Why the attack on oil and gas PR is a threat to free speech

The epic Dr. Evil Super Bowl ad created for GM by McCann Detroit—promoting GM’s campaign to tackle climate change—might never see a sequel if a band of activists has its way. Subscribe to Ad Age now for award-winning news and insight. This is not about a fight for the survival of the internal combustion engine. In a way only Orwell could have imagined, this is a campaign led by Clean Creatives—which bills itself as a “community of leading professional communicators”—that in fact attempts to muzzle communications and free speech. In their own misguided way these activists are trying to stop PR, advertising and marketing firms (as well as lobbying and law firms) from working with any industry deemed to be a contributor to climate change (or not making a sufficient contribution to climate solutions). And they have found allies in Congress. Two House members, Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and Katie Porter (D-CA) of the House Committee on Natural Resources, have given a deadline to a number of media companies and sponsors of PR awards program to hand over materials related to oil company PR campaigns. There is also talk of compelling heads of PR firms to testify on their work for oil companies. Right now this campaign is targeting oil and gas companies and the PR firms that work for them. But if this campaign is permitted to succeed it will have profound implications for all firms that provide PR, advertising, marketing and political consulting to any industry sector that may find itself addressing controversial issues. Indeed, it is nothing short of an attempt to deny companies their right to speak their mind on issues affecting their customers, employees and shareholders. It also sets a dangerous precedent. How else can this be interpreted but as an attempt to deny citizens their First Amendment rights? This campaign is also, to a large degree, based on a lie. The campaigners and their supporters claim the communications sector is involved in campaigns of misinformation, climate denial and attempts to stop any policy initiatives to address climate change. One widely promoted study, The role of public relations firms in climate change politics, is frequently cited as proof that the PR industry is blocking smart climate policy. However, if media and the public were to read this study, they would see that no such finding can be supported: “The impact of these campaigns is hard to ascertain … it is unclear how much effect it has had on policy making… Yet despite extensive research into public opinion on climate change per se, we have identified no studies that measure the impact of such campaigns on public opinion.” (Page 19) I’ve spent more than three decades managing communications at the highest levels of the energy sector—both in-house and as a consultant. Over this time, I have never used the term “existential threat” in regard to my profession. But in this instance, I think this is what we are facing unless the sector itself steps up and says “stop the madness.” To call this a threat to our right to operate and to the private sector’s freedom of speech is not an overstatement. These activists are attempting to play judge and jury to decide what companies can and cannot say about matters of controversy, and who they can work with. Today it is climate change. But what’s next? Claims of vaccine safety and efficacy? The relative merits of fast food? Products imported from China? The use of smart phones and social media by teens and adolescents? Anything would be fair game. Let’s face it: We live in a complex world. There is not a single matter or topic in our society that is without disagreement. Everything we do carries both benefit and risk. Companies produce and sell products and services that consumers need or desire. All of it done legally. Yet there are some who feel empowered to dictate who has a right to speak and who does not. We’re not talking here about continuing climate denial, deception or fraud. Today virtually every international oil and gas company accepts the climate science and the role of hydrocarbons in contributing to climate change, and they are also making considerable investments in decarbonization and energy transition strategies. And communications advisors are working with them on this journey. We’re talking about an important conversation about the right paths to confront climate change, and whether the communications consulting sector has a right to contribute to this conversation. As well-intentioned these activists may be, they seem blind to the implications of what they seek. We have a right to do what we do, and so long as there is a market need for it, and so long as we do our work with integrity, with honesty, transparency and relying on a strong values set, we can make a vital contribution to the climate challenge. One final thought: What is also troubling is the relative silence coming from the communications sector about this threat. “Duck and cover” seems to be the order of the day. We communicate for a living, but nobody seems to want to talk about this threat, much less confront it. It seems as if the PR powers-that-be hope it will all go away if we keep our heads low. It won’t. Don’t miss the latest news. Sign up for Ad Age newsletters here. Editor's note: Clean Creatives reached out to affirm that its pledge does not limit agencies from working with automakers, particularly on EV advertisements. In fact, the organization said, it regularly singles out McCann's work with GM for praise as an example of how agencies can be a part of the clean energy solution and encourages McCann to do more work like it.

Why the attack on oil and gas PR is a threat to free speech

Featured Stories