The Debate: Should B Corps cut ties with fossil fuel companies?
Morning Wire’s weekly feature takes the fiercest water-cooler debates and pits two candidates head to head before delivering The Judge’s ultimate verdict.
The Debate: Should B Corps cut ties with fossil fuel companies?
Is it delusional to pretend that fossil fuel companies meet the B Corp standards, or is it unrealistic to shun companies like Shell?
Yes: It’s delusional to pretend that fossil fuel companies meet the B Corp standards disingenuous
B Lab’s mission is to make business a force for good. To earn B Corp status, businesses must meet the “high standards of social and environmental performance, transparency, and accountability” they set.
It is this commitment to use “business as a force for good” that distinguishes B Corps from other businesses.
There is clear tension when B Corp accredited companies are working with major polluters.
The damage done by supporting or promoting a false narrative of transition – where no clear evidence exists at a scale and speed that is credible – is significant. It gives people a false sense of confidence and delays the action required to achieve the change that is needed.
The world must transition away from unsustainable, environmentally damaging practices, and there is a strong case for B Corps to work with clients to help them transition to reach “higher standards of social and environmental performance, transparency, and accountability”.
But, only if the client demonstrates their commitment through their behaviour, and not just their claims. The transition also must clearly be at a scale and speed that reflects the social and environmental challenges the world faces.
In fact, B Corp businesses are the best partners to help companies transition, because their considerations are broader than just profit; but only if acceptable levels of demonstration, speed and scale are met.
Fossil fuels companies do not meet any of those criteria, and anyone who believes they can change them from within, especially a B Corp accredited agency, is either delusional or disingenuous.
Chris Norman is CEO and founder of GOOD Agency
No: The reality is that we live in a world that relies on fossil fuels, and it’s unhelpful to blame oil companies
Havas losing their B-corp status after winning the Shell account is the latest instance of fairytale virtue-signalling that won’t make any progress towards net zero. Many in the advertising industry proudly say that working for a fossil fuel company is an unforgivable sin… right before they fly off on overseas holidays, rent petrol cars and buy plastic-based souvenirs before flying home again.
The reality is that we live in a world that relies on fossil fuels, and it’s unhelpful and overly-simplistic to blame companies like Shell. Sure, they get oil and gas out of the ground. But only because we’re all so reliant on what they are selling.
And if you didn’t have companies like Shell, then we would simply be buying our oil from despotic regimes instead.
Reducing the demand for oil and gas is possible, but will take time. Living without them is just not a feasible solution for right now, and I don’t think any serious people want to reverse centuries of progress in human development.
We need a transition to roll out new technologies that will make net zero possible. That means wind farms, electric cars, carbon capture and more.
Companies like Shell with their infrastructure, knowledge and workforce are absolutely essential in enabling this transition.
The reality is that despite being condemned by the B Corp community, Shell is doing far more to make net zero possible than any of them.
No wonder Havas has been hired: there is a big job to do telling that story!
Ben Guerin is co-founder of Topham Guerin
The Verdict: What is the point of B Corp?
Last week four Havas media agencies lost their B Corp statuses due to their contracts with fossil fuel producer Shell signed last September, which triggered complaints from some in the media industry and green activists.
It’s worth noting that the United Nations secretary-general Antonio Guterres has called for a worldwide ban on fossil fuel advertising, calling fossil fuel firms “godfathers of climate chaos” and likening them to the tobacco industry.
B Corp status is itself subject to controversy; some call it meaningless greenwashing whilst others praise its impact. Norman is clearly amongst the former, and thus doesn’t want to tarnish its image. Guerin, however, points out that it would be hypocritical to shun Shell given that humanity still relies on fossil fuels.
But is there not a moral difference between providing an oil firm with advertising services and buying gas from it? B Corp must have some red lines, or it really would be meaningless (presumably Shell itself couldn’t be stamped with ‘B Corp’). Guerin risks over simplification himself: deciding not to produce ads for a fossil fuel company is not the same as blaming Shell for existing. Taking the odd flight is not the same as devoting a life to oil extracting. And if a purportedly environmental qualification can’t exclude the world’s biggest polluters, what use is it at all?