Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship

Claire Young Excerpts
Monday 7th July 2025

(1 day, 23 hours ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Claire Young Portrait Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
- Hansard - -

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank everyone who signed this petition for securing this debate. RepRisk’s 2024 report identified 1,841 incidents of misleading communication globally in the past year; 56% of those cases involved environmental issues, and nearly a third of companies flagged for misleading communications were repeat offenders, with the oil and gas industry accounting for the most incidents. In 2024, the UN Secretary General said,

“Many in the fossil fuel industry have shamelessly greenwashed, even as they have sought to delay climate action—with lobbying, legal threats, and massive ad campaigns.”

A report from the New Weather Institute, an environmental think-tank, entitled “Dirty Money: How Fossil Fuel Sponsors are Polluting Sport”, analysed more than 200 sponsorship deals, and found that sport is increasingly one of the areas that oil and gas companies are using to greenwash their reputation. Football had more than 50 partnerships with fossil fuel companies, followed by motorsports, rugby and golf. Saudi Arabia’s national oil company, Aramco, was the biggest fossil fuel sponsor of sport, paying almost £1 billion across 10 active sponsorships. It has signed a partnership with FIFA, in a four-year deal that will include major tournaments such as the world cup 2026 and the women’s world cup 2027. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) made an interesting point about how that sort of sponsorship would fit in to the definition of advertising, if we were to promote a ban.

I ask hon. Members to imagine the impact that that advertising will have on people’s perception of companies and their efforts. Some 50 or 60 years ago, tobacco companies had a huge role in sponsorship promotion; that role was eroded over the years and eventually removed altogether. We must ensure that companies cannot simply use vast sums of money to buy themselves a better reputation, without actually combating the key cause of the concern—in this case, the huge environmental and ecological damage to our planet.

It was interesting that in his opening speech, the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) mentioned concerns from the fossil fuel companies that a ban would somehow prevent them from promoting their green initiatives. I note that a Greenpeace report, “The Dirty Dozen: the climate greenwashing of 12 European oil companies”, found that six global fossil fuel companies and six European oil and gas companies produced only 0.3% of their energy from renewable sources in 2022, despite commitments to net zero 2050 targets.

There will of course be pushback from within the industry itself; we saw that with the tobacco industry, yet we now take the restrictions and warnings for granted. We must ensure that the extra rules and regulations that govern how fossil fuel companies can act are stringent and well enforced. At the very least, we must toughen up both the Competition and Markets Authority and the Advertising Standards Authority codes to ensure that, where sponsorship does take place, it is contingent upon rules and obligations for those companies to do more than just slapping their names on billboards and football shirts.

Sadly, however, thus far we have seen a severe lack of leadership from the Government. Instead of announcing new measures to tighten up the rules, they have once again sought to pass the buck solely on to the regulators, ignoring the fact that political direction and decision making is vital to underpin the work. As we heard in the opening speech, the ASA believes that it is for Parliament to legislate, not for the regulator to take action. I would appreciate it if the Minister would give some clarity on exactly what this Government want to see changed, and not just what they expect the ASA and CMA to look at.

Ultimately, what matters is that we actually cut emissions, which means providing British industry with the support it needs to do that. That includes setting out a clear and stable road map to net zero, expanding the market for climate-friendly products and, importantly, ensuring that the emissions associated with products are communicated honestly and transparently to consumers. That goes way beyond advertising to making information easily accessible, so that people can understand the carbon emissions of the products they buy and can make informed choices.

To conclude, we want to see action taken in this area. We are calling on the Government to secure investments to ensure that the transition away from oil and gas is a green and just one. We want the Minister to give clarity on exactly what he wants to see change.