MPs gathered in Parliament yesterday to debate a proposed UK-wide ban on fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship.
If the UK is serious about climate leadership, the question may not only be whether to ban fossil fuel advertising, but rather how quickly we can expand this logic across other sectors still propping up carbon-intensive industries.
Triggered by a petition submitted by Chris Packham, signed by more than 110,000 UK residents and supported by more than 100 agencies, the proposal draws clear parallels to the UK’s 2003 tobacco advertising ban. The aim is to prevent fossil fuel companies from using advertising to present themselves as responsible climate actors and preserve their social license to operate, despite their long track record of delaying climate action while reaping profits.
Public health, cultural sponsorship, and policy influence under scrutiny
Supporters of the ban emphasised the public health and climate risks of continuing to allow fossil fuel advertising. MPs Afzal Khan and Dr. Simon Opher cited UK air pollution as causing an estimated 43,000 premature deaths annually – more than smoking.
Others, including MPs Claire Young and Josh Newbury, criticised fossil fuel firm sponsorship of sports and cultural spaces and events, citing research from the New Weather Institute on the sector’s deep links with football and other sports.
Jacob Collier MP highlighted the scale of the problem and the pernicious impact of using advertising to influence policymakers, referencing over 240 fossil fuel ads in Westminster Tube station in just six years. He argued, ‘fossil fuel advertising is not just billboards – it is a coordinated strategy to shape culture and delay change’.
Alexis McGivern, Oxford Net Zero
Divisions emerge over regulation, freedom of expression and funding risks
Some MPs also expressed frustration that the government is deferring responsibility on this issue to regulators like the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), rather than taking proactive legislative action.
Opponents of the ban focused on freedom of expression and potential loss of sponsorship funding for public events. While some acknowledged there was a need to crack down on misleading green claims, they argued this could be achieved through stronger enforcement by the ASA and the Competition and Markets Authority, rather than a blanket ban.
Conservative MP Andrew Bowie defended the domestic oil and gas sector, stating that demand for fossil fuels would not vanish with ad restrictions, but rather that such a ban would simply signal that the UK is hostile to its own domestic energy industry. He and Josh Newbury MP warned of the consequences of public institutions reliant on fossil fuel sponsorships – such as book festivals and sports leagues – unless alternative funding can be secured.
A growing international precedent and industry shift
This proposal is not without precedent. An ad and sponsorship ban at the national level would follow in the steps of high-carbon advertising bans on council-owned advertising billboards in Sheffield and Edinburgh, and internationally in France in 2022 and the Hague in April, the latter extending the ban into private ad spaces. Rather than being a radical proposal, the UK’s proposed ban aligns with growing subnational and international trends.
An ad and sponsorship ban at the national level would follow in the steps of high-carbon advertising bans on council-owned advertising billboards in Sheffield and Edinburgh, and internationally in France in 2022 and the Hague in April, the latter extending the ban into private ad spaces. Rather than being a radical proposal, the UK’s proposed ban aligns with growing subnational and international trends.
The proposed ban would also level the playing field across the advertising industry. Many creative agencies already opt out of working with fossil fuel clients, signing pledges and ethical behaviour standards through groups like Clean Creatives and Creatives for Climate. A national ban would ensure a level playing field, preventing agencies that continue working with polluters from undercutting those who have taken a principled stance. It also reflects the unique role of advertisers as ‘architects of desire’. Harnessing the talent in the advertising industry, filled with creative storytellers, could help build public support for a just energy transition rather than prolonging the status quo.
Meanwhile some MPs advocated relying on the UK’s advertising regulator (the Advertising Standards Authority, or ASA) to restrict misleading environmental claims. Despite its key role to play, there are clear limits to its effectiveness, given that its investigations are often slow and reactive to complaints, and it cannot sanction financial penalties.
Jacob Collier MP warning of ‘compliant deception’, where companies have become adept at adapting messaging to skirt enforcement while still misleading the public, including through methods like small-print disclaimers. Individuals who try to challenge misleading ads from inside companies also face risks, as with the case of whistleblower and former BBDO Creative Director Polina Zabrodskaya, who was suspended after calling out her agency’s role in greenwashing.
Though not mentioned in the debate, concerns that agencies would suffer financially from losing fossil fuel clients appear overstated. Analysis by Clean Creatives, which tracks advertising and PR agencies working with fossil fuel firms, estimates that fossil fuel clients account for only around 1% of global marketing spend. Clean Creatives and others argue that dropping these clients is unlikely to impact the financial viability of many agencies, but would protect them from emerging reputational and legal risk.
Already, WPP, the world’s largest ad agency, is facing an OECD complaint alleging its fossil fuel work breaches responsible business conduct guidelines, and 20 airlines are under investigation from European consumer protection authorities for misleading green claims, raising questions about the liability for agencies who created those campaigns.
Advertising’s role in shaping climate leadership
Importantly, advertising is just one piece of a broader ecosystem. Professional services firms, including management consultancy firms, legal advisors and PR companies, have historically escaped scrutiny despite playing critical roles in enabling high-carbon projects.
A national ad ban could set a precedent across other professional services sectors to align their work with climate goals. It could help shift industry norms, protect professionals from having to make these decisions alone, and create space for better, more climate-aligned storytelling.
Our work with the Race to Zero and with groups like Purpose Disruptors, the Legal Charter 1.5, Exponential Roadmap Initiative, Creatives for Climate to implement the principles of ‘1.5C aligned professional services firms‘ is a start, but systemic change will require coordination action. A national ad ban could set a precedent across other professional services sectors to align their work with climate goals. It could help shift industry norms, protect professionals from having to make these decisions alone, and create space for better, more climate-aligned storytelling.
As Jacob Collier MP stated in his opening remarks in the debate yesterday: ‘In truth, it is a question of what kind of future we want to build, what kind of public discourse we want to cultivate and what role, if any, we believe advertising should play in shaping our societal values.’
If the UK is serious about climate leadership, the question may not only be whether to ban fossil fuel advertising, but rather how quickly we can expand this logic across other sectors still propping up carbon-intensive industries.
University of Oxford "The University of Oxford is a collegiate research university in Oxford, England. There is evidence of teaching as early as 1096, making it the oldest university in the English-speaking world and the world's second-oldest university in continuous operation."Please visit the firm link to site