The fracking industry’s current PR woes in Europe are not unprecedented. It is the latest sector to fall foul of a well-organised NGO campaign that, in this case, raises some uncomfortable questions about the safety and environmental impact of shale gas extraction.
In many respects, furthermore, the energy industry’s PR issues call to mind the biotechnology sector’s well-publicised problems when it came to promoting GMO foods in Europe from the 90s onwards.
In that case, the biotech industry, in the shape of Monsanto, embarked on an ill-advised advertising campaign that attempted to pre-empt anxiety over GMOs. Instead, the ads drew considerable criticism for conflating facts with opinion, and Monsanto’s credibility took a major hit. The GMO debate in Europe was critically undermined, to the extent that, today, Monsanto and other biotech companies have effectively stopped marketing GMO products in Europe because of widespread public hostility towards them.
Monsanto’s reputation, meanwhile, remains in the doldrums. The company recently hired FleishmanHillard to mount a fightback.
In terms of fracking, the energy industry has not quite reached this point, but it is easy to see a similar scenario playing out in the future. Already, a number of European countries have banned fracking, and this week’s protests in the UK [which included Cuadrilla PR firm Bell Pottinger] underscore the extent of public opposition.
The geographic similarities between fracking and GMOs are interesting, given that both have been far more readily accepted in North America than in Europe. Of more significance, however, are the PR parallels. The biotech industry ultimately failed to convince the European public that GMOs were safe. Instead, they tended to rely on an economic argument: that GMOs would solve the looming global food crisis.
Similarly, the energy industry’s case for fracking is built on two particular pillars: it will address fuel poverty and (in the UK) help revive British manufacturing. Both of those arguments are necessary and good, but neither tackles concerns over safety and environmental impact.
Which means that the energy industry appears to be losing the fracking PR battle, in much the same way that the biotech sector lost out on GMOs in Europe. As Richard Edelman noted in his blogpost this week, the energy industry must recognise that people are afraid and look to educate them rather than trying to sell them. In particular, it needs to move much more aggressively on questions of safety – via environmental studies that are thorough, independent and clearly communicated.
One senior PR executive, with experience of working on GMOs, told me that oild and gas companies are simply not “listening enough to what people’s concerns are, and they are not interpreting them well enough.”
That probably goes for government too, which has hardly rushed to address the debate or attempt to answer some of the questions that have been raised about fracking. As Cardiff University’s Adam Corner has noted “governments and energy companies ignore the views and values of the public at their peril: a contract for social change will not be achieved by marginalising or otherwise excluding public views from the debate.” Biotech companies are likely to understand that better than most.
