The Real Cost of Compromising Values: What Havas’ B Corp Revocation Means for Us All

As the founder of independent creative agency Fox + Hare, I spend a lot of my time focusing on profit, turnover, and the bottom line. But the recent fortunes of Havas, one of the biggest ad agencies in the world, proves that responsible decision-making sits neatly alongside the numbers.

Sometimes, even something as seemingly counterproductive as firing your biggest client can be the right move for your business.

Last week B Lab, the non-profit which oversees the accreditation of B Corporations (a global community of businesses committed to environmental and ethical responsibility, including us here at Fox + Hare) stunned the industry by announcing that they’d revoked Havas’ B Corp status. The catalyst for this? Havas taking on oil giant Shell as a client.

There are a couple of reasons why B Lab’s decision, and the fallout from it, should give all of us serious pause for thought when it comes to our business priorities.

Most importantly, it shows that there are real-world consequences for agencies that don’t align words with their actions. Havas’ decision to work with Shell, and the ensuing loss of their B Corp status, fundamentally alters who they are.

Not that this has stopped them claiming that they’re still the good guys. “Our level of commitment towards sustainability remains unchanged” said a Havas spokesperson, a statement rendered meaningless by their ongoing decision to work with one of the planet’s biggest polluters.

Here at Fox + Hare, we were recently confronted with a similar ethical conundrum: we found ourselves on track to win a massive contract with a very exciting brand, a huge win for an independent agency. However, our potential client was also owned by a foreign government with an appalling record on human rights.

We had to make the same decision as Havas: what matters more? A quick boost to our bottom line, or staying true to our identity, values and reason for existing? Unlike Havas, we chose the latter, and walked away.

It was a tough decision, but it was the right thing to do. Not just morally, but it also made solid business sense to effectively fire our biggest client, as Havas should have done. How could I continue to claim that Fox + Hare cares about the same things our clients, consumers and colleagues care about, when we’d made it clear that we don’t?

Because the story of Havas’ B Corp status isn’t just about Havas: it’s a microcosm of wider trends within the advertising industry, and the global economy at large. At a time of climate collapse and social upheaval, it’s clear that brands or agencies can’t just slap on some eco-friendly language, and carry on as before.

Consumers have been telling us for a while that they want to see businesses doing the right thing, not just saying the right things - read our recent insight report “Purpose In A World Under Pressure” for some detailed research on the ways brand purpose directly affects purchase decisions.

Even more importantly, institutional decision-making and legal regulations have caught up. Look at the UN’s involvement in the debate, or the UK government’s new rules on greenwashing: PR is clearly out, and true accountability is in.

So what happens next? For brands, the message is clear: match your words with actions, and place purpose at the heart of what you do, or it’ll come back to bite you; because good business sense means more than just counting the pennies.

And as for Havas themselves? In a statement responding to B Lab’s decision, they touted their Gold Medal from EcoVadis as evidence of their commitment to sustainability, even as Shell remains on their client roster.

Clearly, Havas are confident that they won’t find themselves having exactly the same argument again in the near future, this time over EcoVadis rather than B Corp. I wouldn’t be so sure.