Our sports industry has a huge influence over public opinion, and that influence is one that major corporations globally have long recognised.
In the case of fossil fuel companies Woodside Energy and Alinta Energy, having athletes and players compete in uniforms with their logos, is an attempt to buy social license, and is pure social-washing.
It is dangerous for our decarbonisation efforts and it’s risky for the teams, who are starting to see a backlash from their own supporters, members and players.
I run a climate tech start-up and turned down a $50,000 prize from Woodside last year, because it didn’t align with our values. I have had numerous conversations with people about this since then.
Most congratulate me and tell me that it was a courageous decision.
But I have also had some colleagues suggest that it’s fine to take money from fossil fuel companies, because you can put it to good use.
They might be right if these companies give you that money and want nothing in return, but that’s never the case. They want the fanfare, the publicity, their logos splashed around and the social license it provides them. And that was what I was not prepared to give.
While it can be hard to make these decisions, particularly when you’re a cash-strapped start-up, for ClimateClever, there was little question or debate.
We had completed a company values workshop the week before the offer, and Woodside emerged as one of the few businesses we wouldn’t work with, due to their blatant disregard of climate science and their decision to double down on gas production, despite all the dire warnings.
Taking Woodside’s money would have also posed a significant reputational risk to our business.
Only last year we saw Powershop, a successful, relatively young electricity retailer that branded itself as a renewable energy retailer, learn that the hard way.
Powershop was acquired by Shell and within a few weeks, they lost a large percentage of their customers who were clearly upset.
Their association with Shell turned out to be a fiscally damaging reputational error. It is a perfect illustration that the corporate dollar can sometimes be a golden handcuff.
The decision by Woodside to award us the prize was clearly based around the potential marketing and PR opportunity – supporting a climate tech start-up that was helping the community – particularly in areas where they operated.
But there was no way we were going to allow ourselves to be used to greenwash their own inadequate decarbonisation efforts. There are always other sources of funding.
Sports organisations wield enormous influence in our society far greater than my start-up.
And with that should come responsibility.
They have such a great opportunity to send a clear message to fossil fuel companies that their time has come. These companies can no longer buy themselves out of their climate denial and inaction. If they want to ‘purchase’ their social license to operate, they need to earn it. Genuine commitments (not aspirations) and a clear path to decarbonise need to be provided. And Woodside is clearly not providing that.
The positive outcome from the spotlight that has been shone on fossil fuel companies and their sponsorships of major and minor sporting codes, is the opportunity it presents for other large companies to step in and demonstrate what a good corporate citizen actually looks like.
As controversial as it might have been, saying no to a giant fossil fuel corporation was extremely empowering and I have no regrets. I hope my actions, and those of sporting organisations who say no to fossil fuel sponsorship, might inspire others to think twice about who they accept money from. Sending a clear public signal demonstrates the power we all have to shape our future.
