07/09/2024
Rebels demand that the Rijksmuseum immediately ends its sponsorship relationship with ING
Today, Saturday 7 September at 8:30, about sixty rebels from Extinction Rebellion have closed off the bicycle and pedestrian tunnel under the Rijksmuseum so that no one can enter the museum. The rebels have rolled out two fifty-metre-long yellow carpets with the text “Rijks, say no to ING” and hung up two flying banners with “No art on a dead planet” on them. They will not leave until the Rijksmuseum breaks its sponsorship relationship with ING.
Spokesperson Josefien van Marlen: “It is incomprehensible that the Rijksmuseum is allowing itself to be sponsored by ING, the largest financial driver of the climate crisis. In recent weeks, persistent monsoon rains, extreme because of the climate crisis, have plunged more than 5 million people in India and Bangladesh into crisis situations. ING, which finances the fossil industry with billions per year, is partly responsible for these floods. By accepting money from ING, the museum gives the major polluter the opportunity to hide its dirty face behind famous works of art from Dutch history. This has to stop.”
Sponsorship relationship ING: unacceptable and unnecessary
The Rijksmuseum’s sponsorship relationship with ING is not only unacceptable but also completely unnecessary. The Rijksmuseum’s total income in 2023 amounted to 123.3 million euros, of which 55.8 million euros came from audience income and 39 million euros from subsidies. Only around 5 million of the Rijksmuseum’s income comes from sponsorship relationships. ING’s contribution is estimated at around 700,000 euros. This means that if the Rijksmuseum breaks the sponsorship relationship with ING, it will lose less than 0.6% of its income. It is incomprehensible that the museum still chooses to protect major polluter ING.
ING sponsorship relationship: in conflict with Rijksmuseum policy
The Rijksmuseum states that it is ‘aware of its social position and responsibility. When entering into a partnership and accepting a donation, the Rijksmuseum will take developments in society into account.’ Therefore, the Rijksmuseum must take that responsibility and end its partnership with ING, the largest financier of fossil fuels, with immediate effect.
The Rijksmuseum also says that it accepts donations ‘solely on the basis of what is in the interest of the Rijksmuseum.’ The effects of the fossil fuel policy are disastrous for a liveable earth, and therefore for the continued existence of the museum’s collection. Its own policy offers the Rijksmuseum an easy opportunity to end its relationship with ING, because partnerships must be ‘recalibrated annually’.
