The science museum is in a hard place to work. Just 62% of its funding comes from the government. This means that they are constantly looking for ways to bring in the rest.
Sponsorship is an important way to do this. However, when the sponsor contradicts the message you are sending, this becomes a problem. For instance, how would an oil company get their value from sponsoring an exhibit – perhaps by twisting what is shown, misleading people and suggesting that fossil fuels do long lead to climate change.
Equinor sponsored the interactive WonderLab since 2016. The relationship is ending because as the Norweigen state-owned energy giant has failed to cut its carbon emissions. In particular, they supported the new deal in Rosebank, the biggest undeveloped oil and gas field in the North sea. They also inserted a gagging clause stopping the museum from saying anything that might look negative. Given climate change and the damage that companies like Equinor is doing, a gagging clause can go a long way in blocking this museum from talking about climate change in an honest way.
It appears that the science museum pledged in 2015 (in the Paris climate agreement) that it would put pressure on its sponsors to change their behaviour and cut ties with those who did not.
They were not first (the church of england did this last year) but they are not the last. Having said this, it is quite ridiculous that organisations did not divest 20-30 years ago, as climate change became an issue. What is clear, is that companies give money to good causes to share in their positive feeling, but without care, it will be the good causes that share the negative feelings from the company in question.