Mark Ritson’s recent comments to ADMA that ESG efforts are now on the nose because of Trump and the global shift to right are wrong. They are also deeply cynical. ESG is more than a marketing fad, the commitment by the corporate sector to improved outcomes for people and planet is genuine and is not going away.

I accept the value of sometimes flimsy purpose-driven advertising campaigns is debatable, but the broader concept of ESG will not be swayed by politics. In fact, it’s time for advertisers to step up their ESG efforts, particularly when it comes to taking responsibility for the impact on society of their media spend.

Let’s take a step back: 

From Drumstick supporting Clean Up Australia in their recent ads, to the longstanding Dove Campaign for Real Beauty, to Coca Cola’s global Recycle Me campaign. Advertisers are keen for us to know that they are doing good in the world.

This change in advertising is the result of society’s increasing expectations of the corporate sector, and the evolution of what was originally called the triple bottom line (profit, people and planet), to what is now more commonly known as ESG (environmental, social and governance). The corporate sector can’t just focus on making money anymore; they need to be thinking about their impact on the environment, and their impact on society.

Big companies, committed to having a positive impact in the world, don’t just talk about this in their advertising, it’s reinforced in their annual reports and on their websites as well. There’s a lot of similarity in what gets said, but if I was to paraphrase, this is what they say:

“At EveryCo, we’re committed to contributing to a better today and a brighter tomorrow for our employees, our customers and society more broadly”.

These are the words of businesses who take their obligations to society seriously.

Ads = social impact

One area of ESG the corporate sector isn’t sufficiently focussed on is the relationship between where they spend their advertising dollars and the social impact of those decisions. Businesses that aspire to positively impact people as well as profit and planet need to be thinking more about the social impact of their media spend.

When considering the social impact of media spend, it helps to categorise it in terms of direct impact and indirect impact. Two examples that illustrate the direct social impact of media spend are:

1. Underrepresented groups feeling less included in society because they don’t see people like them in ads. Dylan Alcott is tackling the issue of people with a disability being underrepresented in advertising with his Shift 20 Initiative.  
2. The perpetuation of harmful stereotypes in ads. The Unstereotype Alliance is working to reduce stereotypes in ads including the objectification of women.     

The indirect social impact of media spend is less obvious than direct, but it’s just as important. A good way of defining the indirect social impact of media spend is to think about the social impact of a media property, a media company or a media platform on a group of people or on society as a whole.

The indirect social impact of media spend is significant because of the huge investment in paid media that gets made every year: The scale is enormous with Australian advertisers estimated to spend more than $20bn on paid media in 2024 alone.

Where advertisers spend their money matters.

The idea that there can be negative indirect social impacts associated with an advertiser’s media spend isn’t new, however these discussions have largely sat within the context of brand safety issues e.g. advertisers inadvertently funding hate speech via unintended placements on online video platforms that share ad revenue with creators.

This article calls for a broader view: Advertisers and their agencies are not currently taking sufficient responsibility for the wider impact of their media spends. It’s not just about the direct impact of their actions, the impact to society of the media companies and platforms they enable is critical to consider as well.     

This topic is relevant right now because the societal impact of the media we use and consume is in the news:

• The Federal Government’s plan to ban social media for children under 16.
• Ongoing coverage of the alleged bullying, harassment, sexism and intimidation of staff at Australian television networks.
• Debate about the appropriateness, or not, of highly sexualised content on Kyle & Jackie O’s breakfast radio show.

The recent decision by the Albanese government to increase the minimum age of consent for social media to 16 is a huge validation of Michael ‘Wippa’ Wipfli and Rob Galluzzo’s 36 Months campaign amongst others. 

Read it and weep

If you want to learn more about the impact of social media on kids, then I’d highly recommend you read Jonathan’s Haidt’s book, The Anxiety Generation. It details the harm that has come about as kids have moved from having a play-based childhood to a phone-based childhood.

Rates of mental illness, including anxiety and depression, have increased significantly with the widespread adoption of smartphones and access to social media since 2010. The research demonstrates its hurting boys and girls, but especially girls. The research supporting the above can be found here.

The most popular social media platforms are all advertiser funded. This means that it’s advertisers who are fuelling them.

I have tried to not make this article too focused on the big tech platforms, but it’s difficult, because their impact is so far reaching. 

The impacts to society are not limited to children.

In June this year, as the Federal Minister for Cyber Security, Clare O’Neill, made a speech at ANU in Canberra about the damaging effect that social media is having on our democracy. Her contention was that social media is driving wide division in our communities; that it’s stifling healthy debate and leading Australians into dangerous online echo chambers.

Renowned Turkish-American sociologist Zeynep Tufekci goes one step further, suggesting that not only is social media creating echo chambers, but that the non-transparent algorithms used by the platforms are sending users down wormholes radicalising people as a result. 

Complicity?

Whether they like the association or not, advertisers should better make the connection between their media spend and its impact on society: The media companies we are talking about are all advertiser-funded businesses. They survive and thrive based on how much money advertisers spend with them. They do well when advertisers spend more, and less well when advertisers spend less. 

Advertisers are the lifeblood of these businesses and have the influence to create positive change, but in my experience, and speaking with my peers at other media agencies, it doesn’t appear advertisers are thinking enough about the social impact of their spend. 

One exception is Medibank, which last month announced it is the new official health partner of the 36 Months campaign. In announcing the partnership, Medibank’s Chief Medical Officer and practising psychiatrist, Dr Andrew Wilson said, “We know social media can be harmful to teenagers, in particular for younger teenagers, aged 13 to 16”.

I don’t know for sure, but I would imagine this commitment would have a profound impact on how much they spend advertising on social media advertising: I would be shocked if it didn’t.

Positive action

So, what can advertisers do?

I would like to see more advertisers talking about ESG in the context of their paid media spend, particularly the S or social in ESG. 

Sometimes an advertiser’s commitment to ESG hasn’t filtered down from the C-suite to the people at the coal face of marketing every day. CMOs should take it on themselves to ensure their whole marketing teams are aware of their business’s commitment to ESG outcomes. 

Media agencies need to be more pro-active in this area as well. If an advertiser hasn’t thought about it, get them to think about it. It’s not a matter of simply stopping spend with some companies: It’s a matter of at least having a conversation; starting somewhere:  

• Ask media companies to explain their position on the various subjects.
• Ask them to share how they’re addressing concerns that have come to light.
• Satisfy yourself that your proposed media spend is consistent with your company’s commitment to ESG.

As the broader advertising industry, inclusive of both advertisers and their media agencies, we can be prouder of the impact we have on the world if we take a more progressive approach in this area.