Baillie Gifford, an asset management firm headquartered in Edinburgh has taken an active role in sponsoring Edinburgh cultural events, including exhibitions at Fruitmarket Gallery. However, the firm also holds over £10 billion of investments in corporations with links to Israel’s security apparatus ties and illegal settlements in the West Bank.
Indeed, Baillie Gifford’s financial ties to Israel are deeply concerning. The firm holds 53 million shares, valued at £269 million, in Cemex, a concrete supplier implicated in the construction of illegal settlements, wall divisions, and military checkpoints in the West Bank. Additionally, it has 1.1 million shares, amounting to £46 million, in Cisco Systems, a US tech firm providing services to Israel’s military. Furthermore, Baillie Gifford maintains 4.5 thousand shares, worth £11 million, in Booking Holidays, a travel agency that facilitates illegal settlement tourism.
In the meantime, Baillie Gifford remains a significant supporter of cultural organisations in Edinburgh. For instance, the firm is a recurrent contributor to the Edinburgh Fringe, and it sponsors institutions such as the National Galleries of Scotland and the Scottish Opera. Moreover, since 2018, Nicholas Thomas, Baillie Gifford’s director of Overseas Investments, has served as chairman of the Fruitmarket Gallery, further intertwining the firm’s financial interests with the cultural scene in Edinburgh.
This controversial intersection prompts questioning in the ethics of art funding, especially when linked to the ongoing brutal Israeli occupation of Palestine. Recent events have starkly illuminated Israel’s perpetual violations of human rights, drawing condemnation from organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Both have unequivocally labelled Israel as an apartheid state, spotlighting the systematic abuses and
injustices perpetrated against Palestinians. While the conflict in Palestine has been marked by a recent devastating war, it is important to remember that it is rooted in a 75 years-long struggle for justice, freedom and liberation.
The Art Workers for Palestine Scotland have voiced their opposition to Baillie Gifford’s sponsorship, emphasising the ethical dilemma of art profiting off apartheid and genocide. They urge Baillie Gifford to an immediate divestment and implore Fruitmarket to acknowledge its responsibility in having such connection, as the acceptance
of funds translates to tacit support of their provenance.
However, from both sides, responses have been devoid of any real concern. Indeed, despite these pleas, the Fruitmarket Gallery has made no statement, and Baillie Gifford has shown reluctance to end its investments’ ties. On one hand, the gallery’s reluctance to address the issue, evident in its failure to even issue a statement, speaks volumes. Silence, in many cases, implies acquiescence. While art should serve as a platform for the free exchange of ideas and expression, it becomes tainted by such behaviours. On the other hand, Baillie Gifford’s response quickly framed the situation as too complex and polarising, thereby epitomising the classical Western hypocrisy. Indeed, the ‘narrative of complexity’ serves to justify investment decisions while sidestepping the stark reality of Palestinian suffering. Supporting corporations linked to such practices not only condones morally unacceptable
behaviour but also violates international law. What happens when this intersects with art?
The involvement of financial institutions in the arts raises broader questions about the ethical boundaries of cultural sponsorship. Should art be entangled with entities whose actions contradict humanitarian values? This dilemma underscores the need to reassess the role of finance in shaping cultural narratives. At its core, art funding should embody a commitment to the enrichment of humanity. Yet, in practice, it often reflects power dynamics and
ideological agendas. The current controversy prompts reflection on the responsibility of the art sector to uphold ethical standards and advocate social justice. In navigating the complexities of art sponsorship, stakeholders must prioritise principles over profit. As art inherently carries political undertones, it obliges institutions and individuals to consider the broader implications of their financial partnerships.
Ultimately, art should serve as a force for peace, unity, and compassion in this ever increasingly unjust world, rather than being commodified to perpetuate systems of violence, inequality and oppression. Allow me to conclude this reflection with a poignant line from a poem by the revered Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, reminding us that behind mere profits are real human lives: “I don’t know who sold our homeland, but I saw who paid the price.”
“The Fruitmarket Gallery, Edinburgh” by www.theedinburghblog.co.uk is licensed under CC BY 2.0.