A Vilvite employee described the oil as “contaminated.” Then a manager intervened.

In 2018, I witnessed the impact of Equinor's sponsorship. Then I worked myself at Vilvite.

debate

This is a discussion post. The entry was written by an external contributor, and quality was ensured by BT's discussion section. Opinions and analysis are the author's own.

Equinor has nothing. “The impact on our exhibitions,” wrote Managing Director Lars Leggaard Marøy.

As a former Vilvite employee, I experienced something different.

• Read Vilvite's answer at the bottom of the page.

It was the summer of 2018 I was part of a group that was developing a game app for this summer’s Vilvite exhibition. The app was supposed to tie together installations in a story about global warming. I wrote the lyrics.

On June 19, I was called to a meeting by a member of management. We had gone through the entire script earlier in the week, line by line.

Although the oil industry is responsible for massive carbon emissions and therefore has a natural place in the global warming discourse, there was only one reference to it in the proposed text. The sentence was amended as requested – “due to the main sponsor”.

I left the meeting feeling uneasy, but it took a few laps for it to settle in for me. Should we cut references to the oil industry's impact on global warming “in light of the main sponsor”?

I went to management and withdrew from the project. It was an intense conversation, and I used the word “self-censorship.”

We never have “It is experienced that the company tried to influence the content of our communications,” the manager writes.

In a way he is right. As far as I know, there were no specific instructions from Equinor about the content of the exhibits. The problem is that this is only one side of the story.

“Influence” is about more than just Equinor having a direct lead in developing Vilvite’s content. Influence also takes an indirect form, and can, for example, be achieved through self-censorship.

If the management “audits” the exhibition content and removes what could spoil the relationship with the main sponsor, the exhibition is affected by the sponsorship – without Equinor saying a word.

When the director then writes “no impact” and considers only direct impact, he is not contributing to a nuanced and informed conversation about oil’s patronage of cultural life. He is then trying to end the conversation before it begins.

This is an elaboration of the discussion. The power relationship created by the care relationship opens up a number of possibilities for influence beyond the direct influence of content.

Written July 19 BT commentator Stig Arild Petersen on a 2021 Harvard study that looked at the strategic messaging oil companies are using to salvage their reputations in a time of climate crisis. This includes a systematic focus on consumers rather than companies.

While we shouldn’t ignore the consumer perspective either, a one-sided focus on this point can obscure the consequences of the ongoing pollution caused by the oil industry. Both Vilvite’s latest major project, Energybyen, and the 2018 app have this angle.

These are just two examples, but one has to wonder: if we put all the Velvet exhibitions side by side, how many of them would place the responsibility on the individual citizen? How many of them would point out that companies like Equinor contribute to Norway’s carbon emissions?

Late one afternoon I got the email. One of the managers expressed regret at the way he reacted to my input. He thought the sentence I proposed was problematic because it was “categorical—almost political.”

This is how the phrase in question was phrased: “To make our cars run and the ninja huts light up, we need electricity. We can achieve this in two ways: either the polluting ones from oil, coal and gas or the environmentally friendly ones from water, wind and sun.”

The wording may be categorical. It does not reflect an accurate comparison of emissions from production to disposal. But that is also a completely different discussion.

It is the background of the change that is problematic, not the change itself.

In the email sent after the office conversation, the applicant wrote that it was a mistake to bring the main sponsor.

Everyone can make mistakes. But was this just a one-off?

What does Vilvite do concretely to prevent sponsor considerations from arising in the development of content? Here, referring to the contract between Vilvite and Equinor is not sufficient.

Science Park in Ås They decided to drop all cash support from Equinor in 2021. At BT, managing director Solveig Arnesen wrote that their biggest concern was “freedom of expression related to Equinor sponsorship.” Here she specifically refers to the indirect influence a sponsor can have, which she experienced as an employee at Vilvite in 2018.

It took effort to speak up. If an employee spoke up today and was met with the same response I was, what would that do to the climate of discourse in the company? Would oil patronage become the elephant in the room, something that only emerges in spontaneous and unpleasant value conflicts in the back room?

How does Vilvite ensure that editorial freedom is genuine and not characterized by blatant patron loyalty? Are the content developers, for example, the same as those responsible for partnerships? Wouldn’t that be a merging of roles? Is the effect inevitable?

Vilvite has great Important as a knowledge hub, but we also need to be honest about the impact our partnerships have, both directly and indirectly. I’ve seen what Velvet can achieve by transferring knowledge from within. Let it continue!

But let’s also have a nuanced, honest conversation about the unintended consequences of the oil industry’s sponsorship of an institution that brings science to children. To reject it is to exclude part of the solution.

Because is it even possible to have the patronage of the oil industry and at the same time ensure that communication about the climate crisis remains independent? If so, how? How can this be organized? I’m really curious, and I hope my old employer takes up this challenge.

Velvet answers: This is how we ensure our editorial integrity.

Our former colleague Jonathan Anabalon shares a thought-provoking episode from 2018, before I started Vilvite.

Although the content of the sentence in question written by Jonathan for the app has not changed, it is unfortunate that the relationship with the sponsor was taken into account in the development work. It illustrates the danger of self-censorship. This mistake, he writes, was also regretted six years ago.

What exactly does it do? Scientific Center to prevent the emergence of sponsor considerations in content development?

In 2020, we reorganized into self-managed teams. Each team solves a specific task and works according to the Velvet strategy, where sustainable communication is one of the four main goals: “Strengthening people’s ability to make informed and sustainable choices and participate in social debate.” The teams enjoy a high degree of freedom. The main responsibility for funding lies with a separate team. Even if it is not possible or desirable to create watertight barriers between those who receive funding and those who develop content, the sponsor managers will not bear professional responsibility.

Exhibition development Other offerings should reflect the needs of guests, which are revealed through user surveys. The target group for Energy City (young people) themselves wanted advice on how to reduce their climate footprint. That’s why 3 out of 27 establishments have such a personal angle. The other 24 establishments cater to other desires, such as knowledge about electricity, global warming and sustainable energy.

Vilvite’s core values, “insight, courage, and collaboration,” should serve as a guiding principle. When we came up with these values, we had a fictional case involving private sector sponsors. We must have the courage to say no to money if professional integrity is at stake, and conversely, the courage to stand up for partnerships if insight suggests they are right.

How is that Even with the climate of speech? Here we have to ask employees, which we do through opinion polls every year. The question “There is a ceiling for expressing opinions and making suggestions for improvement” ended up receiving an 8.8 out of a possible 10 points in this year’s survey. The good score confirms my experience: My colleagues are passionate about our social mission and are not afraid to raise even the toughest questions.

Is there still a risk of making adjustments to cover sponsors? The possibility exists, but as long as we are aware of this and always prioritise our editorial integrity, we believe it is right to accept millions of dollars that could provide children and young people with knowledge and inspiration about science, technology and sustainability.

This discussion has further raised our awareness, and I thank everyone who participated in the cause of the Science Centre's collaboration with Equinor and other industry players.

Lars Legaard Marwe
Adm.dir. in Velvet