislation, guidelines and standards which the SMG must adhere to in exercising its core functions and activities:

• National Heritage Act (1983)

• Museum’s Association Code of Ethics (2007)

• MLA Accreditation Standard

• Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (UNESCO, 1970)

• Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003

• Treasure Act 1996

• Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums (DCMS, 2005)

• Spoliation of Works of Art during the Holocaust and World War II period: Statement of Principles and Proposed Actions (NMDC, 1998)

• Code of Practice on Archives for Museums and Galleries in the United Kingdom (3rd ed., 2002)

• Health & Safety at Work Act (1974) and related health and safety legislation

• The Railway Heritage Act (1996)

• Public Records Act (1958) and information rights legislation

(NOTE: these are all listed in the SMG’s Collections Management Statement, but could be repeated here if felt necessary)

Ratified by Board of Trustees: 8th March, 2012

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Exhibit 8 – Email between SMG and Shell regarding future collaboration

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018 Email between SMG and Shell regarding future collaboration in Manchester

Complaint to the Science Museum Group Submitted on the 5th July 2018