Should PR Give Up Fossil Fuel Clients?

Photo: Markus Spiske on Unsplash

The most basic objectives of public relations (PR) businesses are rather straightforward: provide impact for clients; make profits for shareholders. In doing so, agencies work across an array of sectors and issues, some of which resonate well with prevailing international norms and expectations, others less so. When communications firms are adjudged to be working against a global good, they can be rightly or wrongly castigated by pressure groups and concerned citizens.

Like other industries, environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria are also of legitimate importance for PR practitioners. Proximity to questionable corporate or political actors, child labour, environmental malpractice, and other issues, have profound implications for business and the wider profession. The expected ideal response is for agencies to distance themselves from such clients. But is walking away always the most sensible action to take? PR firms’ engagement with the fossil fuel sector, and calls to cut these ties, provide food for thought.

Time for Change

A global coalition of 450 climate scientists recently signed a letter calling on PR and advertising firms to end relations with fossil fuel companies. As they see it, certain agencies continue a tradition of working on behalf of clients to downplay scientific data evidencing the severity of the climate emergency. Accordingly, it is time for PR firms to move on from their tacit support for oil and gas production and get behind climate change legislation and mitigation. 

The letter builds on an academic study highlighting hundreds of elaborate campaigns purportedly designed by communications agencies to hinder climate action. Clients include Shell, Chevron and other fossil fuel entities. The study also reflects that PR firms are by no means strangers to being called out for their links to oil and gas. In 2021, the Clean Creatives collective published an open letter calling on Edelman, the largest communications firm in the world, to end the ‘greenwashing’ of fossil fuel clients.  

Edelman’s updated response to the climate emergency emphasises working with partners to accelerate action, develop best practices, and hold clients as well as itself accountable for mitigating climate change. The company also conducted a portfolio review, further expanded its climate expertise, and committed to working with others on criteria for scientifically-guided climate communications. It nevertheless stopped short of dropping its energy clients, presumably to the chagrin of both letters’ signatories, despite the notable calibrations made.

Good COP Bad COP

To casual observers, a PR leader’s reinforcement of its climate change credentials might be indicative of an industry that uncompromisingly prioritises profit above ethical standards. Despite the unquestionably sales-driven nature of the business, that conclusion is too simple and not entirely fair. Like other sectors, PR has professional bodies that make ethical competence a prerequisite for membership. Of these, the International Public Relations Association’s (IPRA) Code of Conduct is among the most comprehensive. Among its many provisions, the document states that practitioners must not intentionally disseminate the type of false or misleading information underscored by the aforementioned study. 

Last November’s United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) inspired IPRA to form a chapter to heighten professional knowledge of related issues. In doing so, the organisation seeks to enable members “to play a valuable part in furthering communications aspects of climate change.” Neither IPRA nor this specific chapter urge PR professionals to cease business with fossil fuel clients, making it unlikely that the initiative can soften the resolve of Clean Creatives and the climate change scientists.

The dilemma facing PR firms working with fossil fuel producers is clear: attempt to shape the climate debate within the parameters of professional standards and business activities, or comply with demands to give up clients in the oil and gas sector. If it is to be the former, then companies might point to clause 3 of IPRA’s Code of Conduct. This requires practitioners to facilitate moral, cultural and intellectual conditions for dialogue while recognising the rights of all parties to state their case and express their views. 

A hypothetical scenario demonstrating clause 3 in action is warranted. IPRA members are in principle free to work with a company like Shell to promote its target of becoming a net-zero energy business by 2050. From developing communications strategies, to running press offices, PR companies can support this goal provided they adhere to the requirement for accuracy and clarity in all communications. The same is true of the type of crisis communications that Repsol recently conducted following an oil spill off the coast of Peru. 

Don’t Go There…

Any PR professional worth their salt knows that emphasising the industry’s ethical charters and practices alone is unlikely to cut it with climate activists. For them, such is the severity of the climate emergency that agencies seem to have no choice but to cease working with fossil fuel companies. Finding a way forward that will satisfy all sides, and suitably addresses climate change communication, remains challenging.

For starters, some consultants may need to get better at managing some of their clients’ expectations. PR companies might consider the value of emphasising how they don’t support harmful aspects of oil and gas production. It goes without saying that agencies do promote global manufacturers’ presence in Africa. It would also be shattering if the same companies were found to have supported operators of illegal oil refineries on the continent, a major source of pollution and drain on state coffers. Expulsion from trade associations and a Bell Pottinger-type downfall are distinct possibilities. 

Indeed, leading PR firms should be aware of the value of campaigns that put distance between businesses and unethical practices. In the 1990s, the UK’s Cooperative Bank ran a harrowing advert highlighting its refusal to invest in repressive regimes. The advert was part of a series underlining the Bank’s commitment ethical finance, with content also focussed on landmines, fossil fuels, and more. Since then, the Co-Op has consistently burnished its ethical credentials up to and including being named 2021’s best high street bank for ESG.

Better the Devil…?

As PR firms rarely garner as much public interest as banks, Co-Op-style advertising running similar messages would likely be a low-key affair targeting established and potential clients. It is also unlikely that these adverts will meet the concerns of climate change activists highly critical of PR’s involvement with oil and gas. There is nevertheless a risk that Climate Creative’s and other actors’ all-or-nothing approach will ultimately end up creating a stalemate that hinders rather than helps their campaign.

The challenges posed by the current energy crisis and Russia-Ukraine conflict provide a timely reminder that fossil fuels remain essential features of the global economy. Oil and gas producers will continue to need strategic communications support. Maintaining crisis communications preparedness alone is absolutely crucial in the interest of public information. However, just because energy firms contract agencies does not mean that they cannot do it for themselves. While this might be music to climate campaigners’ ears they should not discount companies hiring former advisors to respond via in-house capacities. That outcome would neither help the cause, nor the people employed by consultancies.

Neither should campaigners discount the employee-driven nature of PR firms’ climate initiatives. A recent Foreign Policy article outlined how a letter from staff to partners inspired McKinsey Sustainability. Launched in the build-up to 2021’s Earth Day, this client-service platform aims to be the largest private sector catalyst for transition to a net-zero economy. “All well and good”, climate activists may say, but the company nevertheless maintains an oil and gas practice and, presumably, clients in both sectors.

But there is an argument to be made for communications consultancies to continue working closely with their oil and gas clients. The latter almost certainly have the clout and funds to be at the forefront of the energy transition process and build-up of green economies. Strategic PR, a central management function in organizations, has an influential role to play. PR consultants cannot only help clients make better sense of governance and sustainable business models, they can also help create them.

The point is that without giving ground, activists and PR companies remain locked into positions that hardly help the climate emergency. So long as agencies abide by their industry bodies’ professional standards, they are doing nothing wrong by working with fossil fuel clients, even if ethical standards may need to be further asserted. For their part, climate activists should seek more common ground with likeminded PR professionals. The sector is neither blind nor immune to the stark reality of climate change.

An adaptation of this article was later published by the Fair Observer.