Shell knew about the relationship between burning fossil fuels and climate change as early as the 1980s. So what did the company decide to do about it? Stop burning fossilย fuels?
No. It changed its advertisingย strategy.
A tranche of documents uncovered last week by Jelmer Mommers of De Correspondent published on Climate Files, a project of the Climate Investigations Center, revealed that Shell knew about the danger its products posed to the climate decades ago. The company has continued to double-down on fossil fuel investment since the turn of the century despite thisย knowledge.
But in the wake of a bribery scandal in Nigeria that resulted in two dozen employees being fired, the company was concerned enough about its dirty image to work out a new PRย strategy.
That strategy was presented in a document from 1999 entitled โListening and Responding: The Profits and Principles Advertising Campaignโ. The dossier shows the origins of Shellโs PR strategy to clean up its image, enacted over the past twoย decades.
And what does it show? โGreenwashingโ,ย Savannah Law School associate professor Judd Sneirson told DeSmog UK โ Shell is โmisleading consumers about its environmentalย practicesโ.
And it’s easy to find examples of the strategy being deployed right through toย today.
Climateย Concern
In the document, Shell presents โthe first pool of examplesโ of adverts that allow the company โthe opportunity to extend our point of view in a frank and open wayโ. The document includes a series of adverts โ some real, some hypothetical โ in a โdonโt do this; do thisโย format.
This slideshow put together by DeSmog UK shows the negative and positive advertsย side-by-side:
One of the first adverts in the dossier concerns climate change. The document recommendedย the company tackles the issue head-on; Shell should โclear the airโ, not โcloud theย issueโ.
The hypothetical bad advert reads: โIs the burning of fossil fuels and increased carbon dioxide in the air a serious threat or just a load of hot air?โ This is not what Shell should advertise, the documentย suggested.
Instead, the document recommendedย Shell promotes its โgreenโ activities such as its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, natural gas production and sustainableย development.
Jess Worth, co-director of campaign group Culture Unstained, said such efforts show how seriously the company was taking its image reboot going into the 21stย century.
โTo understand what Shell is trying to achieve here and why, you need to look at what was going on at the time,โ sheย said.
She pointed to the damage to Shellโs reputation following the controversy over the disposal of the Brent Spar platform in the North Sea, and accusations of responsibility for the deaths of tribal leaders and activists inย Nigeria.
โConcern about climate change was also starting to enter the mainstream, and the Kyoto Protocol had just been signed, with much fanfareโ, sheย said.
โSo what did Shell do: shift its business model away from primarily investing in ever-more polluting fossil fuel projects, enshrine the right to free prior and informed consent for local communities, clean up the mess it had made in Ogoniland and fully commit to developing genuinely sustainable alternative sources of fuel? Nope. Shell did the opposite, inย fact.โ
โIt launched this marketing campaign, in the knowledge that if it could just rehabilitate its reputation, business as usual on the ground could largely continue,โ Worth added.ย ย
โโฆ bury the findings, muddy the waters, and turn climate change into aย โdebateโ.โย
To this day, Shellโs ‘solution’ to climate change continues to be to invest in fossil fuels,ย albeit sources with marginally lower carbon footprintsย such as natural gas, which is claimed to produceย about half the CO2 emissions of coal when used in powerย generation.
Shellโs new โSkyโ scenario, which outlines how the company thinks the world can prevent warming of more than two degrees and was released in March 2018, relied heavily on as yet unproven carbon capture and storageย technology.
That would allow companies like Shell to keep producing and selling fossil fuels for much longer than if policymakers enacted more radical but effective strategies such as massively increasing the share of renewableย energy.
Campaigners in the Netherlands recently announced they would take the company to court unless it could prove its business model was in-line with the Paris Agreementโs two degreesย goal.
In response to DeSmog UK‘s questions about whether the company accepted the characterisation of its strategy as greenwash, a spokesperson for Shell pointed to its sutainability reports and a quote made by the company’s CEO Ben van Buerden at the time the document wasย published:
โTackling climate change is a cross-generational, global and multi-faceted effort,โ van Beurdenย said.
โThis is a challenge for the whole planet, for all of society, for customers, for governments and indeed for businesses. It will mean meeting increasing energy demand with an ever-lower carbon footprint. And it is critical that our ambition covers the full energy lifecycle from production to consumption. We are committed to play ourย part.โโ
But despite Shellโs supposed commitment to climate action, it plans to keep 95 percent of its investments in fossil fuels, putting just five percent into renewables. And latest data shows thatย Shellโs emissions have risen to their highest level sinceย 2014.
That business model explains why Shell has sought to put a sticking-plaster over the issue of climate change rather than invest in alternatives that could realistically address the issue, law professor Sneirson told DeSmog UK.
โIt should come as no surprise that Shell (and apparently Exxon and the rest) have known about climate change for decades,โ heย said.
According to Sneirson, the #ShellKnew revelations suggest that, within the industry, โclimate change โdenialโ is not a genuinely held position; โdeniersโ dispute the science in service of the coal and oil industries, lying for profit while literally destroying theย planet.โ
Instead, Shellโs strategy as presented in these documents is โbury the findings, muddy the waters, and turn climate change into a โdebateโโ, heย said.
Shell is yet to directly respond to theย #ShellKnew revelations.
Socialย Conscience
Shellโs 1999 document also promotedย the image of the company acting responsibly towards the communities it affects, which campaigners say contrasts with the reality of activities on theย ground.
The document recommendedย Shell doesnโt shy away from issues like human rights and community engagement. It warnedย fossil fuel companies cannot afford to โignore the world outside their office and the communities on which their businessย dependsโ.
Instead, the document suggestedย Shell should promote how โwe support the communities around usโ and frame the companyโs community engagement as โinvesting for the future, in the same way we invest in oil, gas and solarย powerโ.
But such activity is hurdlingย a low bar in terms of responsible action, Sneirson said. He argued Shell’sย adverts commit the โsin ofย irrelevanceโ:
โItโs Shell saying โWeโre not polluting!โ or โWeโre not killing endangered species!โ or โWe respect humanย rights!โ.โ
โBut there are laws protecting the environment and endangered species and human rights so what Shell is really saying is โWeโre obeying theย law!โ.โ
Shell continues to push this image of the company as a socially responsible actor today, despite allegations of corruption and human rights abuses in Africa, and ongoing efforts to take the company to court over alleged environmental negligence.
Worth, of Culture Unstained, said Shell employs this strategy because changing a companyโs image is much easier than changing itsย practices.
โShell is pioneering the dark art of corporate social responsibility here,โ she said. โOr course it’s hard to look at the innocent faces of those children, the tiny frog held tenderly in the jaws of a tropical plant, the pristine wild places showcased in the adverts without having warm fuzzy feelings and perhaps subconsciously associating them withย Shell.โ
โBut what’s going on here is more subtle. Shell is claiming to be open to dialogue, aware of its mistakes, embracing change, all the things the viewer would hope for; but crucially, without any concrete evidence or commitments that anything’s going to changeโ, Worthย added.
โIt has realised that it’s not how it operates that’s important: itโs having a social license to operate, and that can be bought much, much moreย cheaplyโ.
History ofย Greenwash
The principles outlined in the 1999 document โ of emphasising the positive, and putting people rather than products at the heart of their campaigns โ have persisted in Shellโs advertising over the past twoย decades.
In 2017, Shell won an award for its โBest Day of My Lifeโ TV advert, part of its #MakeTheFuture campaign. The video featured pop stars hailing the quality of life the company could provide through itsย products:
This relentless focus on a better, more efficient, future can also be seen in Shellโs adverts throughout theย 2000s.
The publicity campaign is perhaps not a fair reflection of Shell as a company, Sneirson said. The adverts fall foul of the โsin of false labelsโ, heย argued.
โThe images in the ad โ blue skies, beach sunsets, lush forests โ are meant to suggest Shell is pro-environment, and you should ignore whatever negative things you may have heard or read about the company,โ heย said.
But the companyโs attempts to promote a clean, green, vision of itself has tripped it up in theย past.
In 2007, the Advertising Standards Agency ruled that Shell misled the public in one advert that implied some of the emissions from its fuels wereย recycled:
And in 2010, Greenpeace successfully fooled much of the media with its parody of Shellโs โLet’s Goโย advertisements.
The campaign group mocked up a website, held a fake launch event, and produced a series of its own adverts with Shell branding but very off-brand messages, which wentย viral.
That hoax reminded the world that whatever image Shell may try to push, it is still an oil company atย heart.
Bob Brulle, a professor of sociology at Drexel Universityย who has long studied the fossil fuel industries’ communications strategy, told DeSmog UK that companies needed to be held to account over theirย advertising.
โThe PR campaign from Shell is very typical of corporate promotion campaigns.ย These sorts of campaigns are one sided amplifications of corporate activities to attempt to improve corporate reputation.ย The crux of the issue is whether the campaign is actually followed throughโ, heย said.
He pointed to Shell’s growing emissions as evidence that the company was not meeting the standards implied byย its ownย advertising.
Worth said she was amazed things have evolved so little in two decades. Pointing to Shellโs ongoing deals to sponsor museums, schools and sports clubs, sheย said:
โThese days, our cultural institutions and learning spaces have become oil companies’ advertising billboards of choice, where they push many of the same misleading messages as they pioneered inย 1999.โ
โShell’s playbook remains surprisingly unchanged today. Anyone would think, from looking at its current #MakeTheFuture campaign, that the company would have largely transitioned away from fossil fuels byย now.โ
Yet, itย hasnโt.
While its advertising strategy may imply a commitment to a low carbon future, Shellโs business model remains stubbornly fossil-fuelledย โ despite what it has known about climate change forย decades.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts