Top PR Companies Rule out Working with Climate Change Deniers

Not all of them, of course.

Satellite image of w:ship tracks, clouds created by the exhaust of ship smokestacks. NASA, public domain via Wikimedia Commons

Satellite image of w:ship tracks, clouds created by the exhaust of ship smokestacks. NASA, public domain via Wikimedia Commons

 

Suzanne Goldenberg and Nishad Karim write at the Guardian:

Ten firms say they will not represent clients that deny man-made climate change or seek to block emisson-reducing regulations.

Some of the world’s top PR companies have for the first time publicly ruled out working with climate change deniers, marking a fundamental shift in the multi-billion dollar industry that has grown up around the issue of global warming.

Public relations firms have played a critical role over the years in framing the debate on climate change and its solutions – as well as the extensive disinformation campaigns launched to block those initiatives.

Now a number of the top 25 global PR firms have told the Guardian they will not represent clients who deny man-made climate change, or take campaigns seeking to block regulations limiting carbon pollution. Companies include WPP, Waggener Edstrom (WE) Worldwide, Weber Shandwick, Text100, and Finn Partners.

“We would not knowingly partner with a client who denies the existence of climate change,” said Rhian Rotz, spokesman for WE.

Weber Shandwick would also not take any campaign to block regulations cutting carbon emissions or promoting renewable energy. “We would not support a campaign that denies the existence and the threat posed by climate change, or efforts to obstruct regulations cutting greenhouse gas emissions and/or renewable energy standards,” spokeswoman Michelle Selesky said.

“There may be scenarios in which we could represent a client that has different views on climate change, just not on this issue.”

The UK-based WPP, the world’s largest advertising firm by revenue and parent company of Burson Marsteller and Oglivy Public Relations, said taking on a client or campaign disputing climate change would violate company guidelines.

“We ensure that our own work complies with local laws, marketing codes and our own code of business conduct. These prevent advertising that is intended to mislead and the denial of climate change would fall into this category,” the company said.

However, Fiona McEwan, a spokeswoman for the company, said the 150 companies within WPP made their own decisions on clients and would not rule out campaigns opposing regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The US-based Edelman, which is the world’s largest independently owned PR firm, did not explicitly rule out taking on climate deniers as clients.

“Expanding the dialogue in a constructive manner, and driving productive outcomes to solve energy challenges are the key criteria for evaluating client engagements,” said spokesman Michael Bush.

He said Edelman takes on clients on a case-by-case basis.

The PR firms were responding to surveys conducted independently by the Guardian and the Climate Investigations Centre, a Washington-based group that conducts research on climate disinformation campaigns. This could have a knock-on effect on the advertising and lobbying campaigns targeting Barack Obama’s regulations limiting carbon emissions from power plants, and the international negotiations for a climate change treaty, now entering a critical phase.

“The PR industry is a major component of the influence peddling industry that stretches across Washington and the world, and they are making large sums of money from energy companies and other important players that have businesses connected to fossil fuels and energy policy,” said Kert Davies, the founder of Climate Investigations.

Davies said his group took on the research to try to get a better grasp of the mechanics behind the framing of messages on climate change – and the disinformation campaign.

Read more here.

, , , , , ,

  • Burnt Ryan

    The headline makes it seem like they’re taking a brave stance, but when you read the rest it’s full of PR double-talk. I think their statement is inherently meaningless.

    • Oginikwe

      Agreed. Besides, their work is already done and the damage has been ongoing for two decades.

  • Craig Bickford

    Like it’s supposed to be a bad thing that no one can give more money to an industry that practices mind control? They could drink some bleach while they are at it to lessen their human carbon foot print and I would be fine with that, one more douche nozzle gone.

  • Eric Mcoo

    In terms of honesty, the climate change industry is a cross between Big pharma and Monsanto.

  • Echar Lailoken

    derp derp derp

    • InfvoCuernos

      Those poor oil companies! Think of their children, having only three or four helicopters in their fleet, before you know it, they’ll be on welfare with all the recording industry execs that lost money to Napster.

      • Echar Lailoken

        How will they ensure the brute enactment of awful shortsighted laws when their coffers are at risk of dwindling? How can they keep up with buying a president and the senate? My heart bleeds for them. I can hardly sleep at night.

        • InfvoCuernos

          Well, at least they had the foresight to arm and train their own private army so that they can protect themselves when the peasantry rises up against them.

          • Echar Lailoken

            Would a weapons trained peasant raise arms against it’s peasantry kin?

          • InfvoCuernos

            NEVER! That’s why law enforcement is always so polite and understanding..

21