Aligning with Net Zero in the PR and Advertising Sector

A new report by InfluenceMap analyzes the corporate clients of the Big Six PR and advertising agency holding companies – Dentsu, Havas, IPG, Publicis, Omnicom, and WPP. This report builds on the recommendations suggested by Race to Zero in its September 2024 paper, ‘Catalysing climate action: The role of professional service providers in realizing a net-zero future’, which recommends Professional Service Providers assess their work and clients through the lens of climate performance, including corporate advocacy on climate policies.

• Client mapping of the 'Big Six' reveals significant potential ‘conflicts of climate interest’, where clients of the same holding company have opposing objectives in their climate policy advocacy. For example, WPP-owned agencies represent both the Clean Energy Council, a renewable energy advocate, and Woodside and Senex, two Australian oil and gas companies have lobbied to weaken renewable energy policies. The two entities are advocating for opposing climate policy outcomes in Australia. This may lead pro-climate clients to question whether their interests are truly being served by agencies that simultaneously work with climate- obstructing clients.
• The research analyses how the Big 6’s clients have engaged on climate policies (comparing the available client data against the analysis from LobbyMap platform) and shows that ‘Green’ clients – defined as those advocating in alignment with the goals of the Paris Agreement in their climate policy engagement – make up the minority of clients for all holding companies except Havas. The research found Omnicom has the lowest percentage of ‘Green’ clients at 8%, and Havas and Dentsu have the highest percentage of ‘Green’ clients at 16%.
• According to the 2014 UN Guide for Engagement with Climate Policy advertising and PR are key tools used by corporate interests to influence climate policy. InfluenceMap’s research has shown this is especially true for the fossil fuel value chain’s efforts to shape public perception and, in turn, influence government policy on climate change. Advertising and PR agencies play a key role in amplifying these messages, often helping fossil fuel value chain clients promote narratives that obstruct climate action and delay the transition to a net-zero economy.
• Using available Ad / PR agency client lists, the report categorizes clients with a traffic light system: Obstructive (Red), Partially Misaligned (Amber), Partially Aligned (Yellow), or Supportive (Green) in their climate policy engagement. The categorization is based on the LobbyMap methodology which assesses corporate policy engagement against IPCC science-based benchmarks.
• Obstructive climate policy engagement is particularly prevalent in the energy (oil/gas, renewables) production and automotive sectors. Across all six ad / PR holding companies, InfluenceMap identified 58 relationships with energy sector clients in InfluenceMap’s database and 38 relationships with automotive clients. In energy, only one entity—the Clean Energy Council, a client of WPP— is supportive in its climate advocacy. In contrast, 26 energy sector clients are obstructive, including major fossil fuel companies like Chevron and Saudi Aramco. In the automotive sector, none of the 38 mapped clients support 1.5C-aligned climate policy, while 10 appear actively obstructive.
• While several of the Big 6 holding companies, including Dentsu and WPP have acknowledged the risks of working with high-emission clients, none have implemented effective policies to address these relationships or the conflicts of interest they may represent. For example, WPP, through its subsidiary Ogilvy Government Relations, has continued to help the American Petroleum Institute (API) engage against U.S. climate policies despite pledging not to take on any work designed to frustrate the goals of the Paris Agreement. Since 2012, WPP has been paid $4,650,000 for the services provided to API, putting the company at risk of greenwashing its own commitments to climate change.
• While several of the Big 6 holding companies have strategies to work with clients to promote ‘low-carbon' or ‘sustainable’ products to the market, none have developed science-based methodologies to ensure these products align with a 1.5°C future. This oversight risks supporting harmful lobbying agendas, as evidenced by Toyota’s promotion of hybrid cars, which are used as part of its wider advocacy strategy to oppose electric vehicles. Through such campaigns, agencies may inadvertently contribute to derailing essential climate action.