Creativity Is Not Neutral. We Can't Continue to Pollute Minds

Editor’s note: Today’s column is the third installment in Jonathan Hanson’s sustainability series. Below, he urges agencies to join the growing movement for climate change action and accountability by being selective with their creative capabilities. A growing number of creative professionals are beginning to reflect on how their work is contributing to climate change, as evidenced by the ongoing support for Clean Creatives, a nonprofit dedicated to combating climate change through the advertising and PR industries. On a recent episode of the Conquer the Noise podcast, Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn and Clean Creatives director Duncan Meisel advocated for a shift in industry standards toward accountability, transparency and cleaner communications, with the ultimate outcome of agencies halting work with fossil fuel companies. The support these agencies give to oil and gas companies result in greenwashing, consumer cynicism and global emissions. In other words, advertising and PR is a form of public lobbying. Agencies have something that fossil fuel companies need: creativity. And creativity is not neutral—it’s rooted in a point of view, and most marketing is optimistic in nature. The unique power of creativity and messaging is that it has a direct impact on how we perceive what’s presented, with the potential to pollute the mind with misinformation. Creative businesses whose work is harming the public need to stop and think about moral implications and what that means for the greater good. According to Henn and Meisel, roughly 1% of oil and gas industry spending was geared toward renewables in 2020. But if you look at the advertising, you’d think it’s much higher—ads featuring investments in renewable energy are a mainstay. It’s an attempt to sway public opinion by misrepresenting the actual work they are doing. Case in point, ExxonMobil made a connection between human activity and climate change as far back as the 1970s but has been investing in campaigns aimed at discrediting climate science in the public view. Agencies should, of course, strive to be profitable. Money supports salaries, benefits and retirements. But the bottom line isn’t a good enough reason to do work with fossil fuel brands. Here are three business cases for agencies to not take fossil fuel work. Legal risk The first target for stopping greenwashing should be the agencies—this is where fossil fuel companies head to first. As agencies continue to work with fossil fuel brands, they should consider the legal implications, not just the moral ones, that accompany this type of work. Washington D.C., New York City, Minnesota, Vermont and Massachusetts have all filed legal actions addressing disinformation by oil companies about climate change. Environmental law charity ClientEarth filed a lawsuit against BP in the U.K., addressing false claims about their commitment to climate action. Reputational risk Greenwashing is fraud and deception, misrepresenting reality. As efforts ramp up to combat fossil fuel advertising, it will be very difficult to not become part of the conversation if you are doing work on behalf of these companies. A good sign for agency leaders to look at is: If you are embarrassed to say you work with them, you shouldn’t be working with them. There are investigations by the attorney general focused on consumer fraud and misleading the public, which carries reputational risks in addition to the legal ones. Recruitment and retention Marketing and PR are talent-driven industries, and young talent are more engaged in the climate crisis than any other generation. It has become an essential need for agencies to have clear values and set the tone for their work, people and the planet. As fossil fuel clients become synonymous with the tactics tobacco companies used in the past, how will resumes with that type of work be received when applying for a job? It could also be a reputational risk for an agency with strong environmental values to hire creatives who have serviced fossil fuel brands, and vice versa. The environmental movement doesn’t have the money to compete with fossil fuel advertising. It will always be outspent, but refusing to advertise the products of fossil fuel companies does affect their business. With agencies boycotting this type of work, history says the fossil fuel industry could go the way of the tobacco companies. European Ad Agencies Targeted by Spoof Posters Calling Out Their Fossil Fuel Clients