Agencies are quietly quitting fossil-fuel contracts

With the federal government rolling back environmental protections, sustainability in 2025 may feel like it’s largely on the backburner. In the agency world, that may not be the case, according to new findings from Clean Creatives.

Late last month, the activist group released its fifth annual F-List report, which documents the ad and PR agencies working with fossil-fuel companies. This year’s report, which includes data from 2024 and 2025, found that 709 agencies had more than 1,217 contracts with fossil-fuel companies across the industry, while more than 1,500 agencies have pledged to not work with such companies. It’s the first time since the report’s creation that the number of agencies pledging not to work with polluters exceeded the number of agencies working with them.

Using a new Fossil Fuel Income Risk Exposure (FFIRE) index, the group found that public relations firm Edelman was the agency most reliant on fossil-fuel money, with an estimated 5.64% of its revenue coming from fossil-fuel contracts. Clean Creatives supplemented this year’s list with an OOH campaign that calls attention to Edelman, Havas, and WPP, along with other agencies and holding companies that continue to work with fossil-fuel companies.

“Edelman sees this as a pillar of their business in a way that no other agency of their size does,” Duncan Meisel, executive director of Clean Creatives, told us. “It’s extremely short-term [thinking]. Fossil-fuel demand is going to go down—it just will.”

In an emailed statement, Edelman spokesperson Kelsey Rohwer said, “We believe climate change is one of the greatest crises of our time, requiring bold solutions, collaboration, and innovation. Edelman is committed to being part of the change by working with diverse clients, including governments and energy companies, who have a vital role to play in the energy transition. We continue to abide by our climate principles and have not changed our course.”

We spoke with Meisel about the 2025 F-List, the current state of corporate sustainability, and why he remains hopeful about Clean Creative’s overall mission to divest the industry completely from fossil fuels.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

What were your big takeaways from this year’s F-List?

This is the first year that we’ve had a list where the number of agencies that signed the Clean Creatives pledge is actually larger than the number of agencies on the F-List…[Agencies] with fossil-fuel clients aren’t really yet addressing this problem in the way they should, but there’s a lot more people out there who are doing stuff about it.

The thing that really helped put this in perspective for me was the FFIRE index, which is the second half of the F-List this year and is a way to measure the percentage of revenue going into large holding companies from fossil fuels…This is a small portion of the industry that’s doing a lot of harm, and focusing on dealing with it is a great way to start preparing the industry for what is a precarious future.

This year’s F-List reported a 7% YoY increase in fossil-fuel contracts in North America. (Last year’s F-List found a total of 258 contracts in the region; this year, the number was 277.) What did you think about that finding?

It’s noise. The methodology here is finding things that people post about on the internet, and it’s not necessarily an indicator of more or less, it’s just what we were able to find this year. If it indicates anything, it’s an indication of people being more willing to post on the internet about [work with fossil-fuel companies]...I think the 7% is in the “who can really say?” range. I don’t take it as an indicator of anything besides the fact that the number isn’t going down in the way we hope it would.

Do you think US agencies are feeling more inclined to take fossil-fuel business in response to the current political climate?

There’s a big perception gap where we do have this political moment where a government is strongly emphasizing fossil fuels and using their power to promote fossil-fuel production and attack clean energy, but the big picture here is that clean energy is absolutely winning. The amount of capital or investment in clean energy is double that of fossil fuels…That reality hasn’t fully set in for people because there is this very vocal, visible, pro-fossil-fuel segment of the political class right now that are making it hard to adjust to the future…We’re moving slower than we have to, but the fundamentals, I think, are still strong.

Do you feel like progress is being made in the dark and agencies are perhaps not publicizing sustainability efforts as much?

There was this great Harvard study that came out that showed global net-zero commitments are still increasing, but it’s definitely the case that sustainability is advancing in a quieter way right now. The biggest challenge is that in the minds of people who are leading large agencies, they’re still on the assumption that fossil fuels equal infinite wealth and money and power. That’s the assumption that I grew up with, that you probably grew up with, but doesn’t reflect economic reality at all. If you’re State Farm and you had to cancel your Super Bowl campaign this year because you lost so much money on California wildfires caused by climate change, [sustainability] is not a nice-to-have. It’s essential to have. You have to solve this problem if you want to have a business in 10 years. And I think those realities will become starker and starker to people.

How are you keeping the pressure on big holding companies that seem to be immune to pressure or don’t seem to be budging?

We know Havas lost a fair number of clients from their work with Shell, and four of their agencies lost their B Corp certification. It cost them money, and it cost them work, and they’ll lay off employees because of it…. Transparency is important and necessary in a world where things are overheating and spinning out of control rapidly….I don’t think [agencies] are immune at all. I think it’s just a moment that is particularly strategically tough. But you have to plan five years in advance. It doesn’t make sense to only be looking six months in the future and expect to have a business that’s sustainable. You’re going to miss shit. We’re trying to really emphasize that this is essential for long-term growth because the fossil fuels are going to go away, and they’re going to harm your other clients and the business in the process. You can’t only be looking this far in front of your face and expect to keep your employees paid and your business stable.

After years of putting pressure on Edelman, which had the highest FFIRE score this year, with some resistance, have you seen indicators of certain strategies that seem to be working?

They seem to respond best to direct pressure. Edelman dropped Exxon because of people posting adamantly on the internet for them to drop Exxon, and I think that’s what it really takes with them. There seems to be some strategic or ideological commitment to fossil fuels at the top of the company in a way that is very hard to explain otherwise, and I think that direct reputational risk is what is going to ultimately take its toll.

Are you tracking agencies’ AI usage at all, given its environmental toll?

We haven’t really been looking at it, mostly because it’s not our specialty. I’d love to, but ultimately fossil-fuel use is about 80% of global carbon pollution…Even a campaign [for a fossil-fuel company] with zero AI and zero carbon footprint…is going to do a lot of harm, and that’s the harm that we’re trying to solve.

Have your goals or strategies shifted at Clean Creatives given the political climate and the fact that sustainability is a little bit more hush, hush?

We’re focusing on being a supportive community for people who are still advocating for change. We’re hosting more events in person with the goal of keeping those networks strong and excited and ready to support each other. People forget that the biggest moment of global climate mobilization in human history happened when Donald Trump was president in 2019 during the global climate strikes. The fact that his administration is not interested in climate action does not decrease climate concern among the public. It increases it. There is a question of political momentum here, and it will change, and the people who are thinking ahead to when the wheel turns will be the ones who are most successful…We’re really trying to get people ready for when that momentum shifts.

Have you seen sign-up momentum pick up since Trump took office again?

It’s been steady.

What are your goals for the rest of the year and into next year?

We think there needs to be a big focus on Edelman’s role at the [COP30] UN climate talks [in November]. The fact that they were hired to lead communications for the global climate talks and have the same person managing the Shell account, managing the COP account, is a huge problem…Edelman is the most climate-conflicted agency that we found in terms of revenue percentage, and that’s something that needs to be front and center when thinking about how to advance climate action in these global forums. You can’t really be working with people who are that conflicted and still expect to have the outcomes that you hope for.

Any other trends you’re watching?

We’re just looking ahead for when this momentum shifts back…The climate is still changing. It is still getting hotter. It is still bad for business, and I don’t think there’s a real future here for agencies that don’t take that into account. We’re just preparing people for when the time to move is right.