The Paris Olympic Games was a perfect microcosm of the ESG debate and the reputational risks that accompany it.
It’s a global event, watched by billions, attended by thousands who fly in from all over the world.
The organisers pledged to pump out less CO2 than previous games and offset those emissions anyway (more on that contentious move in a minute).
There were the familiar corporate partners zealously promoting their products at the same time as they sought to enhance and protect their reputation.
The purity of human sporting endeavour is at the heart of the event. There’s not supposed to be any cheating. Politics is set aside, mostly. As all that unfolds in front of you the top-notch companies paying for a big chunk of it (there are 15 of them) want you to buy their stuff, or their services, and, importantly, feel good about doing so.
There were lessons on ESG across the board. Top of the list of worldwide partners on the official Paris 2024 website is Airbnb.
An arch disrupter that’s forever changed the travel industry but has long faced claims it is helping to kill off character, and in some cases the appeal of whole neighbourhoods, in the places it offers accommodation.
A distinctly unsocial enterprise some would say. It’s fought local and national public affairs campaigns – famously in Barcelona – to try to counter that accusation.
Presumably part of its strategy behind the Olympic tie up is about playing its part in ‘bringing the world together’, without turning it into one homogenous experience that upsets the locals.
Coca Cola has been sponsoring the games since 1928. (One ingredient present in that year would lead to what you could call reputational issues these days).
The drinks behemoth wants to ‘refresh the world’ and ‘make a difference’ to our planet. Part of its approach to that was making its beverages green. Literally, green.
Coca Cola Life was a green labelled version of the drink, aimed partly at conveying a more environmentally friendly image. It left the company open to accusations of vacuous messaging.
The organising committee for Paris 2024 – the people who make it happen once the city is chosen – seem to have taken a more nuanced approach.
The games are a major moment for the host government, rich in soft power potential and, sometimes, diplomatic opportunity. That means it had to be a reflection of France and its people.
France is one of the biggest CO2 emitters in the EU but it’s at a relatively low level per head of population. It made strategic decisions to lessen the environmental impact.
It didn’t build many new facilities. It tried to reduce travel by keeping the events close to each other. But it still had diesel power generation on hand to light up some of the facilities. And the games were an event – as they always are – that leaves a major aviation carbon footprint.
So, Paris 2024 also pledged to offset its emissions. That is a practice – plant a forest to suck up the equivalent amount of carbon that your event or business emits – that remains controversial.
An easy option, the critics say, that changes little in terms of best practice.
All these examples point to the reputational risks around living and breathing your corporate ESG commitments. One company not at Paris 2024 has come at it another way. A bolder way. It’s going to be less green (for now).
BrewDog has decided to pull back from its commitment to be the makers of the most carbon negative beer in the world. It’s ditching carbon credits because it says they are too pricey and it’s uncertain what the benefits truly are.
Part of that calculation appears to be that carbon credits – there’s a market in carbon, with a price, companies can buy credits – have become too contentious.
BrewDog says it will concentrate on reforestation instead. Something it believes it can have much clearer control over.
It will no longer be the maker of the most carbon negative beer in the world. It will stop making that claim on its cans.
Is it an abandonment of the ethics on which the brand was built? Is it an admission that being greener can cost more?
Either way it is an ESG re-alignment that proves you can’t stand still when it comes to managing and protecting your reputation. Assess the impact, question the commitments, challenge the pledges; just don’t ignore the issue.
You can download our free eBook ‘Future-proofing business: The media’s evolving relationship with ESG’ here.