IPG, Big Oil, the climate blindspot and the cost of credibility

This simple pledge came in response to two things: the escalating climate emergency, which did $165 billion worth of damage to the US economy that year, and the growing employee movement against working with fossil fuel companies. But in short order, IPG reneged on that promise and took on campaigns for Saudi Aramco that were intended to boost the oil company’s “license to operate as part of the future energy landscape,” as quoted in a brief leaked to DeSmog. 

Now, IPG will potentially merge with fellow holding company Omnicom, forming the world’s largest marketing conglomerate—and the largest provider of marketing services to fossil fuel polluters. The merger is driven by the fundamental softness in IPG’s business, which continues to lead to repeated rounds of layoffs. 

Which begs the question: Did rolling back IPG’s rules on climate actually help their business grow? Or did it contribute to the business challenges that ultimately led to layoffs and eventual sale?

The default position in the C-Suite tends to be that principled climate strategy is a ‘nice to have’ or a potential impediment to growth. But as climate change puts pressure on consumer finances— Consumer Reports estimates that Americans born today will lose $500,000 in wealth from the climate crisis—and damages vital sectors for the marketing industry, the opposite is likely the case.

Consider Omnicom-IPG client State Farm. The insurer was forced to cancel an $8 million ad buy during the 2025 Super Bowl due to damages to its bottom line suffered during January’s California wildfires. Few industries are more vulnerable to climate damage than insurance, who are left holding the bag when floods, fires, and other extreme weather destroy homes and businesses. But few industries are bigger advertisers either: insurance consistently ranks in the top 10 biggest ad spenders in the world, far above fossil fuels. 

Or you could look to Omnicom-IPG client Mars, which is being forced to invest millions of dollars into gene-edited chocolate simply to be able to continue producing its staple product in a world where the climate is rapidly changing. More expensive chocolate is also more expensive and difficult to market, with agencies set to lose. The same logic applies to nearly every other product in the food industry, as well as the health sector and beyond. 

What’s more, IPG’s climate double-take happened simultaneously as a major client GM went all-in on their EV strategy. An automotive industry that sells primarily EVs is not compatible with Saudi Aramco’s goal as the world’s largest oil producer to be “part of the future energy landscape.”

In short, the products IPG worked to sell for Saudi Aramco hurt IPG’s ability to sell nearly every other product in its brand portfolio. 

With that context, a policy to stop extending the life of fossil fuels should be considered the bare minimum for a company heavily reliant on industries vulnerable to climate change. We estimate that marketing spend from fossil fuels makes up less than 1% of global ad spend, while these companies are responsible for 75% of global carbon emissions. 

It’s clear with hindsight that IPG’s immediate reversal on its climate strategy did nothing to arrest the enormous challenges it faced as a business, and may have contributed to them. Any assessment of future strategy for the marketing industry in 2025 needs to see climate change as part of the terrain in which the industry operates, affecting key sectors and brands throughout the world. 

Rejecting work with fossil fuel clients is a sensible policy in a warming world. IPG’s failure to navigate the crucial dynamics of the climate emergency was an indicator of a lack of vision and strategy.

Editor's note: Campaign reached out to IPG for comment on this story; the company declined to respond.