Disarming the Risks of Corporate Sponsorship 

The benefits are clear. For organisers, sponsorship brings financial stability and scale. For businesses, it offers a platform to boost brand visibility, forge community connections, and reinforce social purpose. And perhaps, it even brings the warm glow of knowing you made it possible for punters to enjoy cider from a rapidly disintegrating paper cup on day four, the buzz from the crowd palpable as they await the much-anticipated performance from Dr. Karl Kennedy and his guitar. 

However, sponsorship doesn’t take place in a vacuum and reputational gain is never guaranteed. There’s no such thing as a neutral sponsorship these days. Every partnership sends a message about who you are and what you stand for and the very visibility that makes sponsorship attractive can also magnify risk. In today’s increasingly values-driven environment, even indirect associations with certain industries or business practices can attract scrutiny, spark protest, and trigger rapid shifts in public sentiment. 

We’ve all seen the cases where organisations, hoping to boost their profile through partnership, instead face criticism, staff unease, or even boycotts due to perceived misalignment between the sponsor’s identity and the expectations of audiences, communities, or internal stakeholders. 

The lesson is clear: good intentions aren’t enough. A sponsorship must fit, and that fit must be assessed not only through a commercial lens but also through ethical, cultural, and reputational ones. 

At Alder, we regularly advise clients on both sides of the sponsorship table. One of the most consistent gaps we see is a failure to carry out thorough risk assessment at the outset. A deal might be agreed without involving HR, legal, or corporate affairs. ESG policies may not be referenced. Community sentiment may not be explored until after concerns have already been raised. 

To avoid being caught off guard, organisations should: 

• Conduct a risk audit early. Consider not only the sponsor’s brand and industry, but also the alignment of values, past controversies, and how the partnership could be perceived by key stakeholders. Risk audits should be conducted through both face-to-face and desktop research. 

• Engage the right internal voices. Marketing may lead, but HR, legal, compliance, and communications must have a seat at the table. Sponsorship is a cross-functional decision, particularly when it carries reputational weight. 

• Understand stakeholder expectations. Communities, staff, and supporters all play a role in shaping how a sponsorship is received. Early engagement can surface concerns before they escalate. 

• Prepare for scrutiny. Develop a plan for responding to potential backlash. Who speaks? What is said? What are the red lines and where is there room to listen and adapt? 

Of course, even with due diligence, criticism can arise. When it does, the most effective responses are calm, transparent, and consistent. Reacting defensively or trying to cut ties hastily can erode trust and actually make things worse. Instead, organisations should be clear on the rationale for the partnership, open to dialogue, willing to demonstrate accountability where appropriate and show they are willing to adapt when needed. 

Done well, sponsorship can deliver real value, not just in marketing terms, but in building long-term relationships and community impact. However, in an era of rising scrutiny, success depends on more than budget and branding. It demands care, alignment, and a willingness to think reputationally at every stage.