Selling out for Shell?

When is it right to say no? For the last couple of decades the language of ‘positive engagement’ with big corporations has dominated environmentalism. Several of the green movement’s leading figures gave themselves over to it entirely, setting up new organisations dedicated to this purpose.

Saying no is frowned upon as being ‘unpragmatic,’ if not churlish. We are meant to assume that overtures are made in good faith. But is that always true?

It’s a difficult area often confronting campaigners. Recently I was invited to speak at an event on the future of the energy system organised by a national newspaper. Initially I accepted. Then it transpired that the event was sponsored by the oil company Shell. I’ve always believed that not whether, but how, we engage in debates is important. And, after careful consideration I decided to withdraw. Others might have done differently, but these were my reasons and I’d like to share them.

In my experience Shell has played a particularly cynical role in the discussion of energy futures. On one hand, it wishes to be seen in public as open, engaged in environmental debate, and even encouraging of the expansion of renewable energy and a more balanced energy system. But on the other, the company has turned its back on renewables, and at least twice been reprimanded by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for making misleading environmental claims.

Shell once ran an advert with the headline "Don't Throw Anything Away, There Is No Away" in which it made the claim, "We use our waste CO2 to grow flowers." It then transpired that only 0.325 percent of their emissions were used in this way. Another complaint, also upheld, concerned a claim that investment in Canadian Tar Sands was part of Shell's strategy for sustainable energy.

Then in 2009 Shell's head of gas and power said in a Wall Street Journal article:

 We are businessmen, and we put the money we have available for investment into the opportunities that give us the best returns for the shareholders. If those were in renewables today, we’d be putting money there… It’s just not the case.

The article continued, 'Shell says it will make no significant new investments in wind or solar power in the future,' and that it was maintaining steady investment in oil and gas exploration.

According to the same WSJ article only 1.5 percent of total investment by Shell went to renewables and 'their daily output of renewable energy is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of their oil and gas production.'

Given all of this, I cannot escape the conclusion that Shell's desire to be associated with a progressive debate about energy futures is wholly cynical, and driven by a desire to manage its public image, and minimise criticism for its single-minded pursuit of profiting from fossil fuels. It seems to wish to create an appearance of openness and plurality, when in fact its course is quite clearly different, and set upon an energy system that fuels climatic upheaval. The website Spinwatch has an archive of around 50 articles relating to Shell, and Wikileaks revealed documents revealing that oil companies had agendas in Nigeria, for example, quite different to their public pronouncements.

For these reasons I could not, in good conscience, endorse their strategy by being a part of it. Last year nef pulled out of the nominations for the Prospect think-tank awards (we won think-tank of the year in 2002) because Shell had just started sponsoring it. In the long run I suspect that such soft marketing approaches, such as sponsoring high profile events with national media partners, even if it creates space for debate, does more harm than good. This is because it normalises their public image and creates the appearance of full, well meaning engagement, whilst in the process stalling the pressure, likelihood and momentum for any real change. Shell’s actual behaviour, as opposed to their public communications, seems to undermine any pretension to be engaging in debate in good faith.

The research and campaign group Cornerhouse showed, using leaked documents from public relations companies, how controversial multinational corporations in fear of the real influence of some campaign groups, use highly complex engagement strategies to divide and dilute their critics, so that they can carry on with business as usual. Sometimes, the assumption of ‘good faith’ can merely reveal strategic naivety. Had the event only had Shell representatives participating, rather than sponsoring it, I would have been happy to take part. But on this occasion, I decided that the best way to ‘engage’ was by politely saying no.