Keep Britain Tidy’s income tripled after receiving tobacco industry money: conflict of interest questions are inevitable
In this blog, ASH CEO Hazel Cheeseman explains why Keep Britain Tidy’s acceptance of tobacco industry funding is problematic and risks putting local authorities in breach of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
A couple of weeks ago, The Times reported that the litter charity Keep Britain Tidy (KBT) has received millions in tobacco industry funding through a ‘middleman’, Clean Streets CIC. Naturally, this has worried local authorities and others who have worked with KBT on their anti-smoking litter campaign, not realising that it was funded by big tobacco.
Crucially, Government bodies are obliged to ensure they do not accept funding or gifts in kind from tobacco companies as part of Article 5.3 of the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which seeks to protect government policy from industry influence.
There is a good reason for this, the tobacco industry has a long history of funding programmes seemingly unrelated to tobacco policy to extend their influence and rehabilitate their reputation, sometimes known as “greenwashing”. The campaign in question puts local government in a difficult position.
Let’s not forget that the tobacco industry is a uniquely deadly industry. It makes and markets a product that will kill up to two thirds of its customers and has a long history of denying harm and lobbying against attempts to reduce smoking.
As a charity KBT are not bound by the treaty, they are free to accept money from whoever they want. However, in 2013 the charity made a commitment to no longer accept tobacco industry funding, saying:
“Given that Keep Britain Tidy's body of work includes a number of health and wellbeing connections around Eco-Schools, green spaces, our sustainability & wellbeing strand…it is clear that we need to take a clear and unambiguous position on this issue.
“Following a review of the political, social and policy landscape by our trustees, our considered view is that it is not in the best interests of our charity to accept any funding from the tobacco manufacturers. We have done so in the past but will no longer be doing so in the future.”
It is not clear when or why that position changed.
How have Keep Britain Tidy responded?
KBT have since written to Directors of Public Health and published a response on their website where they say they believe that the arrangements don’t breach the UK’s obligations under the FCTC.
They also said that “When we have run a partnership project, we have been clear with those partners about how the work is being funded.”
How much money have Keep Britain Tidy received from the tobacco industry and is it ‘independent’?
Funding for anti-litter campaigns found its way to KBT through the ‘community interest company’ Clean Streets which appears to be entirely funded by the Tobacco Manufactures Association (TMA). Two members of the KBT board of Trustees are Directors of this CIC. The Clean Streets website does not give details of any grants they have awarded, other than those to KBT.
KBT’s accounts for 2023 show that they received £9 million from Clean Streets in 2022. This more than tripled their annual income in that year. Funding for ‘tobacco-related litter’ campaigns has stayed around the £15 million mark ever since, but it’s unclear how much of this is coming from the TMA through Clean Streets.
The charity acknowledged the initial increase in their annual report at the time but didn’t mention that the sole funders of Clean Streets appear to be the Tobacco Manufactures Association.
Why is Keep Britain Tidy’s acceptance of tobacco industry funding problematic?
It is a common tactic of big tobacco to use third parties and proxies to give the impression of independence in funding, but there is no such thing as a free lunch. Financial support is rarely without expectation; substantial sums – in this case over £10 million – are not distributed out of altruism but reflect calculated commercial interests. Anything else would be bad business.
This isn’t purely a story about accounting. There is something deeper at play here. Over the last few months local authorities have raised concerns with ASH about KBT’s smoking litter campaign, reporting that requests to include quit messaging or signposting to cessation services were rejected. This raises questions about the strings attached to funding from the tobacco industry.
This year, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which will phase out the sale of tobacco for future generations, has been making its way through Parliament and the Government tabled amendments to the Bill to ensure that a complete ban on cigarette filters could be brought forward in the future. This world-leading measure would eliminate the issue of cigarette filter litter overnight. However, KBT hasn’t released a single public statement on this proposal.
Were councils aware that Keep Britain Tidy's cigarette litter work was funded by the tobacco industry?
KBT has stated that they were transparent and that those who joined the campaign were aware of the funding source. This certainly isn’t true in some cases. Over the last couple of weeks our inbox has been inundated with messages from concerned local government employees saying they were completely in the dark about the charity’s link to the TMA. If transparency hasn’t reached the very partners delivering these programmes, it’s hard to argue it has been meaningful.
And that’s where the problem lies.
When a substantial portion of funding is tied to an industry whose interests fundamentally conflict with the Government's aim to achieve a smokefree country, it inevitably raises serious reputational questions.
Local authorities are left exposed. Partnerships that appear benign on the surface risk being seen as endorsing or legitimising tobacco industry involvement. Guidance is clear that even indirect funding relationships should be treated with caution.
Is there a way to tackle cigarette litter without involving the tobacco industry?
Voluntary, industry-linked schemes were always going to create confusion, inconsistency and reputational risk.
DEFRA must make good on its commitment to a mandatory extended producer responsibility scheme that would bring in a transparent and legal requirement for the industry to bear the cost of cleaning up cigarette filters. Tobacco companies should pay for the environmental damage their products cause, but through a legally binding system where they have no influence over how that money is used, what campaigns are run, or how policy is shaped.
The Government should also, as soon as possible, move to ban filters altogether, now that they have the powers in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. Cigarette filters leach toxic chemicals into our environment and offer no health protection to smokers. They are a pointless product.
Anything less than this leaves local authorities navigating unnecessary risk – and asking questions that shouldn’t need asking in the first place.