Amid industry decline, Asia’s media struggles to answer a hard question – should we stop accepting fossil fuel advertising?

Only a handful of publications globally, such as British newspaper The Guardian and French title Le Monde, have formal policies that exclude dirty energy advertising on their platforms, and the news business has largely been silent on the matter since Guterres’ speech on 6 June.

In Asia, some media companies have been known to have declined revenue from fossil fuel companies around climate-themed content over the years, although none have publicly declared that they will not accept any form of fossil fuel sponsorship. 

A scan of mainstream news platforms and specialist publications in Asia found that most carry broad editorial guidelines that communicate sponsorship rules and explain their stance on newsroom independence. A handful of news websites carry transparency statements, and explain how journalists and editors distance themselves from foreign interference or political advertising. But none mention fossil fuel advertising.

Between July and August, Eco-Business asked journalists, public relations executives and news consumers in Asia for their views on fossil fuel advertising on news platforms. A snapshot poll of 70 people from around the region found contrasting beliefs. Most feel that content on climate change lacks credibility if it is sponsored by Big Oil. But only one in four thinks the media should completely reject sponsorship from fossil fuels brands.

A key reason for this hesitation could be the lack of alternative funding sources, media executives and journalists told Eco-Business. Although the Asia Pacific advertising economy grew by 8.2 per cent last year and is expected to see continued growth this year, traditional print, television and radio advertising has hit a wall. 

Vasudevan Sridharan, an India-based freelance journalist who writes on climate issues for Eco-Business, South China Morning Post and Mongabay, said he was not sure if it was pragmatic or feasible for media publications to reject sponsorship or advertisements from Big Oil, given that the media industry is in a period of chronic decline.

“Since any media outlet is primarily a private enterprise – existing to generate profit rather than promote social causes – it’s in their blood to seek revenue wherever possible,” he said.

In recent months, however, speculation has emerged that one of the world’s largest news agencies is to stop accepting fossil fuel ad dollars. According to sources at Reuters who chose to remain anonymous, the company has been considering a policy to restrict fossil fuel advertising for some time, and discussions have intensified of late.

In response to queries regarding these discussions, the publisher told Eco-Business in June: ”Reuters doesn’t comment on rumours or speculation.”

“

Climate coverage is skewed or skipped, depending on who owns the media company.

Vasudevan Sridharan, freelance journalist, India

Eco-Business had approached the company following the publication of the 6 June 2024 edition of its Sustainable Switch newsletter. The editor’s note had covered Guterres slamming media and advertising companies for promoting fossil fuel brands, which he dubbed “godfathers of climate chaos” and called for a ban on coal, oil and gas advertising. Ironically, that newsletter edition was sponsored by American Chemistry Council (ACC), a fossil fuel and chemicals lobby group known to have rallied against a negotiating framework for the UN-led treaty to stop plastic pollution. ACC counts Dow, Dupont, TotalEnergies and ExxonMobil among its members.

The next edition of Sustainable Switch did not carry any sponsor. But in its response, Reuters said this had nothing to do with the awkward sponsorship of the previous edition. 

Reuters is not alone in running advertising for fossil fuel brands, but its tie-up with ACC highlighted how influential organisations are making use of some of the world’s most trusted media platforms to greenwash their image among readers of sustainability content. 

An investigation in December by climate journal DeSmog found that no global media company accepts more forms of commercial revenue from the fossil fuel industry than Reuters, which celebrates its “integrity, independence, and freedom from bias” in its 2023 sustainability report. Content it produces for Big Oil ranges from branded podcasts and native advertising to custom events and social media posts.

Other publishers that featured high on DeSmog’s list of the “fossil fuel industry’s media enablers” were Bloomberg, The Economist, The Financial Times and The New York Times.

A major concern with fossil fuel companies sponsoring news content is that readers do not understand the difference between journalism and advertising, particularly with relatively new publishing innovations such native advertising, which deliberately blurs the line between advertising and editorial. All major news outlets now offer new formats that enable commercial partners to get closer to news consumers through branded content, as traditional forms of advertising revenue have fallen off a cliff, gobbled up by tech giants such as Google and Facebook.

A Shell advertisement envelops a Channel NewsAsia story on the events business attempting to adopt more sustainable practices. Few publications in Asia are known to refuse advertising from fossil fuel companies. Image: Screenshot from CNA website

Fossil fuel brands in Asia – poverty alleviators or climate delayers?

Eco-Business asked journalists, public relations executives, activists and members of the public in Asia for their views on fossil fuel sponsorship, how it affects the credibility of the media that carry it, and how likely publications are to cut ties with Big Oil sponsorship on ethical grounds.

Interviews, as well as the snapshot poll, were conducted at events such as the Singapore Independent Media Fair, as well as journalist training sessions with the Sustainability Media Academy, organised by non-profit EB Impact. Respondents were mostly from Hong Kong and Southeast Asia.

A snapshot poll of 70 respondents, including journalists, media and public relations executives, as well as news consumers, found that there is low support for an outright ban of fossil fuels-related advertisements on media platforms. [Click to enlarge]. Image: Philip Amiote / Eco-Business

The poll found that nearly 66 per cent of respondents agree that content published about the climate crisis lacks credibility if media outlets take sponsorship from fossil fuel companies. 

However, a much smaller proportion – 26 per cent – believe that media companies should under no circumstances accept fossil fuel advertising, as it hurts their credibility.

Most feel that media outlets should be able to take dirty energy ads, as long as they have a clear policy in place that informs readers of their editorial position (36 per cent), that the related advertising material they carry is declared (36 per cent), or if they have evaluated the advertisements to ensure they do not carry deceptive or false messaging (29 per cent).

Transparency is prioritised, with only 11 per cent saying they believe media outlets should be open to fossil fuel advertisements as oil and gas companies can also be genuine about leading in the energy transition. 

Views on whether or not advertising fossil fuels should be banned are similarly nuanced. The majority – six in 10 respondents – believe that it should be left to advertising watchdogs to decide on whether a fossil fuel ad is deemed unacceptable, rather than forbid them outright (24 per cent). 

Speaking to Eco-Business at the Singapore Independent Media Fair in July, a PR executive who withheld his name, suggested that fossil fuels are typically associated with poverty alleviation in developing Asia, and do not carry the same level of stigma as in the West.

“Fossil fuels might cause pollution, but they also create wealth,” he said. “The arguments against fossil fuel advertising are mostly being made in developed Western countries that have already got rich on fossil fuels.”

He pointed to Malaysia, where state oil giant Petronas is a widely-revered brand associated with bringing millions of Malaysians out of poverty and improving living standards. Petronas was recently targeted by Malaysian climate activists who accused the company – which has been criticised for greenwashing its climate credentials – of trying to co-opt the United Kingdom’s Chevening scholarship programme.

Comms Declare’s campaign to ban fossil fuel advertising in Australia, the first country to remove branding from cigarette packets. Image: Comms Declare

Meanwhile, Australia has taken a regional lead in pushing for fossil fuel advertising to be regulated. Activists have likened promoting dirty energy with tobacco advertising for the harm it does to people and planet. Non-profit Comms Declare launched a campaign dubbed “smoke kills” in August that has led to 16 companies committing to stop promoting oil, gas and coal companies in Canberra, Australia’s capital. Australia was the first country in the world to remove branding from cigarette packets in 2012.

‘Taking money from the mob’ 

Kimberley Chiu, a UK-educated researcher at Singapore’s National Library Board, said that there is a danger of publications losing credibility if articles on climate change are sponsored by fossil fuel companies, because of Big Oil’s well-documented legacy of climate denial, lobbying against climate legislation and obstructing climate science.

“Fossil fuel companies have known about the dangers of climate change since the 1950s and have actively attempted to derail climate action. Media companies taking sponsorship from any company with a vested interest risk damaging their crediblity. Because of their track record on climate, taking money from fossil fuels companies is like taking money from the mob,” she said.

Rachel Tey, campaign strategist for Students for a Fossil Free Future (S4F), an activist group that is campaigning to limit the influence of fossil fuels firms over Singapore’s education system, told Eco-Business that the role Big Oil has played in hindering climate action has not entered the mainstream public discourse in Singapore – a country that owes much of its prosperity to oil refining and has a compliant mainstream media that tends to protect powerful institutions, rather than to challenge them.

“People would rather believe the greenwash, as it’s more convenient,” she said. 

Singapore was the first Southeast Asia country to introduce a carbon tax, but it emerged in June that petrochemicals companies are to receive a generous carbon tax rebate in order for Singapore to retain its competitiveness as an oil hub.

Tey added that independent media houses should be held to the same standards as mainstream media regarding who they choose as commercial partners. “I have to ask myself, if more renewable companies were to buy advertising, would I hold the media to the same standards of neutrality? If independent media see their roles as delivering value-neutral objective news for stakeholders to perceive as neutral, they should be free of any influences,” she said.

Nicholas Yeo, projects and marketing lead at independent books company Ethos Books, and a contributor to books that campaign for forest conservation in Singapore, said that a ban on fossil fuel advertising “won’t happen in Singapore.”

“We are a pro-business country. We are sympathetic to the needs of fossil fuel companies, which have benefited from low taxes here,” he said.

Globally, the Clean Creatives movement to push advertising and PR agencies to say no to fossil fuels has gained momentum, and as of April this year, 67 firms in Asia Pacific had signed its pledge. Media observers say that guidelines that the PR sector has developed to guard against greenwash can be applied to media outlets too.

For example, Southeast Asia-based communications agency Vero, which was the region’s first PR firm to commit to not work for the world’s biggest polluters, developed a playbook for “greenwatching”, which provides recommendations for how agencies can evaluate which accounts they should and should not take on. 

One of the recommendations is to avoid polluting clients. After winning the advertising account for oil major Shell earlier this year, ad agency Havas was stripped of its B Corp, or “beneficial corporation” status following a complaint made by other certified agencies. Working for fossil fuel clients is against the values of B Corp, which is one of the most stringent sustainability certification schemes.

Lin Kuek, head of sustainability communications for Vero’s regional office and its Singapore managing director, said: “Many people in the industry think that we are mad men if we walk away from millions of dollars that can be made if we decide to take on fossil fuel clients. Some argue that we need to have a seat at the table and that change can happen from within if we work with these clients. I think we have seen that that is not true.” 

“By the time the agencies or consultants get involved and we are at the table, the menu is fixed. Our role is just to help neutralise their image,” she said, adding that there needs to be collective effort and action to “move the needle” and media outlets are a critical part of the ecosystem. 

Is refusing Big Oil money realistic?

Journalists Eco-Business spoke to for this story questioned who should be responsible for managing if and how fossil fuels brands are promoted.

Sridharan, the freelance journalist based in India, said that policies designed to ensure the welfare of people and the environment should be led by governments.

Vasudevan Sridharan, freelance journalist, India. Banning fossil fuel advertising will be difficult without government intervention, he says.

India enforces some of the world’s strictest regulations on tobacco and alcohol. While there are exploited loopholes, these policies have largely been effective in reducing societal harm, he noted.

Governments must adopt a less “accommodating stance” than they do now for fossil fuel companies, for instance by removing subsidies, he said. “Once stricter policies are implemented that consider revenue from fossil fuels as ‘quasi-dirty money’, other stakeholders, including media outlets, will follow suit.”

“Until then, [banning fossil fuel advertising] is a difficult demand to enforce,” he said.

Madhur Singh, India-based writer and editor, who has written for Bloomberg Law and Time magazine, argues that advertising is not the problem – fossil fuel influence in many parts of Asia boils down to who is pulling the strings.

“The media [in India] have crawled when asked to bend. Reliance [one of India’s largest petrochemicals businesses] now owns CNN-News18, and Adani [one of the world’s largest coal companies] owns NDTV. The influence of fossil fuels on the media goes way beyond just advertising,” she said.

Banani Mallick, Bangladesh-based journalist, says media companies should have clear policies that ensure fossil fuel firms cannot influence the editorial process.

Bangladesh is one country where the major news outlets are funded by big businesses or are government owned. The country ranks 165 out of 185 countries in the Reporters without Borders Press Freedom Index. Banani Mallick, a Dhaka-based contributor to environmental portal The Third Pole, said that media companies should have clearly defined policies that ensure fossil fuel companies cannot influence the editorial process.

As long as the editorial and branded content teams are kept separate, so that the interests of advertisers do not influence the editorial, then media companies should be able to produce a credible news product without interference from fossil fuels firms, she said.

However, media outlets that accept fossil fuel ads may suffer reputational harm, and journalists working on the climate beat may feel that their work is compromised, Mallick noted.

“

The media [in India] have crawled when asked to bend…The influence of fossil fuels on the media goes way beyond just advertising.

Madhur Singh, India-based writer and editor

Snigdendhu Bhattacharya, a Kolkata-based journalist covering politics, socio-economic and cultural affairs, argued that while media companies should be taking “active opposition” to fossil fuel sponsorship, the media in developed countries – as historically the biggest climate polluters – should take the lead in setting fossil fuel exclusion policies.

Many countries in the Global South are not in a position to stop using fossil fuels right away, so media houses may take Big Oil advertisements, but only after ensuring that doing so does not compromise their editorial policies and reportage highlighting the need to phase out dirty energy, Bhattacharya said.

In the long run, media companies will have to do without money from Big Oil. So they will need to work on finding alternative revenue sources to fund their journalism now, he said.