Astongate - a progress update

Early in December, the Interweb (or the parts I frequent) erupted in a storm of outrage and laughter when I caught Aston Martin and Robert Bosch using a sock-puppet PR company to spread misinformation about electric vehicles. L'affaire #Astongate, as I dubbed it, made the front page of the Guardian and dozens of other outlets. A month later, I thought it would be instructive to summarise the impacts so far of Astongate. If you read to the end, you'll find out whether any of the outlets that carried the original misinformation have corrected the record.

Background

First of all, if you are new to the story, you might want to read this: Astongate: fake emission figures, an embattled carmaker and a sock puppet PR company It is my write-up of how I discovered that the PR company being used to promote the fiction that emissions from BEVs only break even with those from petrol cars after 50,000 miles was a sock-puppet registered in the name of the wife of James M Stephens, Global Director of Government and Corporate Affairs.

Significant coverage

(Let me know if there are pieces I have missed, and I'll add them)

• Electrek: Did Aston Martin publish fake emission numbers about EVs?
• Cleantechnica: Aston Martin Linked to Study Spreading Misinformation About EVs
• Guardian (front page): Aston Martin in row over 'sock puppet PR firm' pushing anti-electric vehicle study
• Guardian (follow-up): Aston Martin to hold internal inquiry after 'sockpuppet PR firm' row
• Bloomberg: Aston Martin Boss Distances Himself From Questionable EV Report
• Treehugger: Aston Martin Says Electric Cars Aren't Green Enough. New report says it takes 50,000 miles until they are cleaner than gas. It's wrong
• TheNextWeb: Astongate: Aston Martin exec behind 'PR firm' peddling bogus anti-EV study
• BusinessGreen: 'Astongate': Aston Martin and Bosch accused of using controversial report to downplay EV's environmental benefits
• BusinessGreen: Aston Martin promises review of controversial EV report
• Transport Evolved (YouTube): Why #Astongate Shows Us Some Automakers Are Still Trying To Kill EVs
• Transport and Environment: Laggard carmakers caught out trying to pass off anti-EV research as independent
• Provoke Media: Aston Martin Corporate Affairs Head & Agency Under Fire For Anti-EV Report
• Innovation Origins (Holland): Electric Auke: 'I hope that this is a wake-up call for journalists'
• Forococheselectricos (Spain): Los intereses ocultos tras el informe de las emisiones de los coches eléctricos
• Standaard (Belgium): Aston Martin brengt valse studie uit

Response by Aston Martin and its investors

Astongate did elicit responses from Aston Martin's CEO and Chairman:

• Tobias Moers (CEO of Aston Martin): "We are conducting a review into the circumstances surrounding the commissioning and publication of the report"
• Lawrence Stroll (Chair of Aston Martin and major investor): "I'm shocked by the report. I don’t know the individual who wrote it. We fully support electric vehicles"

However, if you are hoping to find out the results of that internal enquiry, I wouldn't hold your breath: Aston Martin's PR feed is full of the usual car-porn photos of its cars.

Even under its new CEO, Aston Martin just doesn't strike me as the sort of company that understands how important integrity and transparency are going to be to its brand in this new heading-for-net-zero, social-media-dominated world.

Boschgate?

Bosch has been keeping a low profile, despite admitting that it was actually the organisation which commissioned the report. Think about it: Bosch admitted giving a PR contract to a company run by the wife of the Global Director of Government and Corporate Affairs of one of its major clients - a part-time nurse, not a PR professional. Isn't anyone in senior management at Robert Bosch concerned? I know if I were on the board I my alarm bells would be going off.

Or maybe there there is more to discover about Bosch's involvement, given that it has just paid a €100m fine for its role in #Dieselgate and there has been a veritable storm of anti-EV stories in the German press, which looks very much like someone has been orchestrating it. That looks like something for a proper journalist (i.e. not me) to dig into.

Other players

So far, sadly, there have been no statements from Aston Martin's major institutional investors: Invesco, Fidelity and Vanguard. Wakey, wakey, ESG teams: do those shiny new policies mean anything?

Matt Western, the MP whose Warwick & Leamington constituency includes Aston Martin's Gaydon plant, has not - to the best of my knowledge - issued a statement. I don't blame him for supporting Aston Martin, it's his job to fight for local employers. But when the facts behind the Astongate report emerged, he needed to distance himself from it. Mr Western is the chair of the Commons All Party Group on EVs, so I suspect I'll meet him at some point, and I will be sure to raise the topic with him. I would happily have a chat any time, Matt, if you are reading this.

Leaders Live, whose role in the Astongate scandal is entirely opaque, have been keeping their heads down. I'll be keeping an eye out for them.

The big picture on PR and net zero

Astongate is a fantastic case study for those interested in how dodgy PR works, and how it can backfire.

The issue of unethical (and possibly illegal) tactics by those wishing to slow down the shift to net zero is shooting up the agenda. Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, has backed a new campaign called Clean Creatives, aimed at stopping agencies and PR companies from working for fossil-fuel clients. Consulting firm FTI was subject to a blistering expose in the NY Times for its role in orchestrating "astroturf" campaigns on behalf of the oil and gas industry, and its activities as the company behind both the Hydrogen Council and Hydrogen Europe (pdf) have also come under the spotlight.

One heartening development is that two major organisations for PR professionals put out very strong statements about the Astongate promoters' tactics. CIPR President Jenny Field said: "it is unacceptable for companies to be peddling mistruths dressed up as research and it should be condemned widely and forcefully". And PRCA Director General said: "It is entirely unethical for PR professionals to use false or misleading statistics as part of any research or campaigns. We have a duty to fight misinformation, not purvey it". This is good.

One thing we can all do is demand that PR and government relations staff of companies in which we are involved are members of the appropriate professional bodies, and that advertising, PR and marketing contractors we use are members of the right associates. It raises the stakes for misbehaviour if they know they can be censured or expelled for professional misconduct, just as lawyers or accountants can be.

And finally...

To those of you who read this far just to find out whether any of the outlets that carried the original misinformation about EV emissions also carried stories about Astongate - notably the Times, Telegraph, Daily Mail and Metro... drumroll... that would be a no. Not one of them thought it important to tell their readers that EVs do not take 50,000 miles until emissions breakeven, it takes just 16,000 miles. That EVs are by no means perfect (yes, time for the obligatory plug for active transport - walking and cycling) but that they are much, much cleaner than internal combustion.

But that, my friends, is showbusiness!

Coda

Clarendon Communications was unavailable for comment. It's Twitter and LinkedIn pages disappeared shortly after the #Astongate story broke.