Public affairs firms in Europe enable pollution by lobbying for big oil, says analysis

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Analysis Reveals European Lobby Firms' Ties to Fossil Fuel Industry Contributing to Pollution"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 7.5
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

A recent analysis conducted by the Good Lobby nonprofit highlights the role of several public affairs and law firms in Europe that are lobbying for major fossil fuel companies, thereby contributing to pollution. The study reveals that a significant number of these firms are financially supported by the oil and gas sector, although fossil fuel revenues comprise a mere 1% of the industry's overall income. This raises concerns about the lack of public and regulatory pressure to hold lobbyists accountable for their associations with polluters. Alberto Alemanno, the founder of Good Lobby, noted that these firms have largely escaped scrutiny despite their involvement with clients that have minimal financial impact on their operations. The analysis presents a comprehensive database of lobbying firms and their fossil fuel clients, underscoring the need for greater transparency in the lobbying industry, particularly regarding its influence on environmental policies in the European Union.

The report also points out that some public affairs firms have increased their ties with oil companies in recent years, even as they publicly commit to sustainability initiatives. For example, Burson, Cohn & Wolfe received substantial payments from ExxonMobil for lobbying services, while FTI Consulting and Nove have also been linked to fossil fuel clients. Despite these associations, some firms argue that they are supporting a transition towards renewable energy. The research indicates that dropping fossil fuel clients could be a strategic move for public affairs firms, as it would not only align their practices with a broader commitment to sustainability but also attract talent that prioritizes climate action. However, industry insiders caution that while naming-and-shaming campaigns may not significantly alter the lobbying landscape, a shift away from fossil fuel clients could weaken their influence and potentially lead to a more favorable environment for climate initiatives.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article sheds light on the role of public affairs firms in Europe and their questionable lobbying practices for fossil fuel companies, particularly big oil. It discusses the significant financial ties these firms have with an industry that is often criticized for its environmental impact, revealing a critical relationship that appears to operate without substantial accountability or public scrutiny.

Motivation Behind the Publication

By exposing the lobbying efforts of public affairs firms on behalf of the fossil fuel sector, the article aims to raise awareness about the underlying mechanisms that contribute to environmental degradation. It suggests that these firms, despite their minimal revenue from fossil fuel clients, continue to support an industry that is detrimental to public health and the environment. The intent seems to be to encourage public and regulatory pressure on these firms to reconsider their affiliations with polluters.

Public Perception and Hidden Agendas

The article seeks to generate a perception that public affairs firms are complicit in enabling pollution by aligning with big oil. This can invoke a sense of distrust towards these firms and the broader lobbying industry. While it highlights important ethical concerns, it may also obscure other aspects of the fossil fuel debate, such as technological advancements in energy or the complexities of energy transition that some firms might be involved in.

Truthfulness and Reliability

The analysis presented is based on a comprehensive review of lobbying disclosures within the EU Transparency Register. The findings appear to be credible, given the reliance on documented data. However, the framing of the narrative may emphasize certain negative aspects of lobbying while downplaying potential positive engagements these firms might have with sustainable practices or technologies.

Societal Impacts

The article could influence public sentiments towards the fossil fuel industry, potentially fueling further environmental activism. It may pressure lobbying firms to adopt greener policies or distance themselves from fossil fuel clients. Economically, this could lead to shifts in investment patterns as companies strive to align with a more environmentally conscious public.

Target Audience

The article likely appeals to environmentally conscious communities, activists, and policymakers who advocate for climate action and corporate accountability. By addressing the ethical implications of lobbying for big oil, it resonates with those who seek transparency in corporate governance.

Market Implications

Investors and market analysts might view this report as a signal to reconsider their positions in companies linked to fossil fuels, potentially affecting the stock prices of firms that are heavily reliant on oil and gas revenues. Companies in the renewable energy sector might benefit as public sentiment shifts in favor of greener alternatives.

Geopolitical Relevance

In the context of global energy discussions and climate change initiatives, this article fits into ongoing debates about the transition to sustainable energy sources. It highlights the challenges posed by entrenched interests in fossil fuels, which remains a focal point in international climate negotiations.

Potential Use of AI

While it’s unclear if AI was used in drafting the article, data analysis models could have been employed to sift through lobbying disclosures and generate insights. If AI played a role, it might have influenced the framing of the narrative by emphasizing specific data points or trends that align with the article's critical stance.

In summary, the article presents a significant inquiry into the lobbying practices of public affairs firms and their implications for environmental policy. The reliability of the findings is grounded in documented evidence, although the framing of the narrative could shape public perception in a particular direction.

Unanalyzed Article Content

A handful of “small but dirty” public affairs and law firms inEuropeare enabling pollution by lobbying extensively for big oil, an analysis has found, with most major companies in the industry working for at least one fossil fuel client.

Several of the top spenders on activities to influence EU policymaking are on the payroll of oil and gas companies, according to ananalysisof the EU Transparency Register by the Good Lobby nonprofit, but fossil fuel clients represent just 1% of the industry’s revenue.

The researchers said it showed that public affairs companies could cut ties with the big polluters who pay them to influence policy without hurting their bottom lines – but warned there was little public or regulatory pressure on lobbyists to go green.

Alberto Alemanno, the founder of the Good Lobby and a co-author of the research, said public affairs companies lobbying on behalf of the fossil fuel industry had flown under the radar. “They can afford to keep [these clients] – even though they bring in very little – because they have basically not been subject to any form of accountability.”

In the first comprehensive review of lobbying firms working for oil and gas companies, which was shared exclusively with the Guardian, the researchers created a database of public affairs and law firms, as well as their clients, using disclosures made on the EU transparency register before January 2024. They tallied the midpoint of the lobbying costs, which the register publishes only in ranges, to estimate the amount of money each company receives from fossil fuel clients.

The list does not include fossil fuel industry groups or secondary polluters, such as airlines and carmakers.

Some of the companies have deepened their ties with big oil over the last year, according to checks conducted by the Guardian using disclosures made as of April 2025. Several have also made public sustainability commitments that appear to contrast with the actions of their clients, such as energy companies who have scrapped climate targets or shown little progress towards reducing emissions.

Burson, Cohn & Wolfe, a public affairs company, is listed as having taken €600,000-699,999 from ExxonMobil Petroleum and Chemical in 2024 for lobbying services on several environment files. Burson says on its website “we help energy clients navigate the transition toward sustainable progress”.

Another company, FTI Consulting, is listed as having taken €300,000-399,999 from ConocoPhillips and €50,000-99,999 from ExxonMobil in 2023, the latest year for which it has disclosed clients. Its latest sustainability report says: “FTI Consulting’s role as a professional services firm allows us to support a sustainable economy – both through our internal initiatives and the work we do on behalf of our clients.”

A third company, Nove, is listed as having taken €100,000-199,999 from ExxonMobil and €100,000-199,999 from Equinor in 2024, as well as smaller sums from ENI, TotalEnergies and SNAM. A case study on Nove’s website says it helped a client prevent the European Commission from banning “critical chemicals” in a regulatory proposal to reduce climate-damaging fluorinated gas emissions.

It says: “We brought our client’s position and demonstrative data to the attention of the co-legislators, successfully creating room for an exemption for safe closed-loop use of fluorinated gases without economically or chemically viable substitutions.”

The researchers said they wanted to shine a light on enablers of pollution who provide services for the fossil fuel industry but escape public attention. Similar efforts have helped spur change in the advertising industry, withthe Clean Creatives movementcovering more than 1,300 agencies who openly refuse to work with fossil fuel clients.

Duncan Meisel, the executive director of Clean Creatives, said dropping fossil clients was a smart business strategy for public affairs firms because it would help them advocate for all companies in their portfolio – including those that would be hit hard by climate breakdown. It would also help them attract and retain talent, such as young graduates who see the climate crisis as an existential threat, and avoid potential crackdowns by regulators, he added.

Public affairs firms are just one avenue by which energy companies seek to sway European policymakers. Many of the biggest players employ large teams of lobbyists in Brussels or work through well-connected industry associations that have the ear of EU officials and ministers in national governments.

As a result, a naming-and-shaming campaign may only have limited effect on climate policy, industry insiders say. Fossil fuel companies have already made efforts to develop lobbying capabilities in-house, and a climate-driven rift in the industry would probably drive those that have not yet done so to the lobbying firms that choose to continue working with them.

Sign up toDown to Earth

The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential

after newsletter promotion

But such a shift would still make it more difficult for polluters to stand in the way of climate action, said Meisel. “Even if fossil fuel companies completely in-house their lobbying, they’ll have to pull from a dwindling pool of talent that is not interested in devoting their whole careers to polluters.

“Generally speaking, fossil fuel companies are not high-prestige clients. They don’t win awards, they don’t get listed prominently on resume sites, and they don’t offer a long-term career path. Polluter agencies will be the agencies with less talent and less impact, and likely higher fees.”

Some of the public affairs companies highlighted in the analysis disagreed with the characterisation of their clients as fossil-based. Aula Europe, which is listed as having taken €100,000-199,999 from Neste between April 2022 and March 2023, said its client had transformed from “a local oil refiner into a global leader in renewable and circular solutions”.

“Aula’s public affairs work with Neste has focused on renewable energy and EU decarbonisation policies relevant to this transformation,” said Henri Satuli, a lobbyist at Aula Europe.

Must and Partners, which is listed as having taken €50,000-99,999 from the Italian energy company A2A in 2024, provided a statement from A2A that disputed its classification as a fossil fuel company, stating: “In 2024, renewables accounted for approximately 50% of the group’s total electricity production, highlighting A2A’s concrete progress toward a cleaner energy model.”

The other public affairs businesses named in the analysis – along with Hill and Knowlton, Weber Shandwick, Rud Pedersen, FleishmanHillard and Eupportunity – did not respond to a request for comment.

Dieter Zinnbauer, a researcher and adviser to the Good Lobby, said it was telling that many of the public affairs firms highlighted in the analysis focused their public sustainability statements around actions to reduce their direct carbon footprint.

“It’s one thing to recycle toner cartridges in your office, that’s great,” he said. “But if your main business line is about helping put the world on the wrong track towards the energy transition, this is more consequential in terms of what you’re doing than the recycling you do on the side.”

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian