Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

"Greenwashing, pure and simple" - fury as Shell UK sponsors British Cycling

Members express shock at announcement of partnership, with many saying they will cancel their membership

British Cycling has been accused on social media today of facilitating ‘greenwashing’ with hundreds of comments from members slamming its announcement of the UK subsidiary of multinational oil and gas giant Shell as its new sponsor through an eight-year deal that the national governing body claims will help accelerate its “path to net zero.”

It also says that the partnership, which begins this month and runs until the end of 2030 “will see a shared commitment to supporting Great Britain’s cyclists and para-cyclists through the sharing of world-class innovation and expertise,” as well as “helping more – and wider groups of – people to ride, including ways to make cycling more accessible for disabled people,” the latter through a new programme called ‘Limitless’.  

Shell UK, which operates the country’s largest public network of electric vehicle (EV) charging points, says it will also support British Cycling’s aim to move towards a fleet made up entirely of EVs.

At global level, last month the company – which changed its name from Royal Dutch Shell – said that it planned to move into e-bikes and e-scooters, explaining that “our customers want our brand to move into micromobility even if we don’t have market share yet.”

But as road.cc’s sister website eBikeTips pointed out, a recent report claimed that Shell, which insists it is committed to achieving net zero by 2050, had told employees in an internal communication from 2020 to never “imply, suggest, or leave it open for possible misinterpretation that (net zero) is a Shell goal or target.”

> Oil giant Shell to make e-bikes as well as e-scooters – or at least their name will be on them

Speaking about the new partnership, British Cycling’s CEO, Brian Facer, said:   “We’re looking forward to working alongside Shell UK over the rest of this decade to widen access to the sport, support our elite riders and help our organisation and sport take important steps towards net zero – things we know our members are incredibly passionate about.  

“Within our new commercial programme, this partnership with Shell UK brings powerful support for cycling, will help us to improve and will make more people consider cycling and cyclists.”  

David Bunch, Shell UK Country Chair, added: “We’re very proud to become an Official Partner to British Cycling. The partnership reflects the shared ambitions of Shell UK and British Cycling to get to net zero in the UK as well as encouraging low and zero-carbon forms of transport such as cycling and electric vehicles. 

“Working together we can deliver real change for people right across the country, from different walks of life, and also apply Shell’s world-leading lubricant technology to support the Great Britain Cycling Team in their quest for gold at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games.”  

Like many other major energy companies, Shell has been diversifying its portfolio to include renewables, as well as working on improving the UK’s energy security, and it also says it is committed to helping the country achieve net zero.

But like most of its rivals, Shell plc has posted record profits since Russia invaded Ukraine in February – the figure of $11.5bn (£9.4bn) it announced for the second quarter of 2022 being more than double the $5.5bn (£4.5bn) it made in the comparable period last year.

What it terms “Renewables and energy solutions” made up just 6.3 per cent of its earnings for the quarter, with oil and gas accounting for the vast majority of its profits, resulting in the company, like its rivals, being accused of looking to cash in on the cost-of-living crisis as consumers face huge increases in their fuel bills.

Speaking in London last week at the Energy Intelligence Forum, the group’s chief executive, said that vulnerable consumers in Europe needed to be protected from rising prices, but added that in his view the answer lay in taxing energy companies’ profits rather than capping prices.

Referring to the current volatility in oil and gas prices, he said: “You cannot have a market  that behaves in such a way ... that is going to damage a significant part of society.

“One way or another there needs to be government intervention that somehow results in protecting the poorest.”

He added: “That probably may then mean that governments need to tax people in this room to pay for it.”

Following the announcement of the partnership at lunchtime today, a number of Twitter users expressed shock at the news, including the reference to net zero, such as this tweet.

Some said that it would result in them cancelling their membership of British Cycling, with others adding that it vindicated them already having done that.

One British Cycling member, a trained ride leader for the organisation’s Breeze women-only rides, said that the energy company “stand for everything we everyday cyclists don’t,” while another who has belonged to the organisation for more than a quarter of a century said that the sponsorship was “green washing for them [Shell UK], plain and simple.”

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

117 comments

Avatar
kie7077 | 1 year ago
2 likes

Shell supporting Cycling? They don't really like bicycles though, nothing with less than 4 wheels is allowed into their London HQ loading bay, they hate bicycles and this is 100% green-washing.

Avatar
levestane | 1 year ago
0 likes

It is insightful to look at our ecological footprints as individuals

https://www.footprintcalculator.org/home/en

I'm scoring 2.1 Earths, i.e., twice the resource use (economic activity) of sustainability. BC being sponsored by Shell is not a good look, but Shell are only there because folk consume their wares. This said, Shell marketing has socially engineered us to 'want' their products.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to levestane | 1 year ago
0 likes
levestane wrote:

 This said, Shell 

lobbying of government has continued oil dependancy.

Even now when we know that we must wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, the oile companies are spending more profits on exploring new oil fields, than developing alternative technolgies.

For all the talk of using the profits from oil now to fund a sustainable future tomorrow, it is not happening.  

Avatar
levestane replied to wycombewheeler | 1 year ago
0 likes

Agreed, but it's not at all clear that alternative technologies will get us very far either.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to wycombewheeler | 1 year ago
2 likes

That's not quite true.

Ørsted, one of the biggest players in renewable energy, used to be an oil and gas company (Danish Oil and Natural Gas - DONG - No sniggering at the back).

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Rich_cb | 1 year ago
1 like
Rich_cb wrote:

That's not quite true. Ørsted, one of the biggest players in renewable energy, used to be an oil and gas company (Danish Oil and Natural Gas - DONG - No sniggering at the back).

That demonstrates that government majority control (Danish govt. owns 50.1%) can be a force for good.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to hawkinspeter | 1 year ago
0 likes

Not really.

It demonstrates that one state owned oil company has successfully pivoted to renewables.

There are many state owned oil companies that are doing no such thing.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Rich_cb | 1 year ago
1 like
Rich_cb wrote:

Not really. It demonstrates that one state owned oil company has successfully pivoted to renewables. There are many state owned oil companies that are doing no such thing.

Spoilsport!

Avatar
planetjanet | 1 year ago
3 likes

Incredibly dumb decision by BC execs, totally out of touch, a worst choice of industry partner is hard to imagine. Whatever your views on the nuisance or necessity of oil, of all the companies to be associated with cycling, this one should have been laughed out of the secret board meeting. A more perfect demonstration of greed and group think is hard to imagine. FFS BC start running this CYCLING organisation with some empathy to your members. ASK THEM what they think, you could have/should have given members a simple poll online 'we're considering sponsorship from 1) a big cycling brand/retailer 2) a health food chain 3) a big health insurance company 4) King flipping rich Charles III or 5) An oil company with a stinking reputation. Of 165,000 members, would big oil have got 1000 votes???

Avatar
chaos | 1 year ago
5 likes

Lots of mentions for 2050. I do not own a car; I do ride a bike. And, aged 62, I am more than happy to promise you whatever you want, wish or hope for come 2050.

Avatar
Cyclespeed Tours | 1 year ago
8 likes

Interesting the vitriol against Shell, but if you drive a car (even an EV), heat your home with anything other than wood, take a flight somewhere, or buy plastics then you are complicit in their guilt.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to Cyclespeed Tours | 1 year ago
3 likes

Exactly.

I've said much the same whenever Ineos are criticised in a similar manner.

Avatar
Awavey replied to Rich_cb | 1 year ago
10 likes

for me its not so much that Shell are an oil company, I dont have an issue with Ineos sponsoring a pro tour team, just like Im not anti Total Direct Energie or have a problem with Repsol sponsoring Movistar. UAE & Bahrain its more to do with the regimes that I take issue with, not the oil part.

and thats similar with Shell, its not just about the oil, its about the company themselves, how do they operate, are they trying to make a better world or only a quick buck and just a quick google and theres alot of material from Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and even Amnesty International, that make me think they arent the kind of organisation BC should be associated with.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to Awavey | 1 year ago
3 likes

That's fair enough. If the objection is based on corporate governance that's an entirely different matter.

I have similar reservations about Bahrain and UAE as well as Israel.

Sportswashing is far more of a problem than greenwashing IMO but still not as much of a problem as excessive portmanteauing.

Avatar
levestane replied to Cyclespeed Tours | 1 year ago
1 like

It is very difficult indeed to not be complicit. This article gives some background.

Avatar
Bungle_52 replied to Cyclespeed Tours | 1 year ago
3 likes

I do drive a car occasionally, I don't fly, I do buy plastic but avoid it if I can. I've had two children (the worst thing you can do for the planet is have children). Most importantly though I've always voted Lib Dem in the hope that PR of some sort will be introduced and then I can vote Green with some chance of my views being represented in the government of this country. I'm afraid what other countries do is completely out of my control.

Unfortunately my efforts have come to nought as the people in power have control of the education system and the media and the two have combined to produce an electorate which will do as it's told. All that's left to me is to protest in which ever way I can and leaving British Cycling is one of those.

Avatar
Shake replied to Cyclespeed Tours | 1 year ago
6 likes

What a dumb comment, you can't boil it down to, if you don't live in a cave, you may as well do what you like.
It's not do terrible or be perfect. We can just try and do better.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Shake | 1 year ago
5 likes

Exactly. I don't drive or fly and buy my electricity from a renewables tarriff. Of course I'm complicit with plastics for everything from mudguards to food wrapping, but I try to minimise and look for alternatives where possible. The idea that you may as well not bother unless you can prove you never let oil in your life in any way is both defeatist and lazy.

Avatar
vthejk replied to Cyclespeed Tours | 1 year ago
4 likes

The impact of our personal consumption is vanishingly small compared to that of globally significant corporations, though isn't it? This is an erroneous claim. Yes, we can make choices that reduce our personal consumption footprint, but these choices would be offset by the consumption and damage wreaked by Shell et al.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to vthejk | 1 year ago
1 like

This train of thought seems to overlook the fact that Shell aren't just digging up fossil fuels for the fun of it.

They're selling them to each and every one of us.

The only reason these corporations do so much damage is because they act as aggregators for the damage done by every individual. You can't dismiss the effect of individual choice.

If we look at the growth of vegetarianism/veganism we can see the effect of aggregated consumer choice even when big corporations oppose the direction of travel.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Rich_cb | 1 year ago
5 likes

A good point.  Yes Shell aren't doing this for fun.  That's a point in another sense though: they're making unimaginable amounts of money.  It isn't an artisan petroleum product crafting business.  ("Personally I go to the Shell shop and order Shell products for all my energy and plastics needs - including my packaging, the cover on my passport, the fuel for transporting those goods into this country..."  ) So whatever they say they'll do, it's unlikely to lead to them shrinking their business, reducing their dividends and putting their management team out of work.  And around large concentrations of money reality is not just warped but actively bent.

BTW I'm with Awavey on this one - I doubt that any big energy company could be remotely saintly but this particular one is an especially poor choice.  Shell have a well-documented history of some extremely unpalatable practices (e.g. see actions in Nigeria).

You can't dismiss (aggregated) individual choice.  But large existing companies (or industries as a whole) have a crucial advantage - they have disproportionate influence on individual politicians and governments!

Looking at history I'd say it's the same with the dominance of the private motor car.  Yes - on one view you could say we're here because people voted with their wallets.  They wanted "better" transport.  And when it appeared in the form of cars they saved up to buy them and even moved where they could better use them!  However to get there required a lot of pump-priming (effective subsidies for motoring - still ongoing as motorists don't pay for the total of all the costs of it), preparation (roads were not built for cars...) and promotion.  In that case I think you can see the substantial effect of individual choice by a rather small group of individuals!

We also have a couple of strong examples of areas / countries which have followed that path but at some stage along it then diverted some resources into other modes (e.g. The Netherlands again).  They're still "car-addicted" but are in a much better position to be flexible on that aspect should they want / need to.  (The Netherlands is not a "green examplar" in general - I'd be the last person to suggest that...)

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to chrisonabike | 1 year ago
5 likes
chrisonatrike wrote:

Looking at history I'd say it's the same with the dominance of the private motor car.  Yes - on one view you could say we're here because people voted with their wallets.  They wanted "better" transport.  And when it appeared in the form of cars they saved up to buy them and even moved where they could better use them!  However to get there required a lot of pump-priming (effective subsidies for motoring - still ongoing as motorists don't pay for the total of all the costs of it), preparation (roads were not built for cars...) and promotion.  In that case I think you can see the substantial effect of individual choice by a rather small group of individuals!

We also have a couple of strong examples of areas / countries which have followed that path but at some stage along it then diverted some resources into other modes (e.g. The Netherlands again).  They're still "car-addicted" but are in a much better position to be flexible on that aspect should they want / need to.  (The Netherlands is not a "green examplar" in general - I'd be the last person to suggest that...)

The problem with "people voting with their wallets" for personal motor cars is that they've been denied information or even willfully misled by oil interests. It's plain to see in car adverts where they don't show the misery of waiting in traffic. If people were told about all the problems with lead additives, would they have been so quick to design cities for the (almost) exclusive use of motor vehicles?

(This is one of the core problems with free-market capitalism - the rich will have greater access to information and much greater influence over media to push particular narratives and thus influence consumers unfairly.)

Avatar
Car Delenda Est replied to Cyclespeed Tours | 1 year ago
1 like

Oh I guess Shell aren't so bad then..

Avatar
Sriracha | 1 year ago
2 likes

There has to be something in it for both parties to the union. For BC not to be able to attract a better suitor implies that BC is not much of a catch, which says something about the image of cycling.

Avatar
Awavey replied to Sriracha | 1 year ago
0 likes

We dont know they couldnt attract a better suitor because BC will never release all the details, or even tell us what the deal theyve signed with Shell really surmounts to.

However we do know, because they documented it, Shell werent the only bidder,or major company, in this contest.

But hey could have been worse,they could have picked a cryptocurrency partner instead... 😉

Avatar
NOtotheEU replied to Awavey | 1 year ago
0 likes
Awavey wrote:

But hey could have been worse,they could have picked a cryptocurrency partner instead... 😉

Or the VW Audi Group, although given how dangerous many of their drivers are around cyclists they would never be oblivious enough of this to sponser a cycling organisation, or even a major cycling event . . . . . . . . .

Avatar
belugabob | 1 year ago
2 likes

Shell-shocked?

Avatar
peted76 | 1 year ago
2 likes

I'm not mad at BC for taking on Shell as a sponsor, there aren't many companies large enough to support the top heavy bloat of BC. 

Morally, again I'm sort of okay with it, while I'm firmly against global capitalism, the world refuses to stop or even change these vampire like firms, so, I'll take any scraps they deem to throw in our direction if it benefits us. Better Shell's earth sucking money than none.

..And for all we know, there might well be people within Shell with good intentions to increase cycling within the UK.. Jaguar Land Rover sponsored Sky and while they make huge unncessercary fuel guzzling lumps of extravagance, they certainly did some positive promotion as sponsors and legacy, their factories also have active schemes to promote local cycling and cycling to work, showers etc.. It'd be better to be at the top of the mountain and make moral decisions, but frankly as cyclists in the UK.. we seem to be very far from that vista. 

 

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 1 year ago
3 likes

I don't really have a choice. I am nearly finished with getting my full coaching certification and I do race, so I'll stay with BC. Cycling UK isn't an option for me. It's disappointing in a way that BC feels the need to partner with Shell. But then you just need to look at who sponsors some of the big race teams for instance and ask yourself where the money usually comes from. The BC/Shell deal may be unpalatable, but it's hardly a first for cycling.

Avatar
Awavey replied to OldRidgeback | 1 year ago
6 likes

But its incredibly disappointing for a national federation to make that choice. Private teams that's their own choice whose money they take they only have to answer to themselves, BC represents over 165,000 members.

And BC said they had many high value companies vying for sponsorship opportunities, so to pick the one company who even a cursory background check carry alot of baggage with them. As one article I read described it whilst a bunch of other organisations are moving away from sponsorship from the likes of Shell or BP, why is BC running towards the fire ?

The worst part is for all the grief and backlash it's going to cause, it's likely not even to be that big a money deal for BC based on the amounts of sponsorship HSBC were providing, this doesnt deliver kind of next level funding for BC activities.

Pages

Latest Comments