"There can not be unethical patronage"

Subscribers article

Tribune. For months, patronage has been the subject of unprecedented virulence and regularity attacks. Particularly targeted: cultural patronage, and that of large companies, especially those having created foundations of contemporary art. The oldest art foundations are still part of our cultural landscape and have not raised any controversy. But many of these foundations have emerged recently, provoking generalized reactions to all cultural patronage, then to corporate philanthropy as a whole, and ultimately to all philanthropy.

Result: a questioning of the law on patronage, which could be dramatic for the associative world. The reasons for these attacks against patronage are in complete disharmony with its reality on the ground. Cultural "grand operations" would cost the state and the taxpayer too much through tax exemption.

It is a bit of a quick thing to forget that such operations are the subject of prior consultation between the public and the private sector, reciprocal commitments, and even contracts. It is also unmentioned that the tax exemption, although it is important as a percentage of the initial expenditure, covers only a part of it and that the sponsor alone assumes the supplement.

These operations would not be disinterested and would betray the spirit of patronage. Let us be clear: a company that engages in sponsorship, that is to say, who assumes expenses unrelated to its object, pursues objectives. Patronage is a vehicle for expressing the values ​​of the company, it federates around projects of general interest, it is a formidable creator of links, these links that are so cruelly lacking in our society today . Such objectives are not contrary to the necessary disinterest in sponsorship: they allow companies to better exercise the new social responsibility that is increasingly demanded of them.

An emulation engine

As for the image benefit lent to big business, a major concern of its detractors, it can not be decreed, and is reprehensible only if it is put at the service of its commercial policy. Not to mention that many companies deliberately choose not to communicate on their sponsorship initiatives. In addition, they often give back their counterparts (tickets offered by supported museums for example) to the associations they support.