B-Corps and starting a dialogue

B-Corps, have you done this right? Is kicking Havas out the right thing to do? How do we retain the experts we need to focus on net zero challenges? How do we shift from blaming production of energy and focus on consumption?

The message that B-Labs have sent out in rescinding Havas’s B-Corps status is simple: agencies working with energy companies that include oil and gas in their mix will fail to get B-Corps status. The question is whether this is a bold message or missing an opportunity. Granted, if an agency’s work in oil and gas is excessive, then it should face punitive measures but are we at risk of alienating a whole load of creative experts who could help in the transition to a clean future?

First, the work that B-Labs do is amazing. It is changing the debate and fast tracking change, so what follows is written to be constructive.

There are 700 million people across Asia who want energy parity with the rest of the world. They are consuming that energy so that they can compete with other countries who have for decades had resources at their disposal which they have not. Right now, the only option open to them is the use of fossil fuels.

Do organisations like B-Labs need to consider the fact that we may be viewing the challenge from an incredibly privileged position. B-Labs is headquartered in Pennsylvania, USA. A country that has never experienced energy poverty. It, like many of us in well-established industrialised economies, is now seeking to do all it can to save the human race from the destruction we have caused. But we must remember this bias. We must remember this privilege.

We must drive towards net zero, but what might happen if governments were to stop using oil and gas tomorrow? There is certainly not the resource to go around. And, it's arguable that societies would collapse in anarchy.

The question is how energy companies transition faster and still provide the energy the world needs. How do they mitigate the damage caused by carbon emissions, store those emissions safely, and still provide safe and secure energy.

An even bigger question is what we do about the matter of consumption.

Because, when we look further into the problem we have to ask whether B-Corps will start to come down harder on agencies working with Microsoft, NVidia, and Amazon. After all, the products and services they provide are leading towards a revolution in AI that will see even more energy drawn from the grids worldwide. These brands and the agencies that work for them are contributing to the problem.

Let’s look at datacentres. They consume huge amounts of electricity but go under the radar because we can’t see them. It’s been estimated that one fifth of Ireland’s energy usage is consumed by data centres. That’s data we are using to power our digital lives. What are we prepared to do to change our lives?

We see Shell. We see bp. They are on the street. And it is easy to point at them. What we don’t see it is easier to ignore. We don’t like to act so much when it involves reducing our own consumption. Why human’s act the way they do can be explained. We like short cuts. We blame producers because they are not us. We are consumers. We don’t like pointing the finger at ourselves.

Ultimately, this is an issue of supply and demand. All the while we act and consume, the market will provide. Either people change or governments help them change - and politicians have a poor track record in driving change unless the electorate demands it.

The big question in facilitating change is what are brands prepared to do? Are they prepared to stand up and make change, and will they be rewarded by consumers in the long run for doing so.

In the West especially, we need to stop viewing the problems we face through a one-eyed view. We need to start to think of ways in which we provide energy to people in a fair way; provide energy in a clean way; and transition in a way that is safe, manageable and achievable.

The danger is that the message that B-Labs might be sending out to agencies is that B-Corps doesn't really matter because it can’t be attained. Yes, Havas may lose talent who don't want to work on certain accounts, but that electricity we need to power our Macs and iPhones has got to come from somewhere, and not at the expense of those in energy poverty.?

And the message to heavy industries like Shell is that they are outside of the tent and always will be. And Shell will be looking to governments like Modi's India who have a demand for energy and are as happy to buy it from an unclean Russia as they are to buy it from a brand like say Shell (brands that do at least have some transition strategy, even if we may want them to be bolder.)

Humans - especially us in the West - always love to look for easy answers to complex questions and forgets its privilege and the real-world implications for people elsewhere. It’s a behavioural reality. We look for short-cuts. There are no short-cuts when it comes to any complex problem, be it the situation in Palestine or the resurgence of polarized politics across the world.

The question for brands like B-Corps is how they engage more fully with industry in fast-tracking change and bringing people with them. And by people, we mean business, government and citizens everywhere around the world.

And for us as citizens, let’s not just focus solely on the producers of energy. Let’s focus on the consumers of energy, because that is where change surely needs to start.