Peter Law: In a game of money versus ethics, there are very few winners

Thirty years ago, when she was still premier, Carmen Lawrence trumpeted that resources projects would lead WA out of the early 1990s recession and create more than 27,000 new jobs.

The 1992 press release, still available to read on the WA Government’s media statements website, hailed 19 major projects worth more than $6 billion that “ranged from a major new coal mine to a gas gathering scheme”.

Fast forward three decades and the now Dr Lawrence, emerita professor at the University of Western Australia, this week led calls for the Fremantle Dockers to cut ties to the fossil fuel industry.

“It’s not fair to the Dockers players that they are forced to burnish the reputation of a fossil fuel company which knowingly contributes significantly to climate change, harming all life on the planet,” she said of the club’s sponsorship deal with Woodside.

Lawrence is no hypocrite. She’s been a prominent environmental activist in her post-political career and is the current president of the Conservation Council of WA.

CCWA is the same organisation that tried, unsuccessfully, to this year challenge environmental approvals for Woodside’s proposed $16 billion Scarborough gas development off WA’s north.

There was no mention of CCWA in the press release distributed by the Climate Media Centre on behalf of “high profile Freo Dockers fans” who want the Woodside partnership deal scrapped.

Had Dr Lawrence launched a similar campaign under the CCWA banner it’s highly doubtful her anti-Woodside crusade would have garnered anywhere near the same level of media attention.

After all, CCWA’s raison d’etre is to fight new fossil fuel projects, which, according to its latest annual report, “threaten to push the entire global climate system into dangerous instability”.

The timing of the release of the open letter to the Freo board, which was also signed by author Tim Winton and ex-player Dale Kickett, couldn’t have been better to garner maximum publicity.

It came hot on the heels of Australian Test and ODI captain Pat Cummins confirming he won’t appear in any more TV ads for Cricket Australia’s major sponsor Alinta Energy and Donnell Wallam telling her teammates on the Australian Diamonds netball team that she wasn’t comfortable wearing a dress with Hancock Prospecting sponsorship because of comments made by Gina Rinehart’s father, Lang Hancock, 40 years ago.

Lawrence on Wednesday said the letter had been in the pipeline for “weeks” and wasn’t designed to capitalise on the current national debate, saying that was just a coincidence.

The media storm has undeniably already caused reputational harm to Woodside, Alinta and Hancock Prospecting, all major employers of West Australians and all headquartered in Perth.

The consequence is that many of the State’s other big companies would be asking themselves whether providing financial support to sports clubs or arts organisations is worth the risk.

After all, Woodside isn’t going to sell any more gas to the South Koreans or Japanese just because its logo is on the the Dockers’ jersey — unlike some of the club’s other sponsors who have a product or service to promote through similar tie-ups.

Judging by Fremantle president Dale Alcock’s remarks yesterday, it sounded like there was little enthusiasm on the Dockers board to continue the partnership with Woodside beyond the current contract.

I look forward to him explaining why gambling and junk food partners are OK, but the energy sector is not.

Daniel Smith, executive chair of ESG advisory firm ReGen Strategic and a regular columnist in this newspaper, told me the only way for energy companies to avoid reputational risk was to “take responsibility for all of their emissions and resource a credible pathway to net zero”.

“If they don’t do this, they will come under increasing pressure from the community and are likely to find that their sponsorship dollars are not wanted,” Smith said.

He added: “Companies can be well motivated in seeking to contribute to the community, but this doesn’t absolve them of their responsibility in other areas, like climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as diversity and inclusion.

“The community expects companies to have a positive impact on both people and the planet. Gone are the days where companies can make up for doing harm in one area by doing good in another.”

My question is how, in this era of social media outrage and cancel culture, can any company be confident it won’t be the next target if an athlete, board or supporter groups decide they are no longer socially acceptable?