Media & PR Archives - Corporate Watch

Wreckers of the Earth: a map of ecocidal capitalism in London

Corporate Watch — Thu, 20 Feb 2020 14:02:51 +0000

OCTOBER 2021 NOTE: This version of the directory is now out of date. For an updated version, see here

“The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses.” Utah Phillips

London is one of the main worldwide hubs of ecocidal capitalism. This city is home to oil and gas giants including BP and Shell, as well as many of the world’s most devastating mining corporations. Perhaps even more significant is London’s role as a global centre for the banks, investors and traders who fund the planet-killers and launder the profits. As well as the insurers, law firms, arms dealers, security companies, PR agencies, lobbyists, and others who provide critical support.

Our “Wreckers of the Earth” map of London identifies and locates them. It comes in several forms: a poster map; an online map; and a written directory.

Poster Map

This A2 poster shows a map of central London with locations of 130 companies, their addresses and one-line introductions.

Click on this link to download a high res version for printing (OrangeDox, 10 MB). And here for a medium res (3 MB) image to view on screen.

Online map

We could only fit a small sample on the poster — the online version has a lot more. It features over 300 companies, with bios, references, and links for further information. This is available in OpenStreetMaps:

See full screen

You can also see a version in Googlemaps here. (This allows viewing in Google earth, but you also have to put up with all of Google’s clutter advertising nearby restaurants etc.)

You can also download all the data in this spreadsheet, including geo coordinates, to make your own map.

Wreckers directory

We’ve also put all the written information together in a Wreckers of the Earth company directory. As well as all the company information from the online map, this also features sector introductions explaining more about the roles these companies play.

You can read it online here.

And you can download it here as a PDF.

The “Wreckers of the Earth” project …

These are just the first outputs in our ongoing “Wreckers of the Earth” project. We’ll be publishing more info and analysis soon.

Capitalism is burning up our planet, devastating ecosystems and communities in its ceaseless hunger for profit. Everything is for sale, and the one great goal is growth: producing and consuming ever more stuff, even as it kills us. This engine of mass destruction is driven by burning forests: the long-dead forests of fossil fuels, and the living forests of today.

Though we all play our parts in the consumer system, some humans play much bigger parts than others. The people killing the earth are those directing the machine — and trying to crush our resistance to it.

Our “Wreckers of the Earth” project has two aims: to identify some of the main planet-killers; and to show how they work together as an overarching system of power and profit.

To break things down, we identify three main categories of wreckers:

Primary planet-killers: companies on the “front lines” of ecological devastation. Hydrocarbon extractors, mining giants, agribusiness empires, plastics or cement producers, and other major polluters.
The facilitators: the banks, investment funds, insurers, law firms, security companies, etc., who provide the supply lines and services without which the “front line” companies couldn’t function.
Ideology industry: the institutions promoting and normalising environmental destruction, runaway growth, and the profit motive. Including media, academic units, think tanks, lobbyists, PR firms, and the boom industry of specialist “greenwashing” initiatives.

Future work in the project will investigate the links, from investment to ideas, that connect these together.

Wreckers in London

Ecocidal capitalism is a global system, but its nodes are local: right here, around the corner. Our particular focus is on identifying its bases and networks in London and the UK.

London is one of the main global hubs of ecocidal capitalism, home to fossil fuel giants and to many of the worst mining polluters. It is the world’s second largest financial centre (after New York). It is the key financial marketplace for Europe, the Middle East and Africa (“EMEA”, in bankers’ jargon), and for trading oil, metals, minerals and other “commodities” sucked out of the earth.

Lax regulation and tight security make London a money-laundering haven for the world’s tyrants, oligarchs, and billionaires. Its imperial legacy still lives in the infrastructure and services it offers: insurance markets, law firms, arms dealers, PR agencies, universities, down to prestige shopping and investment property.

Future work may also look beyond London to other parts of the UK.

Please get in touch if you have any information to add or other comments on this project!

The post Wreckers of the Earth: a map of ecocidal capitalism in London appeared first on Corporate Watch.

The Wreckers of the Earth: London company directory

Corporate Watch — Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:38:30 +0000

OCTOBER 2021 NOTE: This version of the directory is now out of date. For an updated version, see here

Our new “Wreckers of the Earth” map of London identifies planet-killing companies based in the city, giving their addresses and short descriptions. This directory, accompanying the map, presents all the company information in one document. It also features sector introductions which explain a bit more about the roles these companies play.

London is one of the main global hubs of ecocidal capitalism. London is home to fossil fuel giants and to many of the worst mining polluters. It is the world’s second largest financial centre (after New York). It is the key financial marketplace for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and for trading oil, metals, minerals and other “commodities” sucked out of the earth. Lax regulation and tight security make London a money-laundering haven for the world’s tyrants, oligarchs, and billionaires. The legacy of the British empire still lives in the infrastructure and services London offers: insurance markets, law firms, arms dealers, PR agencies, down to prestige shopping and investment property.

To break things down, we identify three main categories of wreckers in this directory:

Primary planet-killers: companies on the “front lines” of ecological devastation. Oil, coal and gas companies, mining giants, agribusiness empires, plastics or cement producers, and other major polluters.
The facilitators: the banks, investment funds, insurers, law firms and security companies who provide the supply lines and services without which the “front line” companies couldn’t function.
Ideology industry: the institutions promoting and normalising environmental destruction, runaway growth, and the profit motive. Including media, academic units, think tanks, lobbyists, PR firms, and the new boom industry of specialist “greenwashing” initiatives.

Our list is not comprehensive – there are more London-based companies working in these industries than we include here. We have prioritised those with the biggest global scale, plus others we think are worth highlighting in certain areas.

NB: this information was compiled and checked in February 2020.

1. Primary planet-killers

1.1 Hydrocarbon majors

1.1.1 The national oil companies

1.1.2 The multinational “oil majors”

1.2 Hydrocarbons: smaller oil companies, frackers and UCG

1.2.1 Smaller “conventional” oil and gas companies

1.2.2 The frackers: “unconventional fossil fuels” specialists

1.3 Oil and gas services and shipping

1.3.1 Oilfield services

1.3.2 Liquefied Natural Gas

1.3.3 Oil shipping and gas pipelines

1.4 Non-fossil energy: nuclear, biomass, dams …

1.4.1 Nuclear

1.4.2 Biomass

1.4.3 Dams: hydropower companies

1.5 Mining: metals and minerals

1.6 Earth-killing infrastructure: engineering and construction

1.6.1 Energy conglomerates

1.6.2 International engineering and construction giants

1.6.3 UK big builders

1.6.4 Cement producers

1.7 Agribusiness

1.8 Plastics and other chemical polluters

2. The facilitators

2.1 Banks

2.1.1 China’s Big Four

2.1.2 Top 20 multinational investment banks

2.1.3 Multilateral development banks

2.1.4 Smaller specialist banks

2.2 Investment funds

2.2.1 Top 20 Institutional Investors

2.2.2 Sovereign Wealth Funds

2.2.3 Private Equity

2.2.4 Hedge Funds

2.2.5 Smaller earth-wrecking specialist investors

2.3 Insurance companies

2.4 Other finance sector institutions

2.4.1 Auditors: the Big 4 accountancy firms

2.4.2 The Rating Agencies

2.4.3 Exchanges

2.5 Law firms

2.6 Military and security

2.6.1. Arms manufacturers

2.6.2 PSMCs (Mercenaries and security firms)

2.7 Government

3. Ideology industry

3.1 Universities

3.2 Media

3.2.1 Social media platforms

3.2.2 TV and radio

3.2.3 Newspapers (and news websites)

3.3 Trade associations and Lobby groups

3.5 Think tanks

3.6 PR firms

3.7 Greenwashing services

“The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses.” Utah Phillips

Though we all play our parts in the consumer system, some people play much bigger parts than others. The people killing the earth are those directing the machine – and crushing any resistance to it.

Our “Wreckers of the Earth” project has two aims: to identify the main planet-killers based in London; and to show how they work together as a coordinated system of power and profit.

This project builds on the work of a number of other people and groups, highlighted in the text, and we hope it will encourage future work by others. Future work by us will investigate the links, from investment to ideas, that connect these together.

We have chosen to focus on London because it is the UK home for the most multinational companies, their financiers and other backers. Plus we don’t have the capacity to do the same exercise for the whole of the UK right now. But if you would like to do something similar for another city or town and want to hear about how we’ve put this together, get in touch.

Here we only identify the companies. Lots more could be done to investigate them further: to find out more about their business, key contracts or operations, which individuals are making the decisions, who is profiting, and so on. If you’re interested in this, have a look at our ‘Do-It-Yourself’ handbook, and sign up to news update emails to hear about the trainings we run.

1. Primary planet-killers

1.1 Hydrocarbon majors

The companies in this section provide the fuel that is burning the planet. “Big oil” includes the massive state-backed extractive industries of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China, and the other major oil-soaked states. And alongside them the multinational “supermajors” – private corporations including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conoco Philips, Total, and Eni. Between them these companies are responsible for the supply end of much of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

London is a major centre for big oil and gas. BP is headquartered here. Shell is incorporated in London, and runs many of its operations from here. Most of the other major firms have London offices. Even those without London locations have connections to London-based finance, insurance and other companies (listed in Part 2).

The descriptions below give very brief glimpses into their impact on the world. The companies in this section cause oil spills and other pollution disasters, instigate wars and massacres, bankroll authoritarian regimes, suppress revolutions and popular movements, destroy indigenous communities, disrupt ecosystems and wildlife habitats on a massive scale. Their publicly recorded trails of destruction already fill volumes – but many more of their activities may never come to light, thanks to the enormous power and violence they wield.

Some useful sources and further information: Platform “Carbon Web” mapping of BP and Shell connections; Environmental Justice Atlas (EJA); Exxon Secrets (NB: Exxon’s UK base is outside London). For some more in-depth reading see: Burning Up – A Global History of Fossil Fuel Consumption, by Simon Pirani. We have referred to the CDB’s “Carbon Majors database ” report listing major carbon emitters in the list below – this shouldn’t be taken to fully endorse their methodology, but it gives a useful glimpse of the scale of the problem.

Note: what about coal? This section doesn’t include the other big group of hydrocarbon planet-killers – the coal companies. Some multinationals involved in coal mining – notably, Glencore and RWE – are listed in the mining section below. However, the world’s very biggest coal producers are largely state-owned corporations – notably the massive Coal India Ltd, and the various Chinese coal companies – which do not have a presence in London. The world’s biggest private sector coal miner, US corporation Peabody Energy, has a “London” office that is actually in Guildford. On the other hand, many financiers of the coal industry are here: these are listed in Part 2.

1.1.1 The national oil companies

The world’s biggest oil and gas drillers are state-owned corporations run by the main fossil fuel producing nations. At the top of the list are the giants controlling the gulf oil fields of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Russia’s vast gas reserves.

Saudi Aramco

Aramco Overseas Company: 10 Portman Square, Marylebone, London, W1H 6AZ

Source: https://europe.aramco.com/en/info/contact-us

Saudi Arabia’s national oil company. It is the world’s biggest single greenhouse gas emitter – responsible for 4.5% of all the world’s carbon emissions between 1988 and 2015, according to Carbon Majors Database. A minority of its shares were recently listed on the country’s local stock exchange but it remains majority owned by the tyrannical Saudi state.

Owners: majority owned by Saudi Arabia. A minority of shares are traded on the Saudi stock exchange.

Gazprom

20 Triton Street, London, NW1 3BF

Source: http://www.gazprom-mt.com/HowToFindUs/Pages/default.aspx

Massive Russian gas company, the world’s biggest natural gas producer. Responsible for an estimated 3.9% of all global carbon emissions in 1988-2015, according to Carbon Majors Database. Gazprom is a leading player in drilling new oil and gas fields opened by retreating ice in the Arctic.

Ownership: majority owned by Russian government. A minority of shares are traded on the London, Frankfurt and Moscow stock exchanges. Shareholders include BlackRock, Vanguard, and the other big investment funds profiled below in Part 2.

National Iranian Oil Company

NIOC House, 6th Floor, 4 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NE

Source: http://www.iocukltd.co.uk/contact.php

Iran controls the world’s second biggest oil fields after Saudi Arabia. These contributed 2.28% of global carbon emissions in 1988-2015, according to Carbon Majors Database. In 2018 the collision of an Iranian oil tanker in the East China Sea was one of the worst oil shipping disasters in decades, killing all 32 crew members and causing three huge oil spills.

Ownership: Iranian government. Iran’s oil was formerly owned by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the ancestor of today’s BP, before nationalisation in 1954.

China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC)

5 Wilton Road, London, SW1V 1AN

Source: http://chinachamber.org.uk/index.php/en/member-list/403-petrochina-international-london-co-ltd

CNPC is the Chinese state oil company, responsible for 1.56% of global carbon emissions in 1988-2015, according to Carbon Majors Database. Its 2010 Dalian oil spill caused an oil slick stretching over at least 183 square kilometres off North East China.

Owners: the government of China. CNPC also has a publicly listed susidiary, called Petro China, whose shareholders are a mixture of Chinese banks and funds, along with the big global investment funds profiled below in Part 2.

Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA)

7 Old Park Lane, London, W1K 1QR

Source: http://www.pdvsa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6581&Itemid=898&lang=en

Venezuelan state-owned oil and natural gas company, responsible for 1.23% of global carbon emissions in 1988-2015, according to Carbon Majors Database. Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporting country in the world. Severe safety concerns have been raised about PDVSA’s working practices, in particular after a 2012 refinery explosion left 42 people dead and destroyed 1,600 homes. After Canada, Venezuela is the world’s leading producer of tar sands oil, as developing technology allows exploitation of the vast “extra heavy crude” deposits in the Orinoco Basin.

Kuwait Petroleum Corp

KPC House, 54 Pall Mall, London, SW1J 5JH

Source: https://www.kpc.com.kw/Pages/European-Regional-Office.aspx

Kuwait’s state-owned national oil company. Responsible for 1% of global carbon emissions in 1988-2015, according to Carbon Majors Database. The company has plans to increase oil production by 7.3% between 2018-30.

Sonatrach

Sonatrach Gas Marketing: 1^st and 2^nd floors, Panton House, London, 25 Haymarket, SW1Y 4EN

Source: https://www.sonatrach-uk.com/contact-us/

National state-owned oil company of Algeria. It is the largest company in Africa and is planning overseas expansion. Responsible for 1% of global carbon emissions 1988-2015, according to Carbon Majors Database. In July 2019, the company suffered its worst accident in 15 years when a huge liquefied natural gas complex exploded.

Petrobras

1 Angel Court, London, EC2R 7HJ

Source: http://www.petrobras.com.br/en/petrobras-worldwide/

Brazil’s national oil company. Responsible for 0.77% of emissions between 1988–2015 according to Carbon Majors Database. Responsible for a long list of oil spills, and mired in long-running corruption scandals.

Owners: Over 40% state owned. Other shares are traded on the Sao Paulo and New York exchanges, and held by Brazilian and global investment funds.

Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC)

159 Hammersmith Road, London, W6 8BS

Source: https://www.nnpcgroup.com/CorporateServices/Pages/LondonOffice.aspx

The Nigerian government oil company. The Niger Delta basin is the site of Africa’s biggest oil and gas fields, which account for the majority of Nigeria’s export income. The Nigerian oil industry is run by joint ventures between NNPC and the “supermajor” multinationals – above all, Shell. In contrast to the wealth being sucked from the ground, the people of the Niger Delta live with massive environmental damage from oil spills and gas flaring, extreme poverty, and vicious repression in a zone militarised by the state and multinationals to protect oil profits.

Socar

2 St. James’s Market, London, SW1Y 4AH

Source: https://www.socartrading.com/contact

The state-owned petrochemical company of the oil and gas-rich central Asian state of Azerbaijan. Azeri gas is becoming a major geopolitical commodity as European governments build costly and environmentally devastating pipelines from the country to try and escape dependence on Russia’s Gazprom.

Rosneft

Rosneft Marine UK : Office 461, 1 Kingdom Street, Paddington Central, London, W2 6BD

Source: http://www.rosneftmarine.com/locations/

Russian oil giant, active worldwide but particularly in Siberia, the Arctic, and former Soviet territories around the Black Sea. Chairman of the board is former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

Owners: 50% owned by the Russian government, the other 50% publicly traded. BP owns around 20% of the public shares, and QH Oil Investments – a Qatari state company – just under 19%.

1.1.2 The multinational “oil majors”

The “oil majors” (or even “supermajors”) is the name often given to the top flight of privately owned oil and gas multinationals. Most lists include the three big US-based firms – ExxonMobil, Conoco Philips, and Chevron; as well as Total from France, Britain’s BP, and the Anglo-Dutch company Shell. Eni, based in Italy, and Russia’s biggest privately-owned company Lukoil are also of a similar scale.

Despite their historic national affiliations, all these companies are largely owned by the same international investors – the likes of BlackRock, Vanguard, and the other massive investment funds we profile in Part 2 below.

Global HQ: 1 St James’s Square, London, SW1Y 4PD

Supply and Trading (IST) office: 20 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5NJ

Source:https://www.bp.com/en_gb/united-kingdom/home/where-we-operate/london.html; https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/what-we-do/bp-at-a-glance/key-business-addresses.html

Oil and gas multinational headquartered in London. Has a bloody history of colonial exploitation, environmental devastation and violence, from its foundations in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to the world’s largest oil spill, Deepwater Horizon in 2010. BP contributed 1.53% of global carbon emissions in 1988-2015, according to Carbon Majors Database. In recent years the company has cynically tried to rebrand itself as a “green” energy company developing renewable sources – while in reality its business remains overwhelmingly focused on fossil fuels. It plans to spend £41 bill i on on new oil exploration in the next decade including projects in the Canadian “tar sands”, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, and the Amazon rainforest.

Royal Dutch Shell

Shell Centre, Belvedere Road, London, SE1 7NA

Source: https://www.shell.co.uk/about-us/contact-us.html

British-Dutch multinational oil and gas company, headquartered in the Netherlands and incorporated in the United Kingdom. Accountable for 1.67% of global carbon emissions in 1988-2015, according to Carbon Majors Database. Shell has no shortage of controversies; in particular it has been linked to the killing of the “Ogoni Nine”, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, as well as other horrific atrocities in the Niger Delta, where it is the main multinational oil exploiter. Shell, with Italian oil company Eni, is currently on trial in Italy over an alleged $1.3 billion bribery deal with a former Nigerian oil minister. In May 2016 an estimated 2,100 barrels of oil, nearly 90,000 gallons, spilled into the Gulf of Mexico – leaked from an undersea pipeline system operated off the Louisiana coast.

Owners: PLC listed on the London, Stock Exchange (LSE). The majority of shares are owned by the big investment funds profiled below in Part 2.

Chevron

1 Westferry Circus, Canary Wharf, London, E14 4HA

Source: https://group.canarywharf.com/office-occupier/chevron-uk/

US-based multinational oil company. Responsible for 1.3% of global carbon emissions in 1988-2015, according to Carbon Majors Database. And for a long list of oil spills, human rights atrocities, and much more. See the Environmental Justice Atlas for a map of social and environmental conflicts Chevron has a hand in.

Owners: PLC listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The majority of shares are owned by the big investment funds – the likes of BlackRock, Vanguard, and others profiled below in Part 2.

ConocoPhillips

20^th floor, 1 Angel Court, London, EC2R 7HJ

Source: https://www.conocophillips.co.uk/

American multinational energy corporation, created through the merger of Conoco and Phillips Petroleum Company in 2002. While maintaining a lower profile than other oil companies it has grown into the 3^rd largest US oil company and been responsible for 0.91% of global carbon emissions in 1988-2015, according to Carbon Majors Database. Along with environmental degradation the company has a poor safety record in Texas, with more than two dozen workers killed in accidents and many others injured.

See also: “Co rporate rap sheet” onthe Corporate Research Project website.

Owners: US PLC, owned by major investment funds.

Total SA

10 Upper Bank Street, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5BF

Source: https://www.total.uk/contacts-gb

French multinational oil and gas company, one of the six biggest “supermajor” oil companies. Responsible for 0.95% of global carbon emissions in 1988-2015, according to Carbon Majors Database. Responsible for one of France’s worst environmental disasters, the 1999 sinking of the tanker Erika and the subsequent oil spill.

Owners: PLC, main shareholders are big global investment funds.

Eni

Eni House: 10 Ebury Bridge Road, London, SW1W 8PZ
Eni Trading & Shipping: 123 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9SL

Source: https://www.eni.com/enipedia/en_IT/international-presence/europe/enis-activities-in-the-united-kingdom.page

Italian multinational oil and gas “supermajor”, active worldwide. It is the second main multinational, after Shell, involved in the Niger Delta – “one of the world’s most polluted regions”. Eni and Shell are currently on trial in Italy over an alleged $1.3 billion bribery deal with a former Nigerian oil minister. In an extremely rare case, the Eni CEO actually faces criminal charges.

Owners: 30% owned by the government of Italy. The remaining shares are publicly traded and owned by major global investors.

Lukoil

25 Canada Square, London, E14 5LB

Source: http://www.lukoil.com/InvestorAndShareholderCenter/Contacts

Russian oil and gas multinational headquartered in Moscow, and Russia’s second biggest company after Gazprom.

Owners: around 40% of shares are owned by its top managers. Other shares are traded on multiple stock exchanges, and owned by global investment funds.

NB important companies without a London location:

ExxonMobil is the other massive US-based oil company. It does not have a London office, but a base with some 600 employees nearby in Surrey: Ermyn House, Ermyn Way, Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 8UX.

Pemex (Mexican state oil company)

Peabody Energy (US oil and coal multinational)

Abu Dhabi National Oil Company

Iraq National Oil Company

1.2 Hydrocarbons: smaller oil companies, frackers and UCG

1.2.1 Smaller “conventional” oil and gas companies

Energean

3rd floor, Accurist House, 44 Baker Street, London, W1U 7AL

Source: https://www.energean.com/contact-us/

Greek-Israeli-UK oil and gas company racing to turn the Mediterrenean into an oil field. This company has grown fast in just a few years, thanks to capital injections from private equity investors and a warm relationship with the Israeli government. One of its projects is the first Israel-Cyprus gas pipeline. See our recent Corporate Watch profile.

Owners: major shareholders include “vulture fund” Third Point; oil-focused private equity fund Kerogen Capital; and Israel’s Bank Hapoalim, alongside the company’s founding partners. It also recently sold shares on the London, Stock Exchange, attracting the usual global investment funds such as BlackRock and Vanguard.

Neptune Energy

Nova North, 11 Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BY

Source: https://www.neptuneenergy.com/contact-us/

British “independent” oil and gas company drilling in the North Sea, North Africa and Asia. Set up in 2015 with backing from private equity investors (see Part 2), it has since grown fast by buying up several other companies.

Owners: single biggest shareholder is China Investment Corporation (CIC), followed by a number of private equity investors.

Premier Oil PLC

23 Lower Belgrave Street, London, SW1W 0NR

Source: https://www.premier-oil.com/contact

Long-running British oil “independent” with licenses in the North Sea and Falkland Islands, as well as Mexico and more. A listed company and member of the FTSE 250 index.

Perenco

8 Hanover Square, London, W1S 1HQ

Source: https://www.perenco.com/contact

Anglo-French oil and gas company with headquarters in London and Paris, calling itself “the leading independent oil and gas company in Europe”. It has exploration and production activities in 16 countries around the globe, particularly in Africa but also in Turkey, Vietnam, Australia, South America, and the UK. Has been accused of human rights violations in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the ‘poorest oil city in the world’.

Tullow

9 Chiswick Park, 566 Chiswick High Road, London, W4 5XT

Source: https://www.tullowoil.com/contact

London based oil company, founded in Ireland but now calling itself “Africa’s leading independent oil company”, pursuing exploration licenses in multiple countries in West and East Africa. Supported by the UK government through its January 2020 “UK-Africa Investment Summit”,which focused heavily on UK companies exploiting African oil and gas.

Seplat Petroleum

4th Floor, 50 Pall Mall, London, SW1Y 5JH

Source: https://seplatpetroleum.com/contact/

Nigerian oil company focused on drilling in the Niger d elta – the scene of horrendous pollution from oil spills and gas flaring, extreme poverty, and vicious repression. Recently bought Eland Oil and Gas, another Nigerian-focused company.

Victoria Oil & Gas Plc

Scott House, Suite 1 The Concourse, Waterloo Station, London, SE1 7LY

Source: https://www.victoriaoilandgas.com/contact-us/

London based company that has gas drilling contracts, and a gas pipeline, in Cameroon. It is also exploring for gas in Russia.

1.2.2 The frackers: “unconventional fossil fuels” specialists

The economic growth machine drives seemingly endless demand for fossil fuel energy, depleting the sources of so-called “conventional” oil and gas supply. Luckily for the industry (if not the rest of us), new technologies help keep the motor going. They also create openings for newer companies specialising in fracking and other new extraction methods. For a deeper look at these issues, see our 2014 publication: To the Ends of the Earth: A Guide to Unconventional Fossil Fuels.

Following significant local campaigns and strategic direct action, the UK government has currently ordered a halt or “moratorium” on fracking in Britain. It very much continues elsewhere, with many of the same companies involved. Much of the information in this section comes from the excellent Frack Of f. See also their “list of bad guys”.

NB: not in the list:Ineos, one of the biggest UK players in this game, is listed below in the chemicals section (1.8). The infamous Cuadrilla Resources is based in Preston, Lancashire.

IGas Energy

7 Down Street, London, W1J 7AJ

Source: https://www.igasplc.com/contact

Operator of the largest number of onshore oil and gas fields in Britain. Frack Off identifies it as one of the key companies in the drive to fracking in the UK, with aims to extract Coal Bed Methane (CBM) and Shale Gas in England and Scotland. It began to drill the first shale well in Nottinghamshire in November 2018, which was initially delayed by an 80-hour blockade of the site entrance. See: Powerbase profile.

Owners: listed on the LSE AIM exchange. Its biggest investor is energy private equity investor Kerogen Capital.

Angus Energy PLC

Building 3, Chiswick Park, 566 Chiswick High Street, London, W4 5YA

Source: http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/contact/

Angus Energy is a onshore oil and gas company which owns and operates two conventional production fields in Brockham and Lidsey, Southern England. It has a 25% stake in the Balcombe oil field, along with Cuadrilla, and is the operator there. (See also: Frack Off.)

Major Shareholders: Knowe Properties Limited (8.2%); Rupert Labrum (7.21%); JDA Consulting Limited (5.4%); Jonathan Tidswell-Pretorius (4.9%).

Cluff Natural Resources plc

Third Floor, 5-8 The Sanctuary London, SW1P 3JS

Source: https://www.cluffnaturalresources.com/contact-us/

Has shares in a number of oil exploration licenses in the North Sea. Was one of the UK’s most visible companies pushing for U nderground C oal Gasification (UC G ) companies, although currently says it is focusing back on North Sea oil. Founded by multi-millionaire Algy Cluff who made his fortune in gold-mining in Africa and North Sea Oil. (See: Frack Off.)

Owners: PLC listed on the LSE AIM exchange. Major s hareholders: Canaccord (16.9%); IPGL (Michael Spencer) (16.8%); Lombard Odier (8.1%); Janus Henderson Investors (6.7%); Hargreaves Lansdown (5%); Fiske (4.5%); James Caird Asset Management (3.9%); SVM Asset Management (3%).

Europa Oil and Gas

6 Porter Street, London, W1U 6DD

Source: http://www.europaoil.com/contacts.aspx

Exploration and production company focused on very high impact exploration in the Atlantic off the coast of Ireland, supported by revenue from oil production in onshore UK. They hold two Underground Coal Gasification licenses around the Humber Estuary. (See: Frack Off.)

Listed on the LSE AIM exchange. Many of its ma in s hareholders’ identities are hidden behind nominee accounts.

Rathlin Energy

Suite 1, 3rd Floor, 11-12 St. James’s Square, London, SW1Y 4LB

Source: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06478035

NB: Registered address. This is a current official company address; but it is not confirmed that it is an operational site rather than just a “letterbox”.

Rathlin Energy is exploring for oil and gas onshore in the East Riding of Yorkshire. As of August 2019 activity at its West Newton site was “suspended pending the analysis of the data acquired to date during the drilling and testing of the well”. (See also: Frack Off.)

UK Oil and Gas (UKOG)

The Broadgate Tower, 8th Floor, 20 Primrose Street, London, EC2A 2EW

Source: https://www.ukogplc.com/page.php?pID=7

British oil company mainly active onshore in the Weald Basin in southern England. It currently has eight licenses, including two now producing oil and others being explored or developed. Its subsidiaries include Horse Hill Developments, a company formed to drill on the Horse Hill wellsite where the company took out an injunction in 2018 to ban protests. (See also: Frack Off.)

Owners: UKOG is a PLC, listed on London’s AIM “alternative investment market” for smaller companies. Manyof its biggest investors’ identities are hidden behind nominee accounts.

1.3 Oil and gas services and shipping

When we think of the oil and gas industry, we tend to think of the headline-hitting companies listed above. These are the ones that bid for and operate “concessions” from governments to explore and drill for hydrocarbons. But behind them are a host of others, less well known but also indispensable, which work as specialist contractors and sub-contractors on different parts of the process.

In the industry jargon, hydrocarbon extraction is often divided into:

“upstream” – finding and drilling oil and gas;
“midstream” – transporting it, e.g., with tankers or pipelines;
“downstream” – refining it into finished products, such as petrol or plastics.

Some contractors work in just one of these areas, others cover a range of services. In this section we just give a few prominent examples. We also include a few of the big shipping companies that operate the major oil tanker fleets.

NB: notable companies without London locations: the UK has a thriving oil support industry, however many companies are based in and around the North Sea oil hub of Aberdeen rather than in London. This includes the UK HQs of: infamous US oil services and mercenary company Halliburton; big drilling contractor Transocean, involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster; Abbot Group, Score Group, and many more.

1.3.1 Oilfield services

John Wood Group (Wood PLC)

23rd Floor, 25 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5LQ

Source: https://www.woodplc.com/our-locations

Formerly Amec Foster Wheeler (2017), Wood provides engineering, production and maintenance services to the energy industry globally, including Canada’s tar sands industry and companies such as BP, Exxon Mobil, GDF Suez, Shell and EDF.

Lloyd’s Register Group

71 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M 4BS

Source: https://www.lr.org/en-us/contact-us/?region=GBR#office-locations

LR is a global engineering, business and technical services provider to the fossil fuel and energy industry. (NB not to be confused with Lloyds of London insurance, which features in Part 2 below.)

TechnipFMC

1 St. Paul’s Churchyard, London, EC4M 8AP

Source: https://www.technipfmc.com/en/where-we-operate/europe/united-kingdom

Major oil and gas services contractor, which provides everything from platforms to pipelines and refineries. Headquarters in London, Paris, and Texas. Has paid out over $500 million in various bribery cases involving Nigeria, Brazil, Equatorial Guinea and Ghana.

Owners: listed on Paris and New York exchanges. The French government has a small 4% holding.

Valaris PLC

110 Cannon Street, London, EC4N 6EU

Source: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07023598/filing-history

NB: Registered address. This is a current official company address; but it is not confirmed that it is an operational site rather than just a “letterbox”.

Offshore oil drilling contractor based in London – the number one in the world by rigs managed (in 201 8). It runs oil rigs for Total, Saudi Aramco and many others. Formerly known as Ensco Rowan.

1.3.2 Liquefied Natural Gas

The booming Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) industry involves plants cooling gas into a liquid form that makes it easier for shipping. The industry lobby seeks to present gas as a “transition fuel” that is less polluting than coal or oil – an argument to keep on depleting hydrocarbon stocks and pumping out greenhouse gases because the economy is not “ready” to give up its fossil fuel addiction. In addition to carbon emissions, LNG is linked to hazardous methane leakage. See this report by Global Energy Monitor for more information.

Angola LNG

5 Hanover Square, London, W1S 1HE

Source: https://www.angolalng.com/en/contact-us/

The Angola LNG project is one of the largest ever single investments in the Angolan oil and gas industry. It is a partnership between Sonangol, Chevron, BP, Eni and Total to develop Liquefied Natural Gas.

Cheniere LNG

Berkeley Square House, Berkeley Square, London, W1J 6BY

Source: https://www.cheniere.com/contact-us/

International energy company which is the leading producer of Liquefied Natural Gas in the US.

Nigeria LNG

Heron House, 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H ODX

Source: http://www.nlng.com/Our-Company/Pages/Our-Locations.aspx

Main Nigerian liquefied natural gas-producing company with a plant on Bonny Island, Nigeria. It is owned by a consortium of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (49%) and several oil majors: Shell (25.6%), Total (15%) and ENI (10.4%).

1.3.3 Oil shipping and gas pipelines

Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC)

4 Thomas More Square, Thomas More Street, London, E1W 1YW

Source: https://www.msc.com/gbr/contact-us/msc-london?lang=en-gb

The Swiss-headquartered MSC is the world’s second-largest shipping line in terms of container vessel capacity.

Euronav

1st Floor, 99 Kings Road, London, SW3 4PA

Source: https://www.euronav.com/en/contact/

An Antwerp based company, listed on the New York stock exchange, which operates the world’s second biggest oil tanker fleet (after China’s COSCO, which has a UK base in Felixstowe).

Teekay Shipping

86 Jermyn St, London, SW1Y 6JD

Source: https://www.teekay.com/offices/europe/london/

One of the world’s biggest shipping companies, specialised in oil and liquefied gas tankers. Ranked as 8 ^th biggest oil tanker company by “Tanker Operator”.

Maran (MTM)

Manning House, 22 Carlisle Place, London, SW1P 1JA

Source: http://maranuk.co.uk/contact-us.html

One of the world’s top ten oil and liqu e fied gas tanker fleets, part of the empire of Greece’s biggest shipping owner John Angelicoussis.

Interconnector (Fluxys and Snam)

Interconnector (UK) Limited: 4th Floor, 10 Furnival Street, London, EC4A 1AB

Source: https://www.interconnector.com/

Interconnector is the company that operates the undersea gas pipeline between Belgium and the UK. It is owned 75/25 by two of Europe’s main gas infrastructure companies: Belgium’s Fluxys and Italy’s Snam. These are two of the four main companies identified by the European Network of Corporate Observatorie s (ENCO) as developing new gas pipeline infrastructure across Europe, including big environmentally destructive schemes piping gas across Southern and Eastern Europe; and also in lobbying heavily to entrench Europe’s reliance on gas. See: ENCO report and company profiles.

Owners: Fluxys is owned 75% by Publigas, a Belgian public sector inter-municipal holding company. The chairman is the former mayor of Ghent. Snam is a PLC with a major holding from the Italian state, other owners are large investment funds including BlackRock.

1.4 Non-fossil energy: nuclear, biomass, dams…

With pressure growing on the fossil fuel industry, many big energy companies are gradually – if much more slowly than their propaganda suggests – moving towards more “renewable” sources. But not all of these “green energy” solutions are by any means safe or environmentally harmless. Nuclear power, of course, is itself associated with tremendous ecological contamination. Hydropower, as practised by corporations seeking to maximise profits above all, often means mega-dam projects that displace human and other animal populations, divert water supplies, and devastate river-based ecologies. Another green-spun technology is biomass – which can include simply cutting and burning up forests before they even get the chance to turn into fossil fuels.

Some key sources and further information:

Biofuelwatch: UK biomass industry map
Corporate Watch: A-Z of Green Capitalism (2016)
Corporate Watch: Techno-fixes (2008)

1.4.1 Nuclear

Electricite de France (EDF)

EDF Trading (Global headquarters): 3rd Floor, Cardinal Place, 80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL

Source: www.edftrading.com/contact/our-offices

EDF is a French energy and electricity multinational. It is Europe’s largest nuclear power generator with 19 nuclear plants in France plus many more in the UK and across the world. It owns and runs all of the UK’s seven currently operating nuclear power plants. Its many other schemes include devastating dam projects that have met resistance from Brazil to Laos.

Vattenfall

1 Tudor St, London, EC4Y 0AH

Source: https://group.vattenfall.com/uk/who-we-are/contact-us

Swedish state-owned energy company which operates nuclear reactors in Sweden and Germany. Suing the German government over its decision to shut down nuclear plants following the Fukushima disaster. Also burns gas, coal, and biomass. Although its publicity focuses on wind and water, nuclear and fossil fuels remain its main energy sources.

Shareholders: Swedish government 100%

E.ON

E.ON Citigen CHP plant, 47-53 Charterhouse Street, London, EC1M 6PB

Source: ht tps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:k6IWx-v385wJ:https://jobs.eon.com/uk/job/London-Business-Administrator/582664601/; http://interengineeringlgbt.com/event/site-tour-e-citigen-combined-heat-power/;

German energy company which is also one of the “Big Six” UK energy supply companies, and has been one of the main companies pushing for continued use of coal-fired power here. Its nuclear subsidiary PreussenElektra operates three nuclear power plants in Germany. E.ON is also a shareholder in Enerjisa, owner of the Tufanbeyli coal fired power station in Turkey.

NB: E.ON’s UK head office is in Coventry – the address above is the site of its “hidden power station” providing “combined heat and power” to the Barbican and offices in the City of London (more info here). It is also home for E.ON’s “national district heating control centre”.

Enel

Enel X, 360-364 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY

Source: https://evcharging.enelx.com/eu/support-eu/contact

Major Italian energy multinational. It owns stakes in nuclear power plants in Russia, France, Spain and Italy.

NB: This office belongs to its smaller UK business Enel X, which provides “energy solutions” to businesses and “smart city” technology projects.

See also: RWE, in the mining section

Not in London: Urenco (based in Stokes Poges); Horizon Nuclear Power (based in Gloucester)

1.4.2 Biomass

Drax Group

3rd Floor, Alder Castle, 10 Noble Street, London, EC2V 7JX

Source: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/142569

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/30/eco-activists-barricade-london-office-fossil-fuel-company-discover/

NB: this London address was confirmed as of July 1999 only. Drax’s registered address is at the Drax power station in Yorkshire.

Drax in North Yorkshire was the last big coal-fired power station built in the UK, completed in 1986, and privatised in the 1990s. As opinion turned against coal, Drax Group moved to burning wood – mostly shipped in from the forests of North America. According to Biofuelwatch, “Drax Power Station is the biggest burner of wood for electricity in the world and the UK’s single largest carbon emitter”. Drax is also now planning to convert its remaining coal-fired units to gas, and build additional new gas turbines, becoming “the biggest gas power station in Europe”. Drax has a busy corporate spin operation arguing that it can use Carbon, Capture and Storage (CCS) technology to become “carbon negative” by 2030. This includes its “Biofuel Energy CCS” (BECCS) technology, being developed with a company spun off by Leeds University’s School of Chemistry.

See also: dossier by Biofuelwatch on its #AxeDrax campaign.

Major s hareholders: Invesco Limited (14%); Schroders plc (10%); Merian Global Investors (5%); Orbis Holdings Limited (5%); Blackrock (5%)

Active Energy Group plc

27-28 Eastcastle Street, London, W1W 8DH

Source: https://www.aegplc.com/contacts/contact-details/

Pollutant forestry-to-fuel biomass company, which has started operations in North Carolina. It calls itself “London’s only listed, combined, international biomass and forestry management business”.

Major s hareholders: Gravendonck Private Foundation (18%); RG Spinks (4.5%); RM Derrickson (3%); InterTrade Ltd (3%).

AMP Clean Energy

1 Dover Street, London, W1S 4LD

Source: https://www.ampcleanenergy.com/contact-us

AMP provides biomass wood pellets and low carbon heat and power assets to the renewable energy industry in the UK.

Estover Energy Ltd

Central Working, Eccleston Yards, Eccleston Place, London, SW1W 9NF

Source: http://www.estover.co.uk/

Runs biomass power stations in Northumberland and Scotland, which have been met with local resistance (see p40 of this Biofuelwatch report).

Melton Renewable Energy Ltd (MRE)

33 Holborn, London, EC1N 2HT

Source: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09194088

NB: Registered address. This is a current official company address; but it is not confirmed that it is an operational site rather than just a “letterbox”. MRE’s main base is in Suffolk.

MRE runs five biomass power stations located at Thetford, Ely, Glanford, Eye and Westfield, which generate electricity from the combustion of poultry litter, straw, meat & bone meal, horse bedding and – like Drax – forestry wood chips.

1.4.3 Dams: hydropower companies

Statkraft

41 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6PP

Source: https://www.statkraft.com/energy-sources/Power-plants/UK/

Norway-based Statkraft is one of Europe’s largest renewable energy companies, and calls itself Europe’s biggest hydropower electricity producer. It has wind farms and hydropower plants in the UK and globally. But not everyone welcomes Stakraft’s dam building schemes. In Chile, indigenous Mapuche people are resisting the construction of several hydropower plants in their territory, including on sacred sites.

Shareholders: the parent company is owned by the Norwegian Ministry of trade.

See also: EDF, listed in Nuclear section above. And the construction section below for companies involved in dam building.

NB: not in the list: London does not have a large presence of hydropower companies. The world’s biggest dam generators are in China (above all, the massive Yangtse River Power Company) and the Americas, and do not have offices here. So far, river power is not a major source of energy in Europe – although this is set to change as major dam-building projects get underway, particularly in the Balkans.

1.5 Mining: metals and minerals

The mining industry is one of the dirtiest and most environmentally catastrophic, both in its scale and in its violence against people and planet. Mining uses huge amounts of water, often already in scarce supply. Mining operations inevitably involve the production of huge amounts of toxic waste, much of which finds its way onto cultivable land or into water sources. Waste is often stored in huge ‘tailing’ dams which then not infrequently collapse, spilling toxic sludge over whole communities, and destroying livelihoods. (See the London Mining Network’s useful explainer.) A recent dam collapse in Brazil, at a mine owned by Vale, caused 12 cubic metres of toxic tailings to be released, seeping into surrounding land and leading to the pollution of an estimated 300 km of water.

Companies greedy for valuable raw materials are likely to take shortcuts with environmental protections, if these even exist, and they ride roughshod over local needs. Violence against individuals and local communities is widespread, and may include forced evictions, as well as repression and murder of people who try to resist.

London is a major centre for the global mining industry. Many of the world’s mining giants are listed on the London, Stock Exchange, while the London Metals Exchange is the number one marketplace for industrial metals trading (See Part 2 on exchanges). The miners thus use London as a hub to raise finance, trade their products, and launder their profits.

The companies below have been selected on the basis of their size or number of operations, and on past records of environmental violence. Some key sources and further information: London Mining Network; Environmental Justice Atlas, The Rivers are Bleeding (War on Want)

NB: who’s not on the list: Some multinationals involved in coal mining – notably, Glencore and RWE – are listed below. However, the world’s very biggest coal miners are largely state-owned corporations – notably the massive Coal India Ltd, and the various Chinese coal companies – which do not have a presence in London. The world’s biggest private sector coal miner, US corporation Peabody Energy, has a “London” office that is actually in Guildford.

In terms of metals, notable companies without London offices include Anglo Gold Ashanti, Newmont Mining, and Eldorado Gold. Lonmin, the infamous London-based gold mining company involved in the 2012 Marikana massacre, has recently been bought by Sebanye Stillwater, based in South Africa.

RWE

60 Threadneedle Street, London, EC2R 8HP

Source: https://www.group.rwe/en/the-group/countries-and-locations/london

RWE is a major German energy company, notorious as Western Europe’s biggest coal burner. Its devastation of the Hambach forest near Cologne for open-cast coal mining continues to meet fierce resistance. RWE also has aggressive plans for burning millions of tonnes of wood – including in the UK, where it is planning to convert a second power station to biomass. Its biomass investment will mean more destruction of forests in Canada, the US and elsewhere.

Major s hareholders: KEB Holding, Blackrock

Glencore

50 Berkeley Street, London, W1J 8HD

Source: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/search?q=glencore h ttps://architizer.com/projects/glencore-london-offices/

NB: reportedly will move to 18 Hanover Squar e, London W1S 1HD later in the second half of 2020.

Mining and commodities trading company, the world’s largest mining company by revenue. It is one of the world’s largest producers of zinc, copper and other metals, and also a major global coal miner. The company was formed from the merger of Glencore and XStrata in 2013: both have a terrible history of environmental fines, fatalities, health problems, dumping toxic assets, contamination of water, air, land. Glencore is part-owner of Cerrejon, a huge open-pit coal mine in Colombia (see Anglo American.) See: London Mining Network; EJAtlas.

Anglo American PLC

20 Carlton House Terrace, London, SW1Y 5AN

Source: https://www.angloamerican.com/sustainability/contacts

UK and South African multinational that is the world’s largest producer of platinum and a major producer of diamonds, copper, nickel, iron ore, metallurgical and thermal coal. Anglo American has violated indigenous land rights across the globe and polluted the water, agricultural land and air of many communities. It is co-owner (with Glencore and BHP) of the huge open-pit coal mine Cerrejon, in Colombia, where pollution and dust from the mine has caused contamination on a massive scale. In Brazil, it is facing strong opposition from local communities over its plan to expand a large tailings dam, the collapse of which would have horrific consequences. In the state of Chile, residents of El Melón are amongst those fighting its attacks on their land and water sources. See: London Mining Network. Also: EJAtlas company page.

BHP Group PLC

Nova South, 160 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5LB

Source: https://www.bhp.com/contact-us/

BHP is one of the world’s largest mining companies, with 30 operations in 13 countries. It is among the top 25 fossil fuel producers worldwide. It is the joint owner of the Cerrejon coal mine (see Anglo American), and was responsible for the massive Samarco dam collapse in 2015, which spilt 45 million cubic metres of mining waste into the Rio Doce and its tributaries. BHP’s proposed copper mine in Tonto National Forest in the US would destroy 3,000 hectares of public land, harm endangered species, and threaten massive water loss and contamination. See: London Mining Network; EJAtlas.

Rio Tinto

6 St James’s Square, London, SW1Y 4AD

Source: https://www.riotinto.com/en/footer/contact

Rio Tinto is a huge multinational metals and mining corporation. It is a world leader in the production of aluminium, iron ore, copper, uranium, coal, and diamonds. According to the Carbon Majors Database it was responsible for 0.75% of the world’s carbon emissions between 1988 and 2015. Its Oyu Tolgoi copper and gold mine under development in Mongolia uses vast quantities of water in a desert region and poses a threat to pastoralist communities. In the USA, hundreds of premature deaths are blamed on air pollution from the Bingham Canyon mine: the single largest open pit mining operation and the deepest excavation of its kind in the world. See: London Mining Network; EJAtlas.

Vedanta Resources

30 Berkeley Square, Mayfair, London, W1J 6EX

Source: https://www.vedantaresources.com/pages/reachus.aspx

Global diversified metals and mining company whose main products are copper, zinc, aluminium, lead and iron ore. Vedanta’s plans for an open-pit bauxite mine in the Niyamgiri Hills in Orissa, India, threatens the Dongria Kondh community, who have resisted with a ten year struggle. In Zambia, thousands of victims of pollution from a copper mining subsidiary of Vedanta have been seeking justice for over 15 years.

1.6 Earth-killing infrastructure: engineering and construction

The energy and mining companies – including fossil fuels, nuclear and dams – do not act alone. They rely on major infrastructure support, including from the engineers who develop and support drillheads, pipelines, or nuclear reactors; and the construction companies who build their dams and power stations.

This section lists just some of the most prominent engineering and construction companies. It includes some global behemoths, and the top UK building firms that work on energy infrastructure and other big polluting projects such as motorway building. We also include a sub-section on cement production.

1.6.1 Energy conglomerates

We’re using this category for some big companies that have fingers in many pies: they could be listed in several sections.

Koch Industries

Koch Supply and Trading: 4^th Floor, 20 Gresham Street, London, EC2V 7JE

Source: https://www.ksandt.com/

The Koch family’s industrial empire includes oil refineries, chemical plants, fertilisers, paper mills, cattle ranches, commodities trading, investment funds … It might be quicker to list earth-wrecking activities they’re not involved in. They employ 130,000 people, just over half of those in the US but with a presence in 60 countries.

Owners: Koch family members. Koch Industries, with its many subsidiaries, is one of the world’s biggest privately owned companies. Charles Koch, and his brother David until his death in August 2019, have vigorously promoted their interests with large scale funding of an array of right-wing politicians and, above all, think tanks. Main agenda points have been climate change denial and opposition to environmental regulation or development of alternatives to fossil fuels, as well as union-busting and general free marketeering.

Noble Group

Office 6.01 Nova North, 11 Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BY
Source: https://www.noblegroupholdings.com/contact-us/

Noble Group is a Hong Kong-based commodities conglomerate. Subsidiaries include metals mining and trading, liquefied natural gas, shipping, oil rig contracting, and more. It was delisted from the Singapore stock exchange in 2018 after a major fraud scandal, with investigations ongoing, and has since restructured.

1.6.2 International engineering and construction giants

Siemens

Siemens Mobility Limited: 7^th Floor, Euston House, 24 Eversholt Street, London, NW1 1AD

The Crystal (Siemens offices and exhibition centre): 1 Siemens Brothers Way, Royal Docks, London, E16 1GB

Source: https://new.siemens.com/uk/en/company/about/siemens-uk-locations.html https://thecrystal.org

Giant German conglomerate best known for industrial electrical engineering and consumer electronics. Siemens is providing signalling for the Carmichael mine: Indian mining company Adani’s plan for the biggest coalmine in Australian history.

(NB: UK head office is in Frimley, Surrey.)

Bechtel Corporation

11 Pilgrim Street, London, EC4V 6RN

Source: https://www.bechtel.com/about-us/offices/

The USA’s biggest building company, largely focusing on major energy and infrastructure schemes across the globe. Its business units include “Mining and Metals”, “Oil, Gas & Chemicals”, and “Nuclear, Security and Environmental”. It’s hard to know where to start with a list ofBechtel scandals and devastating projects: from massive war profiteering with a $680 million Iraq war contract, through sub-par Nuclear waste facilities, to pushing up water prices in Bolivia. Alongside the daily business of building dams, coal mines, motorways, pipelines, liquefied natural gas plants, nuclear power plants, chemical weapons stores, etc. Bechtel is highly connected in US politics, with a record of executives serving as cabinet ministers.

Ownership: remains controlled by the Bechtel family. Chairman and CEO Brendan Bechtel is fifth generation of the family in charge.

Vinci

VINCI Concessions UK: 1 Eversholt Street, London, NW1 2DN

Morgan VINCI Ltd: 77 Newman Street, London, W1T 3EW

Eurovia UK (transport construction subsidiary): 26 Store Street Fitzrovia Lane, London, WC1E 7BT

Taylor Woodrow (UK construction subsidiary): 286 Euston Road, Euston Tower Level 33, London, NW1A 3DP

Source: https://www.vinci.com/vinci.nsf/en/locations/pages/region_greater_london.htm

Massive French construction multinational, with numerous brands and subsidiaries, involved in a long list of devastating projects. It makes its biggest profits running much of the French toll-paying motorway system. Planned developer of the Notre Dame des Landes airport in western France, which was scrapped in 2019 after an epic campaign of resistance including the long-running ZAD land occupation. Accused of using forced labour in Qatar, bulldozing migrant camps in Calais, and engaging in corruption and massive environmental destruction in Russia’s Khimki Forest motorway scheme. See Corporate Watch company profile (from 2017). Recently, its subsidiary Spiecapag is involved in the Adani Carmichael coal mine in Australia, which is being vigorously resisted.

Owners: French PLC. Its biggest owners include BlackRock and the government of Qatar, amongst many other global investment funds.

1.6.3 UK big builders

Balfour Beatty

5 Churchill Place, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5HU
Source: www.balfourbeatty.com/contacts/

Balfour Beatty Investments: 350 Euston Road, Regent’s Place, London, NW1 3AX

Source: http://www.balfourbeattyinvestments.com/company/about.aspx

Major British building company focusing on big infrastructure. Heavily involved in road building, and one of the main contractors in the UK’s white elephant HS2 rail scheme. Infamous for its record of trade union blacklisting. Also responsible for dams in Asia and Africa – was involved in early plans for Turkey’s Ilisu dam, but later pulled out after large scale protests.

Kier Group

33 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TL

Source: https://www.kier.co.uk/contact/our-locations/?area=london&id=3545

Major UK construction company. W orks on energy infrastructure – including nuclear – and road building, as well as house building. Another of the big UK builders involved in the infamous union-busting blacklist.

Sir Robert McAlpine

4th Floor, 63 St Mary’s Axe, London, EC3A 8AA

Source: https://www.srm.com/office-locations/london/

Major UK construction and civil engineering firm which works on oil and gas, nuclear, dams, chemical and mining sectors as well as other high-profile building schemes. It was the main building company responsible for setting up the “Consulting Association” union-busting blacklist scheme.

Morgan Sindell

Kent House, 14-17 Market Place, London, W1W 8AJ

Source: https://www.morgansindall.com/contact-us/

Major British construction and engineering firm. Its infrastructure division works on nuclear and defence infrastructure, including at the Faslane nuclear submarine base. It also has a sideline in prison building.

Amey UK

10 Furnival Street, London, EC4A 1AB

Source: http://tpt.amey.co.uk/contact-us/

Sixth in the list of UK construction companies, Amey is also well known for engineering services and “facilities” management to the energy industry, road maintenance, airports, and more. It also maintains 61 British prisons, and has gone further into the profitable “justice” business with its GEOAmey prisoner transporting joint venture. Also known for cutting down thousands of trees in Sheffield as part of its PFI deal with the council.

Owner: bought by Spanish building company Ferrovial.

1.6.4 Cement producers

Cement is a massively destructive product: according to the Chatham House think tank, it is responsible for 8% of CO2 emissions. Concrete production is also linked to extensive soil erosion, water pollution and flooding.

None of the major cement producers are based in London. The biggest of all are based in China and serve that country’s massive construction industry. The UK’s cement needs are served by multinationals which largely have centres outside the capital: LafargeHolcim’s UK plant is in Leicester; Heidelberg’s building subsidiary Hanson is based in Maidenhead; and the Mexican giant Cemex has a UK HQ in Rugby. Below we list offices for a subsidiary of one other major cement producers.

CRH (Tarmac)

Tarmac: Level 4, 40 Strand, London, WC2N 5RW

Source: http://tarmac.com/location-finder//find-a-site?location=London

CRH is the 7th largest cement multinational. It is an Irish registered company, listed on the London Stock exchange. In the UK, it is best known as the owner of Tarmac. CRH has been involved in several alleged corruption controversies in Ireland and Poland.

1.7 Agribusiness

Corporate agriculture has become infamous for its negative effect on the planet and the climate. The list for this sector is thinner – London is not a hub for agribusiness companies in the same way as hydrocarbons or mining. UK agribusiness tends to be regionally based: e.g., Bernard Matthews’ famous Norfolk poultry farming, or fishing fleets in coastal ports. A major exception, listed below, is the giant of ABF.

The biggest global agricorps are US companies (particularly for soya and meat), with East Asia cornering the palm oil and sea food industries. The world’s largest chemical fertiliser giant – also Europe’s biggest buyer of natural gas – Yara, is a Norwegian company with no London base (see Corporate Watch profile). We’ve also included in this section major global food companies that are key customers of the big agribusiness corps, and in some cases also run their own agro-industry supply chains.

ABF (Associated British Foods)

Weston Centre 10 Grosvenor Street London, W1K 4QY
Source: www.abf.co.uk/m/contact-us

British consumer and agribusiness conglomerate. It owns household brands including Ovaltine, Ryvita, Twinings tea, and many more. Agribusiness division AB Agri is involved in animal feed, biofuels, and other products in the UK and China. Its AB Sugar division is one of the world’s biggest sugar empires, including Silver Spoon (which buys almost all UK sugar beet), Ilovo Sugar in southern Africa, Azucarera in Spain, AB Sugar China, and other companies. According to the World Wildlife Fund: “The cultivation and processing of sugar produce environmental impacts through the loss of natural habitats, intensive use of water, heavy use of agro-chemicals, discharge and runoff of polluted effluent and air pollution.” On top of all that, ABF also owns the infamous Primark clothing chain, renowned for miserable labour conditions and the death of over 1,000 people in the Rana Plaza factory collapse.

Owners: 55% owned by Wittington Investments, other shares publicly traded.

Cargill

3rd Floor, 77 Queen Victoria Street, London, EC4V 4AY
Source: www.cargill.co.uk/en/london-location

The largest privately held company in the world, Cargill is regarded as one of two companies most closely linked to Brazilian deforestation for its soya destined for the livestock industry. Besides Amazon destruction, it is also involved in UK mega factory farms, is one of the world’s biggest traders in palm oil, and is tied to rainforest destruction in South East Asia, deforestation in West Africa and child slavery. Cargill has more than 60 subsidiaries.

Owners: The Cargill-Macmillan family, one of the wealthiest in the US, reportedly own over 85% of the company .

Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)

ADM Investor Services International Limited: Millennium Bridge House, 2 Lambeth Hill, London, EC4V 3TT
Source: www.admisi.com/contact

ADM is a major US food processing company dealing in Amazon s oya, palm oil and biofuels, among other commodities. Prior to joining ADM, the company’s CEO Juan R Luciano spent 25 years at Dow Chemical. He also sits on the board of directors of pharma giant Eli Lilly and palm oil plunderers Wilmar International. ADM have various joint ventures and a history of cooperation with Wilmar. NB: the London office belongs to ADMSI, an investment brokerage subsidiary.

Owners: listed company, owned by big investment funds including Vanguard, as well as State Farm Investment Management Corp.

Louis Dreyfus Trading

The Crane Building, 22 Lavington Street, London, SE1 0NK
Source: https://www.ldc.com/global/en/about-us/locations1/

An enormous agribusiness covering all parts of the supply chain, involved in Amazon soya. A subsidiary of the Dutch-based Louis Dreyfus Company (LDC).

Owners: billionaire Margarita Louis-Dreyfus whose family trust Akira now owns over 95% of the holding company.

Olam International

New Zealand House, 80 Haymarket London, SW1Y 4TE

Source: https://www.olamgroup.com/contactus.html

Singapore-based company and major producer of cash crops, particularly palm oil. Olam is engaged in massive deforestation and has been accused of serious human rights abuses. Allegations include razing an area of pristine forest in Gabon the size of Washington DC for its rubber plantations and driving land grabs and evictions in Laos.

Owners: Olam’s largest shareholders are Temasek Holdings and Mitsubishi Corporation – Singaporean sovereign wealth fund and Japanese bank.

Unilever plc
Unilever House, 100 Victoria Embankment, London, EC4Y 0DY
Source: https://www.unilever.com/contact/unilever-registered-offices/

Massive Dutch-British consumer goods company which owns numerous household food and cosmetics brands, and has a long record of environmental scandals. Major users of palm oil, connected to rainforest clearances in South East Asia and West Africa, as well as to child labour. Also identified by Break Free from Plastic as one of the world’s top ten plastics users.

Tata Group
18 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1X 7HS
Source: www.tata.com/contact-us #

Massive Indian multinational conglomerate with over 700,000 employees. It could feature in a number of sections: various divisions own coal mines, power plants, steel mills, hotel chains, one of the word’s biggest IT companies, Jaguar Landrover cars, and a massive list of household consumer products. Tata Global Beverages, which includes the Tetley tea brand, is one of the world’s biggest tea and coffee plantation owners. Tata’s iron works, chemical plants, and plantations have been connected to land grabs, police shootings, pollution incidents, workers’ disputes, and more.

Owners: Tata family. The majority of shares are owned by the Tata Sons holding company, which in turn is owned by family trusts. The family business goes back to the 1860s, when it was involved in the opium trade. Some Tata subsidiaries have a minority of shares traded in the open market.

Burger King

4th Floor, 2 Fouberts Place, W1F 7PA
Source: www.burgerking.co.uk/privacy

Huge global meat user. A major customer of Cargill. In a 2016 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, BK scored a zero for failing to make any notable progress round the issue of deforestation. The company has since pledged to eliminate deforestation from its supply chain – by 2030!

Owners: the parent company is a Canadian holding company called Restaurant Brands International (RBI), 32% of which is owned by Brazilian private equity fund 3G Capital; another major shareholder is Morgan Stanley (see the banks section in Part 2.)

(NB: many of the same points could be made about McDonalds as Burger King. The only reason we don’t include them is because the London office is outside our map area in East Finchley.)

1.8 Plastics and other chemical polluters

Like agribusiness, the chemicals industry does not have the same presence in London as hydrocarbons or mining. Only two of the global top ten plastics producers have offices in the city. Dow DuPont, the world’s biggest chemical company and number one plastics producer, notorious for the Bhopal disaster, is about to set up its UK and Ireland base in a “state-of-the-art business park” in Stockport. The second biggest UK-based company, Linde, has its HQ in Guildford, Surrey.

BASF

BASF Metals Limited: 21st Floor, Bishopsgate, London, EC2N 4AY
Source: https://www.basf.com/gb/en/who-we-are/BASF-in-the-United-Kingdom/BASF-Metals-Limited–BML-.html

BASF is the world’s second largest chemicals company (after the merged Dow Dupont). It is among the biggest manufacturers of plastics and of pesticides and also has a biotech arm, BASF Plant Science. (NB: The London office belongs to its Metals division.)

Ineos

Ineos HQ: 38 Hans Cres, London, SW1X 0LZ
Source: www.ineos.com/contact/

Ineos oil and gas: Anchor House, 15-19 Britten St, London, SW3 3TY, UK
Source: www.ineos.com/businesses/ineos-oil–gas…/

Ineos is the UK’s biggest chemical company, and the world’s fifth biggest. It operates through dozens of subsidiary companies. The Petroineos joint venture with China’s state oil company CNPC is Europe’s biggest oil refiner. Its flagship base is Grangemouth, which is “home to Scotland’s only crude oil refinery and produces the bulk of fuels used in Scotland.” Ineos’ “Dragon Ship” LNG tankers ferry US shale gas to the site. Ineosalso has its own oil and gas exploration arm, well known for its attempts to start fracking in the UK, which has bought up the majority of shale gas exploration licenses here.

See also: detailed company profile from Spinwatch / Powerbase; new Corporate Watch profile on Ineos’ billionaire owner Jim Ratcliffe.

Owner: billionaire Jim Ratcliffe, listed as Britain’s richest person by the Sunday Times Rich List 2018, founded the company and still owns 60%. Ineos is one of the UK’s biggest privately held companies (as opposed to listed PLCs).

Lyondellbasell

4th Floor, One Vine Street, London, W1J 0AH

Source: https://www.lyondellbasell.com/en/london-office/contact-us/

Major chemical multinational, registered in the Netherlands but with a London HQ. It is a plastic specialist, the world’s third biggest plastics producer. It describes itself as the leading US and European producer of polypropyenes – one of the plastics widely used in packaging responsible for massive environmental pollution.

Owners: PLC, listed on New York SE.

Coca-Cola

1A Wimpole St, London, W1G 0EA
Source: https://www.coca-cola.co.uk/about-us/contact-us

We include Coca Cola here as the world’s number one plastic consumer products polluter, according to Break Free From Plastic. There are plenty of other environmental and human scandals linked to the company, from groundwater depletion in India to support for Apartheid South Africa or the Israeli far-right.

NB: Pepsico’s UK office is in Berkshire.

2. Secondary planet-killers

2.1 Banks

The City of London is one of the world’s main finance hubs, second only to New York. It is particularly important as a trading and money laundering centre for Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA, in bankers’ jargon), and for oil and other “commodities”. Three of the world’s major investment banks have their headquarters here: HSBC, Barclays, and RBS. And all of the other big global banks have London offices.

Banks play an essential part in ecocidal capitalism, channelling the money that companies need to develop new projects. Their key roles include:

Lending money directly to companies – in big cases, these may be multi-million dollar “syndicated loans” involving “syndicates” of numerous banks.
Arranging for other investors to put their money into companies through bonds and shares.
Trading these bonds and shares.
Helping companies arrange takeovers, buy-outs, property sales, and other corporate deals.

This section lists: first, the state-owned Chinese “Big Four” banks; then, the top 10 global investment banks, as well as other notable multinational investment banks. All of them, without a single exception, are involved in funding the fossil fuel drillers, coal diggers, forest clearers, river foulers, and other earth-wreckers – including the companies listed in Part 1, and many more.

The Chinese state-owned banks have been largely focused on financing China’s rapid industrial growth – including the country’s massive coal industry, which accounts for much of the worldwide production of the dirtiest of fuels. Increasingly, they are also becoming involved in deals across the globe. They are leading players in the industrial exploitation of Africa and other regions where China is increasingly replacing the “West” as main neo-colonial power.

But, for now, the US, European and Japanese multinationals are still the biggest of all fossil fuel funders. According to research by the Rainforest Action Network, Banktrack, and other partners, the world’s top 33 private sector banks have pumped $1.9 trillion into financing fossil fuels since 2016. And London is where many of these deals are done.

Key sources and further reading:

Banktrack: website has a big list of hundreds of banks worldwide, with profile pages identifying their “dodgy deals”.
Standard & Poors’ list of world’s 100 biggest banks (by total assets)
ADV Ratings list of top (privately-owned) investment banks 2019 (by investment banking revenue)
Banking on Climate Change report (April 2019) from Rainforest Action Network (RAN), Banktrack and other partners
Updated Guardian / RAN list of climate change funders (October 2019)

2.1.1 China’s Big Four

ICBC (Industrial and Commercial Bank of China)

ICBC (London), City Branch: 81 King William Street, London, EC4N 7BG
Chinatown Branch: 81-85 Shaftesbury Avenue, London, W1D 5DX

Source: https://www.icbc.com.cn/ICBC/EN/PersonalFinance/CrossborderFinancialServices/OverseasFinancialService/ICBCLondon/

By one metric, the biggest bank in the world, holding assets of over $4 trillion, mostly thanks to its key role in China’s huge economy. It is the third largest funder of global coal mining. Involved in funding the massive Gilgel Gibe III dam in Ethiopia, “Africa’s most destructive dam”. Rapidly expanding its reach beyond China, ICBC now lends to coal mining projects in Turkey, Vietnam and Kenya, and even to pipeline projects in North America, including the highly contested Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).

Owners: 75% owned by Chinese government via Ministry of Finance and Central Huijin Investment company. 25% of shares are traded publicly on the Hong Kong and Shanghai stock exchanges.

China Construction Bank

111 Old Broad Street,London, EC2N 1AP

Source: http://www.uk.ccb.com/london/en/index.html

One of the world’s biggest banks and the biggest financer of coal mining. Active in deals across Asia, Africa and beyond, including many environmentally destructive infrastructure projects.

Owners: majority owned by Chinese government (including through state-owned Central Huijin Investment company). Shares listed on Hong Kong and Shanghai stock exchanges.

Agricultural Bank of China

7/F, 1 Bartholomew Lane, London, EC2N 2AX

Source: http://www.uk.abchina.com/en/contact_us/

One of the world’s biggest banks and the fourth biggest funder of global coal mining.

Owners: largely owned by Chinese government (including 40% through state-owned Central Huijin Investment company). Shares listed on Hong Kong and Shanghai stock exchanges.

Bank of China

2 Lothbury, London, EC2R 7DB

Chinatown branch: 107 Shaftesbury Avenue, London, W1D 5DA

Source: https://www.bankofchina.com/uk/aboutus/ab3/201110/t20111003_1578162.html

One of the world’s biggest banks and the second biggest funder of global coal mining.

Owners: majority owned by Chinese government (including 64% through state-owned Central Huijin Investment company). Shares listed on Hong Kong and Shanghai stock exchanges.

2.1.2 Top 20 multinational investment banks

Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group

Ropemaker Place, 25 Ropemaker Street, London, EC2Y 9AN

Source: https://www.bk.mufg.jp/global/globalnetwork/emea/london.html

One of the world’s biggest banks and the biggest in Japan, with $2.8 trillion dollars of assets to its name. Seventh in RAN’s list of “top investors in climate change” list, and sixth biggest funder of coal power plants.

JPMorgan Chase

25 Bank Street, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5JP

Source: https://www.jpmorgan.com/country/US/EN/jpmorgan/disclosures/uk_entities_jul2012

The world’s biggest funder of fossil fuels and the biggest of all the US-based banks. According to the Rainforest Action Network list, in the last three years it has lent $196 billion to the fossil fuels industries. It is the leading financier of Arctic oil and gas exploration, deepwater drilling projects, and the second biggest funder of fracking worldwide. Besides lending money and arranging deals as an investment bank, JP Morgan is also a major fund manager and shareholder, managing $2.1 trillion.

HSBC

8 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5HQ

Source: https://www.hsbc.com/who-we-are/contact-us?countryid=GB&tab=Offices

The biggest UK-based bank and a top ten investment bank. Also one of UK’s biggest investment fund managers. Thirteenth in RAN’s list of massive global fossil fuel funders. Frack Off names it as one of the fracking “bad guys” for lending £63 million to Dart Energy, of whom it has been a shareholder, and providing banking services to Cuadrilla. HSBC invested $7 billion in coal between 2005 and 2014, and continues as the biggest UK coal financer since 2015. It is a ccused by Greenpeace of funding massive deforestation of the Indonesian rainforest for palm oil production. In other news, HSBC has been repeatedly caught involved in large scale money-laundering schemes: to name one example, it was fined $1.9 billion (or “about five weeks’ profits”) by US authorities in 2012 for laundering blood money for the Mexican drug cartels. As has been pointed out, this business line could be traced right back to the bank’s historical links with the 19^th century British opium trade.

Citigroup

Citigroup Centre, 33 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5LB

Source: https://www.citigroup.com/citi/about/countries-and-jurisdictions/united-kingdom.htm l

Citi is one of the world’s top ten investment banks, and is third in the RAN “top investors in climate change” list. Besides oil and gas investment, it is the main non-Chinese funder of the global coal industry. It is a funder of the Dakota Access and other pipeline projects. It lends money and underwrites bonds for numerous companies on this map, including the likes of RWE, Saudi Aramco, or Vale.

Goldman Sachs

Plumtree Court, 25 Shoe Lane, London, EC4A 4AU

Christchurch Court, 10-15 Newgate Street, London, EC1A 7HD

Source: https://www.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/locations.html

The “giant vampire squid”: extremely powerful investment bank known for the global politicians who have been on its payroll, its role in the 2008 “sub-prime” crash, and a multitude of further scandals. One of biggest ten global investment banks. Provided $59 billion to the fossil fuel industry in 2016-2018, putting it twel f th on RAN’s list. Significantly linked to Amazon deforestation through its investments in beef producers JBS and Marfrig.

Bank of America

Financial Centre, 2 King Edward Street, London, EC1A 1HQ

Source: https://www.bofaml.com/content/boaml/en_us/contactus.html

Another massive US multinational, one of the biggest ten global investment banks. Also a major fund manager with $1.13 trillion Assets Under Management. Comes fourth in the RAN overall fossil fuel funders list, and third on fracking and deepwater exploration. Provided half a billion dollars in credit to Minerva foods, implicated in severe Amazon desforestation. Has funded Adani, RWE, Wilmar, and many more earth wreckers.

Wells Fargo

33 King William Street London, EC4R 9AT

Source: https://wellsfargocapitalfinance.com/uk/contact/

Another massive US multinational, one of the top ten global investment banks. The world’s biggest investor in fracking, and second overall (after JP Morgan) in RAN’s list of banks financing the fossil fuel industry.

Morgan Stanley

25 Cabot Square, Canary Wharf London, E14 4QA

Source: https://www.morganstanley.com/about-us/global-offices/europe-middle-east-africa/united-kingdom

One of biggest ten global investment banks, and number 11 in the RAN list of top fossil fuels funders. One of the top investors in ultra deepwater oil and gas companies. Also a top global fund manager with $1.6 trillion assets under management.

Barclays

5 The North Colonnade, Canary Wharf London, E14 4BB

Source: https://www.investmentbank.barclays.com/contact-us/gb.html

Second biggest UK-based bank, and the number one European investor in fossil fuels. One of the biggest ten global investment banks. Investor in UK fracker Third Energy, which is 97% owned by Barclays Natural Resource Investments, a private equity arm of the bank. Financed Olam, responsible for deforesting approximately 20,000 hectares of forest inside its Gabonese oil palm plantations since March 2012.

Credit Suisse

1 Cabot Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 4QJ

Source: https://www.credit-suisse.com/us/en/investment-banking/contact-us.html

Major Swiss bank, one of the top ten global investment banks. Also a major global fund manager with $1.43 trillion. Provided $57 billion of investment into fossil fuels in 2016-2018. Linked to financing Halcyon Agri, whose operations have been described as the “the most devastating new forest clearance for industrial agriculture in the Congo basin.”

Deutsche Bank

1 Great Winchester Street, London, EC2N 2DB

Source: https://www.db.com/unitedkingdom/

Germany’s biggest bank, and one of the biggest ten global investment banks. Also a major fund manager managing $1.36 trillion. The second largest financier of Arctic oil and gas. Invested $14 billion dollars in fossil fuels globally in 2018. Implicated in deforestation in Brazil through its $11 million shareholding in JBS. One of the funders of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Involved in multiple money-laundering, tax evasion and fraud scandals: its $10 billion Russian mafia money laundry, for which it was fined by US authorities in 2017, is just one of the best known cases to come to light. Longstanding financial backer of Donald Trump. One of the main banks responsible for the CDO bubble that initiated the 2008 financial crash. Going further back, Deutsche was a major profiteer from the Third Reich, including its “aryanisation” and slave labour programmes, and helped fund the construction of Auschwitz.

Royal Bank of Canada

RBC Europe Limited: Thames Court Office, One Queenhithe, London, EC4V 3DQ

and: Riverbank House, 2 Swan Lane, London, EC4R 3BF

Source: https://www.rbccm.com/en/offices/europe.page

Canada’s biggest bank, and one of biggest ten global investment banks. RBC is the biggest funder of the Canadian tar sands exploitation. Also funds contested pipelines in Canada and the US, as well as illegal settlement activity in the Palestinian occupied territories.

UBS

5 Broadgate, London, EC2M 2QS

Source: https://www.ubs.com/uk/en/wealth-management/about-us.html

The biggest Swiss bank, one of biggest ten global investment banks. Also the world’s third largest investment manager with $3.2 trillion of assets managed. Provided the fossil fuel companies with some $25 billion in 2016-18.

BNP Paribas

10 Harewood Avenue, London, NW1 6AA

Source: https://www.bnpparibas.co.uk/en/contact/bnp-paribas-securities-services/

The biggest French bank and the world’s 9 th largest bank by total assets. Provided $51 billion fossil fuels funding in 2016-18. Also a major investment manager with $1.21 trillion AUM.

Toronto Dominion

60 Threadneedle Street London, EC2R 8AP

Source: http://www.tdsecurities.com/tds/content/AU_WorldwideOffices?language=en_CA&language=en_CA

Canadian multinational investment bank. It is number 8 in RAN’s list of fossil fuel funders, and in particular is a major funder of tar sands – the second biggest after RBC, with $13.7 billion investment in 2016-18.

Scotiabank

6th Floor, 201 Bishopsgate, London, EC2M 3NS

Source: https://www.scotiabank.com/global/en/country/united-kingdom.htm l

Multinational which has been described as Canada’s most ‘international bank’ due to its overseas acquisitions. Though not one of the world’s very top banks, it punches well above its weight in terms of earth-wrecking: coming number nine in RAN’s list of fossil fuel industry funders.

Owners: PLC.

Mizuho

Mizuho House, 30 Old Bailey, London, EC4M 7AU

Source: https://www.mizuhobank.com/uk/about/index.html

Major Japanese multinational investment bank, which comes number ten in the RAN ratings for banks funding fossil fuels.

Société Générale

1 Bank Street, Canary Wharf, E14 4SG

Source: https://www.societegenerale.co.uk/en/one-bank-street/

French multinational investment bank. The world’s second biggest funder of Liqu e fied Natural Gas (after JP Morgan Chase).

Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS)

250 Bishopsgate, Spitalfields, London, EC2M 4AA

Source: https://www.investors.rbs.com/multimedia-library/image-library/our-buildings.aspx

Third biggest UK bank, which operates under a number of brands including also NatWest and Ulster Bank. Back in 2007 it openly marketed itself as the “oil and gas bank”, and was a major funder of climate change. More recently, RBS has sought to win a “greener” reputation and claims to have now ended funding for Arctic drilling or new coal plants. Beyond the Arctic, though, RBS still funds fossil fuels, stating that “oil and gas will continue to play an important role in the overall global energy mix”.

NB: most investment banking operations are now branded as “NatWest markets”.

Ownership: bailed out by the UK government after the 2008 crash which became the main owner. The government has been selling its shares in batches, but is still currently the main owner with over 60%.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/01/23/rbs-sell-london-hq-cost-cutting-drive-continues/

Standard Chartered

1 Basinghall Avenue, London, EC2V 5DD

Source: https://www.sc.com/uk/contact-us/

London-based international investment bank: though based in the UK, it only works on deals outside the country. Invested $15 billion in fossil fuels 2016-18.

2.1.3 Multilateral development banks

The “multilaterals” are financial institutions backed by the power and wealth of several states – as opposed to national banks owned by just one government. Their usual role is financing major infrastructure and development schemes. The best known is the World Bank, which lends money and arranges finance largely for “less developed” countries. These deals come with big strings attached – related to fostering free market capitalism, so “opening” new markets for global investors.

Besides the World Bank, there is a second tier of regional development banks which are big fish in their smaller ponds. London is home to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), which is a major actor pushing for privatisation and destructive infrastructure schemes, particularly in Eastern Europe.

The World Bank

Millbank Tower, 12th Floor, 21-24 Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

Source: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/unitedkingdom

Based in Washington, this is the UK country office. Despite official statements, the WB continues to fund fossil fuel infrastructure.

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)

One Exchange Square, London, EC2A 2JN

Source: https://www.ebrd.com/corporate-information/london-headquarters.html

(NB: will move to new HQ in Canary Wharf in 2022)

Headquartered in London, the EBRD was set up in 1991 by an alliance of governments and institutions with a specific aim: the rapid large-scale privatisation of Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet bloc. This achieved, it became a major infrastructure financier, still mainly focusing on the less-developed east. In the last five years the bank has presented itself as leading transition to the “green economy”, with over 40% of its investments dedicated to this. In one of these “green” schemes, the EBRD has become the main funder pushing an enormous programme of hydropower dam-building across the Balkans. As resistance grows, this is set to become a major battle for the European ecological future.

2.1.4 Smaller specialist banks

The banks above are some of the world’s biggest. Of course there are many others, involved in millions of earth-wrecking deals, and hundreds have locations in London. In this section we just name a few examples that have received attention for their work financing oil, mining and other primary planet-killing sectors.

Halkbank

Floor 1, 48 Dover Street, London, W1S 4FF

Source: https://www.halkbank.com.tr/en/International-Banking/92/foreign-branches

Halkbank is a Turkish state-owned bank, the seventh largest bank in Turkey. It is one of the three main banks financing the immensely destructive Ilisu dam project, which threatens to flood the ancient city of Hasnkeyf, displacing tens of thousands of mainly Kurdish people, and divert key water supplies to Iraq and Syria.

Garanti Bank / BBVA

BBVA UK: 44th floor, 1 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5AA

Source: https://www.bbvauk.com/meta/branches-and-atm/

BBVA is one of Spain’s biggest banks, which also has a major presence in Latin America. It also owns 49.85% of Turkey’s Garanti Bank, the country’s second largest privately owned bank. This is one of three main banks financing the immensely destructive Ilisu dam project, which threatens to flood the ancient city of Hasnkeyf, displacing tens of thousands of mainly Kurdish people, and divert key water supplies to Iraq and Syria.

Unicredit

Moor House, 120 London, Wall, London, EC2Y 5ET

Source: https://www.unicreditgroup.eu/en/worldwide/our-worldwide-presence/europe/united-kingdom/unicredit-bank-ag—branch.html

Unicredit is an Italian corporate and investment bank active across Europe. It has been identified by Bankwatch as one of the two main commercial banks (alongside the multilateral EBRD) financing devastating Balkan rivers dam projects.

Erste Group

24th Floor, 110 Bishopsgate, London, EC2N 4AY

Source: https://register.fca.org.uk/ShPo_FirmDetailsPage?id=001b000000MfFC8AAN; https://www.erstegroup.com/content/dam/at/eh/www_erstegroup_com/en/Corporates/london-branch-privacy-notice.pdf

NB: Registered address. This is a current official company address; but it is not confirmed that it is an operational site rather than just a “letterbox”.

Austrian bank active in central and eastern Europe. It has been identified by Bankwatch as one of the two main commercial banks (alongside the multilateral EBRD) financing devastating Balkan rivers dam projects.

Macquarie Group

Ropemaker Place, 28 Ropemaker Street, London, EC2Y 9HD

Source: https://www.macquarie.com/uk/about/office-locations

Australian bank, the country’s largest investment bank. Specialises in infrastructure finance and is known for financing metals, bulk commodities (coal, iron ore, industrial minerals and uranium) and upstream oil and gas. Perhaps most notorious in the UK as the owner of Thames Water, which it saddled with an extra £2 billion of debt before selling on. Thames Water was fined £20 million for raw sewage dumps at six different sites in 2012-14 during Macquarie’s tenure.

RFC Ambrian

Octagon Point, 5 Cheapside, London, EC2V 6AA

Source: https://www.rfcambrian.com/index.php/contact/

Boutique energy bank which d escribes itself as the “global leading independent adviser and investor in the natural resources market, with a particular emphasis on metals and mining, oil & gas sectors and emerging technologies.”

Simmons Energy

13th Floor, 88 Wood Street, London, EC2V 7DA

Source: http://www.simmonspsc.com/2col.aspx?id=5284

Boutique oil and gas investment bank and energy securities trader with offices in Houston, London and Aberdeen. In 2018 it arranged deals involving Halliburton, Noble Energy, and many smaller oil and gas companies, as well as raising debt for an unnamed “private frac company”. Subsidiary of investment bank Piper Sandler.

Owners: a division of Piper Sandler.

Lambert Energy Advisory

4th Floor, 17 Hill Street, London, W1J 5LJ

Source: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03838151

NB: Registered address. This is a current official company address; but it is not confirmed that it is an operational site rather than just a “letterbox”.

Small investment bank which works on oil and gas deals. Described in the financial press as a “publicity shy London boutique” – it doesn’t have a website. The financial media present CEO Richard Lambert as a svengali figure making major behind-the-scenes deals – for example, arranging a £10 billion share deal between BP and Rosneft. He has particular Russian connections, having cut his teeth in the great Russian privatisation sell-offs of the 1990s.

Natrium Capital

10 Bloomsbury Way, London, WC1A 2SL

Source: https://www.natriumcapital.com/contact/location/

Boutique investment advisor, specialised in arranging M&A deals for chemicals and biotech companies.

The Valence Group

1st Floor, New Fetter Place, 8-10 New Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1AZ

Source: http://www.valencegroup.com/contact/

Boutique investment bank focusing on chemicals companies.

2.2 Investment funds

2.2.1 Top 20 Institutional Investors

Much of the world’s finance capital is controlled by “institutional investors”: fund management companies which manage the assets of pension funds, savings funds, insurance companies, and wealthy families and individuals. They funnel capital to companies by buying shares, also called “equity”. They also lend money, largely by buying bonds and other “debt securities” issued by companies.

The world’s top investment funds each control massive amounts of capital. They own shares and bonds of basically every major publicly listed company (PLC) in the world – as well as many unlisted ones. For this reason, in this section we don’t note particular companies the funds have invested in: you can safely assume they will have shares in many, or even all, of the listed companies named in Part 1.

In this section we list the top 20 global funds by “assets under management” – the amount of capital they control. (Except for those that are also major banks, and so already named in section 2.1 above.) All of these big funds have London offices.

See also: ADV Ratings list of investment managers by AUM.

BlackRock

12 Throgmorton Avenue, Drapers Gardens, London, EC2N 2DL

Source: https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/about-us/contacts-locations

The world’s biggest investment manager, managing over $6.5 trillion dollars worth of assets, with shares in pretty much every major listed company in the world. This makes BlackRock a massively powerful institution that influences every aspect of global capitalism. Based in the US, it is “the world’s biggest backer of fossil fuel companies”, according to the blackrocksbigproblem campaign.

Vanguard Group

25 Walbrook, London, EC4N 8AF

Source: https://www.institutional.vanguard.co.uk/portal/site/institutional/uk/en/contact-us

The second biggest global investor after BlackRock, managing $5.6 trillion. Largely an “index” investor that allocates funds to every major company on the world’s exchanges – including, of course, many of the biggest polluters.

State Street

20 Churchill Pl, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5HJ

Source: https://www.ssga.com/global/en/about-us/who-we-are/overview.html

US bank and one of the world’s biggest investment managers, with $2.8 trillion assets managed.

Fidelity

4 Cannon Street, London, EC4M 5AB

Source: https://www.fidelityrecruitment.com/uk-ireland/our-locations/working-fidelity-uk

Major US-based global investment manager, with $2.7 trillion assets.

Allianz (and Pimco)

Pimco: 11 Baker Street, London, W1U 3AH

Source: https://www.pimco.co.uk/en-gb/account/registration

Allianz is a giant German insurance and financial services company, which also now owns Pimco – a massive global investment fund specialising in bonds. Pimco alone controls $1.8 trillion Assets Under Management, the bulk of the $2.4 trillion Allianz manages overall.

Capital Group

40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1X 7GG

Source: https://www.capitalgroup.com/about-us/office-locations.html#

US fund manager overseeing $1.86 trillion.

Bank of New York Mellon

160 Queen Victoria Street, London, EC4V 4LA

Source: https://www.bnymellon.com/emea/en/contact.jsp

US bank and fund manager overseeing $1.84 trillion.

Amundi (Credit Agricole)

41 Lothbury, London, EC2R 7HF

Source: https://www.amundi.co.uk/professional/About-Amundi/Amundi-London-Branch

French fund manager, part of the group of Credit Agricole bank. Has $1.6 trillion Assets Under Management.

AXA

AXA UK PLC: 5 Old Broad Street, London, EC2N 1AD

Source: https://www.axa.co.uk/about/addresses/

French insurance giant and fund manager. Manages $1.6 trillion.

Prudential

Grand Buildings, 1-3 Strand, Trafalgar Square, London, WC2N 5HR

Source: https://www.prudential.com/links/about/worldwide-locations/uk

US fund manager – not to be confused with the UK’s Prudential PLC (which is also in the list, below). Manages $1.5 trillion.

Legal & General Investment Management

LGIM: One Coleman Street, London, EC2R 5AA

Source: https://www.lgim.com/uk/en/contact/

UK insurance company and fund manager. The biggest UK-based investor. Manages $1.32 trillion.

Northern Trust

50 Bank Street, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5NT

Source: https://locations.northerntrust.com/gb/london/50-bank-street

US fund manager overseeing $1.16 trillion.

Other UK-based funds in global top 50:

Prudential PLC

1 Angel Court, London, EC2R 7AG

Source: https://www.prudentialplc.com/contacts/prudential-plc

UK insurer and fund manager (NB: don’t confuse with the bigger Prudential from the US). Manages $856 billion.

Insight Investment

160 Queen Victoria Street, London, EC4V 4LA

Source: https://www.insightinvestment.com/uk/

UK-based fund manager with $844 billion assets under management.

Standard Life Aberdeen

30 St Mary Axe (The Gherkin), EC3A 8BF

Source: https://www.standardlifeaberdeen.com/who-we-are/global-locations

Source: https://www.aberdeenstandardcapital.com/en/about-us/our-offices

UK fund manager, has $676 billion assets under management.

Aviva

St Helen’s, 1 Undershaft, London, EC3P 3DQ
Source: https://www.aviva.com/about-us/registered-address/

UK investment manager with $612 billion assets under management.

NB: these other top fund managers are listed above in section 2.1 on investment banks:

UBS Group

JP Morgan

Morgan Stanley

Credit Suisse

Deutsche Bank

BNP Paribas

Bank of America

HSBC

2.2.2 Sovereign Wealth Funds

These are investment funds owned by national governments, rather than the big pools of privately owned capital in the section above. In the past, national public-sector pension schemes accumulated major reserves of investment capital. Many of these are now privatised, and the term Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) is mainly used for funds accumulated by commodity-exporting nations from their foreign currency income.

These SWFs have boomed in the last couple of decades, reflecting a global wealth shift away from the consumer economies of the “developed world”, now sunk in debt, to exporting nations such as China and the Gulf oil states. These states accumulate more foreign currency from commodity sales than they invest or distribute at home. The difference builds up into SWFs, which are then invested overseas to buy up companies, property, and other resources. For example, in London, the very visible sign of this is the takeover of the city’s skyline by glass towers like the Shard – just one item in the Qatari SWF’s property portfolio.

While the global investment funds above spread their assets over thousands of companies, the SWFs are often more focused – buying big chunks of particular companies, or massive infrastructure and real estate schemes.

See: SWF Institute website list of funds by AUM

NB: not in the list: not all the big SWFs have London offices. The second biggest, China Investment Corporation (CIC), with $940 billlion, does not. The third biggest, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (Adia), closed its London office in 2015.

Norges Bank / Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global (aka “Oil Fund”)

Norges Bank IM: Queensberry House, 3 Old Burlington Street, London, W1S 3AE

Source: https://www.nbim.no/en/organisation/our-offices/london-office/

Norway’s massive oil reserve fund, administered by the state-owned Norges Bank Investment Management. The biggest SWF with just under $1.1 trillion in assets under management (AUM). It acts much like the big investment funds above – similar to BlackRock or Vanguard, it owns shares in almost all the world’s big listed companies. Although, with Norway’s social democratic record, Norges Bank’s investments have long been a contentious issue: and campaigns over the years have succeeded in getting it to divest from many arms manufacturers, coal miners, gold miners, and others. It still invests in many of the companies on this map, however.

Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA)

Wren House, 15 Carter Lane, London, EC4V 5EY

Source: https://kia.gov.kw/contact-us/

Controls $592 billion of assets. Its London division, called Kuwait Investment Office (KIO), makes investments across Europe and beyond. This, in turn, has a subsidiary infrastructure fund called Wren House (after its HQ). Wren House’s portfolio includes Britain’s biggest port operator ABP, London City Airport, and North Sea Midstream Partners, which controls a “major chunk of North Sea energy infrastructure” in Scotland.

Temasek Holdings

23 King Street, London, SW1Y 6QY

Source: https://www.temasek.com.sg/en/contact-us

Singaporean SWF with $375 billion to spend. It has its European base in London. Temasek’s portfolio includes worldwide investments in oil and other energy companies, agribusiness and life sciences, industrials and transport, real estate, and more.

Qatar Investment Authority (QIA)

Qatari Diar: 16 Grosvenor Street, London, W1K 4QF

Source: http://www.qataridiar.com/english/pages/contact-us.aspx

QIA is a major investor in many of the companies on our primary list. It is one of the biggest investors in mining giant Glencore, oil supermajor Total, French motorways and infrastructure giant Vinci, and many more. It also has large holdings in a number of global banks, notably Barclays. QIA plays a particularly important role for us as a major property owner in London. It owns 20% of Heathrow Airport, and a majority stake in the Canary Wharf Development Company – London’s biggest landlord, which owns the effectively privatised financial district. Some of its property is held through a subsidiary called Qatari Diar, a real estate investment fund which has bought further swathes of London from the Shard to the former Olympic Village.

2.2.3 Private Equity

Most investment capital is used by the big funds to buy shares in listed companies (“PLCs”), which are publicly traded on stock exchanges. Private equity firms, on the other hand, specialise in buying shares in companies through private deals. This can mean, for example, investing “venture capital” in start-up or smaller companies, or “buy-outs” to take over established firms. These funds are often secretive, with much less published information than for the giant fund managers above.

Private equity firms are typically smaller than the massive general investment funds – though the biggest ones will still control many billions of dollars. Here are the top five globally, plus a few other major ones (ranking from Private Equity International, based on capital raised over last 5 years.) See also 2.4.3 below for smaller specialist funds.

London is one of the world centres of the Private Equity industry. The big US firms all have offices in London, and are joined by many locally run funds which often focus on Europe, or “emerging” markets including Africa and the Midde East. While the big banks and general investors typically work from glass skyscrapers in the City and Canary Wharf, the private equity houses go for more discrete townhouses, often in Mayfair.

Blackstone Group

40 Berkeley Square, London, W1J 5AL

Source: https://www.blackstone.com/the-firm/our-offices

The world’s biggest private equity fund, according to PEI international. Headquartered in New York, it owns numerous well and less known companies and hotel chains. (NB: don’t confuse with BlackRock.) CEO Schwarzman is a major backer and adviser of President Trump. Its real estate division is infamous for its role in evictions and gentrification of cities, and has been targeted by resistance from Athens to Barcelona. Its Brazilian firms have been identified as “significantly responsible for the ongoing destruction of the Amazon rainforest”.

Carlyle Group

1 St James’s Market, London, SW1Y 4AH

Source: https://www.carlyle.com/contact-us/worldwide-offices

US-based. World’s second biggest PE fund, according to PEI international rankings. Perhaps best known for its links to the Bush and Bin Laden families. It is one of the owners of Neptune Oil, a fast-growing oil company active in the North Sea, Africa and South-East Asia.

KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts)

Stirling Square, 7 Carlton Gardens, London, SW1Y 5AD
Source: https://www.kkr.com/our-firm/locations

US private equity fund, the world’s third biggest according to PEI international rankings. Infamous for its “asset-stripping” company buyouts in the 1980s and 90s. Its investment focuses include oil and gas companies and related infrastructure and real estate. Recently announced a major investment in the British Columbia Coastal GasLink pipeline which is being vigorously resisted by Wetʼsuwetʼen first nations people.

CVC Capital Partners

111 Strand, London, WC2R 0AG

Source: https://www.cvc.com/offices

The biggest UK-based PE fund, and the world’s fourth biggest, according to PEI international rankings. Its many investments across Europe, Asia and Americas include the UK’s biggest oil pipeline, and North sea oil company Neptune.

Warburg Pincus

Almack House, 28 King Street, London, SW1Y 6QW

Source: https://www.warburgpincus.com/london/

US based. World’s fifth biggest PE fund, according to PEI international rankings.

Bain Capital

Devonshire House, Mayfair Place, London, W1J 8AJ

Source: https://www.baincapital.com/locations

Founded by former US vice-presi d ent Mitt Romney (with other partners), known for its political links and for buying out and asset-stripping companies. World’s sixth biggest PE fund, according to PEI international rankings.

Oaktree Capital Management

Verde, 10 Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5DH

Source: https://www.oaktreecapital.com/contact-us

Major global private equity and investment fund, controls over $100 billion of capital. It is notorious as the world’s biggest “distressed debt” or “vulture” fund – buying up the assets of crisis-hit countries and companies, then chasing them for repayment. It was a major profiteer from the European debt crisis, and recently involved in court cases to chase the debt of Puerto Rico. It also runs a $2 billion energy fund investing in oil tankers and more.

3i Group PLC

16 Palace Street, London, SW1E 5JD

Source: https://www.3i.com/site-tools/contacts/

One of the few private equity firms whose shares are traded publicly as a PLC. 3i is London based and is a member of the FTSE 100. Its investment focuses include energy and infrastructure.

2.2.4 Hedge Funds

“Hedge fund” is the label often given to more specialised or “alternative” investment funds. The term is pretty loose nowadays, and includes funds with a range of different strategies. Some main types include: “quant” funds which use computer algorithms to gamble on commodity prices or derivatives; “equity funds” which both buy and “short” shares, betting that the share price will fall; and “debt funds” which specialise in buying up or betting on the debts of companies and governments.

One group with particular notoriety are the “vulture funds” or “distressed debt” investors. These buy up the debts of countries hit by crisis and poverty on the cheap,, then do all they can to make a profit – for example, by chasing countries through the courts to seize their assets.

Although usually much smaller than the big “mainstream” investment funds, hedge funds can play an important role at the frontiers of capitalism. They often lead in creating new products and markets – finding ways to monetise and trade ever more of the world’s resources for profit. For example, as the climate crisis escalates, hedge funds find ways to profit by gambling on future oil and other commodity prices, carbon trading schemes, or even on “weather derivatives” and “catastrophe bonds”.

London is one of the main global centres for the hedge fund industry. Like the private equity funds, many tend to be clustered around Mayfair and the West End. In this section we list some of the biggest general hedge funds, where these all work on energy and other earth-wrecking sectors amongst other areas.

A list of hedge funds by Assets Under Management

A list of hedge funds with London operations

A “top 50” ranking

Man Group PLC

Riverbank House, 2 Swan Lane, London, EC4R 3AD

Source: https://www.man.com/contact

The world’s largest publicly traded hedge fund, and the biggest based in the UK. Its multiple funds gamble on pretty much anything from “natural catastrophe bonds” to real estate. It sponsors the Man Booker literature prize and an Oxford University research centre.

Brevan Howard

55 Baker Street, London, W1U 8EW
Source: https://www.brevanhoward.com/

One of Europe’s biggest hedge funds. It makes short term bets on commodities such as oil and metals prices, as well as currencies and more. Officially registered in Jersey and Cayman Islands tax havens. Sponsors financial analysis centre at Imperial College London.

Monarch Alternative Capital

1st Floor, 50-52 Welbeck Street, London, W1G 9HL

Source: http://www.monarchlp.com/contact/

US-based vulture fund which specialises in buying and chasing “distressed debt”. Involved in court case to chase debts from crisis-hit Puerto Rico. Another string to its bow is investing in coal: “In February 2017, it became the principal shareholder in Arch Coal, the second largest supplier of coal to power companies in the U.S. Arch Coal has been accused by United Mine Workers of America of conspiring with Peabody Energy in a scheme to default on $1.3 billion in retiree pension and healthcare obligations.”

Autonomy Capital

110 Bishopsgate, Floor 34, London, EC2N 4AY UK

Source: https://www.autonomycapital.com/contact/

US based hedge fund that is reportedly a big gambler on European carbon emissions. It is also known as a vulture fund speculating on debts of “emerging countries”. Involved in court case to chase debts from crisis-hit Puerto Rico.

Point72

8 St James’s Square, London, SW1Y 4JU

Source: https://www.point72.com/contact-us/

Global hedge fund of US billionaire Steven Cohen. Point72 is the successor to Cohen’s previous business SAC Capital Advisors, which closed down after being hit by a $1.8 billion fine for insider trading. It includes a fund specialising in energy investments.

Winton Capital

Grove House, 27 Hammersmith Grove, London, W6 0NE

Source: https://www.winton.com/contact-us

One of the biggest London -based hedge funds, a “quant fund” which uses maths-heavy data analysis and computer algorithms to speculate on commodities across the world. The associated David and Claudia Harding Foundation has given £100 million to Cambridge University.

Lansdowne Partners

15 Davies Street, London, W1K 3AG

Source: https://www.lansdownepartners.com/contact-us/

“One of London’s oldest and most secretive hedge funds”, according to the Financial Times. It is perhaps best known for betting on the collapse of Northern Rock during the financial crash, and also has an energy fund speculating on oil and other commodity prices. Current press statements say it is betting against oil and on renewables – but it will follow wherever the money leads.

Elliott Advisors

116 Park Street, London, W1K 6AF

Source: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02989338

Source: https://register.fca.org.uk/ShPo_FirmDetailsPage?id=001b000000MfUxEAAV

NB: Registered address. This is a current official company address; but it is not confirmed that it is an operational site rather than just a “letterbox”.

Infamous as a “vulture fund” which buys up and chases “distressed debt”. In particular, Elliott played a major role in suing the Argentinian and Peruvian governments for bond payments during the Latin American debt crisis. Other recent investments include buying football club AC Milan. Owned by Republican-backing US billionaire Paul Singer; the London office is run by his son Gordon. It also owns Waterstones, currently in dispute with its workers over the living wage.

GAM

8 Finsbury Circus, London, EC2M 7GB

Source: https://www.gam.com/en/our-company/about-us

Swiss hedge fund mainly involved in gambling on bond markets, also has funds investing in energy companies.

Sculptor Capital

40 Argyll Street, 2nd Floor, London, W1F 7EB
Source: https://www.sculptor.com/about-sculptor/offices/london

Formerly called Och-Ziff, Sculptor is a global hedge fund founded by US billionaire Daniel Och. It is notorious for a 2016 corruption scandal where Och and his fund were accused by the US courts of paying over $100 million in bribesto secure natural resources deals in Libya, Nigeria, Guinea and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

2.2.5 Smaller earth-wrecking specialist investors

This section lists smaller investment companies – including private equity, hedge funds, traders, and other “boutiques” – which specialise in energy, mining, and other primary earth-wrecking sectors.

Kerogen Capital

6th Floor, 50 Pall Mall, London, SW1Y 5JH

Source: http://www.kerogencap.com/contact-us/

Private equity investor specialising in oil and gas companies, with bases in Hong Kong and London. Major investor in North Sea oil companies, and in Energean, the UK-Greek-Israeli company drilling wells and building pipelines in the Eastern Mediterranean.

EIG Global Energy Partners

20 St. James’s Street, 7th Floor, London, SW1A 1ES

Source: https://www.eigpartners.com/locations/london-uk

Specialist fund investing in oil and gas, pipelines, and “alternative energy”. Has $32 billion invested in 355 portfolio companies including a Brazil-Bolivia gas pipeline, coal and oilsands in Canada, biomass in Spain, and numerous oil drillers from Alaska to Africa.

NB: EIG also has a joint-venture subsidiary fund called Harbour Energy, jointly owned with Hong Kong’s Noble Group. This is based at the same address.

Red Kite Capital

1 Bartholomew Lane, London, EC2N 2AX

Source: https://www.rkminefinance.com/#contactSection

Specialised metal and mining investment fund run by former Conservative party treasurer, and evangelical Christian, Lord Michael Farmer – called “Mr Copper” for his exalted position in the copper trading business. Its RK Mine Finance fund has lent money to numerous metals and mining companies. Also in the business is Farmer’s son George, who has headed the UK branch of US rightwing propaganda organisation Turning Point.

Orion Resource Partners

33 Welbeck St, London, W1G 8EX

Source: https://www.orionresourcepartners.com/orion-mine-finance

Specialist metals and mining investment fund. Was previously part of Red Kite, spun off under its chief Oskar Lewinowski. Has invested in numerous mining companies including Dalradian.

Riverstone

3 St James’s Square, London, SW1Y 4JU
Source: https://www.riverstonellc.com/#!contact/london-office

Private equity firm focused on energy companies, with nearly $39 billion of investments in companies worldwide. Investments include coal, oil drilling, biofuels, and much more. Invests in UK fracking firm Cuadrilla.

First Reserve

7th Floor, 25 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0EX

Source: https://www.firstreserve.com/contact

US-based global private equity firm focused purely on energy companies. Its portfolio includes numerous oil and gas ventures worldwide.

Northlander Commodities

Shearwater House, 21 The Green, Richmond, London TW9 1PX

Source: http://www.northlander-advisors.com/

A “UK fund with strong ties to the US”, specialised in energy trading. Reported to have “made as much as $125 million” by speculating on global heating through trading carbon emission credits.

Andurand Capital Management

100 Brompton Road, London, SW3 1ER

Source: http://www.andurandcapital.com/contact.html

London-based oil and energy trading hedge fund run by Pierre Andurand.

Appian Capital

5th Floor, 45 Pall Mall, London, SW1Y 5JG

Source: https://appiancapitaladvisory.com/contact/

London-based private equity fund which invests solely in metals and mining.

Global Natural Resources Investments (GNRI)

4^th Floor, 14 Curzon Street, London, W1J 5HN

Source: https://gnri.com/

Private equity firm with offices in London and Doha, invests in oil, gas and mining. Was a former unit of Barclays Bank bought out by its managers in 2015.

Arkesden Partners

7 Birchin Lane, London, EC3V 9BW

Source: https://www.arkesden.com/contact

Investment advisory and private equity firm working on oil, mining and other energy deals.

Helios Investment Partners

2nd floor, 12 Charles II Street, London, SW1Y 4QU

Source: https://www.heliosinvestment.com/our-investments/private-equity#list

London-based private equity firm set up to deal in Africa, including investments in African oil companies.

Commodities Traders

Mandara Energy

6 Broad Street Place, London, EC2M 7JH

Source: http://www.mandaracapital.com/#subpage-3

Specialist energy derivatives trader – i.e., makes bets for clients on oil and other energy prices. Bases in London, New York and Singapore.

OTC Europe LLP

5th floor, 10 Finsbury Square, London, EC2A 1AF

Source: http://www.otcgh.com/portfolio-of-companies/otc-europe/

Trading firm “specializing in over-the-counter energy physical and financial futures and options, including crude oil, gas oil, fuel, freight, and middle distillates”.

BB Energy

BB House, 12-14 Ansdell Street, London, W8 5BN

Source: http://www.bbenergy.com /contact /

Describes itself as “one of the world’s leading independent energy trading companies” and “one of the most active gasoil, gasoline, bitumen and fuel oil traders in the Mediterranean.”

NB other important companies not in London:

Bridgewater Associates, Renaissance Technologies, are the world’s two largest hedge funds by assets managed, neither have London offices. Nor does EnCap, a major oil and gas private equity fund.

2.3 Insurance companies

The insurance industry is a crucial cog in the earth-wrecking machine. Ecocide is a risky venture. Mines or wells fail to produce, ships sink. “Accidents” are a regular occurrence – involving not just loss of capital, but potentially multi-million dollar lawsuits and compensation payouts to the families of those maimed and killed. Governments may come under enough political pressure that they are forced to tighten regulations or even end exploitative contracts.

These risks are all just part of doing business. But one or two major incidents could sink an earth-wrecking company – if it wasn’t for the insurance industry. Insurers “pool risk”: collect premiums from all their customers to create large funds, which then pay out to those who get unlucky.

What this means is that major earth-wrecking schemes – e.g., a new oil well or coal mine – can’t even get started unless the operator has an insurance contract in place. And this creates a very significant point of “leverage” for those trying to resist.

For example, resistance to coal has pushed many big insurers to make statements about withdrawing from coal insurance. Looking at the small print, these statements are often pretty weak: e.g., Axa’s much heralded statement only talks about phasing out insurance to very big coal miners by 2040. Even so, this pressure is pushing up coal insurance premiums, so making it more and more expensive for miners to start new schemes. That is: campaigning against insurance companies is already stopping at least some new coal mines being dug.

London is one of the world’s great insurance marketplaces, arguably the birthplace of the modern commercial insurance system. Lloyds of London began as a coffee house meeting place where ship owners would hook up with rich “names” who would underwrite their colonial trading ventures. London’s insurance scene is still based around the current home of Lloyds, in the east of the City.

For more on coal insurance see: Unfriend Coal website from Greenpeace and others.

Allianz

60 Gracechurch Street, London, EC3V 0HR

Source: https://www.agcs.allianz.com/global-offices/united-kingdom.html

Mega German-based insurance and financial services conglomerate: its fund management subsidiary Pimco features separately on this map. It is one of the world’s largest insurance businesses overall, and works with companies in all sectors including the onshore and offshore oil and gas industry.

American International Group (AIG)

The AIG Building, 58 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M 4AB

Source: https://www.aig.co.uk/contact-aig-uk

Massive US-based global insurance giant, infamously bailed out by the US government in the 2008 crash. It is the largest industrial insurer in the US, providing cover for the majority of big US industrial corporations, amongst many others. Its UK Energy division provides mining insurance, oil rig insurance, chemical and pharmaceutical insurance, and more. In January 2020, AIG confirmed that it will continue to insure coal, with CEO Brian Duperreault saying coal is “being taken out of the ground because people need it”.

Axa UK PLC

5 Old Broad Street, London, EC2N 1AD

Source: https://www.axa.co.uk/about/addresses/

Major French-based multinational insurance firm. Provides insurance to onshore and offshore energy companies, including major oil companies. In November 2019 Axa announced that it would stop insuring companies which produce more than 20 million tonnes of coal per year … but only by 2030 for European companies, and 2040 for the rest.

Lloyds of London

1 Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA

Source: https://www.lloyds.com/contact-us

Lloyds is not an insurance company itself, but rather an insurance marketplace. It is made up of numerous members, who come together in 90 plus “syndicates” to offer insurance cover. Lloyds’ historical roots are in marine insurance, and the shipping and energy industries are still important parts of the business. Lloyds says it does not have uniform underwriting policies because of its syndicate structure. According to “Unfriend Coal”, this means Lloyds is becoming the last place in Europe where coal miners can insure new mines.

Aon PLC

The Aon Centre, The Leadenhall Building, 122 Leadenhall Street, London, EC3V 4AN

Source: https://www.aon.com/unitedkingdom/contact-us.jsp

London-based insurance brokerage. Its energy and mining division works with all parts of the oil and gas industry, as well as mining companies, on products from oil rig insurance to “political risk”.

Beazley PLC

Plantation Place South, 60 Great Tower Street, London, EC3R 5AD

Source: https://www.beazley.com/contact_us.html

Specialist group of London insurers, a participant in the Lloyds insurance marketplace. Its energy division claims it insures over 30% of the world’s top 200 upstream and midstream oil and gas companies. Another of its specialisms is “political risk” insurance.

Chubb Ltd

The Chubb Building, 100 Leadenhall Street, London, EC3A 3BP

Source: https://www.chubb.com/uk-en/contact-us/locations.aspx

Chubb is a Swiss-headquartered global insurer which claims to be “the world’s largest publicly traded property and casualty insurer”, and a “leading supplier” to the energy industry. It provides cover to downstream/onshore and upstream/offshore fossil fuels companies.

Lockton

The St Botolph Building, 138 Houndsditch, London, EC3A 7AG

Source: https://www.lockton.com/offices/uk

US insurance broker, one of the world’s biggest. It insures companies across the oil and gas supply chain. It claims to work with over 20 major midstream companies, in-process liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities, and offshore Gulf of Mexico facilities.

Owners: still controlled by the founding Lockton family.

RFIB Group

12th Floor, 30 St Mary Axe, London, EC3A 8BF

Source: https://rfib.com/contact-us/

London-based specialist insurer. The energy division has offices in London, Bermuda, Dubai and Singapore. It claims to have “a portfolio of clients ranging from State owned energy companies through to independents” and “expert knowledge of exploration and development phases of oil and gas”.

Miller Insurance

70 Mark Lane , London, EC3R 7NQ

Source: https://www.miller-insurance.com/Contact/London

Miller works with companies in the upstream, midstream and downstream phases of fossil fuel production, in the renewable energy sector, and on major energy infrastructure construction projects.

QBE Insurance

Plantation Place, 30 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M 3BD

Source: https://qbeeurope.com/contact-us/

QBE says it has been supporting companies in the oil and gas sector for more than 30 years, including many of the world’s largest international and national oil companies, drilling contractors and service companies.

2.4 Other finance sector institutions

2.4.1 Auditors: the Big 4 accountancy firms

Company law requires companies’ financial accounts to be audited, checked by accountants who are certified and regulated by official bodies. The UK Register of Auditors shows 5649 firms listed. But only four really matter.

The “Big Four” are: Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG, and Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC). In the UK, they audited the accounts of every single FTSE 100 company in 2019, and 227 of the FTSE 250 (the 250 next biggest UK listed companies). In the US, their dominance is not quite so complete: they audited just over 50% of the biggest 3000 companies in 2018. As well as being by far the biggest accountancy firms in the world, the Big 4 also branch out into a range of other “consultancy” services to the business world.

There is endless debate about the need to regulate the accountancy market “cartel”, without much happening. The auditors have an incentive to sign off accounts without asking any awkward questions, in order to win not just more auditing contracts but other lucrative consultancy work.

All the Big 4 firms have been the subject of multiple scandals, collusion allegations, fraud and money-laundering inquiries, etc., which sometimes lead to prosecutions and fines. These are far too numerous to list here: web search and you’ll find plenty.

Technically, the Big 4 are not in fact companies, but “professional services networks” involving multiple local partners. This further inoculates them from legal come-back by scattering liability amongst the partner firms.

Deloitte

Main office: 1-3 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3HQ

Also: Hill House, 1 Little New Street, London, EC4A 3TR;

Buckley Building, 49 Clerkenwell Green, London, EC1R 0EB;

Source: https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/footerlinks/office-locator.html

KPMG

Main office: 15 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5GL

Source: https://home.kpmg/uk/en/home/about/offices.html

PricewaterhouseCooper (PWC)

Main office: 1 Embankment Place, London, WC2N 6RH

Other office: 7 More London, Riverside, London, SE1 2RT

Source: https://www.pwc.co.uk/who-we-are/regional-sites/london/offices.html

Ernst & Young (EY)

Main office: 1 More Place, London, SE1 2AF

Also: 25 Churchill Place, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5EY;

Tower Bridge Court, 226 Tower Bridge Road, London, SE1 2UP;

6 More London Place, London, SE1 2DA

154-164 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2DQ;

15 Adam Street, London, WC2N 6AH;

55-57 Rivington Street, London, EC2A 3QA

Source: https://www.ey.com/en_gl/locations/united-kingdom

2.4.2 The Rating Agencies

As well as selling shares or borrowing from banks, big companies raise finance by issuing bonds. Bonds are basically “IOUs”, debts written on bits of paper (or nowadays, electronic data) which can be sold and traded between investors, paying interest to whoever holds them.

The interest rates that companies (or governments, or anyone else) have to pay depends on their credit ratings. The more a company is seen as high-risk (i.e., likely to go bust and not pay its debts), the higher interest it has to pay.

Who sets the credit ratings for companies, governments, and other major institutions? Worldwide, there are just three main “ratings agencies” whose ratings are followed by investors. These are Moodys, Standard & Poors, and Fitch.

As with the Big 4 accountants, there is ongoing debate about “cartelling” and collusion in the ratings industry. A fundamental flaw in the system is that the rating agencies are basically paid on commission by the same companies and banks they analyse. Calls for reform were particularly strong following the 2008 crash, when the three agencies were criticised for giving good ratings to the banks’ “securitised” sub-prime mortgage bonds (and others) that then blew up. Needless to say, nothing much has changed since then.

The rating agencies have real power to shape markets. For example, cutting a rating below “investment grade” automatically triggers sell-off by many big investment funds. For a country’s debt (“sovereign” bonds), this can trigger a national economic crisis. And for a big oil or coal infrastructure scheme that needs to raise debt finance, having a good rating could be almost as important as getting insurance in place.

The three main global rating agencies are all US-based. All have London offices, which are often the main bases for their analysts working on Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

S&P
The Mcgraw-Hill Building, 20 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5LH
Source: https://www.spglobal.com/en/contact-us/office-locations

Moodys

1Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5FA

Source: www.moodys.com/Pages/contactus.aspx

Owners: PLC. The biggest shareholder is Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 13.07% (Warren Buffet’s investment fund), after that the usual big funds such as Vanguard, BlackRock, State St.

Fitch Ratings
30 North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5GN

Source: www.fitchratings.com/site/about/contact

Owners: Hearst Corporation.

2.4.3 Exchanges

Back in the day, financial exchanges were big rooms full of shouty men in bowler hats or braces waving bits of paper. Nowadays they are more likely to be computerised “virtual” marketplaces where artificial intelligence algorithms are pushing out the coke-heads.

Still, for now most of the big exchanges do have physical locations, and many of these are still in the City. The London, Stock Exchange (LSE) is the best known, trading shares in UK publicly listed companies (PLCs). But London is also home to other specialist exchanges, including some of the world’s biggest marketplaces for trading “commodities” such as oil and metals, as well as the new world of carbon emissions trading.

London Stock Exchange (LSE)

10 Paternoster Square, London, EC4M 7LS

Source: https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/global/contact-us/contact-us.html

London Metal Exchange (LME)

10 Finsbury Square, London, EC2A 1AJ

Source: https://www.lme.com/en-GB/About/Contact-us/Offices

The LME is the world’s largest market for trading futures and options contracts concerning base and other metals, including non-ferrous, steel, cobalt and precious metals. The LME’s “responsible sourcing rules” do not require companies to take into account environmental and climate risks in their supply chains.

ICE Futures Europe

5th Floor, Milton Gate, 60 Chiswell Street, London, EC1Y 4SA

Source: https://www.intercontinentalexchange.com/about/offices

The main European exchange for trading futures, option, and other standard derivatives contracts. Products traded here include commodities and energy derivatives, such as futures and options contracts on oil, gas, coal, and “soft” agricultural commodities. ICE Futures Europe says it is “home to 50% of the world’s crude and refined oil futures trading”. It is also now the “world’s leading market for emissions trading”. It trades futures contracts for EU carbon allowances and Kyoto protocol “certified emissions reductions” (CERs). (The previous European Climate Exchange (ECX) was bought out by ICE and merged into the main exchange.)

Owners: formerly LIFFE (London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange), it is now the European part of the international derivatives market owned by Intercontinental Exchanges (ICE), based in the US.

London Bullion Market Association (LBMA)

1-2 Royal Exchange Buildings, Royal Exchange, London, EC3V 3LF.

Source: http://www.lbma.org.uk/contact

Members of the LBMA, mostly international banks and bullion dealers and refiners, trade futures contracts on precious metals in over-the-counter (rather than exchange) deals.

London Clearing House (LCH)

Aldgate House, Aldgate High Street, London, EC3N 1EA, UK

Source: https://www.lch.com/contact-us

A key back office part of the financial markets infrastructure, a clearing house organises the actual payment and exchange of securities after deals are made on the various exchanges, as well as for more bespoke “over the counter” (OTC) deals. LCH is one of the biggest in the global markets.

CTX (Carbon Trade Exchange)

2nd Floor, Berkeley Square House, Berkeley Square, Mayfair, London, W1J 6BD

Source: https://ctxglobal.com/

UK and Australia based company which runs an electronic exchange for trading voluntary carbon offset credits.

2.5 Law firms

Capitalism can’t function without lawyers to draw up contracts, defend property rights – and give “rule of law” cover to the repression of those who challenge it. Brutal earth-wrecking corporations, in particular, have well-paid lawyers on call to justify their land grabs and defend them when “accidents” or human rights violations come to light. The firms in this list are just a few of the most notorious specialists in this area of corporate law.

Note: law firms are generally limited partnerships owned by the senior lawyers who work for them.

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher

Telephone House, 2-4 Temple Avenue, London, EC4Y 0HB

Source: https://www.gibsondunn.com/office/london/

Multinational US firm that prides itself on its work with the oil and gas industries. Its ‘environmental tort’ department specialises in defending companies against mass action claims for breaches of environmental laws. On its website, Gibson Dunn boasts a long list of examples, including representing a major food company: “in a series of toxic tort lawsuits involving thousands of Latin American workers claiming personal injuries from exposure to a chemical used on banana farms “. Another of its “success” stories is helping Chevron overturn a ruling in favour of 48 Ecuadorean plaintiffs who had sued the company over pollution from the Lago Agrio oil field.

Dentons

1 Fleet Place, London, EC4M 7RA
Source: www.dentons.com/en/global-presence/united-kingdom/london

Described as the largest law firm in the world thanks to the 10,000 lawyers it employs globally. Dentons advised on the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline s , which were eventually scrapped after intense opposition by indigenous people in Turtle Island (Canada). Dentons also defends corporations against class action suits, including those of an “aboriginal “ and “environmental “ nature. Indeed, the company has its very own specialist (anti) aboriginal law department. Clients include BASF, the government of India, and Centrica.

Latham & Watkins

99 Bishopsgate, London, EC2M 3XF
Source: https://www.lw.com/offices/london

US law firm whose clients include Shell, Exxon Mobil, and Chevron. Its record includes representing Shell in two sets of group actions brought by thousands of residents of the Bille and Ogale communities for extensive oil pollution in the Niger Delta.

Baker Botts (UK) LLP

41 Lothbury, London, EC2R 7HF

Source: https://www.bakerbotts.com/offices/london

Major US firm with a UK branch. Prides itself in its work with the energy secto r, including oil & gas, hydro power, LNG and unconventional fossil fuels. Clients includeBP, Gazprom, Petrogas and Qatar Petroleum.

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer

65 Fleet Street, London, EC4Y 1HT

Source: https://www.freshfields.com/en-gb/contacts/contact-us/europe/london-office/

Multinational corporate law firm headquartered in London. Established in 1743, Freshfields is the world’s oldest international law firm. It advises multinationals, including oil and gas firms, dealing with litigation on environmental and human rights grounds. Although it likes to keep details of the clients in specific cases a secret, other sources reveal that the company has successfully defended Europe’s biggest CO2 emitter, RWE, against a claim by a Peruvian mountain guide for the company’s contribution to the effects of climate change on his community.

White & Case LLP

5 Old Broad Street, London, EC2N 1DW

Source: www.whitecase.com/locations/emea/london

US corporate law firm with offices in London. Clients include Energean, Saudi Aramco, Eni and Total.

Allen & Overy

One Bishops Square, London, E1 6AD

Source: www.allenovery.com/en-gb/global/global_coverage/europe/united-kingdom

Major international corporate law firm whose clients include oil and gas companies. Worked on the Trans Adriatic gas Pipeline (‘TAP’) and the Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan & India gas pipeline (TAPI).

Linklaters

1 Silk Street, London, EC2Y 8HQ

Source: https://www.linklaters.com/en/locations/united-kingdom

Multinational corporate law firm. Clients include ExxonMobil, Eni, BP, Total, Gazprom, and Rosneft. Has advised Rosneft on oil concessions in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Pinsent Masons

30 Crown Place, Earl Street, London, EC2A 4ES

Source: www.pinsentmasons.com/locations/europe/united-kingdom/london?pageNumber=1

Major international law firm specialising in work with the energy sector, among others. Has reportedly offered its services to companies seeking anti-fracking protest injunctions. Clients include BP, Shell and Total.

Norton Rose Fulbright

3 More London, Riverside, London, SE1 2AQ

Source: www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-gb/locations/london

Another huge international law firm, with a specialism in defending multinationals against so-called “toxic tort” cases. These include “mass disaster and catastrophic events”, such as class action lawsuits by communities affected by groundwater contamination, and workers subjected to chemical exposure . Clients include BP, Exxon Mobil and Shell.

Clifford Chance

10 Upper Bank Street, London, E14 5JJ

Source: https://www.cliffordchance.com/people_and_places/offices/london.html

Another corporate law firm, whose long list of clients include Shell, Total, Engie, Equinor, Kuwait National Petroleum, Soco International, Sinopec, SOCAR, Trans Adriatic Pipeline, Offshore Drilling Holding S.A., Nord Stream and Chrysaor.

Slaughter and May

1 Bunhill Row, London, EC1Y 8YY

Source: https://www.slaughterandmay.com/where-we-work/offices/london//#officelocation

Major corporate law firm which has worked extensively with oil, gas and mining companies. Clients include INEOS, Shell, Repsol and Premier Oil.

2.6 Military and security

The military industrial complex is one of the most polluting industries on earth. The U.S. Department of Defense is responsible for more hazardous waste than the five largest U.S. chemical companies combined. It has littered its former war zones with toxic cocktails of depleted uranium, oil, jet fuel, pesticides, defoliants like Agent Orange, lead, and other contaminants. War itself is also a major CO2 emitter: in 2005, the UK military was responsible for approximately 5 million tonnes of CO2, which was then roughly equivalent to the total emissions of Senegal. In the same year, the estimate for the US military was 60 million tonnes.

But aside from its own direct earth-wrecking, the military plays a further central role in planetary capitalist devastation. It is the enforcement arm of the system, called out to use terror and lethal force wherever profits need defending from people resisting the corporations. And wherever there are new markets to be “opened” through colonisation and regime change.

Still drawing on its imperial history, London is one of the main global centres of the war industry. It is home to some of the world’s largest arms manufacturers and dealers. And it is a key hub for mercenary contractors – the Private Military and Security Companies, or PMSCs – which often have close ties to the British armed forces and the local officer class.

For arms companies see: Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) list

Unsurprisingly the mercenary industry is pretty secretive. Here we just name a few better-known examples of bigger and more public-facing companies. Here are some recent reports on the UK industry with more information:

War on Want: Mercenaries Unleashed (2016)

Action on Armed Violence: Britain’s private military and security industry examined (December 2018)

2.6.1. Arms manufacturers

BAE Systems

4th Floor, Blue Fin Building, 110 Southwark Street, London, SE1 0TA

Source: https://www.baesystems.com/en/cybersecurity/careers/our-locations/uk-and-europe/london

The world’s fourth largest arms company. Combat aircraft, warships, tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, missiles, small arms ammunition, cyber & intelligence, and nuclear missile submarines. 14% of BAE’s total sales are to Saudi Arabia, 42% to the US.

See also: C ampaign A gainst A rms T rade page.

Owners: PLC. Owned by major investment funds.

Boeing

Boeing Defence UK: 25 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0EX

Source: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01290439

NB: Registered address. This is a current official company address; but it is not confirmed that it is an operational site rather than just a “letterbox”.

The second largest arms company in the world. Produces the Apache attack helicopter, which has been used in military operations in countries including Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

See also: C ampaign A gainst A rms T rade page.

Owners: US PLC.

Northrop Grumman

Clareville House, Oxendon Street, London, SW1Y 4EL

Source: https://www.northropgrumman.com/careers/job-search-united-kingdom/

The fifth-largest arms company in the world. Northrop Grumman manufactures combat aircraft such as the ground-attack A-10 and the B-2 Spirit “stealth” bomber. It also produces a wide range of military drones.

See also: C ampaign A gainst A rms T rade page.

Owners: US PLC.

Leonardo (formerly Finmeccanica)

8-10 Great George St, London, SW1P 3AE

Source: https://www.uk.leonardocompany.com/en/contact-us

Products include military helicopters, fighter aircraft, drones, missiles, radar and targetting systems, naval guns, artillery and armoured combat vehicles.

See also: C ampaign A gainst A rms T rade page.

Owners: Italian PLC, listed on Milan stock exchange.

Rolls Royce

Kings Place, 90 York Way, London, N1 9FX

Source: https://www.rolls-royce.com/contact-us/rolls-royce-headquarters.aspx

Produces military aircraft engines, naval engines and cores for nuclear submarines.

2.6.2 PSMCs (Mercenaries and security firms)

“The 2003 Iraq War saw the most significant use of PMSCs to date. While exact figures are difficult to come by, it is said that during the 1991 Gulf War the ratio of troops to contractors was approximately ten to one, in 2007 during the Iraq War, the ratio was roughly one to one …”

G4S

5th Floor, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT
Source: www.g4s.com/en-gb/site-tools/contact-us

(NB: G4S shares this building with offices of the NHS. Its head office is near Crawley.)

The second largest private security company in the world, G4S does everything from transporting cash to running private prisons. Just one part of the business is running mercenaries in war-torn countries, particularly in the Middle East and East Africa. The British government has employed G4S mercenaries in Afghanistan and Yemen, and G4S operates a subsidiary in Sudan. Oil and mining companies are other regular clients. According to War on Want: “G4S, whose clients include Royal Dutch Shell and AngloGold Ashanti, is known to be targeting the natural resources sector.”

See also: 2018 Corporate Watch company profile.

Aegis

2 London Bridge, London, SE1 9RA

Source: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04541965

NB: Registered address. This is a current official company address; but it is not confirmed that it is an operational site rather than just a “letterbox”.

Aegis Defence Services is a mercenary firm involved with the NGO, aerospace, and government and diplomatic sectors, as well as the oil, gas and mining industries. According to War on Want (from 2016): “Aegis Defence Services boasts that the company’s ‘largest area of business is Iraq’, and that it ‘has been operating in support of the oil and gas sector for over two years’”. Some s candals include footage emerging of soldiers apparently firing at civilians in Iraq, and the use of former child soldiers from Sierra Leone.

Control Risks

Cottons Centre, Cottons Lane, London, SE1 2QG

Source: https://www.controlrisks.com/contact-us/office-search/london

Control Risks describes itself as an “international professional services and consulting firm” – others have described it as a mercenary outfit. It has worked securing company oil assets in Iraq, and has also played an active role in Libya.

Corps Security

Market House, 85 Cowcross St, London, EC1M 6PF

Source: https://www.corpssecurity.co.uk/contact/office-locations/

Formerly known as the Corps of Commissionaires, Corps Security is a British security company that officially reports to Queen Elizabeth II, with a team of about 3,000 security personnel and a dozen offices throughout the U.K. It specialises in “corporate security” – including event protection, electronic surveillance, and consulting.

Serco

4th Floor, 100 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL

Source: https://www.serco.com/about/office-locations

Serco is a UK-based outsourcing firm that does basically anything governments want to outsource, from locking up migrants to cleaning offices. Security is one of the most lucrative parts of the business. According to the defence section of its website, “We currently service 70+ military contracts with the Military of Defence (MoD).We operate in Maritime, Aviation, Space &Security and Nuclear & Complex Infrastructure.”

2.7 Government

One line of political propaganda presents state and markets as antagonists: corporations and speculators are tearing up the world in their rampant greed, and only strong government can hold them back. (Or, in the right-wing mirror version, government holds back the great progressive force of the free market.)

In fact, the state is ecocidal capitalism’s intimate partner. Government plays a number of roles that are all essential to the machine. Here are some, with a few examples of UK government units:

Military: sending in gunboats or mercenaries to “open” new markets for corporations and investors (Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces, Foreign Office, Intelligence Services).

Law-enforcement: maintaining a stable property system where companies’ ownership rights are respected (Police, judiciary, security services).
Financial: funding infrastructure that isn’t profitable enough for the private sector, bailing out banks and companies when they screw up, etc. (Treasury, Bank of England, other departments through public spending and procurement).
Deal-making: negotiating and acting as a representative for businesses to foreign states, etc. (Foreign Office, Department of International Trade, Department for International Development, ..)
Regulatory: providing rules and supervision for markets, adjudicating disputes between companies, etc. (Treasury, Bank of England, Financial Conduct Authority, Department for Business, ..)
Ideological: providing a national education system and other measures to ensure citizens learn how to be good worker-consumers (Department of Education, Department of Culture, ..).

See: our book on Capitalism for more on all this.

There are numerous government locations in central London. We haven’t included them on the map because they are already well known, and easy to find.

Wikipedia list of central government departments with addresses

Metropolitan Police stations and City of London Police stations

3. Ideology industry

“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings.” Ursula Le Guin

The people killing the earth are the powerful: political and business leaders armed with the economic might of trillion dollar investment funds and the lethal force of police and armies.

But they can’t do it without widespread consent. They need the active participation of millions of accomplices: managers, bureaucrats, engineers, mercenaries, cops, and many others, who run the earth-wrecking machine and crush resistance. And they need at least passive acceptance from billions more of us: whether we also dream of getting a piece of the action, or we just can’t see any way out.

But capitalism isn’t natural or inevitable. It’s just a peculiarly destructive social system made by some human beings over the last few hundred years. To keep going it needs to keep us believing, to continually “manufacture” our consent.

The ideology industry is what we’re calling the organisations and networks dedicated to this. Their job is both creative and critical. On the one hand: keep pumping us with beliefs, values and desires that fuel the consumption and growth machine. On the other: undermine any alternative visions.

The ideology they weave goes very deep, with multiple layers. Some key ones:

Domination: core beliefs separating humans from “nature” and asserting our power over the natural world – and, hand in hand, the separation and domination of some humans over others. This ideological strand goes back maybe some 5,000 years to the origins of “civilisation” and the first states.
Capitalism: humans are “economic agents” driven by greed or self-interest; private property and markets are natural and sacred; happiness is consumer goods and financial status; economic growth is the number one political imperative. These ideas have been fighting their way to power over a few hundred years.
Green capitalism: now the ecological devastation caused by capitalism becomes obvious, the ideology industry needs to go into overdrive spinning new stories. It’s not enough just to keep pushing consumer products and the growth fantasy. They also need to reassure us the status quo can solve ecological crises with technofixes and transition fuels – just keep calm and carry on.

The ideology industry feeds us these ideas again and again. Some of its main channels are:

Education system: even in infant school we can start learning about government authority, private property, business success. Higher education trains the machine’s managers, and the teachers who pass on its values to the next generation.
Media and culture industries: TV, movies, drivetime radio, newspapers, social media pump out a million more variants on the same messages, repackaged and repeated with the latest issues, consumer trends or celebrity gossip.
Politics: parliamentary politics is a theatre where our “leaders” identify and bicker over the issues of the day – Brexit, Megxit, immigrant hordes … so long as it isn’t capitalism killing the planet. Politicians and media work together in a symbiotic clinch, feeding each other stories and attention.

The companies and investors listed in Parts 1 and 2 influence us through all of these channels. They feed them with ideas and stories they want to promote. They also influence what ideas and stories get trashed, buried, or just ignored.

Business feeds the education system with sponsorships and endowments, employment partnerships, academy chains, etc.
Business feeds media and culture industries with advertising, investment, press releases and “off the record” sources, targeted PR operations.
Business feeds the politicians with lobbying and donations, and by setting up think tanks that develop ideas and agendas.
Business also feeds all of these through more informal social networking. Company bosses, financiers, politicians, media moguls, movie producers, editors and commentators, top academics or think tank pundits, etc., all mingle together at conferences, board meetings, dinners, charity events, villa holidays, members’ clubs, old school reunions, and so on.

The organisations identified in the next sections are just some of the most visible players in this web. We start with two of the main channels used to spread ideology: London-based (higher) education institutions; and the more powerful or more right wing media organisations. Then we look at some organisations that help companies influence these: PR firms, lobby groups, and think tanks, as well as more specialist greenwashing initiatives.

3.1 Universities

London’s university quarter sits at the centre of the map, midway between the financial hub of the City and the seat of government in Whitehall. From the start the University of London has been a key player in the development of modern capitalism and its ideology. Its first institution, University College, was set up in the 1820s with the support of London businessmen and an agenda of promoting the liberal and free market ideas of the new capitalist ruling class – as against the aristocratic old regime represented by Oxford and Cambridge.

Throughout this history, London University has been financed and directed by local and global capital. Businesses shape its development through grants and partnerships, or by sponsoring specific chairs, scholarships, and whole research units focusing on their subjects of interest. Specialist units promoting greenwashing and green capitalism are just one new twist on this.

Imperial College

Exhibition Road, London, SW7 2AZ

Source: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/visit/campuses/south-kensington/

Imperial College is London’s prestige university institution specialising in science and engineering. Imperial is making some serious contributions to greenwashing including dedicated research units promoting “Clean fossil and bioenergy” and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies. The latter works closely with the oil industry and the Global CCS Institute thinktank, which is linked to direct from Imperial’s website.

UCL (University College London)

Main address: Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT

ISR, Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment: 22 Gordon St, Bloomsbury, London WC1H 0QB

UCL campus map: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/maps

The UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources, funded by major earth killers including BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Tata Steel, HSBC and KPMG is a major source of greenwashing. BHP Billiton’s contribution of at least $5 million caused particular controversy.

LSE (London School of Economics and Political Science)

LSE main address: Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE

GRI: Floor 11, Pethick-Lawrence House (Formerly Tower 3), Clement’s Inn, London WC2A 2AZ

Campus map: https://www.lse.ac.uk/lse-information/Campus-Map

Its main green capitalism initiative is the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, which works on areas such as carbon pricing, transition economics and “green Growth”. Sponsors include dam-builder Statkraft. (This is the twin of the science-focused Grantham Institute at Imperial College; both are funded by investment fund manager Jeremy Grantham). LSE’s other corporate “global partners” are major banks, investment funds, and Big 4 accountancy firms.

Kings College

Main address: Strand, London WC2R 2LS

Source: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/

Its Thomas Young Centre – an alliance with UCL, Imperial and Queen Mary’s Colleges – is an engineering research centre working on computer simulations in collaboration with companies including BP and Rio Tinto. The £6 million Rio Tinto partnership studies rock fragmentation techniques to develop “the mine of the future”.

SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies)

Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square London WC1H 0XG

Source: https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/contacts/

Houses the Brunei Art Gallery, endowed by the Sultan of Brunei, one of the planet’s biggest oil profiteers.

3.2 Media

3.2.1 Social media platforms

Google

1-13 St Giles High St, London, WC2H 8AG

6 Pancras Square, London, N1C 4AG

Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ

Source: https://about.google/intl/en-GB/locations/?region=europe

(NB: due to relocate to new Kings Cross “lowscraper” campus in next few years.)

They know everything about you and soon they will own the world.

Facebook

1 Rathbone Square, Fitzrovia, London, W1T 1FB

https://www.facebook.com/facebooklondon/

Data-harvesting giants.

3.2.2 TV and radio

BBC

Broadcasting House: Portland Place, London W1A 1AA

The official broadcaster of the UK mainstream. BBC bosses have said they will no longer give climate change deniers the prominence they once did, but the corporation continues to uncritically report the activities and impact of the companies on this map through much of its news coverage.

ITV

2 Waterhouse Square, 138 – 142 Holborn, London EC1N 2AE

Source: https://www.itvstudios.com/contact

Free to view TV network. One of the very few major UK media companies that is owned by a publicly traded company, ITV PLC.

Sky Media

10th Floor Nova South, 160 Victoria Street, London SW1E 5LB

Source: www.skymedia.co.uk/contact/

The UK’s largest pay TV broadcaster. Owned by Comcast, mega US TV corporation, which is largely owned by the Roberts Family.

3.2.3 Newspapers (and news websites)

News UK

1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF

Source: www.news.co.uk/contact-us/

The “baby shard” building next to London Bridge station houses the UK division of Rupert Murdoch’s global News Corp media empire, including the offices of The Sun and The Times. Murdoch’s Fox Corporation TV network are notorious climate change deniers.

Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT)

Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TT

Source: https://www.dmgt.com/about-us/locations-and-contacts

HQ of the Daily Mail and Metro papers and their online outlets. The Metro, a free tabloid, is now regarded as the UK’s most widely read paper. The parent company DMGT is listed on the London Stock Exchange, but a majority stake is retained by hereditary owner and chairman Lord Rothermere. The Mail particularly gives space to the rants and fantasies of climate change deniers.

Daily Express

One Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 5AP

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/about-us/amp#contact-us

Right wing migrant-bashing and climate change-denying rag. Trinity Mirror group bought the Express from longtine owner Richard Desmond in 2018, without changing the paper’s winning formula.

Evening Standard

ESI Media: 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TT

Source: https://www.standard.co.uk/service/contact-evening-standard-7185764.html

London free newspaper edited by former chancellor George Osborne. It is majority owned by Russian oligarch’s son and socialite Evgeny Lebedev, whose family made their fortune from investments and natural gas, among other things. A minority share is owned by DMGT (see above), and it has offices in the Daily Mail building.

The Telegraph

111 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 0DT
Source: corporate.telegraph.co.uk/contact-us/

The Torygraph. Owned by the Barclay Brothers. Has been regularly criticised for featuring climate deniers in its pages.

The Spectator

22 Old Queen St, Westminster, London SW1H 9HP
Source: www.spectator.co.uk/about/

Conservative mag once edited by Boris Johnson. Another publication owned by the Barclay Brothers, who also own the Telegraph. Has been accused of providing “a ready platform for proponents of climate change denial”.

3.3 Trade associations and Lobby groups

Free market capitalist ideology often stresses competition. But capitalism also relies on companies working together to defend their common interests. The companies in our map have created numerous alliances and associations to do this. One main role of these trade associations is coordinating messaging and PR campaigns across the industry. Another is acting as industry representatives to lobby politicians.

GENERAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS

Confederation of British Industry

Cannon Place, 78 Cannon Street, London, EC4N 6HN
Source: www.cbi.org.uk/help/contact-us/

The biggest lobbyists for business in Britain, calling itself “the voice for business”. The CBI has 190,000 company members and employs “100+ economic and policy specialists, the largest policy unit outside Whitehall”. It also organises hundreds of networking events across the country each year.

Institute of Directors

116 Pall Mall, London, SW1Y 5ED
Source: www.iod.com/about/contact-us

A 30,000+ membership organisation for company bosses established in 1903. The IoD provides training and advice to its members, and organises networking opportunities. It has published reports sponsored by Cuadrilla.

TheCityUk

Fitzwilliam House, 10 St Mary Axe, London, EC3A 8BF
Source: www.thecityuk.com/contact/

Campaigning body for London (and other UK) banks and investment funds – “Britain’s most powerful financial lobby group”. Its chair is also chairman of HSBC. Seeks to influence policy at national and international levels. Also holds many networking events.

ENERGY SECTOR

Energy UK

1st Floor, 26 Finsbury Square, London, EC2A 1DS

Source: https://www.energy-uk.org.uk/contact-us.html

A trade association for over 100 suppliers, generators and “stakeholders” across the UK energy industry. M embers include Drax, RWE, Shell and many other companies on our map.

Energy Institute

61 New Cavendish Street, London, W1G 7AR

Source: https://www.energyinst.org/contact

Formed by the merger of the Institute of Petroleum and Institute of Energy in 2003, the Energy Institute is a membership association for around 20,000 engineers and other professionals representing 200 companies working in the fossil fuel and renewable energy industries.

Energy Networks Association

4 More London, Riverside, London, SE1 2AU

Source: http://www.energynetworks.org/info/find-us/contact-us.html

Formed in 2003, the Energy Networks Association represents the UK and Ireland’s transmission and distribution network operators in gas and electricity. Its members include the National Grid and Scottish Power.

AGRICULTURE

National Farmers’ Union (NFU)

18 Smith Square, Westminster, London, SW1P 3HZ

Source: https://www.nfuonline.com/about-us/our-offices/external-affairs-westminster/

British Meat Processors Association

17 Clerkenwell Green, London, EC1R 0DP

Source: https://britishmeatindustry.org/about/contact-us/

CHEMICAL

Chemical Industries Association (CIA)

Kings Buildings, Smith Square, London, SW1P 3JJ

Source: https://www.cia.org.uk/

The CIA represents UK chemicals and pharmaceutical companies at a national and international level, including manufacturers and importers/exporters.

NUCLEAR

Nuclear Industry Association

5^th Floor, Tower House, 10 Southampton Street, London, WC2E 7HA

Source: https://www.niauk.org/contact/

The NIA is the trade association for the UK’s civil nuclear industry, representing over 260 companies across the supply chain. The chief executive, Tom Greatrex, is an advocate for expanding the UK nuclear industry through a new and cheaper investment mechanism.

World Nuclear Association (WNA)

Tower House, 10 Southampton Street, London, WC2E 7HA

Source: https://www.world-nuclear.org/

Based in the same building as the UK’s Nuclear Industry Association, the WNA is an international organisation, with over 170 members, promoting nuclear power and the companies that provide it.

FOSSIL FUEL

The Geological Society

Burlington House, Piccadilly, London, W1J 0BG
Source: www.geolsoc.org.uk/about

Huge membership organisation of geologists, and promoters of fossil fuels. Specialist divisions such as the Petroleum Group, Mineral Deposits Studies Group, and Engineering Group help unsustainable development go ahead with the rubber stamp of a respected body of scientists.

Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain

3rd Floor, Welby House, 96 Wilton Road, London, SW1V 1DW
Source: www.pesgb.org.uk/contact/

Membership organisation for scientists working in the oil and gas industry. The organisation convenes networking opportunities and lectures.

UK Petroleum Industry Association Limited (UKPIA)

37-39 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6AA

Source: https://www.ukpia.com/site-tools/contact-us/

The UKPIA represents and advises the UK downstream oil sector: the eight oil refining and marketing companies that operate the six major oil refineries in the UK. These include fossil fuel giants BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell and Total.

Oil and Gas UK (OGUK)

6th Floor East, Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BH

Source: https://oilandgasuk.co.uk/about-us/contactus

While the UKPIA represents the UK downstream oil sector, OGUK represents the offshore (or upstream) oil and gas industry. Its membership comprises around 400 organisations, from fossil fuel giants like Shell and BP to auditors such as Deloitte, and other companies supporting the fossil fuel economy.

Society of International Gas Tankers and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO)

42 New Broad Street, London, EC2M 1JD

Source: https://www.sigtto.org/contact/

Has over 170 members representing the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. Along with shipping and logistics companies, its members include fossil fuel giants BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell and Total.

World Coal Association (WCA)

5th Floor Heddon House, 149-151 Regent Street, London, W1B 4JD

Source: https://www.ctc-n.org/network/network-members/world-coal-association (not available on WCA website)

Lobbying and membership association for the global coal industry. Purports to address environmental concerns by advocating for “high efficiency, low emission” (HELE) coal and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Its members include Glencore and other mining giants.

MINING

International Council of Mining and Metals (ICMM)

35/38 Portman Square, London, W1H 6LR

Source: https://www.icmm.com/en-gb/footer/contact-us

The ICMM supports extractivist capitalism and pays lip service to environmental concerns. It has a membership of 27 international mining and minerals giants, including BHP, Glencore, Lonmin, RioTinto and others high up on our map.

RENEWABLE, ALTERNATIVE AND TECHNOFIX

Renewable Energy Association (REA)

80 Strand, London, WC2R 0DT

Source: https://www.r-e-a.net/about-us/contact-us/

Represents companies across the renewable energy industry including the biogas, biomass and hydropower industries – and massive carbon emitters such as Drax and RWE. Its members directory has useful information on the different companies active in the sector.

Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources Association (ADBA)

Sustainable Bankside II, 25 Lavington Street, London, SE1 ONZ

Source: http://adbioresources.org/contact

The ADBA was established in 2009 to lobby for the removal of barriers to the anaerobic digestion and biogas industry in the UK, and soon widened its remit to include all emergent biofuels. It has over 400 members from across the industry.

Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA)

6th Floor, 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0DX

Source: http://www.ccsassociation.org/about-us/contact-us/

Promotes the use of techno-fix Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies. Its members include BP, Shell, Total, Wood and other companies on our map.

Global Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Institute

Evergreen House North, Grafton Place, London, NW1 2DX

Source: https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/contact/

The Global CCS Institute describes itself as the world’s leading international thinktank whose aim is to promote techno-fix Carbon Capture and Storage (CCUS). Members including BP, BHP, Exxon Mobil, Shell and other massive emitters.

ENERGY AND CLIMATE TRADING

Climate Markets and Investment Association (CMIA)

100 New Bridge Street, London, EC4V 6JA

Source: https://www.cmia.net/contact/

The CMIA’s mission is to shift private and public investment towards markets that meet the long-term, gradualist objectives of the Paris Agreement, inadequate to tackling climate change. It has Active Private Sector Observer (APSO) status over some of the largest and most influential global climate funds, usually funded by governments to finance “climate mitigation and adaptation activities” in emerging markets.

London Energy Brokers’ Association (LEBA)

Warnford Court, 29 Throgmorton Street, London, EC2N 2AT

Source: https://www.leba.org.uk/contact/

LEBA represents broking firms active in the energy industry, and provides support to the industry generally in the areas of regulation and legislation.

3.5 Think tanks

“Think tanks” or “policy institutes” are idea incubators – organisations set up to develop and promote ideas and policies in the service of a particular agenda. They tend to work more behind the scenes: seeking to influence politicians and get stories in the news, but without becoming the story themselves. They promote world views from social democracy to far-right crankery – but given that most are funded by corporations and rich investors, the majority are pushing versions of environmentally-destructive free market capitalism.

Though there are prominent examples going back to the 19^th century and before, the big think tank boom started from the 1950s, spreading from the US. Joe Overton, an employee of one right-wing US think tank in the 1990s, came up with a classic model of their work. The point is that politicians rarely set the agenda themselves – they just choose policies which they think will win votes, within a range of options acceptable to mainstream public opinion. It is the think tanks’ job to shift this “Overton window” of what is politically acceptable, so setting the stage on which politics takes place.

Chatham House (aka Royal Institute of International Affairs)

10 St James’s Square, London, SW1Y 4LE

Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/about/contact

Venerable British institution dating back to 1920. Calls itself “independent”, meaning the middle ground of the establishment elite – two of its three presidents are former Conservative PM John Major, and former Labour treasurer Alastair Darling. Famous for off-the-record briefings held under unattributable “Chatham House Rules”. Hosts more than 300 events a year. Promotes green capitalism and business-led “transition” through its Energy, Environment and Resources research programme, including events starring earth-wrecking company bosses and greenwashing academics. Some of its biggest funding comes from oil majors: Chevron and Shell each gave over £250,000 last year; and ExxonMobil, BP, Glencore over £100,000 apiece.

Institute of Economic Affairs

2 Lord North Street (entrance on Great Peter Street), London, SW1P 3LB
Source: iea.org.uk/contact-us/

A highly influential, hardcore free market think tank that has spent decades attempting to undermine consensus on climate change. One of a number of think tanks set up by Anthony Fisher, Old Etonian battery chicken farm millionaire and right-wing think tank impressario par excellence. Receives funding from corporations including BP.

Adam Smith Institute

23 Great Smith Street, London, SW1P 3DJ
Source: www.adamsmith.org/

Another major neoliberal (self-proclaimed) think tank co-founded by Anthony Fisher. Its policy proposals have been taken up by governments since Thatcher. It has also railed against renewables and greenbelts. Reveals very little about its funding.

Centre for Policy Studies

57 Tufton Street, London, SW1P 3QL
Source: www.cps.org.uk/about/contact-us/

Pro-free market, Tory-supporting think tank co-founded by Margaret Thatcher. Climate change sceptics and v ocal advocates of fracking.

Global Warming Policy Foundation

55 Tufton Street, London, SW1P 3QL
Source: www.thegwpf.org/contact-2/

Climate change denial lobby group founded by former Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson. The GWPF actively fights against efforts to mitigate climate change, as well as advocating for the fracking industry, pushing back against recycling, and claiming that ‘polar bears are thriving’. One of the GWPF’s leading advisers was exposed in an undercover sting for offering to write an academic paper casting doubt on climate change on behalf of an oil company, and promoting C02 as a ‘benefi t, not a pollutant’.

NB: one of a number of right-wing thinktanks which share the same building owned by defence industry businessman Richard Smith. See report on 55 Tufton Street by DesmogUK.

European Foundation

55 Tufton Street, London, SW1P 3QL
europeanfoundation.org/about/

Eurosceptics and climate change deniers, strongly oppose action against climate change and consider it a ‘bandwagon’. Now appears to be primarily the mouthpiece of its founder (Sir) Bill Cash, Tory MP for Stone.

NB: one of a number of right-wing thinktanks which share the same building owned by defence industry businessman Richard Smith. See report on 55 Tufton Street by DesmogUK.

Civitas

First Floor, 55 Tufton Street, London, SW1P 3QL
Source: www.civitas.org.uk/contact-us/

Centre-right, pro-business think tank that has promoted nuclear, coal and fracking. Civitas also produce educational materials, including fact sheets on ‘family and marriage’ aimed at PSHE lessons, which it claims are used in hundreds of UK secondary schools. The organisation also runs supplementary schools for young children. Director David Green built his career at the IEA before moving to Civitas. Civitas has receiv ed funding from Murdoch’s News International group.

NB: one of a number of right-wing thinktanks which share the same building owned by defence industry businessman Richard Smith. See report on 55 Tufton Street by DesmogUK.

Policy Exchange

8-10 Great George Street, London, SW1P 3AE
Source: policyexchange.org.uk/contact-us/

Influential conservative think tank whose ideas have been implemented by successive governments. Advocate market ‘solutions’ and technofixes to climate change, including nuclear.

Initiative for Free Trade

10 Buckingham Street, London, WC2N 6DF

Source: www.ifreetrade.org/contact

Trade-focused think tank founded by Tory MEP Daniel Hannan. True believers in trickle down theory. They claim to have “extensive networks within governments” and aim to “reach out to businesses and interest groups around the world, particularly in developing countries.”
Various former heads of state sit on the advisory board. Collaborates with right-wing US think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute, funded by arch-climate change deniers the Koch brothers.

Spiked Magazine

Wework Aldgate Tower, 2 Leman Street, London, E1 8FA

Source: https://www.spiked-online.com/

Climate change deniers & Greta Thunberg trolls. Once “Living Marxism”, before moving with the zeitgeist to dump trotskyism and become plain pro-establishment provocateurs. Have received significant sums of cash from alt-right-backing billionaires the Koch brothers.

3.5 PR firms

PR firms are trained experts in shaping our ideas and desires. Edward Bernays, the “father of public relations” who helped invent many of today’s PR techniques, frankly described his work as: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses”. Companies, governments, and trade associations hire Bernays’ successors for specialist advice on how to push their agendas and sales. And they bring them in for emergency help to trash or bury negative stories.

See also: Spinwatch, following the UK lobbying and PR worlds since 2005.

Edelman UK

Southside, 105 Victoria St, London, SW1E 6QT

Source: https://www.edelman.co.uk/contact

UK branch of the most profitable PR company in the world. Big promoters of fracking, Edelman has also worked with TransCanada on the Keystone XL pipeline and organisations resisting action on climate change. It was at the centre of controversy in 2014-15 arising from this business line, and lost executives and significant clients as a result. In 2015, Edelman said it was abandoning all work for coal companies, climate change denial lobbyists and front groups. But it still does plenty for oil companies. Other clients include the European Gas Forum, Shell and Unilever.

Lexington Communications

The Connection, 198 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7BD

Source: http://lexcomm.co.uk/about

PR, lobbying, and ‘political intelligence’ firm. Has provided PR for the fracking industry, companies producing GM crops, and pro-biotech front groups.

See also: Spinwatch profile (March 2018).

Omnicom Group

Bankside 3, 90-100 Southwark Street, London, SE1 0SW

Source: https://www.omnicomgroup.com/contact-us/

Holding company and enormous global PR conglomerate. Owns a list of PR fims including: Ketchum, Kreab, GPLUS, Portland, Fleishman Hillard.

Newgate communications

Sky Light City Tower, 50 Basinghall Street, London, EC2V 5DE

Source: https://www.newgatecomms.com/contact-us

PR firm for energy companies, described by Spinwatch as a “longstanding fracking industry lobbyist”.

3.6 Greenwashing services

With the rise of environmental concern and regulation, polluting companies need to keep up compliance and a clean image. This creates new business niches for third parties who operate specialist PR schemes to help them do this. This section lists just a few examples of such greenwash entrepreneurs.

The Climate Group

2^nd Floor, Riverside Building, County Hall, Belvedere Rd, London, SE1 7PB

Source: https://www.theclimategroup.org/contact-us

An “international non-profit” that promotes greenwashing initiatives it calls “business actions”: e.g., its RE100 list of leading companies who “commit to using 100% renewable fuels” – by 2050. The corporates in this scheme turn out to include many names on our list. For example, banks and investment managers like AEG, Allianz, Citi, Goldman Sachs, or HSBC (to name just a few) who are amongst the world’s biggest funders of fossil fuels, plus world-class polluters like Tata and Unilever.

Environmental Defense Fund

1st Floor, Bank Chambers, 6 Borough High Street, London, SE1 9QQ

Source: https://www.edf.org/offices/europe

US charity with big business and government connections. Works on “partnership” schemes in which corporates help “solve” environmental problems and so present themselves as sustainability heroes: e.g., sending a project team to work with McDonalds and reduce its plastic waste. Has promoted the gas industry as a “transition fuel” away from coal.

Natural Capital Partners

167 Fleet St, Holborn, London, EC4A 2EA

Source: https://www.naturalcapitalpartners.com/contact-us

Carbon offsetting fixer. Helps polluting companies get “CarbonNeutral® certification” and hooks them up with emission offset schemes – e.g, planting trees, or “renewable energy certificates (RECs)” – so they can meet their sustainability targets.

Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI)

Suite 1, 3rd Floor 11-12 St. James’s Square, London, SW1Y 4LB

Source: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC415130

NB: Registered address. This is a current official company address; but it is not confirmed that it is an operational site rather than just a “letterbox”.

Greenwash initiative set up by the world’s biggest oil and gas companies – both the nationals such as Saudi Aramco and the private sector supermajors. It includes both a lobbying policy wing and a $1+ billion fund to invest in “innovative startups to lower the carbon footprints of the energy and industrial sectors”. One of its main objectives is to “jumpstart” the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) industry.

Who is immigration policy for? (Full report)

Corporate Watch — Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:10:17 +0000

Download this report as a PDF document.

What really drives the “Hostile Environment”?

For 20 years UK governments have continually introduced new immigration control measures, each more vicious than the last. The Conservatives’ current Hostile Environment approach (see our detailed report on how it works) builds on Blair’s legacy. Labour passed five major immigration acts in 1999-2009, dramatically expanding the detention and deportation system and making swingeing attacks on asylum rights.

The official aim of all these policies is “control”: whether that means simply cutting numbers, or making sure only the “right” kinds of immigrants enter. But, in those terms, none of these clampdowns actually work. Migration figures continue to rise, while the ineffectiveness of vicious Immigration Enforcement measures is an open secret amongst Home Office officials. The level of resources – and violence – required to really seal borders would go well beyond anything yet seen.

This report examines the following key points:

Immigration policy isn’t really about controlling migration, it’s about making a show of control. It is a spectacle, an emotional performance. In practice, this means attacking a few scapegoats seen as “low value” by business – often, the very weakest migrants, such as refugees, so-called “illegals”, or others without the right documents.
The primary audiences for the spectacle of immigration control are specific “target publics”: some older white people who are key voters and media consumers, and who have high anxiety about migration – but who only make up around 20% of the population.
Policies are drawn up by politicians and advisors in close interaction with big media. Political and media elites share a dense “ecology of ideas”, and anti-migrant clampdowns are part of their internal jostling for power – votes, promotions, audience share.
Migration scares and clampdowns are part of a broader pattern – the anxiety engine that drives much of politics today, fuelled by stories of threat and control.

Some implications

How can we counter the anti-migrant propaganda machine? This analysis calls into question some approaches currently popular in pro-migrant campaigning. Campaigners often aim to get alternative views and voices into the liberal media sphere, trying to influence the “public debate” on migration. But there is no “public debate on immigration”: this idea is a charade that obscures how power really works. There is no one public, but many different people often having quite separate conversations. And it’s not a debate, it’s a propaganda war, fought not with facts and reasons but with emotive stories. As Conservative campaign guru Lynton Crosby says: “when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins”.

Right-wing politicians and propagandists, at least the clever ones, are well aware of these points. They understand who they need to talk to, and how they need to talk to them. This isn’t to say we should copy their strategies, as indeed our aims and values are very different. But to strategise effectively, first we need to understand how the enemy works.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: what is immigration policy for?

2. From Public Opinion to Target Publics

3. Politicians: immigration and elections

4. Politicians: Home Office agendas

5. Media and politicians: a dense ecosystem

6. Media and people: communication power

11. Conclusion: thoughts for resistance

image from antiraids network

1. Introduction: what is immigration policy for?

It doesn’t “work”

UK immigration policy is usually presented by politicians in terms of one objective: “getting control” over the flow of immigrants. But one thing is apparent: if the objective is control, immigration policy doesn’t work.

Most obviously, numbers have not gone down. Net migration to the UK has been positive in every year since 1994, and over the current target of 100,000 in every year since 1997, peaking at over 300,000 in 2014 and 2015. Recent decline has not been caused by Home Office measures but by one big unanticipated factor – Brexit scaring off EU immigrants.

As an example, let’s take a mainstay of Home Office Immigration Enforcement within the UK territory – raids on people working illegally. The Home Office carries out around 6,000 workplace raids each year, and makes around 5,000 arrests, half of which lead to deportations. For obvious reasons, there are no reliable figures on numbers of illegal workers – but reasonable estimates put the figure at least in the hundreds of thousands. Immigration Enforcement thus has little impact on the numbers of “illegal workers”.

This point is widely acknowledged, in private, by Home Office staff from top to bottom. The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI)’s 2015 report on “Illegal Working” features candid interviews with both frontline officers and senior civil servants. To quote a typical example:

“A senior Home Office manager told us that there was a general awareness within [Immigration Enforcement] that enforcement visits encountered and removed only a small proportion of offenders and that IE would never have the resources to resolve the overall problem. They described it as ‘not a realistic working model’. Another senior manager commented: ‘It’s a business model that hasn’t moved on’.” (para 4.7)

New research from the University of Oxford’s COMPAS unit looks at this issue in greater depth. The “Does Immigration Enforcement Matter?” research project conducted numerous interviews with Home Office staff of different grades. The overwhelming picture is of an institution with extremely low morale, where officials are well aware of their lack of impact.

The current “Hostile Environment” policy, first introduced by Theresa May as home secretary, could be read as a new approach seeking to make immigration enforcement more effective whilst recognising the Home Office’s limited resources. The rationale: if it’s not possible to round up all the illegals, then creating “a really hostile environment for illegal migrants” through limiting “access to services, facilities and employment by reference to immigration status” will help control migration by acting as a deterrent. As they feel the chill, unwelcome people will opt to leave the country independently or through paid “voluntarily return” programmes. Others, hearing what Britain has become, will decide not to come in the first place.

As there are not enough Immigration Enforcers to create sufficient hostility alone, the policy aims to enlist ordinary citizens into a volunteer army of informers and collaborators. School teachers, doctors, nurses and hospital receptionists, charity workers, registry office staff, bank clerks, as well as employers, landlords and letting agents, supply Big Data to better guide enforcement operations. And they also take over enforcement roles themselves by directly policing access to housing, healthcare, education and bank accounts.

The Hostile Environment is dramatically reshaping aspects of Britain’s civil society – but how successful is it really as an immigration deterrent? Despite the rhetoric of “evidence led” policy, there are no official studies evaluating these measures’ effectiveness. The most comprehensive research on the subject so far is the COMPAS project noted above. Researchers also interviewed “irregular” migrants of different nationalities, asking about their experiences and perceptions of immigration enforcement. This research suggests that many migrants are certainly aware of such measures, and are affected by them – above all psychologically, living with high levels of fear and anxiety. But there is little evidence, so far, that this psychic pain actually pushes many people to leave.

Immigration enforcement makes people miserable. But miserable enough to return to situations of still more extreme poverty and insecurity, or war and repression back “home”? Hostility would have to be ramped up to a truly intense level to adequately deter people, in a world where the sub-minimum wages and other conditions of life accessible to many “illegals” in the UK are still preferable than those found in its former colonies or its warzones.

The UK’s ultimate “hostile environment” experiment is on the border in Calais. Here the British and French governments spend millions to make people’s lives a living hell – and still people keep arriving, their other choices being so desperate.

So what is it really for?

Why do Home Office politicians and bureaucrats keep pursuing immigration enforcement policies if they know they don’t work? Here are a few ideas:

Ineffective policies are “better” than none at all. Policy-makers know that immigration control policies are weak instruments, but think having none at all would lead to an even worse outcome, i.e., even higher immigration. Immigration policy is like continually patching up a leaking building with half-useless tools.
They just don’t have any better ideas. Home Secretaries and their advisers have to be seen to do something, and the best they can think of is to keep proposing new measures even while knowing they won’t succeed.
Actually, immigration control policies do work – but the real objective is not what it’s officially said to be.

There may be some truth in all of these, but we’re going to concentrate on the third answer. Immigration policy makes a lot more sense if you judge it against different criteria than cutting numbers. That is: the effective aim is not actually to control immigration, but just to look like you are taking steps to control it. It is a spectacle, a performance, of control. So then we have the question: who is this performance aimed at?

“public opinion”

The immediate answer, if you listen to politicians talk, is “the public”. This is a standard line from policy-makers and civil servants: “we have to respond to public opinion”. This answer is common across the political spectrum. On the Left, it may be prefaced: “we don’t really oppose immigration, but …”

The story is: public opinion is inescapably in favour of strict immigration control, so all policy-makers need to start from this given, or face political suicide. But what, exactly, is public opinion? Who, exactly, is the public?

These terms are thrown around very lightly, but are actually very complex. In fact there are millions of people in the UK, with millions of different opinions. Nor are they all communicating with each other as part of one “public debate”. When politicians talk about “public opinion” they are not talking about this enormous diversity of views, but about those views they consider particularly important. In the next section we will explore the nature of “public opinion” on immigration in depth.

image from antiraids network

2. From Public Opinion to Target Publics

Opinion polls give a crude perspective on the range of views people hold, and are skewed towards certain types of people who participate. More fundamentally still, individuals’ thoughts, feelings, motivations, can hardly be summed up in multiple choice boxes. But still, polls are the only tools we have for trying to understand massive numbers of people’s attitudes. We’ll start with an overview of some key facts from immigration opinion surveys.

2.1. most people say immigration should go down

The polls are consistent on one point: most UK citizens say they want immigration to be reduced.

A recent long-term study of immigration attitudes by major polling firm Ipsos MORI, “Shifting Ground”, finds that “Britons are becoming more positive about immigration”. In March 2015, 43% people said that immigration had a negative impact on Britain, and 33% said a positive impact. But by October 2016, those proportions had reversed: now 43% though immigration was positive, opposed to 32% negative. But despite that, 60% still said it should be reduced – little different from 62% in 2015. In fact, according to Ipsos MORI:

“this is a common feature of immigration attitudes in the UK over many decades: despite significant ups and downs in actual migration figures and how top of mind a concern it is, our review of historical attitudes to immigration shows that there are always 60%+ who want immigration reduced.”

2.2. it matters – but how much?

We need to separate two points: what people feel – or say they feel when asked by an interviewer; and how much it actually matters to them.

Immigration scares are nothing new to Britain. But the current wave of anxiety over immigration really started around the year 2000. Ipsos MORI has carried out its Issues Index every month since the early 1970s. The survey asks people two questions: “what they believe the biggest single issue facing Britain is” and “other big issues they believe are facing the country.” Another Ipsos MORI report from 2013, called Perceptions and Reality: Shifting Public Attitudes to Immigration, studies the results over almost 40 years.

For most of that time, less than 10% of respondents mentioned immigration as an issue. This changed in the “immigration panic” at the end of the 1970s: over 25% named immigration as important in 1978-9. But that panic didn’t last, and the figure fell back below 10% in 1980, where it stayed for 20 years, apart from a brief spike in 1985. Health, defence, crime, and above all “the economy” remained the traditional political concerns.

In 1999, with more people around the world leaving the countries of their birth, the numbers of people concerned about immigration in Britain started to jump, and since 2001 at least 20% of respondents have named immigration as an important issue in almost every monthly survey. So far, the peak of the new panic was in 2006-2008, where over 40% regularly did so. In 16 months in these three years, immigration was the number one issue named. Then in 2009, with the credit crunch and recession, “the economy” retook its traditional position as top issue. But immigration has stayed up there, with a recent peak of 38% in August 2013. As of December 2017, the figure had dropped to 21%. One reason is that a new issue, Brexit, has taken over as the top concern.

2.3. it’s complicated

So what has caused that jump in immigration anxiety? An obvious explanation might be: because immigration has been going up. And that’s certainly a factor: the polling data indeed shows a clear positive correlation between immigration levels and the “Issues Index”.

But it’s not the only factor. For example, the overall immigration level doesn’t explain why things started to move around 2000, when immigrant numbers were already rising before this. Or why there were previous shorter “panics” in the 1970s and 80s, when immigration was much lower than now. Also, looking at opinion polls across Europe, Ipsos MORI point out that there “is virtually no relationship between levels of net migration and concern across the EU27 countries (and the same is true for every measure of stock or flow of migration or immigration that we examined).”

It’s not just that people are more worried when there is more immigration. There are other important factors at play here.

2.4. a few people are very worried indeed

Another measure of immigration concern is the “MPs’ Survey”, where MPs record the “postbag” of issues brought to them by constituents. This shows an even steeper rise of concerns about immigration. In the mid-80s, less than 10% of issues raised by constituents were about immigration. This began to change in the late 1980s, and in 1992 over 20% of issues were migration related. Since 2002, at least 40% of all constituent contacts with MPs have been about migration. In 2006, at the highest point, just under 80% were about immigration.

We can note two points here: constituent concerns started to escalate some years before the “general” attitudes surveyed in the Issues Index; and then they climbed to much higher levels. While around 20% of the overall population now generally think of immigration as a political issue, a smaller segment have become particularly vocal, including making the effort of going to their MPs.

2.5. who’s worrying?

older people

Concern about immigration is strongly linked to age. All “generations” have become more concerned since the 1990s, but, for example, in 2013, 40% of people born pre-1945 saw immigration as an issue, compared to 38% of “baby boomers” (born 1945-65), 30% of “generation Y” (1966-79), and only 22% of “millennials (1980-2000). It is also extremely relevant here that older people are much more likely to vote – and to contact their MPs.

lower middle

Immigration anxiety is also related to social class, but the effect is less strong than with age. In fact, until 2000, Issues Index surveys saw minimal differences between social classes in migration attitudes. Since then, there is a clear trend of “skilled manual workers” (called “C2”s) being particularly concerned about migration – an extra 5% or more people in this group are likely to name immigration as an issue. Differences amongst other classes are smaller and less consistent, although concern tends to be lowest at the extremes – “professionals” (A) and “unskilled workers” (E). Very roughly speaking, immigration worry is strongest amongst the lower middle and skilled working classes.

geography

77% of the total population agreed, when asked by pollsters in 2013, that immigration should be reduced a little or a lot. This was true of the majority of white British people in all areas of the country – but the proportions varied a lot by area. The lowest agreement was in areas classed by pollsters as “cosmopolitan London” – where 68% agree. This compares to 85% of white British people living in “new, large freestanding and commuter towns”, “migrant worker towns and countryside” and “low migration small towns and rural areas”, and 84% in “industrial and manufacturing towns”. In “asylum dispersal areas” – which are impoverished areas predominantly in the North and Midlands – 83% agree with reduced migration; and 67%, the highest proportion, think it should be reduced “a lot”.

immigrants can also be anti-immigration

Anti-immigration feeling also exists amongst immigrants. It is closely correlated to how long people have lived in the UK. 70% of immigrants who arrived before 1970 also agreed that immigration should be reduced; only 28% of those who arrived after 2006 did.

segmentation analysis

To bring together some of these demographic factors, pollsters use a technique called “segmentation” analysis, which involves identifying loose groupings of people who tend to share both similar characteristics and similar views. We will mention two notable segmentation studies.

In 2013 the Conservative pollster Lord Ashcroft conducted a detailed study on immigration opinion based on a poll of 20,000 people, called “Small Island: public opinion and the politics of immigration”. This broke down interviewees into seven “segments”. At one end of the spectrum is a “universal hostility” segment (16% of respondents); at the other a “militantly multicultural” pro-migration segment (10%).

In between, there are two segments who may not be outspokenly pro-migration, but don’t see it as an important issue. One is the “urban harmony” (9%) grouping, mainly young and ethnically diverse, who frame their issues in terms of the economy, jobs and public services, rather than immigration. The other are the “comfortable pragmatists” (22%), well-educated and well-off people who don’t particularly feel migration either as a threat or a benefit to them.

The other three segments all have concerns about migration, but for different reasons. The “cultural concerns” group (16%) are usually older people, often owner-occupiers, who talk about immigration in terms of social change and a threat to the British way of life. The “fighting for entitlements” group (12%), also generally older than average and with less education, are concerned about pressures on public services. The “competing for jobs” segment makes up 14%.

Ipsos MORI’s analysis in “Shifting Ground” is broadly similar. It identifies four segments:

A strongly “anti immigration group” (28%), often opposed to migration on numerous grounds, including “immigrants taking away welfare services and jobs”, but also because they are “nostalgic for the past”. “Older, lower levels of education. Social renters. Highest support for UKIP. Voted heavily to Leave.”
A relatively hostile “Comfortably off and culturally concerned” segment (23%) These “don’t feel personally threatened by immigration” but are worried about its impacts on a changing society. “Oldest group, retired, most likely to own house outright. Highest support for Tories. Split on EU referendum vote.”
The “Under Pressure” 25% may say that “other people get priority over them for public services and immigrants get priority over jobs”. But immigration isn’t the main thing they blame – their biggest concern is “the economy”. “Youngest age group, highest number of part time workers.” “Politically disparate and highest group of undecided voters. Marginally more Remain than Leave.”
The “Open to Immigration” segment (24%) is “Well educated, highest group of private renters. Highest group of Labour supporters. Mostly voted Remain.”

image: asylum dispersal areas – G4S accommodation in Sheffield, by John Grayson

2.6. cultural vs. economic concerns

The segmentation analysis suggests three kinds of ways that people worry about immigration:

Some people have strong anti-immigration feelings in general. They may cite a range of reasons for concern, including both “cultural” and “practical” or economic issues. But their anti-migrant feeling goes deeper than any of these particular reasons.
Some people’s anti-immigration worry is closely linked to “cultural concerns” – they feel immigration as a threat to an accustomed “way of life”. This is particularly true for older white British people. Many people who fear immigration in this way are comfortably off, and don’t personally feel economically threatened by immigration.
Some people may worry about economic or practical impacts, e.g., feel they have to compete with immigrants for jobs, housing or benefits, without fearing cultural change from “diversity”. These kinds of concerns may be heard from younger people who live in diverse urban areas, and may come from migrant backgrounds themselves.

One important point, noted by Ipsos MORI, is that “cultural” worries about immigration seem to be stronger than “economic” worries. Many inner city workers who feel themselves directly competing with migrants tend to be less anti-immigration than “comfortably off” suburbanites who worry about migration as a threat to a way of life. When asked, they may agree immigration should be reduced. But they are more likely to think of “the economy” as the main problem.

This point is also argued by Scott Blinder of Oxford University’s Migration Observatory in a 2011 briefing on “UK Public Opinion toward Migration: Determinants of Attitudes”. He writes:

“At least three basic explanations of attitudes toward migration have been researched extensively:

Contact theory holds that sustained positive contact (i.e. friendships) with members of other ethnic, religious, racial, or national groups produce more positive attitudes toward members of that group.
Group conflict theory suggests that migrants or minority groups can appear to threaten the interests, identities, or status of the majority (as a group), and that those who feel this sense of threat most acutely will be most likely to oppose migration.
Economic competition theories suggest that opposition to migration will come from native workers who compete with migrants with similar skill sets, or (conversely) from wealthier natives who feel (or perceive) a financial burden for tax-payers if migrants use public services such as hospitals, schools.”

Reviewing the survey evidence and literature at that point, Blinder concludes that: “Evidence is quite strong for the first two theories, and mixed for the various economic explanations.” In particular:

“Subjective perceptions—of one’s own economic security and of migrants’ impact on jobs, wages, and the costs of maintaining the welfare state—do seem related to anti-migrant attitudes. But these subjective perceptions are only loosely related to actual individual economic position.”

image: middle England – the 1922 Daily Mail model village at Welwyn Garden City, by Steve Cadman CC license

2.7. whose problem?

The Ipsos MORI Perceptions and Reality report makes another very important, and related, point. Most people who think immigration is a problem don’t think it is a problem for them personally, or for their local area.

Surveying by Eurobarometer, cited in the Ipsos MORI report, asks people for their two top issues “nationally” and “personally”. In various surveys over 2008-13, between 18% and 32% of people in the UK named immigration as a national issue; but only between 6% and 10% said it was a personal issue. Similarly, across the EU27 countries, between 7% and 9% named immigration as a national issue, but never more than 4% as a personal issue.

A similar picture emerges from some of Ipsos MORI’s own polling between 2006 and 2010. This asked the question:

“Overall how much of a problem, if at all, do you think immigration is in Britain at the moment? And how much of a problem, if at all, do you think immigration is in your local area at the moment?”

Consistently across this period, they found a dramatic 50% gap between the two answers. At the highest point of concern, in November 2010, 77% said they thought immigration was a problem in Britain. But only 26% thought it was also a problem in their “local area” as well as nationally. (8% thought it was a problem locally but not nationally, and 22% neither.) As the pollsters say, “these types of gaps exist in other policy areas, such as crime and health services – but they are particularly striking with immigration.”

Many people’s worries about immigration do not arise from personal experiences, or from what they see in the areas where they live. For many, we could say, immigration worry is not about concrete problems we experience directly impacting us or those around us. It is something more abstract: a fearful sense of “cultural change”, a narrative of loss and threat, felt to be affecting “the country” as a whole.

2.8 summary

Most British people, when asked by pollsters, say they think immigration should be reduced. But this doesn’t mean that most people think of immigration as a significant problem.

Some people are really concerned about immigration – and their number has been rising, from less than 10% of the population before 2000, to more like 20% now. Some of these people feel very strongly, and are very vocal. Also, they are often people who are likely to vote, and to contact their MPs.

We can think of two main groupings of people who are most likely to worry about immigration – two anti-migrant minorities. Both are typically older and white. But their social circumstances may be quite different:

Typically older, white, working class people hit hard by poverty and social tension, often living in run-down neighbourhoods in the North or Midlands with large migrant populations, including “asylum dispersal areas”. Excluded from the economic consumer dream, they may feel directly impacted by immigrants, identifying them as a threat to jobs, services, benefits. But they also feel immigration as a “cultural concern” – a feeling reinforced by personal experience of seeing their neighbourhoods changed by new arrivals. Economic and cultural concerns may build together into a deeply felt “universal hostility” towards immigrants.
Typically older, white, middle class people, often living in suburban or rural areas. They may be more or less comfortably off, and do not perceive immigration as a personal threat – maybe they rarely meet migrants except those serving them a curry. But they feel anxiety about immigration as a cultural concern, a threat to their values and identity.

Some of those who worry about migrants are excluded from mainstream society and blame migrants for their troubles. Others are comfortably included. The common factor across these two groupings is not economics, or personal experience, but a more generalised anxiety about migration as a cultural threat. Where does this anxiety come from?

image: Tony Blair, by World Affairs Council CC license

3. Politicians: immigration and elections

Politicians live off the approval of others. In the next three sections we look at three ways in which the quest for approval shapes immigration policy. First, in this section, we will see parties seeking the support of key “target publics” in election campaigns. When it comes to immigration, we will see that the target voters politicians look to in election campaigns are above all the anti-migrant minorities noted above. At the same time, politicians are also deeply concerned with approval from their own peers, and from the media, as they seek to advance their careers. We will look at these issues in the next two sections.

3.1 Election strategies: target voters

No policy is going to please everyone. But politicians don’t need to please all the people – just those whose support matters for their success. By “target publics” we mean groupings of people whose approval policy-makers are aiming to win, when they make policies.

How aware are politicians of who they are targeting? This is an interesting question, though not one we can tackle here. As a rough thought, we can suppose that much of the time effective politicians have an intuitive idea of the target groups they need to reach. But there is at least one time when politicians need to identify target publics much more precisely: during election campaigning. In modern election campaigns, intuition and unguided prejudices are supplemented by more sophisticated techniques. Understanding election targeting can at least give us a start to understanding “target publics” in general.

Who are the decision-makers?

Here there is no better guide than the (in)famous “wizard of Oz” Lynton Crosby, known in the UK for the 2005 and 2015 Conservative election campaigns, as well as Boris Johnson’s mayoral victory. However, Crosby’s techniques are by no means exceptional, and similar approaches are now the norm across the political spectrum. As Crosby explains in a “campaign masterclass”, the core of any successful campaign is identifying the crucial decision-makers. “Who is the target, who matters? What matters to them? Where are they? How do you get to them?” Most basically, this means identifying three types of voters:

the base: those you can rely on to support you
the antis: the opposition’s base
the swingers: people who could be persuaded either way

Campaigning is all about maximising the use of limited resources: money, activists, and time. None of these should be wasted on trying to persuade committed antis – the best you can hope for is to discourage them. So the campaign consists of, first, “locking in” the base; second, targeting those voters identified as most likely “swingers”. In the UK, those swingers are particularly important in so-called ‘marginal’ constituencies.

For example, in the 2015 UK general election the Conservative “40/40” strategy identified 40 defence seats, the Tory marginals where they needed to lock in existing voters, and 40 attack seats identified as potential swings to the party. The bulk of the party’s “ground” campaign – including thousands of bussed-in canvassers, local advertising and targeted direct mail-outs – was directed at just these 80 seats.

A massive data gathering operation, planned two years before the actual election, involved door-knocking not just to classify every voter as pro or anti-, but using a ten point questionnaire to make a detailed profile of each individual. Unpublished opinion polling continued throughout in the 80 seats, while information collected in-house was supplemented with commercial databases, including from the big credit rating and consumer profiling corporation Experian.²According to one account:

“Behind closed doors, [chief campaign pollster Jim] Messina boasts that he has 1,000 pieces of data on every voter in the U.K., one admiring Tory official revealed. […] Messina knows where every target voter shops, what they buy, how they travel to work — and much more besides.”

All of this data was crunched to provide a highly detailed picture of the key voter “segments” to be targeted. These targets were then hit with precise messages, differentiated both in terms of issues and of delivery (e.g., email, phone, text, hand-signed letter, doorstep visit).

As many noted after the 2015 result, this local propaganda effort went largely unnoticed by London-based media pundits – and by many opinion polls. They saw only the nationwide “public campaign”, or “air war” – the impact of big politicians’ speeches and television appearances, the famous Saatchi billboards and national advertising campaigns. They missed the “ground war” taking place “below the line”. While the public “broadcasting” campaign set the main campaign messages, an equally crucial role was played by “narrowcasting” which didn’t talk to one great “general public”, but to highly targeted segments in specific marginal constituencies.

(Another increasingly important form of “narrowcasting”, much in the news due to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, involves the use of facebook and other social media data. But we shouldn’t forget that this is just one aspect of the political use of Big Data.)

Differentiating issues

Crosby is famous for insisting that parties focus on just a small number of key issues – “scrape the barnacles off the boat”. Although this stripped-down messaging can misfire – as in the 2017 election where Theresa May looked like a vacuous robot endlessly repeating her “strong and stable” mantra. Crosby gives a four point test for identifying issues to campaign on:

Salience: “is it out there and people are talking about it”?

Relevance: “is it personally relevant, [does] it relate to people and their lives”?

Differentiation: can you use it to “set yourself apart from your opponent”?

Actionable: it lead people to want to vote a certain way.

Connecting this to the points above, the issues must be ones that matter to your specific target publics. So the campaign strategy asks: what issues are these target voters talking about, and what issues do they feel emotionally connected to? And it’s important to remember here that “there are lots of things people disagree or agree with but have no influence on people’s vote.” E.g., people may agree immigration is too high, but is this something that will bring them out to vote?

Beyond this, an issue will only work if you can use it to differentiate from the opposition, to say you’re the ones who are on the targets’ side on this – unlike the other lot. The aim is to downplay or “minimise points of differentiation on issues where you are weak”, and “establish differentiation on your terms”, highlighting the issues that make your story stand out.

Of course, a campaign may have a number of different target groups, each with different issues. “These days you will get caught out”, says Crosby, if you try to tell completely different stories to different groups. The trick is to use the public “broadcast” campaign to “set up your overall position” with “messages designed to appeal to everybody”. And then use the targeted “narrowcast” campaign to direct more “fine tuned and relevant messages to particular groups”.

Finally, besides manifestos and campaign literature, there are also more subtle ways parties can flag up their issues and stories. For example, Crosby advises focusing only on “positive” campaigning in official propaganda. Negative attacks on opponents are best done by using “proxies”, i.e., let other actors, such as friendly media outlets, raise the stories and issues that fling mud on the opponents, while your own hands stay looking clean.

Now we can look at some of these strategic basics in action over the last 20 years of immigration politics.

3.2 UK immigration politics 1997-2017

When Blair came to power in 1997, immigration was not an issue on either of the main party’s agendas, nor did it feature in “public opinion” lists of political issues. Labour’s pitch was based on five pledges concerning education, the NHS, crime and punishment, youth employment, and frozen tax rates. In so far as Labour had an immigration narrative, it was to ape Tory rhetoric: then shadow home secretary Jack Straw famously said in 1996 that “not a cigarette paper” should separate the two parties on immigration.

The climate began to shift from 1999, beginning with fevered media reporting of Sangatte and the “asylum crisis”. Polling on immigration as an issue for “public opinion” began to rise. Yet in 2001, Labour effectively ignored immigration as an election issue, focusing again on an updated list of the same five issues. In 2005, for the first time immigration was explicitly added as a sixth election pledge, under the slogan “Your country’s borders protected.”

It made good sense for Labour not to flag up immigration as an electoral issue. It was one of the few policy areas where opinion polls saw the Tories firmly ahead of Blair. The election strategy was thus clearly to “neutralise” on immigration and shift attention onto stronger ground.

However, beyond electioneering, Labour Home Secretaries did make clear efforts to respond to anti-immigration public opinion with a quick succession of tough new laws. These were: the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (following the 2002 “Secure Borders, Safe Haven” white paper); Asylum and Immigration (treatment of claimants) Act 2004; Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.

This pace of successive anti-migrant laws was unprecedented in UK history. But the most obvious feature was that they focused on a particular category of migrants: asylum-seekers. In essence, they made life ever tougher for refugees by making asylum claims harder, removing support, and expanding the detention regime – funded, of course, by Labour’s favoured PFI schemes. Besides asylum, they also added in headline-grabbing measures against “sham marriages”, “foreign criminals”, or “terrorists” seeking asylum.

The Labour government’s immigration policy might be summed up quite succinctly:

true to neoliberal principles, Labour remained relatively liberal on immigration seen as economically beneficial: e.g., workers, European free movement, and the booming foreign student business;
meanwhile, in an attempt to assuage anti-immigration sentiment – that is, to neutralise immigration as an issue for opponents – Labour made spectacular attacks on asylum seekers, who were migrants seen as not of economic value, and so available scapegoats.

This double approach did begin to change towards the very end of the “New Labour” period under Brown. The party began to move away from its more overt immigration neoliberalism with the “Points Based System” for non-asylum entrants, rolled out from 2008.

Conservative opposition: “are you thinking what we’re thinking?”

Despite the attacks on refugees, Labour’s overall immigration policy was still seen as too “soft” by some voters. In the 2001 and 2005 general elections, Conservative challengers William Hague and Michael Howard attempted to capitalise on this by deploying immigration as an election issue.

In 2001, Hague made immigration – and the asylum scare in particular – one of his top three issues, alongside tax cuts and Europe (“saving the pound”). But the attempt was notably unsuccessful in making inroads against the Blair machine.

In 2005, Howard again played the immigration card, alongside crime and hospitals. The campaign was run by Lynton Crosby, hired after a notable run of successes for the Australian right-wing Liberals, which had centralised anti-migration anxiety. The slogans “are you thinking what we’re thinking?”, “it’s not racist to impose limits on immigration”, epitomised the “dog whistle” tactic – framing messages in a way to chime with certain target publics, whilst avoiding open hostility that might offend others.

Polling suggested that the Tories had a strong lead over Labour on immigration. But Labour still beat them on all the other main issues: by a long way on health and education, and even slightly at that point on traditional Tory issues of tax and crime. And immigration was only fourth on the list of “salient” issues. It may well have made sense for the Tories to flag immigration: it was one of very few issues where they clearly stood out from, and beat, Labour at that point. However, many commentators argue that the strategy only really reached the Conservatives’ own base, rather than the swing voters they needed to win over.

Conservatives under Cameron: detoxifying

After 2005 the new leader, David Cameron, tacked back to the centre ground. The plan was to target “small l liberal” swing voters, which required “detoxifying” the “nasty party” by rolling back on the right-wing messages. The 2010 election campaign was fought on the economy, again a winnable issue for the Tories after the 2008 crash. The 2015 campaign continued the economy and austerity story, but became largely a full-on assault on Ed Milliband’s weakness, from his bacon sandwich issues to his potential dependence on a coalition with the SNP.

However, as Tim Bale and co-authors write, Cameron managed to “have his cake and eat it” on immigration in the run-up to 2010. Leaving immigration out of the broadcast campaign package helped reassure the “small l liberals”. But in fact the party could still gain from the immigration issue, largely thanks to “proxies” who would flag it up for them. In the “long campaign” before official electioneering, backbench Tory MPs did the job of making more outspoken anti-migrant comments, which could then be gleefully amplified by right-wing media, without implicating Cameron’s leadership.

In the 2010 campaign itself, the notable example was Bigotgate , when Gordon Brown was unwittingly recorded calling a pensioner who had complained to him about immigration numbers a “bigoted woman”. With the media frenziedly running the issue, there was no need for party leaders to introduce it themselves. Thus the Tories managed to attract anti-migrant voters, whilst at the same time not alienating “liberals”.

In the 2015 election, there were further reasons for the Conservatives not to flag immigration. Key to the Tories’ aim of winning an outright majority was “decapitating” Lib-Dem support, and the main battleground switched to Tory/Lib-Dem marginals – meaning even greater need to attract “small l liberals”. On the other flank, UKIP had become a real electoral problem, and it was now they who “owned” immigration among many target publics. Not only because UKIP would always use tougher rhetoric, but also simply because the Conservatives were now in government, and so faced the inevitable fact that they can’t actually keep migration “under control”.

Labour in opposition: apologies

Labour did not have to worry too much about its immigration weak point so long as it led the Tories on other more salient policy issues, including the economy. After 2010, with its economic reputation smashed, it no longer felt this luxury. Under Milliband, the party took a new approach, symbolised by its infamous “controls on immigration” branded mugs: it would embrace a “tough” stance on overall immigration, which involved apologising for its previous “mistakes”.

In the wake of defeat, Labour strategists were finally waking up to the idea that the party needed to reconnect with working class voters taken for granted by Blairism. Groupings such as Prospect , the Fabian Society , and the Blue Labour tendency, were influential in arguing that the way to do this was to cleave to “socially conservative” and nationalistic values.

This attitude was galvanised by the threat from UKIP, growing in the build-up to the 2015 election. Although so far UKIP had done more damage to the Conservatives, a 2014 Fabian Society report identified five Labour seats as under direct threat from UKIP victories – and, more importantly, a greater number where losing votes to UKIP would let in Conservatives.

the battle for UKIP voters

Throughout recent decades, the mainstream parties have worried about losing votes on immigration to smaller parties emerging from the “far right”. In the 1970s, it was the National Front; in the 1990s, the British National Party; and recently, UKIP. Although UKIP’s official main issue was independence from the EU, their growth in support in 2010-16 largely came from positioning themselves as an anti-immigration protest vote. In the run-up to the June 2016 referendum, immigration was the number one reason people gave for deciding to vote Leave.

Ahead of the 2015 election, losing votes to UKIP was a crucial issue for both Conservatives and Labour. Labour’s strategy guidance on “Campaigning against UKIP”, leaked and published by The Telegraph, makes clear that “Immigration is the issue people most often cite when explaining support for UKIP.” Like the Conservatives, Labour based its “ground war” on the Experian Mosaic database, alongside in-house research, and the document analyses UKIP’s support using Experian categories.

According to this analysis, UKIP’s main target public was “older traditionalist” voters, who make up approximately 23% of the population. This category is broken down into four Mosaic groups: D “small town diversity”, E “active retirement”, L “elderly needs” and M “industrial heritage”. D and E are more affluent segments of older people who usually tend Conservative. That is, they are the key “comfortable but culturally concerned” demographic of anti-migrant “public opinion” we looked at in Section 2.

L and M are older, white working class people, classic Labour targets – that is, the other key anti-migrant demographic we looked at. The absolute model of a UKIP switcher was “White, Male, Aged 47 – 66, Further education – not university educated, Mosaic Type 42 – ‘Worn Out Workers’, Lives in Yorkshire.” In addition, Labour identified two other Mosaic categories – called J “claimant cultures” and I “ex-council communities” – of younger traditionally Labour voters who were also in danger of UKIP’s lure.

These four Mosaic categories became Labour’s main target publics in seats identified as UKIP threats. Campaigners were instructed to “listen to their concerns” and explain Labour’s new hardline policies on immigration, then steer conversation onto “our key policies”. In order not to alienate pro-migrant base voters, a tough line on immigration was not a major part of the “broadcast” message, but only flagged to specific target publics as part of the “ground war”.

To sum up: Labour’s campaigning effort in 2015 was largely directed at the particular demographics we discussed above in Section 2. The “public campaign” was not explicitly fought over immigration, but a large part of the “ground war” was fought over the hearts and minds of those target publics seen as most anti-migrant.

Labour’s 2015 campaign was a notable failure – although, as it turned out, the main problem was not UKIP but the Tories hoovering up Lib Dem seats and the SNP decimating Labour in Scotland. And by the 2017 election, the UKIP bubble had burst, while Corbyn’s Labour managed to make an unexpected comeback. The new tougher line on immigration stayed in the manifesto, which promised to outdo the Tories in hiring 500 extra border guards .

3.3 Summary

Conservative immigration policy in 2010-18 in many ways mirrors Labour policy in 1997-2010. In both cases, it makes sense for the governing party not to explicitly flag immigration as a campaign issue. There are obvious reasons:

Whatever its rhetoric, no modern government working within the reality of a globalised economy is actually able to get immigration “under control” – certainly not to the satisfaction of anti-migrant media and “public opinion”;
Both governments are vulnerable to attacks from the right on immigration – Labour from the Tories and UKIP, the Tories from UKIP. This is because both parties have important target publics who fall into the key anti-migrant minority demographics discussed in the last section. For the Tories, these are the “comfortable but culturally concerned”. For Labour, excluded older white working class voters – those who the party rushed to try and win back with its “Blue Labour” turn.
At the same time, neither party wishes to alienate its more “liberal” target publics by overplaying toughness against vulnerable migrants.

But it can help to neutralise its overall “failing” by taking action between elections. Although the government can’t actually “control” immigration, it can use policy to make spectacular attacks on easy scapegoats. Under Labour, this meant a spiral of ever tougher asylum laws. Under the Conservatives, the “Hostile Environment” policy against “illegals”. Attacks on these marginal groups won’t scare off too many “liberal with a small l” voters, but can – the logic goes – be displayed as signs of toughness to help assuage anti-migrant defectors.

To sum up: these policies are directed not at “the public” as a whole, but at particular “target publics” identified as key electoral demographics. Governments launch vicious attacks on scapegoat groups as a way of trying to assuage these anxious minorities.

image: David Blunkett by Policy Exchange, CC license

4. Politicians: Home Office agendas

The more immigration is a salient political issue, the more immigration policies will be directed by the overriding imperative of winning elections. But there are also other dimensions of immigration policy-making to consider. So long as they fit within the broader electoral baseline, Home Secretaries and their juniors also have scope to pursue their own agendas.

For example, in the high profile Operation Vaken “Go Home van” policy, the Home Office paid for advertising billboard vans to drive around migrant areas with the slogan “In the country illegally? Go home or face arrest.” This was a media-focused strategy headlined by the Immigration Minister (junior to the Home Secretary), then Mike Harper. From what we have heard anecdotally, the idea itself was first thought up by a Home Office civil servant, before being signed off by ministers. According to recent press revelations, Theresa May (then Home Secretary) discussed the plan by email while on holiday in Switzerland, and requested that the wording on the vans be “toughened”.

Junior ranks: “nobody likes us, we don’t care”

Policy formation within the Home Office is harder to study than electioneering: there is less transparency, and also less interest in the subject. Two recent academic research projects, COMPAS’ “Does Immigration Enforcement Matter?”, and the book Go Home, gained access and insights from lower level Home Office staff, but were largely rebuffed at policy level.

The authors of Go Home discuss the performative character of Home Office immigration policies, tracing the current approach back to a communications strategy developed under Labour Home Secretary John Reid in the mid 2000s. They write:

“a rebranding of the UK borders was undertaken in 2006, so as to amplify the sense of a national border, via flags, insignia, uniforms and other symbols. Meanwhile, a communications strategy aimed at getting more images of immigration raids into the media was launched […] this included inviting journalists along to witness raids, so as to divert media attention to the physical ‘toughness’ of the border, and away from the rhetoric and perceived elitism of politicians.”

The best known fruit of this strategy was the UK Border Force Sky TV series sponsored by the Home Office, which ran in eighteen episodes from 2008, and featured star narrators Timothy Spall and Bill Nighy. The series ended in 2009, but the Home Office continues to sporadically run stunts “embedding” TV crews and other journalists in raids.

As Go Home’s authors note, the Home Office faces a dilemma in its immigration PR strategy:

“While some interviewees suggested that keeping migration out of the news altogether was the ideal political scenario for the Home Secretary, the medium-term implausibility of this means that any Home Office needs to pay constant attention to the news cycle. […] On the other hand, given deep levels of mistrust in the government’s ability to manage immigration, even very tough messaging can backfire if it reminds the public of issues (such as illegal immigration) that have otherwise fallen out of the news cycle.”

The writers also point to “the context of the Home Office’s own exceptional status”:

“The ministry has been frequently mired in controversies and media attacks, leading it to be represented as a ‘political graveyard’ […] the department as a whole operates on a relentless communications cycle, which inculcates a sense of paranoia and watching one’s back. In addition to this, there are deep structural reasons why the Home Office encounters regular conflicts with other Whitehall departments, especially where the latter operate according to more liberal economic rationalities. For these reasons, one interviewee joked that the internal philosophy of the Home Office could be summed up by the well-known chant of Millwall football fans, ‘No one likes us, we don’t care’.”

Again, this view comes from further down the hierarchy. At the top, and most of all for the Home Secretary in person, the office is a notable power position. Far from being a “graveyard”, it is one of the senior ministries where politicians who distinguish themselves may go on to challenge for the Prime Minister’s job – as did current premier Theresa May. Other recent party leaders who made their names as home secretaries or shadow home secretaries include Tony Blair and Michael Howard.

tougher than the last

One useful research project on Home Office policy at the top is a 2014 PhD thesis by Lisa Thomas, which involved interviews with four Labour Home Secretaries – Jack Straw (1997-2001), David Blunkett (2001-4), Charles Clark (2004-6) and Jacqui Smith (2007-9) – about their policy-making and their relations with media. Although the research focuses on terror rather than immigration policy, there is clear crossover. At the same time as pushing through an unprecedented succession of new anti-asylum laws in the 2000s, these Home Secretaries pushed through a wave of five major terrorism laws in 2000-2008.

Indeed, it makes sense to see both sets of legislation as part of the same overall “security” agenda. David Blunkett himself makes this clear in his interview, where he discusses the asylum scare and the Oldham race riots of summer 2001 as building a heightened sense of insecurity in the UK ahead of the 9/11 attacks later that year:

“Immigration, subliminal fear of rapid change, threat to the ‘normal’ way of living, the instability that that causes, obviously has implications as to how people receive messages about other aspects of security and of what’s happening in the world. Coupled with the fact that we had just moved into an era of seven days a week, 24-hour news. We were also beginning to see people using the internet and mobile technology. All of those things came together at the same time.”

Blunkett reveals that he believed the Home Office had actually “got on top” of the asylum issue. However, a major concern was the “massive upsurge of the right across Europe”. He says:

“Some of us had been arguing that we needed to be aware of this, and not panic or pander, but actually get a grip to the point where people were secure in their minds that we knew that there was an issue to be addressed. Providing them with that reassurance was as much a part of the security, because it affected their psyche and the way that they saw things, as was the physical security.”

In short, the big motivation of Home Office policy, on both asylum and terror, was to provide a show of “reassurance” through toughness, thus warding off threats from the right. The pattern began at least with Blair himself. As shadow Home Secretary in 1994-7, Blair made his reputation politicising the murder of two-year old Jamie Bulger, as part of positioning himself as a tough guy responding to public anxieties about crime. As he wrote later: “Very effectively I made it into a symbol of a Tory Britain in which, for all the efficiency that Thatcherism had achieved, the bonds of social and community well-being had been loosed, dangerously so.”

Over the Blair years, Home Secretaries were a succession of tough guys taking up the cudgel shadowy ranks of national bogeymen, where asylum-seekers, then terrorists, joined criminals and paedophiles. When Jack Straw wasn’t tough enough to quiet the tabloids – despite policies including removing asylum seeker benefit payments, restricting trial by jury, etc. – he was replaced by Blunkett, who had boasted of making his predecessor look like a “liberal”. Both revelled in provoking outrage from those labelled “woolly-minded Hampstead liberals” or “airy fairy libertarians”.

Since 1997, there has been a rapid increase in the pace of lawmaking on crime, terror, and immigration. First of all, this is demanded by the overall domestic strategy at the heart of government since Blair: demonstrate toughness and control in the face of insecurity and vague threat. But also, it is demanded by the more specific career aims of Home Office ministers. The ministry provides a stage for politicians to make a name for themselves by posing as tough. To do this they need to show action: new even tougher laws, or other new policies such as the continual restructuring of the immigration agencies.³

Summary

As immigration becomes a high-saliency issue, policies must fit with the basic political imperative: win elections. But this leaves scope for Home Secretaries and their assistants to come up with their own ideas. Indeed, the two agendas support each other:

governments need tough Home Office policies to neutralise electoral threats from the right;
Home Secretaries want to look tough to grab headlines and make a name for themselves.

So both party electioneering, and Home Office positioning, lead politicians towards “spectacular” anti-migrant policies. At the base of all this, we could say, politicians are led by the need for others’ approval – not just from voters, but from their own colleagues, as they seek to advance their careers. And there is another crucial group whose approval politicians crave. We can’t fully understand immigration policy-making until we look at our next topic – the key relationship between politicians and the media.

5. Media and politicians: a dense ecosystem

In this section and the next we will look at two kinds of media interactions: between media and their “publics”; and between media and politicians. We will start with the various ways in major media contribute to the formation of policy. Much of this section draws on Aeron Davis’ 2007 book The Mediation of Power, which provides a valuable study of the relationship between UK politicians and media, based on interviews with 40 sitting MPs, plus also other ex-ministers and some political journalists.

direct collaboration

To start with the most blatant cases: sometimes politicians and media collude to organise joint campaigns. This guarantees stories for journalists, and coverage for the politicians. Perhaps the most infamous example of this to become public involves the Blair government’s collaboration with the Sun on its anti-asylum campaigning. According to political journalists Peter Oborne and Simon Walters, the Blair government knew in advance that the Sun was planning an “asylum week” of attack stories in August 2003. An interview with David Blunkett was already scheduled ahead of the week, where he would announce “tough measures to crack down on asylum cheats”.

heavy exposure

Most politicians are “news junkies”. “On average, MPs consumed four to five different news sources, including three newspapers, each day. Just over two-thirds listened to radio news and the same amount watched television news. A third used online news services.” Many have 24 hour news constantly playing in their offices.

In his interviews, Aeron Davis asked politicians: ‘What are your main sources of information when it comes to informing yourself about, and deciding where you stand on, political issues?’ “News media was the second most mentioned source by all interviewees with four out of every seven listing it.” It was most common source given by back-benchers, who don’t have a staff of civil servants to brief them. To quote one interview, with Sadiq Khan, now mayor of London:

“Obviously the newspapers are very important to me. I read habitually … and I try to keep up with what the latest thinking is. And then, if something’s referred to, I’ll go look up the original source … So those daily and weekly newspapers and magazines signpost me where to go.”

media campaigns

Davis critiques a popular “stimulus-response” model of media influence – the idea that media raise an issue, then politicians jump – arguing that media influence often takes more subtle forms. This is not to say that it never happens. The most obvious cases of media influence are where several journalists, perhaps across several outlets, mount a concerted steam-rolling “campaign” to highlight an issue or call for a policy. “Most MPs” interviewed could “think of examples of when the weight of a media campaign had been responsible for initiating or altering new legislation and budgetary decisions”. Immigration was one of the issues named here – alongside casinos, dangerous dogs, or funding for schools and hospitals.

But perhaps even more than issues, media campaigns are often directed at individual politicians themselves. “Several [of Davis’ interviewees] also talked about media campaigns being the main driving force behind a ministerial resignation or sacking.” But also, ambitious politicians can get considerable career boost if they can become “favourites” of journalists and outlets who highlight their actions, champion their policies, and laud them with gushing profiles. Blair’s pact with the Murdoch press is the classic recent example, alongside the Daily Mail’s promotion of Thatcher – and, less successfully, Theresa May.

anticipation effect

One of the more subtle mechanisms, and perhaps more important, is what Davis calls an “anticipatory news media effect”. That is, politicians take account of the likely reactions of media while shaping policies in the first place.

“Former government ministers and shadow ministers explained that discussions of policy were frequently linked to the issue of how the policy would play in the media. For many, in fact, this had bordered on media ‘obsession’. Almost every interviewee who had served in a cabinet or shadow cabinet since the late 1980s, talked in such terms.”

Ann Widdecombe, the 1999-2001 Conservative shadow Home Secretary who led on the asylum scare, says: “We never discussed a policy without discussing the media impact ever.” Labour’s Frank Field describes the Blair government as “obsessed” by media, saying: “It’s the number one priority. The number one priority [in 1998–99] was the media coverage because at all costs we had to win a second time . . . Never mind about getting reforms.” Former Conservative minister John Whittingdale similarly describes Tory leaders John Major and William Hague as media “obsessed”.

Whittingdale also explains how this obsession doesn’t just lead politicians to check or filter their own policy ideas. Rather, the need for media approval can drive policy-making from the outset:

“the concern was always how can we get coverage. And the only way you get coverage is by saying something new. And by saying something new you were having to announce something.”

Former Labour minister Chris Smith similarly talks about a media-driven “‘something must be done’ syndrome”. And Ann Widdecombe specifically talks about Conservative immigration policy in this way:

“Asylum was huge during our time… I don’t think the media actually dictated policy but it did create an atmosphere in which it was felt something had to be addressed. Something had to be done about it.”

political go-betweens

One reason politicians pay such attention to media is as a main source of information about other politicians. Politicians exist in a viciously competitive micro-world, always wary of attacks from rivals – and keen to find ways to strike first. These rivals may be in their own party, as well as on “the other side”. Big media provide the bulletin board, as it were, where politicians read about each others’ actions and announcements – and get a sense of each others’ plans and positionings.

“A quarter of MPs also stated that news was a way of gauging what others, either in one’s own party or in rival parties, were thinking on issues. Some also recounted that they often attempted to work out who the political sources of stories were and why they were sourcing the story. In effect, news media aided MPs in their attempts to interpret ‘feelings’ or trends in opinion within the parties themselves.”

In addition, as Peter Van Aelst and Stefaan Walgrave argue, the media is not just an information source for politicians to keep track of “the debate”, but also itself a primary arena where the game takes place. Politicians use media to make public announcements, and also more subtle signals – off the record comments, leaks, etc. Some is targeted at “the public”, but much at the other players.

on the team

The remarks so far present politicians and media as two separate “teams” of independent actors. But in fact the lines are much more blurred, as the Davis study shows. First of all, politicians are in very regular contact with journalists.

“In all, just over two-thirds talked to journalists, on average, at least once a day, and usually several times a day. At busy periods some said they could have between 10 and 20 conversations with journalists in a single day.”

Some MPs present the relationship as a close functional symbiosis: journalists need stories every day, politicians need to get their messages out. So politicians need to keep journalists close because, as Iain Duncan Smith puts it, “you want to be able to feed them with your information.”

Some of the MPs Davis interviewed go further. “Many used terms like ‘friend’ or ‘colleague’ and would meet for social as well as professional reasons. Others referred to relationships as part of ‘alliances’ or ‘coalitions’. In all these cases it seemed clear that journalists were very much part of the policy networks that evolved within parliament”.

The political journalists he interviewed were still more explicit on the nature of this relationship. Politicians don’t just anticipate media responses, but while making policy many actively consult with journalists. They may cultivate a number of close relationships with influential columnists and political commentators, whom they value for their analysis and “inside knowledge”.

For example, Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee who says: “people are very keen to talk [to me] about policy when they’re sitting there all day wondering how to make their particular department work better.” The Telegraph and Daily Mail commentator Simon Heffer says: “People in the last Conservative administration did so [consulted me] all the time”, adding “I had friends who were well known to be sympathetic to the Labour party, who were often consulted by Conservative ministers.”

Politicians and political journalists occupy a shared micro-world based around Westminster. They work on the same issues, share information, share social environments. There is continual crossover between the two professions, and through the in-between category of “special advisors”, press officers, PR gurus, etc. It may often make sense not to think of them as on two opposing teams, but the same one.

Quid pro quo

Another possible form of media influence is not mentioned by Davis or his interviewees, and it would be hard to gauge its extent. As in other workplaces, gossip swirls in and around the Westminster bubble, and much information is widely known that doesn’t get into print. Sometimes this may be for legal reasons, e.g., in the case of the numerous public figures with “super injunctions”. Other times, due to editors upholding “gentlemen’s agreements” – or purposefully holding back information in order to build and maintain the relationships on which Westminster thrives.

For example, in 2016 Davis’ interviewee Whittingdale was sacked as culture minister, responsible for media regulation, after his relationship with a sex-worker was eventually exposed. The story had previously been investigated by four newspapers, from The Sun to The Independent, but all held off publishing. The Hacked Off campaign group has alleged the newspapers withheld the story whilst Whittingdale was making media-friendly moves on press regulation.

Summary: mediapolitical ecosystem

Politicians pay enormous attention to media. Davis’ research brings out how policies are shaped not just in response to media coverage, but anticipating it. This is not because politicians believe that media “represent public opinion”. If politicians want a picture of “public opinion” they look to polling, or maybe their own far from representative experiences of meeting constituents. Out of Davis’ 40 interviewed MPs: “Only three believed news was an actual reflection of public opinion and looked to it for that purpose. Just under half, without prompting, described political coverage as overly ‘trivial’ and dominated by ‘personalities’ and the ‘dramatic’.”

How does this fit with the point that politicians’ paramount need is for approval from voters? Here are a few partial answers:

First, politicians know that, while media don’t “reflect” current public opinion, they do have power to shape future public views. Most of all, they know that media have particular power over key target publics – as we will see in the next section.
But above all, media have power to mobilise their audiences’ feelings around specific campaigns, which often target specific politicians. These include attack campaigns that can destroy a politician’s career – andpositive campaigns that can raise a politician’s profile.
These strategic considerations aside, politicians are “news junkies” living in a media hothouse where all their thinking and feeling is framed by 24/7 media exposure. However much or little they’re aware of it, they are much more media creatures than most of us.
Not only are politicians continually exposed to media stories and images, but they work and socialise alongside editors and journalists. They are colleagues and friends, they speak the same language, share the same values. Politicians actively consult journalists as they make policy, or even plan joint campaigns in advance – as in the infamous 2003 “asylum week” planned out by the Sun and the Blair government.In short, it makes sense to think of politicians and media as sharing a dense media-political ecosystem, where they feed off each other in spinning and weaving their stories.

6. Media and people: communication power

What about the rest of us? How much power do media have to shape our minds? There is considerable academic research tackling this issue from different perspectives.⁴Still, as Scott Blinder at the Migration Observatory observes, it is hard to pin down an “empirical” answer:

“It is extremely difficult to test for media impact on attitudes empirically, because it is virtually impossible to discern whether people learn their political viewpoints from the media sources they rely upon, or if conversely they choose to rely on media sources that reflect their pre-determined political viewpoint. It would seem likely that both processes occur, but research to disentangle one from the other faces formidable challenges and is likely to remain inconclusive.”

Our starting point is that people do not form their attitudes in isolation. Rather, our views are shaped throughout our lives in continuing interaction and communication with many others. For example, I may have personally experienced being turned down for a job, being on a housing waiting list, seeing my neighbourhood change. But also, I have talked about these experiences with friends, family, neighbours, colleagues, and heard their experiences, and these conversations shape how I understand what has happened. They give me new information, and they help me grasp contexts or “frames” that fit events into patterns, making them exemplars of familiar narratives.

All of us are continually receiving ideas from many others, and in the process our own views are continually being influenced and re-shaped. At the same time, we are all transmitting our ideas to others, and helping influence their views. But, clearly, some people and institutions have much greater power to direct these flows of ideas.

We can use the term “the media” as a shorthand to mean: organisations with particular access to major communication channels – and so with concentrated power to spread ideas and influence people.

To be clear, big media are certainly not the only sources of our views. But in a landscape where a few big players dominate major communication channels, this has important effects on our “ecologies of ideas”. We can then ask a few questions:

just what reach do big media have?
what ideas do big media spread?
and why: what agendas or projects drive them?

6.1 media reach

Another 2011 Ipsos MORI survey, cited in the Perceptions and Reality report, asked: “which two sources would you say provides you personally with most of your information about immigration and asylum in Britain?” These were the answers given:

News programmes on TV or radio: 55%
National newspapers: 44% (tabloids 20%, broadsheets 18%)
TV documentaries: 23%
Personal Experience: 16%
Internet: 10%
Radio programmes: 9%
Word of mouth: 9%
Local newspapers: 8%
Friend’s and/or relative’s experience: 7%

Without putting too much weight on this survey, it gives an indication of the importance many people themselves ascribe to the media in their thinking about immigration.

media segments

However, again, we need to see clearly that there is no one “public” in relation to the media, but many different people, reached by different media outlets, in different ways.

As the Ipsos MORI survey indicates, television is still extremely powerful. Although if the survey were carried out now, we could expect a stronger role for online media. According to more recent Yougov / Oxford University sampling, UK use of online news sites overtook TV for the first time in 2016.

Both TV and internet are much widely accessed than newspapers: over 70% of people said they had read news online in the last week, and a similar figure had watched TV news, but less than 40% had read a newspaper. On the other hand, newspapers are often considered to have particular influence in the self-referential media “debate” – what some academics call “intermedia agenda setting”. TV programmes are dedicated to “what the papers say”, and broadcast news often takes the lead from the morning papers. The press, and above all the most influential newspaper commentators, may play an agenda-setting role for the media overall.

There are marked generational differences in media reception. E.g., 84% of people aged 24 and under said online news and social media is their main source, with only 9% for TV. But 54% of people over 55 put TV first, and 15% of this age group relied most on newspapers. This is, of course, particularly relevant for our “target publics” – older white people with immigration anxiety.

Indeed, to go back to the main Ipsos MORI study we discussed in Section 2, here is one interesting fact: people who said they saw immigration as a problem “nationally but not locally” were particularly likely to be newspaper readers. 51% of this group said they read newspapers – as opposed to 41% of those who saw a “national and local” problem, and 43% of those who didn’t see immigration as a problem. And 16% of them read “mid-market” newspapers – i.e., The Daily Mail and Daily Express – as opposed to 9% and 6% in the other two groups.

6.2 immigration stories

There is considerable research on how media cover immigration. We will review a few highlights from four notable studies of UK media coverage:

“What’s The Story?” Article 19’s study of the original asylum scare in 1999-2001 which led to the closing of the Red Cross refugee centre in Sangatte, near Calais.
Bad News for Refugees by researchers from the Glasgow Media Group, which includes case studies of coverage during May 2006 and June 2011.
“Press Coverage of the Refugee and Migrant Crisis in the EU” a UNHCR commissioned study by Cardiff School of Journalism, which analyses reports from 2014-15 in five countries: UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Sweden.
“A Decade of Immigration in the British Press” by David Allen from Oxford University’s Migration Observatory, which studies press coverage over 2006-15.

All of these are essentially “content analyses”. They categorise and analyse the use of language, key words, different sources, narrative patterns, “frames”, and other elements. Most focus on newspaper reports – perhaps largely because they are particularly easy to search and categorise, but Bad News and UNHCR also look at TV reporting.

To start with the obvious point, the UNHCR study notes that: “coverage in the United Kingdom was the most negative, and the most polarised. Amongst those countries surveyed, Britain’s right-wing media was uniquely aggressive in its campaigns against refugees and migrants.”

All countries’ media gave space to anti-migrant views – the UK stands out for the way major newspapers actively campaign in their own voices.

volume

The volume of media coverage of immigration roughly mirrors the “public attitudes” surveys discussed in Section 2. The Migration Observatory study charts the overall volume of stories mentioning “immigration” or “immigrants” over ten years, looking at all national newspapers for which there are full records. In 2006 there were just under 600 articles per month on average; coverage declined to under 400 stories per month in 2008-2012, with the exception of a jump around the 2010 general election; but then rose again to new highs of over 800 stories per month as the “refugee crisis” began in 2014-15.

So the more media talk about migration, the more people surveyed by pollsters say it is important. Of course, this does not identify cause and effect: it could be that media talk more about migration because “the public” is already doing so.

threat stories

Media overwhelmingly frame migration as a problem and a threat. Migration Observatory write: “About 7 in 10 articles (69%) mentioning EU immigration, and about three-quarters (76%) of articles in the illegal immigration sample, contained only mentions of problems.”

Drilling down, Migration Observatory identify eight main problem themes. The most frequent, by far, is the sheer quantity of immigrants, followed by “rules too weak or abused”, and “poor quality of debate”. We should also note that the much smaller proportion of “pro-migrant” stories are also typically framed in terms of problems: the “rules are too tough”, “racism/xenophobia”, “suffering of migrants”.

The problem themes change over time, as do the terms used to describe migrants. We could broadly identify three periods:

In the early 2000s, there is a major focus on “asylum seekers”. As Roy Greenslade writes, editors succeeded in “having demonised the concept and practice of asylum-seeking, and turning the very phrase into a term of abuse”.
By 2005-6, the “illegal immigrant” replaced the “asylum seeker” as the main bogeyman, while EU migration becomes a major issue.
In the next ten years, references to “illegality” die down, and the main focus is on quantities – masses, floods and swarms.

Migration Observatory track the use of “modifiers” describing immigrants. Across 2006-2015, in 30% of all times migrants are described, they are described as “illegal”. In 2006, illegal was in fact over half of all descriptions in tabloid and “midmarket” papers. By 2015 this had fallen to around 30%, while broadsheet descriptions of illegality had dropped from over 30% to 14%.

But the main kind of description, and increasingly so, is about scale – including modifiers such as ‘mass’, ‘uncontrolled’, ‘high’, ‘more’, ‘unlimited’, ‘unrestricted’, ‘excessive’, ‘unfettered’, etc. By 2015, 63% of all descriptions of “migration” or “immigration” were in terms of scale. Along with scale comes the issue of control. 20% of all verbs used in migration articles in 2006, rising to almost 40% by 2015, concerned actions to do with limiting: “‘control’, ‘manage’, ‘tackle’, ‘regulate’, ‘reduce’, ‘cut’, ‘curb’, ‘limit’, ‘restrict’, ‘stop’, ‘cap’, ‘slash’, ‘prevent’, ‘discourage’, ‘stem’, ‘halt’.”

As asylum-seekers lose centre stage in the mid-2000s, new concerns arise with “European migrants”, and later with “refugees”. But the essential narrative remains: immigrants, in masses and/or illegally, asylum-seekers or Europeans, threaten peace and order, and the problem must be controlled. There are two central villains in this story: first of all, migrants themselves; secondly, politicians who are failing to exert control.

voices

Both the Migration Observatory and Bad News studies analyse the “messengers” or “voices” telling the stories in reports. Most often by far, the “messengers” are simply journalists themselves, asserting a fact or interpretation often without any further sourcing. “In nearly half of [articles about EU or illegal immigration] the author of the article is the person who is communicating the main issue—asserting whether it is problem or success.”

18% of articles give the “messenger” role to a politician. This contrasts with coverage of other political issues, notably foreign policy, where politicians are commonly given centre stage. The UNHCR study breaks down the parties of politicians featured: “68.6% of political sourcing came from the coalition government whilst the main voice explicitly opposing government policy came from UKIP (9.3%).”

Much smaller numbers of articles centred civil servants or spokespeople from NGOs or thinktanks. Only a tiny handful gave the “messenger” role to migrants themselves.

6.3 media roles: campaigners and debaters

Of course, there is considerable difference in how media outlets treat migration. We might divide the big UK media into two broad categories on migration. First, there are a number of outlets, mainly newspapers, that brazenly campaign on anti-migrant agendas. Second, the rest of the media tends to frame migration as a “debate” in which different voices – within a more or less narrow range – are given space.

anti-migrant campaigners

The two “mid-market” papers, the Daily Mail and the Express, are notorious leaders here. Murdoch’s tabloid The Sun follows a few steps behind: its owner is known to support the benefits of economic migration (see discussion below), but does not interfere with rabid commentators or infamous articles such as the July 2003 “Swan Bake” front page. In the broadsheet sector, the right-wing Telegraph broadsheet also adopts a consistently anti-migrant hard line.

These four papers between them have around 60% of all UK national newspaper sales. The Sun and the Daily Mail are the two biggest selling newspapers by some margin. The Sun still sells over 1.5 million copies a day, or 25% of all national daily newspaper sales, as of January 2018; the Daily Mail around 1.3 million. The next biggest-selling daily is the Mirror, with around 580,000. Newspaper sales are declining across the board, and these figures are well below their historic peaks. Two obvious reasons are free papers and internet use. The Metro gives out almost 1.5 million copies, the London Evening Standard nearly 900,000. Newspaper websites are still some of the biggest news sites, and the Daily Mail remains the notable success with over 13 million “unique browsers” per day.

The Sangatte study gives in-depth analysis of these papers’ all-out campaign against against asylum-seekers at the end of 2002. Roy Greenslade writes: “At one point in 2003 the Daily Express ran 22 ‘splashes’ (front page lead stories) about asylum-seekers and refugees in a 31-day period.” Headlines included the likes of “ASYLUM: Tidal wave of crime”. The constant connection of asylum and crime was also the Mail’s signature. “As early as 1998, the Mail ran a story headlined, ‘Brutal crimes of the asylum seekers’, which claimed that asylum-seekers were having a ‘devastating impact’ on crime in London”.

Outlets which present a “debate”

Other print media, and TV channels, tend not to take openly partisan anti-migrant lines. This does not mean that reporting is pro-migration, but that there is an appearance of “balancing” different views.

Of course, the range of allowed views differs greatly, and in most cases it is heavily skewed against migrants. For example, the main TV channels BBC and ITV will often invite comments from UKIP or the anti-migrant think-tank Migration W atch (see Section 8) to provide an oppositional voice to government, which is presented as “soft” on migration. As the Huffington Post reported, UKIP spokespeople appeared on a quarter of all BBC Question Time shows in 2010-2017. Liberal pro-migrant voices are also given some space on main news and commentary programmes – but less of it.

The least anti-migrant big media outlet is the Guardian newspaper. The paper stands out in two main respects. First, it gives much greater space to pro-migrant sources, e.g., sourcing more quotes and opinion pieces from pro-migrant NGOs, academics, or activists. Second, it has a higher proportion of stories using “humanitarian” rather than “threat” frames – e.g., reporting on the suffering of migrants and their experiences along routes. That said, Guardian articles still often use the indiscriminate anti-migrant language common across the media, e.g., until recently, referring widely to “illegals”. And pro-migrant voices and humanitarian narratives feature alongside, or juxtaposed with, anti-migration messages and narratives from official figures and other commentators.

That is: the Guardian is not a migrant “friendly” paper in the same way the Mail is a “hostile” paper. It appears as relatively friendly because, more than other outlets, it attempts to balance hostile with friendly messages in a two-sided debate.

6.4 Media agendas

Why do media push anti-migrant messages? First, we need to note that “the media” are formed of multiple actors: not just diverse competing outlets, but diverse actors within each organisation, each with their own goals. Yet media organisations tend to be extremely hierarchical, with political lines set from the top down. Over-simplifying, we might think about the motivations of, and external pressures on, three main kinds of actors: media owners; editors and other executives; and journalists.

Media owners

UK media ownership is highly concentrated. According to the Media Reform Coalition’s 2015 report:

“three companies dominate 71% of the national newspaper market […] When online readers are included, just five companies dominate some 80% of market share. In the area of local news, six giant conglomerates account for 80% of all titles”

In broadcasting, there are even less players on the scene. The BBC still dominates with around one third of all viewing, followed by ITV with 22%, Channel 4 with 11%, Sky with 8%, and Channel 5 with 6%.

Not only are there few competing companies, but ownership of these companies is concentrated in few hands. Nearly 60% of national newspaper sales are effectively controlled by two individual owners as family businesses: Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation owns The Sun and The Times; Lord Rothermere’s Daily Mail and General Trust owns the Metro freesheet as well as the Daily Mail. The next biggest circulation free paper, the Evening Standard, as well as the Independent, is owned by ex-KGB oligarch Alexander Lebedev and his son Evgeny.

We might think about two kinds of agendas for the media barons:

Profit motive. To maintain their position, they first of all need to make profit, which means sales and audience share – but also, finding and monetising new media forms online.
Specific policy agendas. Highly centralised control gives scope to pursue more particular political, campaigning or personal agendas.

There is a long tradition of media owners pursuing “hobby horse” campaigns; but there are also limits to how far they can go. Essentially, they can’t rub too hard against the grain of existing audience attitudes. While a strong dash of anti-semitism may have pleased Daily Mail readers in the 1930s, Adrian Addison in Mail Men argues that the first Lord Rothermere went too far in openly supporting Hitler. Using the paper to parade his fascist views helped push the paper into a decades-long decline against its rival the Express.

So why does The Sun hate migrants?

Murdoch is an interesting case study here. On the whole, Murdoch has used his outlets to push standard neoliberal policies favouring global business elites: privatisation, deregulation, free trade, the occasional war. As we will see in the next section, big business is generally pro-immigration – in the limited sense of free movement of labour. And in fact, Murdoch not only appears himself to have largely pro-immigration views in that sense, but has expressed these publicly in numerous articles and interviews. In the US, he has publicly called for “sweeping, generous immigration reforms”, and recently mocked Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric on twitter. In the UK, too, he has more occasionally taken pro-migrant stances, such as speaking against Michael Howard’s immigration cap policy in 2005.

At the same time, he gives his editors and columnists free rein to launch full-on anti-migrant campaigns. How to explain this? Here are maybe some parts of an answer.

First, the Sun’s anti-migrant populism is, indeed, popular. Its target audiences lap it up. The paper races to feed its audiences’ passions, and in doing so nourishes and builds them further. By now, the feeding of anti-migrant fear and hate at the Sun has been going on for decades, and stopping the machine might would be difficult and costly. This is a winning model, and selling papers remains the top priority.

Second, Murdoch relishes the power that The Sun and similar outlets carry to make politicians jump. He is known for making, and breaking, political careers – and for switching allegiances. Seen in this light, the power to whip up controversies around immigration is a handy stick to hold over politicians. The interests and power of media in helping “manufacture consent” for political systems have been well analysed. But media power agendas may also involve manufacturing dissent – at least in controllable doses.

Third, once again, it’s not as if The Sun’s anti-migrant rhetoric actually leads to effective immigration controls. The Sun, and other media, have been instrumental in directing anti-migrant rage onto more limited, and business-friendly, “scapegoats” such as asylum-seekers.

It’s notable, here, that The Sun’s “populism” has clear limits. For example, after some dallying, Murdoch swung the paper behind Brexit. (An hour after the referendum result, Sun editor Tony Gallagher gloated in a text message to the Guardian: “so much for the waning power of the print media.”) But he also swung it against UKIP, rallying behind the Conservatives.

So far, the UK rightwing press has played this game successfully. It gleefully wields language and narratives that in other European countries are associated with neofascist or “outsider” politicians. But then it swings behind the establishment parties – in effect, using far-right rhetoric to mobilise for the centre-right mainstream. The game would not play the same way in other countries where a more “radical nationalist” right looms stronger, attracting beyond the small rump that cleave to UKIP here.

Editors

Many media owners still take strong command of editorial lines, determine campaigns, and write editorials under their names or unsigned. For example, Murdoch has declared himself a “traditional proprietor” setting the editorial line on major issues at The Sun – but is supposedly less hands-on at the Times.

Elsewhere, editors are given free rein. At the Daily Mail, the current (fourth) Lord Rothermere is reputed to leave editor Paul Dacre in full charge – so long as the paper maintains its sales position. In Dacre’s case, the editor’s personal crusade to voice the hateful anxiety of the pure white Middle England he remembers from a 1950s suburban childhood has proved popular with the paper’s ageing readership. Dacre, who barely leaves the office and then only in a chauffeur driven car, is also a particularly vicious boss known for his “vagina monologues” – though he is not the only editor to keep up the good old ways of Fleet Street bullying.

Journalists

We might think of three main classes of journalists at the coalface of anti-migrant propaganda.

First, there are prized commentators, columnists and presenters, who have xenophobia as part of their schtick. They are famous, highly paid, seen as assets by their employers, and may be head-hunted across outlets. Do they sincerely believe in their diatribes? Do they crave the attention and controversy? Are they in it for the money and power? All of the above? Should we care?

At the other end of the spectrum, tabloid attack articles are often written by junior reporters starting their careers. Bad News for Refugees quotes from confidential interviews with a number of journalists:

“It’s not a meritocracy, it’s authoritarian – you do what you’re told. It’s an authoritarian system in a way, you’re just told how to write and if you don’t write it in the way they want then it’s only going to come back to you to write it again.”

“Invariably it’s the younger reporters who are sent out to do these sorts of monstering jobs – because they want to get on. The newsroom is an authoritarian place. A more experienced reporter could refuse. One editor had a terrible reputation for bullying but the imbalance between news editor and young inexperienced reporter is enough to get the person to put their conscience aside and go and monster an asylum seeker.”

“In general the approach used to be to use young reporters of Asian background to ‘do their own’. [A reporter] was used to do a lot of these stitch-up jobs on asylum seekers. The paper wants to cover itself by using a reporter of an ethnic background to do these sort of jobs.”

Those who refuse, if not simply fired, may be bullied into quitting:

“[One journalist] very openly spoke out and said ‘I don’t want to write these kinds of stories, you know, I don’t want to do this.’ As a result, she got absolutely, sort of, screamed off the news room floor and for the next couple of weeks she was given every anti-Muslim, anti-asylum seeker story to do, every single one until she just resigned.”

Roy Greenslade notes that many stories come from even lower down the food chain, from local freelance agencies and individual “stringers” who sell stories to the nationals.

“they also understand that certain papers are more likely than others to publish specific stories – due to their political prejudice, possibly, or their penchant for human interest or humorous tales – and therefore, in order to secure an income, try to satisfy that appetite. […] This top-down process is even clearer when national paper editors launch topical campaigns (such as dogs attacking babies). Freelancers are generally quick to latch on to the money-making possibilities by seeking out relevant stories.”

In between the big-name commentators and the muckraking grunts come the middle ranks of ordinary hard-working journalists clocking their copy. The profession is well paid above the lowest ranks, 94 % white (in 2016), 86% university educated, and over 50% privately educated. Although older generations of tabloid journalists were often from working class backgrounds, this is less and less the case. Many may have no particular axe to grind with migrants. But, working and socialising with others of their kind, they are unlikely to have experienced migration themselves, or interact closely with those who have. Their attitudes, in general, are unlikely to differ greatly from the “public opinion” they may feel themselves to represent.

If they do have different views, they will find it tough to get these past editorial lines – even on “left-leaning” media, pro-migration stories are known as a hard sell. Where not a matter of deliberate policy, the fact is that few media outlets see much of a place for migrants in their own “target publics”. And it may be simply that big media themselves absorb the world-view they help create. To quote another Bad News interview:

“There’s an assumption in the news desk that the readers will believe that there are not enough jobs, that there are simply too many people coming in, there are too many problems in our own country and it’s difficult to put in sympathetic stories on asylum or refugees.”

6.5 Conclusion: propaganda spirals

Perhaps we can now revisit the big question about media influence. One thoughtful publication on the UK media and immigration is veteran journalist Roy Greenslade’s 2005 essay “Seeking Scapegoats: the coverage of asylum in the UK press”. Greenslade starts by reviewing the history of anti-migration reporting in the British media since the birth of the late nineteenth century “popular press”. The Daily Mail took an early lead with anti-semitic and anti-Irish demonisation campaigns, notoriously leading to its support of Oswald Moseley and Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. Incidents of postwar anti-semitism, hyping of 1950’s “race riots”, through to media embrace of 1968 Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech, all show very similar dynamics to recent scares.

Throughout this timeline, “popular” media have argued that they are simply speaking the established views of their mass audiences: “a xenophobic press for a xenophobic people”. Greenslade argues that this is partially correct:

“Popular papers rarely, if ever, publish material that is diametrically opposed to the views of their readers. There is a reciprocal relationship between newspaper and audience. In general, papers reflect what people think or, to be more specific, they reflect what they think people think.”

But, he continues:

“the press is not a simple mirror when it seeks to reflect existing public attitudes. Publication endorses and reinforces those attitudes, lending them credibility. At the same time, papers select material which underpins their editorial viewpoint and reject material which undermines it, providing their readers with only a partial (and usually simplistic) view of events. The reflecting mirror is therefore distorted […].”

Greenslade presents a “spiralling” dynamic, a dance between media and audience involving two “vicious circles”:

“the press both reflects and enhances public attitudes and thereby sets off a chain reaction in which the reflection and enhancement go on escalating until reality is buried under layers of myth and prejudice”.

We could fit Greenslade’s observations within a rough framework informed by classic theorists of propaganda such as Edward Bernays and Jacques Ellul. We need to distinguish two kinds of propaganda:

short-term activating propaganda: messages or actions that “activate” or trigger existing deep-seated attitudes.

Newspaper campaigns are classic examples, alongside election stunts or other political spectacles. As Bernays, the great twentieth century PR guru, writes: “The public has its own standards and demands and habits. You may modify them, but you dare not run counter to them.” “There has to be fertile ground for the leader and the idea to fall on.” So when The Sun launches an attacking “asylum week”, it is stirring a well of existing hatred. But, however consciously, it is simultaneously doing something else.

long-term accumulating propaganda: actions and messages that help form attitudes, customs and “fixed ideas”, through a slow drip of repeated messages.

This is what Ellul calls “strategic propaganda”. It may involve deliberate long-term campaigns by states and other powerful actors, or more diffuse “sociological propaganda” in which many actors contribute, often without any coordinated plan. The deep-seated attitudes of a “xenophobic people” have been built up over years and generations.

The media is certainly not alone in repeating and reinforcing xeno-racism: politicians, teachers, academics, advertisers, and all of us in our everyday communication can play our part. But the “populist” media’s endlessly repeated threat stories and hate speech makes a major contribution. As, too, does the more liberal media’s accepting presentation of this hate speech as a valid part of “the public debate”.

image: Rupert Murdoch and friends by Oxfam America, CC license

7. Corporate Power

Our discussion of politics so far has left out one big piece of the puzzle: the role of capital, and particularly “Big Business”, in determining policies. Corporations and other business interests have massive power to shape policy through their control of wealth. So long as politicians, media, and the rest of us need money, those who have it have influence. More specifically, we can think of this power in terms of the three kinds of actors discussed so far:

Business and politicians. (1) Funding: politicians depend on business for donations and loans, without which they cannot run election campaigns. (2) Kickbacks and revolving doors: most politicians supplement their incomes with extra jobs as “consultants”, etc.; or go on to well-paying jobs in business after their political careers end. This is without taking into account personal gifts, zero interest loans, and other legal or less legal payments that standardly flow from business elites to ambitious politicians. (3) Lobbying: in return, business is given continual access to politicians, at the least being “consulted” on proposed policies. This involves both official recorded “lobbying” meetings and more informal wining and dining. Lobbying may be carried out directly by business leaders, or through specialist proxies such as think-tanks they fund. (4) Shared culture: from the “old boys networks” of the British establishment past, to today’s global gangster capitalism, business leaders and politicians share alliances and friendships, ambitions and values, as they mingle in the same elite circles.

Business and media. (1) Ownership and finance: most media outlets are directly owned by profit-making businesses – whether families, or institutional investment funds managed by the big finance houses. And even non-profit making trusts like the one that owns the Guardian, still rely on financial markets for loans and other forms of credit, plus commercial deals such as the hugely profitable sale of Auto-Trader . (2) Advertising: all media are dependent on advertising sales. Explicit or implicit threats or offers over advertising have tremendous power to shape media coverage and framing. (3) Making stories: businesses, their PR departments and agencies, and the thinktanks, institutes, universities, associations and other bodies they set up or sponsor, are themselves major sources of news and ideas pumped into the media. (4) “Flak”: businesses closely monitor coverage and can respond with legal and other threats to reporting they see as harming their interests. In this way business can have an “anticipatory” influence on media, similar to that of media on politicians discussed above. (5) Shared culture: media owners, editors and senior journalists are part of the same elite circles as business and political bosses, and will be likely to share the same world-views. More junior journalists may aspire to get there.

NB: the seminal reference on how capital shapes media coverage, which studies these points and more, remains Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent. The points above correspond to what they call the “five filters” of editorial bias.

Business and people. Much of capital’s influence on our attitudes goes through the two channels of politics and media. But business elites also make other interventions into our “ecologies of ideas”, e.g., the advertising that immerses us everywhere; sponsoring large parts of education systems; funding thinktanks, charities, and many other organisations that we interact with every day.

Do capitalists use these channels of influence to promote ideas about immigration? If so, what ideas: do business interests align or conflict here? And how are they using different channels? In-depth research on these questions is needed – but here we’ll only note a few initial thoughts.

7.1. status quo

Wealthy elites are also human beings with a range of values and attitudes. A few consider themselves progressives and donate portions of their money to good causes, including helping migrants. A few are outright fascists or psychopaths. A few want to overturn governments or economies because they see profit in it, or because they enjoy the thrill of great power. But probably most wealthy people, and perhaps even more so most large corporations and financial institutions, have a more “middle of the road” conservative position. Their main political interest is stability: a reasonably well-functioning state and legal system, reasonably transparent mechanisms for managing trade, investment, and labour, with few shocks.

For example, by far the bulk of political donations in the UK go to the two main parties, and within them to “centrist” politicians more than “extremists” of either left or right. E.g., in 2015, UKIP found a few notable rich backers such as Arron Banks – but still only managed to raise £5.8 million, compared to the Conservatives’ £41.9 million, or Labour’s (largely union-funded) £51.2 million. (NB: you can see all official donations and loans to parties and candidates registered on the Electoral Commission website.)

On the whole, business is happy with things as they are – the free market capitalist status quo. Business groupings promote reforms to “liberalise” markets, lower taxes and “reduce red tape”; but many would be wary of pro-market reforms that go “too fast” and threaten overall stability. Certainly, very few would question the basic pillars of the current system – which include the nation-state, national identity, and the state’s claim to control borders and “manage migration”.

7.2 business demand for labour

But within those limits, big business in the UK is broadly “pro-immigration”: that is, unlike the majority of the “British public”, they favour reduced immigration controls. They want to be able to hire workers they need with minimal cost or bureaucratic meddling, and they believe significant numbers of these workers need to come from abroad. At the same time, they have no problem at all with attacks on “low value” migrant scapegoats such as asylum seekers or “illegals”

This is clear to see in the current consultations on a post-Brexit immigration system. The government’s Migration Advisory Committee is due to make an initial report in September 2018, with a White Paper for a post-Brexit immigration bill expected by the end of the year. All main business lobbying alliances have submitted position papers, and all take effectively the same line.

The Institute of Directors (IoD) proposes a 12 point plan which includes scrapping the “ill-advised net migration target” altogether, significantly loosening work visa controls, and completely unrestricted access for foreign students. Public hostility should be assuaged with increased state support for integration measures such as the “Migration Impact Fund”. The Institute agrees with the “hostile environment” approach, so long as this targets “illegals” rather than useful workers – however, they complain about business being expected to do police work for free, and call for increased funding of Immigration Enforcement.

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI)’s submission includes setting out four “Business priorities for a new migration system”.

“Clear priorities emerged when we asked businesses what they wanted to see from a future migration system. Access to labour to fill labour shortages, a system that is responsive to economic need and access to skilled workers topped the list […] both labour and skills migration is required by business.”

And the CBI makes clear this is “not just a skills issue”. With the unemployment rate in the UK at an 11 year low, many industries are struggling to recruit low wage “unskilled” workers too.

“some areas of the labour market, such as the care sector, horticulture and construction are struggling to find and retain the volume of workers to fill current vacancies. The care sector is facing a shortfall of 200,000 workers by the end of this Parliament, while a survey conducted by the National Farmers Union indicated that employers in the horticulture sector were already facing a labour shortage that employers anticipate worsening by 2018.”

The other key area is foreign students, with the CBI also complaining about government moves in recent years to limit numbers. “The UK university sector is a critical sector for national prosperity. The value of international students to the UK is estimated to be £7bn, supporting over 130,000 jobs.”

The CBI recognises public hostility, but suggests politicians can help overcoming this by dropping the headline emphasis on “net migration” levels. “Neither businesses nor the public consider migrants to the UK to be a homogenous group.” And people are less hostile when migrants are framed as valuable workers – including carers and builders as well as highly skilled professionals.

But perhaps the clearest statement of all comes from London First, a lobby group representing big City banks and other London-centred businesses. Its Immigration Proposal advocates a number of liberalising measures including: seasonal and short-term work visas for unskilled labour; lower salary thresholds for “skilled” migrant visas; students counted as “visitors” rather than migrants; and “unrestricted entry” for “exceptional talent”. But the same document also calls for “robust enforcement to clampdown on illegal activity, overstaying and low value migration”.

To sum up, the main business lobbies have a clear and united message on migration. They disapprove of the post-Blair moves by both parties to cut overall numbers. They want easier entry for economically valuable migrants. But they have no problems with a “clampdown” on “low value” migrants – although they don’t want to pay for it.

7.3 profiting from illegality?

Beyond appeasing “public opinion”, is there also a business case for chasing illegals?

First of all, there are some businesses who directly gain from the existence of a two tier workforce in which some workers’ wages are pushed down by what Shahram Khosravi calls the “illegal discount”. However, these are not the big corporations who wield media-political power. Big corporations do widely use “illegal” labour, but only through chains of contracts and sub-contracts that keep their hands “clean”. As analysed in our “Snitches, Stings and Leaks” report on workplace raids, undocumented office cleaners or factory hands will be directly employed by gangmasters or fly-by-night agencies well down the chain – and these have little political clout.

Do the much more powerful ultimate employers gain from the existence of a second-tier illegal workforce? No doubt. But we expect such gains are not significantl in the scale of these corporates’ accounts, and so will not play a major role in decisions about immigration lobbying.

In short, what these bosses are aware of is that their need for relatively open labour marks runs against “public hostility”. For them, again, Immigration Enforcement is a necessary spectacle. So long as it only bothers “low value” migrants, it makes no real business difference either way.

7.4 goods flows

There are some more specific business segments whose profits are directly bound up with border control. One is the transport industry. For example, as the Calais Research Network has documented, Eurotunnel, the Boulogne-Calais Port company, and freight industry alliances have all been major players in the recent escalation of security at the UK-France border.

For transport business, immigration control presents a certain dilemma. On the one hand, their whole business is based on goods containers flowing fast and with minimal interruption. They are not interested in free movement of humans, only of goods – but it isn’t easy to keep the two separate. Every security check holds up traffic and so costs money. The ideal solution would be fully open borders, or at least minimum controls.

On the other hand, companies of course know that they don’t exist in a borderless world. If humans are being blocked, this blockage should be as effective as possible – while interfering as little as possible with the flow of transport. In Calais, transport businesses lobbied for ever tougher measures to build fences, station police, and clear migrant camps, and for government funding of private security.

7.5 border profiteers

Another group of businesses directly profit by winning contracts to provide security guards, run the detention centres, sell the drones and tear gas and x-ray scanners, maintain ID databases, etc. There is no doubt that these “border profiteers” have gained substantially from the escalation of anti-migrant policies. But have they actually influenced these policies?

Firstly, this interest group is considerably smaller than the general business interest in labour migration. While the industry is growing, it is much smaller than the use of migrant labour by finance, agriculture, construction, education and other major industries.

However, as we have been arguing, immigration control isn’t about “controlling” the overall flows of immigrants at all, but at making spectacles of control directed at small scapegoat groups. In this context, the two interests are not at odds. There is no reason why corporations can’t profit both ways: from a cheap migrant labour supply overall; and from helping target a few scapegoats in particular. In fact, this is exactly what we see where companies like G4S, Mitie or Serco win contracts to lock up “illegal” migrants in detention – then hire other migrants to work as their guards.

In the UK, we are doubtful that active lobbying by border profiteers exerts significant influence on the overall direction of immigration enforcement. One clear example of – unsuccessful – pro-detention contractor lobbying involves the charity Barnardo’s. In 2016, the government closed down Cedars, its small detention centre for families with children, as the family units were “under-used”. Barnardo’s lobbied MPs for Cedars to be kept open, including issuing a report arguing that Cedars was “an example of good practice” which “should not be lost”.

There are more signs of contractor influence in EU border policy – particularly around the militarised responses to the “refugee crisis”. The 2016 report Border Wars by Mark Akkerman documented the scale of the industry being built to securitise “Fortress Europe”, including the role of major arms companies who see this as a valuable new market. Akkerman argues that these corporations are also pro-active in shaping EU-wide political agenda:

“The arms and security industry helps shape European border security policy through lobbying, through its regular interactions with EU’s boder institutions and through its shaping of research policy. The European Organisation for Security (EOS), which includes Thales, Finmecannica and Airbus has been most active in lobbying for increased border security. Many of its proposals, such as its push to set up a cross European border security agency have eventually ended up as policy – see for example the transformation of Frontex into the European Border and Coastguard Agency (EBCG).”

7.6 campaigning media

As we noted in the last section, some of the UK’s most influential media outlets actively campaign for anti-migrant policies. Why do the media barons push these positions against other business interests – and perhaps even against their own personal views, as may be the case for Murdoch himself? In the last section, we argued that media barons may gain not only in audience, but also in political leverage, by adopting sensationalist and populist positions. And again, if the resulting policies are limited to affect just “low value” scapegoats, there is not too much threat to broader business interests.

7.7 agitators

While many Big Business leaders are “pro-immigration”, this is certainly not true of all. Not all rely on migrant labour. And business leaders are not driven only by the profit motive: some may be strongly anti-migrant out of personal conviction. So just as there are billionaires who give their money to liberal charities, there are others who use their wealth and power to back right-wing causes – the “bad boys of Brexit” being a notable recent example. We will look at the role of the “populist” voices they back in the next section.

Summary

Overall, Big Business is “pro immigration” – in the sense of desiring minimal bureaucratic interference with the ability to import labour. This is clearly evident in lobbying reports from major business associations such as the CBI, IoD, or London First. Some business sectors clearly profit from immigration controls – including those using discounted “illegal” labour, as well as Border Profiteers who provide the staff and infrastructure to harass migrants. But these are minority interests.

At the same time, Big Business is well aware of “public hostility” to free movement. It thus happily encourages politicians to launch spectacular attacks on “low value” scapegoat groups. These attacks are profitable for some corporations, and don’t hurt the major labour flows relied on by many others.

image: disgraced alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulous, by Thomas Fedra CC license

8. Agitators

So far we have looked at the “mainstream” – big parties, big press, big business behind them. But we’ve also kept bumping into a cast of smaller players with more extreme anti-migrant views. Sometimes these can punch far above their weight in terms of power to influence immigration politics.

We will look at two main kinds of “agitators”, or actors who promote and spread more extreme views. The first are political parties, from the National Front to UKIP. The second are propaganda outlets which don’t compete for votes themselves, but produce and spread ideas. Under this category we include right-wing think tanks such as Migration Watch, and “new media” platforms such as Breitbart. Although in the UK, the loudest demagogues are housed in the bosom of the “mainstream” press.

8.1 far-right parties and mainstreaming

Over decades of UK politics, anti-migrant policies have often begun as fringe positions advocated by small right-wing parties, before becoming adopted by centrist politicians.

In 1968, after Conservative minister Enoch Powell made his infamous “rivers of blood speech”, he was condemned by the party’s leadership and thrown out of the shadow cabinet. Ten years on, Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher in a 1978 ITV interview opined: “people are really rather afraid that this country might be swamped by people with a different culture.” As Daniel Trilling recounts, “Thatcher brought Powell’s ideas back into the heart of Conservative politics, as part of a wider nationalist project that grasped the narrative of imperial decline […] and turned it around, promising voters that she would make Britain “great” again.”

Here we have a classic example of what writers such as Aristotle Kallis and Paul Stocker call the “mainstreaming” of ideas initially pushed by the far-right. What had happened between 1968 and 1978 was the rise of the fascist National Front, with growing electoral successes in the early 1970s as well as a notable street presence. After Thatcher’s Conservative leadership victory in 1975, the party adopted much more open anti-migrant policies. Soon after the “swamping” interview, the Conservatives jumped to a poll lead over Labour, and won the 1979 election with a landslide. The NF vote share collapsed to 1.3%^cxxiii (from 3.4% in 1974), and the party became an irrelevance.

In 2002, Labour home secretary David Blunkett was the one talking of “swamping” – this time by asylum-seekers. As discussed above, Labour’s asylum clampdown was tied closely to media campaigns. But the growth of the NF’s successor, the far-right British National Party, was another intertwined factor. Daniel Trilling documents how all main parties, including the Labour government, adopted BNP language and positioning in the early 2000s, after the BNP capitalised on the 2001 race riots with local election successes.

Labour’s line of response was set at a meeting a month after the May 2002 local elections, according to Nigel Copsey and David Renton, where senior strategists including pollster Philip Gould warned Blair that thousands of “angry young working-class men” could switch to the BNP. Further warning signs came from the success of Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party in Austria, and the continuing rise of the Front National in France. Trilling writes:

“New Labour was in thrall to triangulation, the strategy which had helped the party defeat the Conservatives by occupying the political space normally held by the right, pushing them further away from the centre. What would it mean to “occupy” the space held by fascists? […] This time, Gould advised, the party should embrace voters’ concerns on immigration and asylum.”

The BNP’s electoral challenge peaked in 2009, when it won nearly one million votes in European elections. That same year, Gordon Brown was campaigning on British Jobs for British workers – a slogan that can be traced back to Oswald Moseley in 1937.

However, BNP support collapsed shortly after, until within a few years it was no longer even registered as a political party. While infighting played a part, the main reason for its decline was mass switching of support to UKIP – in 2014, Nigel Farage proclaimed proudly that his party had taken a third of BNP votes. Less partisan research confirms substantial overlap between UKIP and BNP support bases. UKIP managed to pick up much of the BNP’s anxious “white working class” demographic, whilst also adding a more middle class Mail-reader segment the BNP couldn’t reach.

Perhaps the ultimate example of “mainstreaming”, of course, is the Brexit referendum itself. In 1997, multi-millionaire James Goldsmith’s Referendum Party was a laughing stock; in 2015, UKIP picked up 3.9 million votes. More significantly, it had pushed the Conservative Party into adopting its landmark policy as an election pledge, leading to the referendum vote. Meanwhile, as internet commenters have pointed out, much of Teresa May’s 2017 Conservative manifesto seems to lift point-by-point from the BNP’s in 2005.

Of course, not all far-right policies become “mainstreamed”. What explains why some are? Here are three factors to consider:

(i) electoral challenge

Ideas may be promoted by far-right parties fighting elections. If centrist parties start to feel that these extremists represent a threat, they may adopt versions of their policies in order to “neutralise” the threat – reducing the challenger’s “differentiation”. We looked at how this works in Section 3 above, discussing Labour’s response to UKIP ahead of 2015. Labour was pushed to act when it identified a UKIP threat to significant numbers of seats. This doesn’t have to mean the challenger threatens to actually win seats – just that they could do well enough to “split the vote”. Thus even a small party threatening to win, say, 10% of the vote in certain key marginal seats, can be a significant danger and require neutralisation.

(ii) threat of unrest

Another possible factor pushing mainstream parties, particularly those in government, is fear of unrest on the streets. The National Front in the 1970s combined both an electoral programme and street mobilisation, with a strategy involving mass demonstrations often held in inner city areas then at the frontline of demographic change. These demonstrations deliberately provoked clashes and riots, which helped create media hysteria surrounding not only the Front but at the immigration issue more generally. Similarly in the early 2000s, BNP organisers both politically positioned around, and sought to instigate, street unrest in areas such as Oldham and Burnley. In the 2010s, far-right street mobilisation was roused again by the English Defence League.

Throughout history, riot and insurrection – or the threat of them – have been paramount causes of political and social change. Although the UK is one of the world’s least unruly places, even now politicians can still panic at the thought of unrest – as, e.g., Gordon Brown considering “troops on the streets” following the Credit Crunch. Have governments reacted not only to the threat of losing votes, but also to the possibility of riots escalating into “race war”? We haven’t seen evidence of this, but wouldn’t write off the idea out of hand.

(iii) media amplification

Finally, there is a long tradition in the UK of “mainstream” media picking up and spreading views from the far-right – both by reporting on far-right politicians’ statements and actions, and also just making using the same ideas and rhetorics in their own voices. We will look at this point more below.

8.2 culture shift: hate preachers and think-tanks

Far-right political parties are certainly not the only actors pushing extreme anti-migrant views. They also come from propagandists unattached to electoral or “street” parties. A few notable types include:

Think tanks. In the US, there is a legion of well-funded think tanks and “institutes” dedicated to developing and spreading anti-migration arguments. In the UK, while a number of generalist right-wing think tanks occasionally work on migration, there is one pre-eminent player: Migration Watch. This is a small research outfit founded in 2001 by Lord (Andrew) Green of Deddington, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and eugenicist professor David Coleman. It has strong parliamentary connections, managing an outfit called the “Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration”, which unites mainly Tory and DUP right-wing MPs with a few “blue Labour” fellow travellers. It presents itself as “independent”, and publishes regular reports about the damaging effects of migration, which are widely quoted and used by media and politicians.
Right wing media platforms. Fascist magazines and websites come and go. More recently, we are also seeing a new generation of “alt right” platforms spreading from across the Atlantic, or inspired by their American counterparts. Breitbart UK is one of the most notable.
Individual commentators. An assortment of rabid right shock jocks and scribblers have made their name ranting against migrants and other hate figures. Many of these have homes within the mainstream right-wing media, rather than “alt” outlets – until they go too far and may have to relocate, as with the sackings of Katie Hopkins’

How do these agitators disseminate their ideas? We can think about a number of channels:

Local distribution. The traditional methods of distributing local leaflets and news-sheets, as well as posters, graffiti, or actually talking to people, have not altogether died. These communication methods reach only reach small audiences – but they may be dense “ecologies of ideas”, and ones which are particularly susceptible. E.g., targeted far-right local propaganda in towns like Oldham was important in building anti-migrant attitudes there in the early 2000s, before national media paid attention. Effective local propaganda requires ongoing dedication; there are lone individuals who bash at it for years, but often it requires organisations such as political parties.
Web networks. Dedicated “keyboard warriors” may reach well beyond their local areas on internet forums, social media, blogs, etc. More sophisticated outfits can spread ideas widely through internet channels. Often the challenge is to break out of relatively segregated “bubbles”, micro-ecologies of web users who are already largely on side. Money certainly helps, e.g., by buying social media rankings. Internet propaganda may reach different, often younger, audiences than printed speech. The internet is increasingly the primary channel for the new waves of “alt right”-style propaganda.
Mass media amplification.But for the moment, the main channel remains mainstream media. In the UK, to a greater degree than other European countries, there is a close symbiosis between far-right agitators and major media outfits.

As discussed in Section 6, Big Media generally support “centre right” establishment parties, and the bulk of their political outlooks do not stray from mainstream neoliberalism. None of them – yet – is “fascist”. But, particularly on immigration, they help broadcast extreme right views and hate speech. Mainstream media typically present far-right sources in a number of different ways:

Identified fascists – are given a platform but with condemnation. These days recognised fascists are universally condemned, even by the right wing press. For example, one well-known Sun headline parsed the BNP as “Bloody Nasty People”. But this doesn’t stop them being given extensive coverage, their views quoted and discussed. Right wing campaigning media will typically argue that, while fascism is a historical throwback, their views on immigration are not all so wrong. More liberal media may abhor their views – but still, they need to be “listened to” because they express “genuine” popular feeling. The BBC first invited Nick Griffin on the Today programme in 2001 to talk about the Oldham riots, and in 2009 he made a highly controversial Question Time appearance. After 2010, UKIP became a regular feature on the show. Although UKIP share many policies and rhetorics with the BNP, they do not have the baggage of a fascist past, and so are treated as a small mainstream party.

“Unaligned” hate preachers – are given free rein. Hopkins, Littlejohn, et al, are given leading column space and air time in right wing media. Their views are more extreme than their media outlets’ general lines, but are printed unredacted. While their statements on migration are often indistinguishable from those made by recognised fascist groups, they can be presented as “unaligned” voices of “common sense”, or as part of “mainstream conservatism”.

Think tanks and academics – are treated as independent sources. Think tanks are usually presented as respectable information sources, without discussion of political agendas or financial backers. Migration Watch’s self-description as “independent and non-political” is taken at face value. After all, it is headed by a Lord with numerous well-connected establishment patrons – and is also known for threatening law suits against anyone linking it to fascism. (The Mirror apologised and paid damages in 2007 for comparing Green and to the Nazi Party and the “Ku Klux Klan”).

Research on powerbase shows that by December 2017 Migration Watch had been directly cited in 2365 newspaper articles. In some cases, articles are just direct cut and paste jobs from MW press releases.

More than half of citations were in the Mail and Sunday Mail, Express group papers, or Murdoch press. But the think tank is also a regular go-to source for the BBC, with Lord Green making numerous appearances on Newsnight and other programmes. BBC reports equally tend to present the group simply as “the think tank Migration Watch”. As Ian Dunt of politics.co.uk says writes:

“The relationship between Migration Watch and the press is basically that of a conveyer belt. They release an alarming report about how many migrants are coming to the UK, or how much they cost UK taxpayers, and the press treats it like some respectable piece of academic research.”

8.3 Conclusion: shifting the window

What goals do far-right agitators pursue? No doubt many are largely driven by rage, resentment, craving for notoriety, and in some cases fantasies about a 21^st century Fourth Reich. But rightist goals can also be framed in more realistic, strategic – and dangerous – ways.

Andrew Breitbart, founder of the Breitbart News Network, is credited with a key slogan of today’s “alt-right”: “politics is downstream of culture”. “Culture” comes first: ideas, stories, values, beliefs, ways of life, developed and spread through textbooks, movies, songs, rumours, trends, internet “memes”, and every other kind of human communication. “Politics”, in the narrower sense of politicians competing for state power through elections or other means, always follows behind. As Lynton Crosby puts it, politics is about politicians trying to tell stories that “are in touch with what matters to you and relate to the life you lead or the hopes [or fears] you have for your life.” So politicians have to draw on the stories and values that are “out there” in “the culture”. The implication: if you can shift culture, you shift politics.

This point chimes particularly well in the world of newsfeeds and social media that spawns the alt-right. Previously, culture was something slow moving and intangible. Now you can watch culture wars unfold in speeded-up real time, as hashtags trend, memes evolve, users are herded to rally and attack on multiple tabs on the screen in front of you.

Of course, there is nothing new in the basic idea. For example, we can see a similar tendency of the right in the think tanks and research institutes that championed neoliberal economics. Alt right propagandists such as Breitbart’s successor Steve Bannon boast of having prepared the cultural ground for Trump’s political victory. Similarly, it is argued, the likes of Milton Friedman or the UK’s Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) cleared the way for the ultra-free market policies of Reagan and Thatcher. As Richard Cockett documents in the book Thinking the Unthinkable, this “anti-collectivist counter-revolution” involved almost fifty years of committed propaganda and lobbying before it paid off in government. In the internet age, today’s right wing propagandists probably expect faster returns.

One popular formulation of this idea is the Overton Window, named after Joseph Overton of a US free market think tank called the Mackinac Center. There are many possible policies – for example, everything from “no borders” to “shoot all migrants on sight”. But only a certain “window” of these are “politically acceptable options”. As Mackinac’s Joseph Lehman explains: the window “is primarily defined […] by what [politicians] believe they can support and still win re-election.” And this is not defined by politicians themselves, but by what Breitbart would call culture.

“Many believe that politicians move the window, but that’s actually rare. In our understanding, politicians typically don’t determine what is politically acceptable; more often they react to it and validate it. Generally speaking, policy change follows political change, which itself follows social change.”

The role of a think tank, then, is to “shift the window”:

“Since commonly held ideas, attitudes and presumptions frame what is politically possible and create the “window,” a change in the opinions held by politicians and the people in general will shift it. Move the window of what is politically possible and those policies previously impractical can become the next great popular and legislative rage.”

Or as Friedman himself could finally write in 1982: “That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”

But just how do you shift the window? Here it may be worth noting some points of similarity, and of difference, between yesterday’s think tank neoliberals and today’s online alt right.

Commitment. They may start out small, but they have passion and dedication, they keep at it. Our hunch is that, unlike many centrist politicians, people like Friedman or Breitbart actually believe in the ideas they espouse.
Beyond organisation. Neither neoliberals or the alt-right seem to have loyalty to particular parties or other organisations. It is about power – but in terms of often unseen influence rather than winning formal positions.
Resonance. There are audiences, if only small at first, with whom their ideas will resonate. They chime with people’s hopes, fears, needs, identities.
Funding. They have rich backers: both think tanks and big websites need funds.
Connections. They may present themselves as “outsiders” going up against “liberal elites”, but in fact they are very well connected to establishment figures.
Amplification. They thrive when mainstream media “amplifies” their messages, giving them coverage and attention – even if this coverage is negatively labelled.
Channels. Perhaps the key difference: the think tanks’ target audience is largely mainstream media and political elites. They seek to spread their ideas into existing elite ecologies of ideas. The alt right, at least in part, takes a different tack, because the internet gives it new communication channels. It can bypass big media and spread ideas directly into different ecosystems, including those of “dispossessed” groups. This does not mean that it doesn’t simultaneously thrive off mainstream media attention. But it signposts an important new development – which deserves more attention than we can give it in this report.

9. Idea ecologies

At several points in this report we have found it useful to think about “ecologies of ideas”. This concept emphasises that we are all creators, transmitters and receivers of ideas, which constantly shape the worlds around us – though certainly some people have much more power than others to spread their ideas. The term itself is adapted from Gregory Bateson, by way of Felix Guattari: “there is an ecology of bad ideas, just as there is an ecology of weeds.”

But there is not just one environment of ideas, there are many. Geography, technology, language, education, ideology, and more forces, create walls that separate our idea ecologies – and bridges that connect them.To help bring together the ideas of this report, we will mention a number of important idea ecologies. This is a gross oversimplification – but less of one than talking about “the public”.

Elite sphere. Politicians and media occupy a closely connected, dense micro-ecology, sharing ideas, values and projects. Their sphere also overlaps significantly with the world of business elites and the super-rich. This sphere involves less than 1% of the population.

Anti-migrant target publics. We looked at two main target demographics of migration media-politics:

Working class white people on the cutting edge of the precarious economy, often older, particularly in impoverished post-industrial areas. The traditional Labour voters targeted by UKIP.
Middle class white people, particularly pensioners and older people who own their own homes, often living in more comfortable suburbs or towns. The traditional Conservative voters targeted by UKIP.

These groups are quite separate from the ruling elites. But their idea ecosystems are bridged through media (they are main consumers of newspapers and other mainstream media) and politics (they are important voters). These spheres involve maybe around 20% of the population.

Liberal sphere. Mainly urban middle class people, with leading roles played by NGOs, activist groups, academics and other commentators, circulating ideas through “quality” sections of mainstream media and internet. This sphere has strong overlapping connections with the elite sphere.

Migrant communities. Mainly working class migrants, who may interact through dense interpersonal and community media networks, but are often separated from other ecologies, and from each other, by barriers of language and culture.

Other worlds. Finally, many people, perhaps most people, are not strongly rooted in any of these eco-systems – though few of us can altogether escape their influence. Many people do not have strong anti-migrant or liberal views, and are not regular consumers of “popular”, “quality”, or “community” media. Many people are not engaged with politics at all. Others are, but do not view immigration as an important issue either way.

The elite sphere is where we find the lead actors of immigration media-politics. This is a game played by these politicians, business and media leaders, as they jostle for power and position. For example, politicians mobilise migration scares to compete for votes with other parties, or compete for attention and leadership positions against colleagues within their own party. Media bosses use anti-migrant campaigns to grab audience share from each other, or to wield influence over politicians.

But elites cannot play this game all alone. First of all, they need the target publics. Politicians and media bosses target these key demographics to win marginal seats, boost sales figures, or just position amongst themselves using the threat of doing so. These elites are far from the lives of the two target public groupings, and yet they have a strong and unusual relationship. The relationship is two-way. Media-politicians direct a lot of attention at these groups, actively working to shape their views. And media-politicians are anxiously focused on these groups, competing for their support as voters and audiences.

Secondly, media-politicians also interact with the liberal sphere. Indeed, the two ecologies have strong personal and cultural relations. Many business, political and media leaders emerge from, and remain close to, liberal worlds; while educated liberals are likely to believe in representative democracy and take an interest in political affairs. More strategically, mainstream politicians also need to keep their (small l) liberal voter bases on side. This does not stop them from bouts of liberal-bashing – as part of their messaging to target publics – but sets boundaries on acceptable rhetoric and policy.

People active in the liberal sphere may often be subject to a kind of delusional shortsightedness, forgetting that there are whole other worlds of life and ideas beyond, and so mistaking liberal media as the forum for a general “public debate”. But more realistically, we can perhaps best think of liberal debate as a backstop or limiting force on elites’ interaction with target publics. Of course, the limits are always liable to shift.

There is much less interaction between elite interests and migrant communities. There are some clear exceptions – e.g., where established migrant communities provide voter bases, particularly for Labour. But in many contexts migrant voices can be ignored – unless they become angry enough to pose an actual threat to civil order.

Finally, we need to consider how migration media-politics relates to all those who are not immediately concerned with it. Here is one important way: voters who are not now worried about immigration may become so. The proportion of UK citizens seeing immigration as a major political issue jumped dramatically around the millennium. In other European countries, the growth of immigration as a political issue has happened even more rapidly, from a smaller starting point.

This is where we need to take account of the “agitators”. In the UK, right-wing propagandists, proactively amplified by mainstream media platforms, have had rapid success in moving immigration from a fringe to a mainstream story. Anti-migrant propaganda does not only seek to mobilise those who already believe, but to spread its narratives of anxiety and control to wider audiences.

10. Anxiety Engine

In the post-industrialised countries, anxiety is the disease of our time. In NHS England’s mental health surveys, “generalised anxiety disorder” is the most common mental health diagnosis, affecting some 6% of the population. The figures increase with each survey. With post traumatic stress disorders (PTSD), phobias, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and “panic disorder”, these conditions affect at least one in ten adults at any time. Perhaps many more people experience anxiety without fitting the medical diagnoses.

Anxiety is where the “fight or flight” mechanism, our basic mind-body response to danger, gets stuck in on mode. Muscles are tensed to hit or run, blood pumps fast, senses and thoughts scan the environment for threats, we are primed for action. But there is no action, no clash, just continual new stimuli, new triggers, and the tension is not released. Fear becomes a constant background.

Trying to grasp this uncanny state, to explain the sense of peril, the anxious mind seeks out and invents threats. You might worry that you’re getting ill or going mad, that attackers hide behind the corner, your hair looks bad, your colleagues are laughing at you, your partner is cheating on you, you left the gas on and your house is burning down. It doesn’t matter: as each worry is disproved, another one replaces it. Addressing particular worries doesn’t remove the anxiety, and may even feed it, as we get caught in vicious circles chasing imaginary threats, like a dog chasing its own tail.

In some cases, we can trace anxiety back to clear histories of trauma, crushing moments when we got stuck in fear. For others, paths to anxiety may be quieter, e.g., perhaps a slow accumulation of social demands and judgements, humiliations, evasions, and self-doubts since childhood. Diagnosed anxiety disorders in our society are highest among young women, who are particularly likely to experience: often hidden everyday violence and abuse; along with intense pressure to conform to external standards; whilst being discouraged from “venting” the tension in aggressive action.

How to overcome trauma and anxiety? Once the alarm state is stuck, it’s not easy to reset. Anxiety cuts us off from the world, from other people, and from ourselves, as everything around us seems hostile, a source of danger. We need to unlearn these fear patterns. We need to rebuild our relationships to the world – as a place of joy, possibility and wonder; to other people – as beings we can meet in love and solidarity; and to ourselves – as self-determining individuals with meaningful projects.

Contemporary capitalist society stands in our way. This system thrives off and feeds our anxiety. Thousands of years of civilisation have dispossessed human beings from our “natural” lives as hunter-gatherers amongst other animals and living beings. Hundreds of years of industrial capitalism and colonialism have dispossessed us from the land, traditional communities, the meaning and solidarity they held. Contemporary consumer capitalism fuels anxiety as the motor of economic growth: keep working, keep buying, keep distracting, because you are ugly, empty, unsuccessful, never good enough. Twenty-first century network capitalism plugs us into a 24/7 drip-feed of social pressure and surveillance, precarious existences built on fingerprint scans and like buttons.

anxiety media-politics

The economic power of anxiety was well recognised by advertisers at the start of the 20^th century. At the end of the 20^th century, its political power came to the fore. In the UK, Tony Blair – learning lessons from Thatcher and other predecessors – was a master of anxiety politics, from manipulating panic over the Jamie Bulger case to creating fictions of “weapons of mass destruction” and the “war on terror”. Anxiety politicians don’t work alone, but in continual partnership with the media – as e.g., where Blair’s government and The Sun coordinated in advance to plan an “asylum week” of scare stories followed by harsh policy announcements. Immigration in the UK is one of the main strands of an anxiety media-politics.

To actually tackle anxiety requires radical transforming our ways of thinking and living. Anxiety media-politics doesn’t tackle anxiety, it feeds and directs it.

First, it broadcasts threat-stories: tales of terror cells, paedophiles, rampaging asylum seekers, killer virus pandemics, etc. Media and politicians seek out news stories of the right kind and amplify them, or just invent stories themselves. These stories both keep anxiety aroused, and direct it onto particular targets.
Second, it offers responses made to fail. Politicians, often working closely with media, propose measures to regain “control” of the situation. Clampdowns, tough new laws, police or soldiers on the street, extended surveillance, etc.

The control measures rarely achieve their goals. It is not actually possible for government to stop immigration. “Anti-terror” repression of local communities, or bombing campaigns abroad, only sew more anger. The “clampdown” measures are spectacles – displays of control addressed at target publics who are anxious about a particular issue. The issue returns, and the next Home Secretary will introduce a new even tougher clampdown. Even if an issue goes away – e.g., we haven’t had a paedophile or virus pandemic scare for a while – others will take their place. Control measures – machine gun cops on the street, posters of shadowy brown terrorists, proliferating CCTV and fences – don’t assuage but escalate the sense of threat, of a hostile environment.

anxious target publics

Anxiety politics targets many different people, playing on their own recurring areas of anxiety. There are threat stories for old people scared of youth crimes, parents scared for their children, workers scared for their jobs, families anxious about getting a house, everyone scared about their health etc.

Immigration anxiety is particularly intense in the two broad demographic groupings we have identified as media-politicians’ main “target publics”. In terms of economic position, these two demographics are very different. In terms of personal economic situations, people in the first group have much more “reason” to be anxious, while those in the second are “comfortably off”. But what unites many people in these two groups is more a sense of cultural identity, of a world made meaningful in terms of tradition, nation, language, and indeed race. And a sense that this identity and meaning is under threat.

Shows and stories

Anxiety media politics feeds and directs anxiety. This is not “evidence based” policy-making, it is story-telling.

Effective right-wing propagandists, whether working from the “radical” fringes or the “mainstream”, understand this very well. As Lynton Crosby puts it, effective politics involves telling “a story about yourself, a simple story that defines what you’re trying to achieve”:

“I don’t think people vote for policies .. but they do vote for what policies say about a candidate or a party and their values and their beliefs, and whether … they are in touch with what matters to you and relate to the life you lead or the hopes you have for your life.”

Your hopes – or your fears. In any case, the point is “making an emotional connection with people”. Crosby often quotes the US political strategist Drew Weston: “in politics when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins”. As he expands in an interview at the Oxford Union: “ultimately it’s what your policies say about your values and your beliefs, because it’s emotion that makes the motivating connection with people.”

In anxiety politics, two key kinds of stories come to the fore: first, stories about threats; second, stories about leaders who will step in and re-establish control with tough measures. It is not important that either the threats or the responses are “real” – though there must be some show of response to display toughness.

And the two kinds of stories can combine, e.g., forming the “populist” right-wing narratives making much running today. For example, as Sun editor Tony Gallagher puts it in a New York Times interview, Brexit “was about a combination of migration, sovereignty under the broad umbrella of taking back control, and a sense that, as a country, we were no longer able to control our destiny.” Migrants and trans-national forces threaten “our country”, “our destiny”, our home and place of meaning. Absent a strong leader to take back control, buffoonish ones like Farage or Johnson will have to do.

The Brexit fantasy will be betrayed. No government can go against the basic interests of capital for labour and trade, which will force some washed-out deal. In any case, “we” – the target publics of little England – will never get their country back, as of course they never had it in the first place. The anxiety will not be appeased, and the engine will go on fuelling new growth, new media outlets, and new political careers.

image from antiraids network

11. Conclusion: thoughts for resistance

The main points of this report can be summed up in three sentences.

Immigration media-politics is not really about controlling immigration – it’s an elite power game, in which a bubble of politicians and media court and influence “public opinion” as they jostle for power.
“Public opinion” doesn’t mean all of us – it means specific target publics, minority demographics who (i) worry about immigration and (ii) are important to media-politicians as voters and media consumers.
Immigration media-politics doesn’t work with facts and arguments – but with stories and spectacles that play to these target publics’ anxieties and to myths of “taking back control”.

To put it another way: there is no “public debate on immigration”. The idea of a public debate is a charade that obscures the reality of how power works. Right-wing politicians and propagandists, at least the clever ones, are well aware of this. They understand who they need to talk to, and how they need to talk to them.

Migrants and their supporters have less resources and need to think even more cleverly and strategically. Just who are we trying to talk to? And how? Which at the same time means thinking clearly about: what, exactly, are we aiming to achieve?

Who?

For example, most pro-migrant propaganda reaches small, and already friendly, audiences. A default strategy involves getting positive messages – interview comments, opinion pieces, media-focused stunts, or reports like this one – into the liberal media and left-leaning parts of facebook. They are unlikely to make ripples beyond the liberal sphere, and particularly not to reach the hostile target publics of immigration policy. They thus have minimal impact. At best, firming up liberal opinion on immigration can help maintain a defensive backstop against right-wing policy going “too far”.

What alternative strategies have been tried? One approach would turn away from “debating” on immigration altogether, and focus on building resistance amongst migrant communities, and their young urban neighbours of all races. For example, if direct opposition to immigration policies such as raids on the streets can grow, these policies may become too difficult to implement, or at least less of a burden on people’s lives. There are many inspiring local solidarity initiatives. But – such resistance has not spread enough to begin to challenge the “hostile environment” overall.

Another approach is to directly take on right wing propaganda amongst its own target publics – more specifically, in abandoned white working class areas. This strategy has been advocated, and carried out, by radical groups particularly in the white anti-fascist left. Again, it has had local successes where campaigners have strong local presence and so can counteract the media’s “air war” with grassroots activity – but such initiatives have not spread beyond very small pockets.

There is an obvious problem whenever attempts are made to try to reach out beyond our own “base” audiences: how to overcome the massive propaganda power of the mainstream media. That must mean bypassing media control and finding other channels to get messages to people. Can the internet really become a liberatory force that will open new channels, or is it already shut down by corporate platforms? Can we find new energy, new ways, to spread different visions at street level?

How?

One common strand in pro-migrant debate makes factual arguments, e.g., to debunk inflated statistics, or show that migrants actually benefit the economy and welfare state. This is ineffective because – as we can learn from Lynton Crosby – “when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins”. We have seen that anti-migrant sentiment has little to do with rational concerns, or even perceptions of personal interest. Rather, anti-migrant propaganda uses fear-stories to address, and exacerbate, people’s anxiety and identity crises. This anxiety cannot be answered with facts.

Another common strand in pro-migration rhetoric does use emotion, making humanitarian appeals. Here migrants are typically presented as victims, calling for our sympathy. Again, though, this approach is largely ineffective. The famous images of Aylan Kurdi caught widespread sympathy, but only for a moment. Compassion is short-lived, soon fatigued, and often be followed by resentment. Humanitarian appeals play on our emotions, but do not make a lasting “emotional connection”. They invoke sympathy for distant or unknown others, but fail to tell a story that connects migration to the “life you lead” – to your own hopes and fears.

To go up against anti-migrant stories, we will need to tell new stories that are more powerful, more convincing, more true, than their anxiety narratives.

Notes

1Here Blinder refers to Card, David, Christian Dustmann, and Ian Preston. “Immigration, Wages, and Compositional Amenities.” NBER Working Paper No. w15521, The National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge MA, 2009. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1505844.

2Experian’s “Mosaic” product is now a standard part of the basic infrastructure of major parties’ campaigning, second only to the Electoral Register. Mosaic locates and categorises households in 67 categories based on income, location, and “social capital”. On another note, Experian is also now the Home Office’s main corporate partner in gathering Big Data to identify and target migrants as part of the Hostile Environment approach.

3The Home Office section dealing with immigration control was called the Immigration and Nationality Directorate until 2007; then restructured as the Border and Immigration Agency (2007-8); and soon after the UK Border Agency (UKBA, 2008-13). It is currently split between the Border Force (from 2012) and Immigration Enforcement (from 2013).

4One theoretical discussion we find generally helpful is Manuel Castells’s book Communication and Power (2009). Stefan Walgrave and Peter Van Aelst in “The Contingency of the Mass Media’s Political Agenda Setting Power: Toward a Preliminary Theory” (2006) give a survey of many empirical studies up to that point. Much of the empirical literature works with paradigms of “agenda setting” and “framing”: Robert Entman is among the leading theorists here, this 2007 article gives an introductory summary of some of his approaches. A lot of this literature is focused on US and other powers’ foreign policy, and above all on war.

The post Who is immigration policy for? (Full report) appeared first on Corporate Watch.

Who is immigration policy for? The media-politics of the hostile environment

Corporate Watch — Sat, 28 Apr 2018 13:32:34 +0000

Image: Yarl’s Wood detention centre decorated for the royal jubilee in 2012.

The official aim of all these policies is “control”: whether that means simply cutting numbers, or making sure only the “right” kinds of immigrants enter. But, in those terms, none of these clampdowns actually work. Most basically, migration figures continue to rise, while the ineffectiveness of vicious Immigration Enforcement measures is an open secret amongst Home Office officials. In fact the level of resources – and violence – required to really seal borders would go well beyond anything yet seen.

So what really drives the hostile environment policies? Our new report “Who is immigration policy for?” examines the following key points:

Immigration policy isn’t really about controlling migration, it’s about making a show of control. It is a spectacle, an emotional performance. In practice, this means attacking a few scapegoats seen as “low value” by business – often, the most vulnerable migrants such as refugees, so-called “illegals”, or others without the right documents.
The primary audiences for the spectacle of immigration control are specific “target publics”: some older white people who are key voters and media consumers, and who have high anxiety about migration – but who make up only around 20% of the population.
Policies are drawn up by politicians and advisors in close interaction with big media. Political and media elites share a dense “ecosystem”, and anti-migrant clampdowns are part of their internal jostling for power – votes, promotions, audience share.
Migration scares and clampdowns are part of a broader pattern – the anxiety engine that drives much of politics today, fuelled by stories of threat and control.

You can read the full report here on the web – or download it here as a PDF document (60 pages).

Scroll down to read a summary version below – or download it here as a PDF document (4 pages).

Some implications

How can we counter the anti-migrant propaganda machine? The report’s analysis calls into question some approaches currently popular in pro-migrant campaigning. Campaigners often aim to get alternative views and voices into the liberal media sphere, trying to influence the “public debate” on migration. But there is no “public debate on immigration”: this idea is a charade that obscures how power really works. There is no one public, but many different people having often quite separate conversations. And it’s not a debate, it’s a propaganda war, fought not with facts and reasons but with emotive stories. As Conservative campaign guru Lynton Crosby says: “when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins”.

Summarised Version

For 20 years UK governments have continually introduced new immigration control measures, each more vicious than the last. The Conservatives’ current “Hostile Environment” approach builds on Blair’s legacy: Labour passed five major immigration acts in 1999-2009, dramatically expanding the detention and deportation system and making swingeing attacks on asylum rights.

The official aim of all these policies is “control”: whether that means simply cutting numbers, or making sure only the “right” kinds of immigrants enter. But, in those terms, none of these clampdowns actually work. Most basically, migration figures continue to rise, while the ineffectiveness of vicious Immigration Enforcement measures is an open secret amongst Home Office officials. In fact the level of resources – and violence – required to really seal borders would go well beyond anything yet seen. (See Section 1).

Target publics

Politicians say they are responding to “public opinion”. But in fact anti-migrant policies are primarily directed at quite specific and narrow “target publics”. Surveys such as the regular Ipsos MORI “Issues Index” show that most citizens agree – when asked by pollsters – with reducing immigration. But this doesn’t mean many see immigration as a particular problem. Before 2000, less than 10% of the population identified immigration as a top political issue. After the millennium this doubled to around 20%. Although some of these immigration worriers feel very strongly, and are very vocal – for example, immigration is now the number one issue raised by constituents in the “MPs’ postbag”.

Roughly speaking, we can identify two main demographic groupings worried about immigration. While both are typically older and white, their social circumstances are quite different. One group are alienated working class people hit hard by poverty and social tension, often living in run-down neighbourhoods in the North or Midlands. The others are comfortable “middle Englanders”. Whereas the first have personal economic and social troubles to blame on migrant scapegoats, the second often have little contact with migrants at all. But what both share is a generalised anxiety about migration as a “cultural threat”. (See Section 2).

Media-politics: the politicians

Migration levels alone do not explain the escalating xenophobia. The big factor is anti-migrant propaganda, carried out in tandem by media and politicians. The tempo clearly picked up with the Sangatte asylum panic in 1999. After the 2001 race riots, Labour hardened a conscious strategy of targeting asylum-seekers in an effort to “neutralise” the electoral threat from the BNP, as David Blunkett revived Thatcher’s talk of “swamping”. In one notorious incident from 2003, The Sun and Blair’s cabinet worked together to plot out an “asylum week” of scare stories coordinated with Home Office policy announcements.

For the politicians, first of all, there is a basic electoral logic, which applies to both main parties. Centrist politicians face an electoral dilemma: on the one hand, they mustn’t alienate “small l liberal” supporters; on the other, they are deeply concerned about losing key older white voter bases to anti-migration campaigns from the right – which, most recently, meant UKIP. Governments have no interest in making immigration a central election issue; but knowing others will do so, they seek to assuage their anxious “target publics” by pointing to tough measures against scapegoat groups. (See Section 3).

Secondly, there are also more personal motives at play. We might trace the pattern back at least to Tony Blair’s weaponisation of the Jamie Bulger case as shadow Home Secretary. Following him, a succession of “tough guy” Home Secretaries – from Straw and Blunkett to Theresa May – have made their names with escalating clampdowns measures against the latest tabloid spectres. (See Section 4).

Media-politics: media

Politicians and media are close partners. As evidenced by A e ron Davis’ extensive interviews, the two co-exist in a dense ecosystem of relationships and shared ideas. Politicians are media junkies on a constant news drip, terrified of the power of tabloid campaigns to make or break their careers, not just responding to stories but nervously anticipating them, often consulting their journalist and editor “friends” even in the early stages of making policy. Politics today is media-politics. (See Section 5).

On the media side it is true, as tabloid editors insist, that hate stories feed an existing demand, and so boost sales and advertising revenue. The power to bring down politicians with hate campaigns also provides important leverage, exploited to the full by power players such as Murdoch. It is important to note that “popular” press’ core audiences are largely the same older white demographics chased by politicians. But as Roy Greenslade has written, while media “reflect what they think people think”, they also set off “a chain reaction in which the reflection and enhancement go on escalating”. When The Sun launches an asylum attack week, it is stirring an existing well of hatred. But also, over months and years, it is continually reinforcing and embedding the same stories and attitudes, playing the role of what Jacques Ellul called deep “sociological propaganda”. (See Section 6).

The tabloids are not alone in spreading xeno-racism. We also need to understand how more liberal media contributes by presenting anti-migrant propaganda as one side in a “public debate” – e.g., the BBC’s close working relationships with UKIP and spin-tank Migration Watch. And the important roles played by far-right propagandists – from neo-fascist parties through “alt-right” sites to more respectable think tanks – in “shifting the window” of acceptable narratives. (See Section 8).

What about business?

Both politicians and media depend on finance. So how do anti-migrant policies square with the fact that Big Business wants migrant workers? E.g., in recent Brexit position papers corporate lobbies such as the CBI and IoD all call for liberalised immigration controls. The answer is that, while policies like the “Hostile Environment” make life miserable for a highly vulnerable minority, they actually have minimal impact on numbers. So there is no contradiction when City lobby group London First simultaneously advocates both free movement and “robust enforcement to clampdown” on “low value migration”. After all, border profiteers like G4S can happily staff their immigration detention centres with migrant workers. Even Rupert Murdoch personally advocates “generous” immigration policies in line with his overall neo-liberalism – presumably The Sun’s campaigns are not seen as causing a serious threat to business. (See Section 7).

Some implications

How can we counter the anti-migrant propaganda machine? This analysis calls into question some approaches currently popular in pro-migrant campaigning. Campaigners often aim to get alternative views and voices into the liberal media sphere, trying to influence the “public debate” on migration. But there is no “public debate on immigration”: this idea is a charade that obscures how power really works. There is no one public, but many different people having many different conversations. And it’s not a debate, it’s a propaganda war, fought not with facts and reasons but with emotive stories. As Conservative campaign guru Lynton Crosby says: “when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins”. (See Sections 9 and 10).

Click here to read the full report – or download it here as a PDF document (60 pages).

The post Who is immigration policy for? The media-politics of the hostile environment appeared first on Corporate Watch.

‘We give them the language to hide what they are doing’: a CSR insider spills the beans

Corporate Watch — Thu, 03 Aug 2017 10:40:48 +0000

[responsivevoice_button]

Corporate Social Responsibility: what’s it all about? Corporate Watch spoke to an industry insider who has worked with some of the world’s biggest multinationals to find out.

Why do corporations produce corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports and publicity?

They use it to distract people from what is going on ‘over there’ – in the parts of their business they don’t want people looking at. Those of us working in the CSR teams give them the language to hide what they are doing.

It’s revealing that it’s mostly just the CSR teams sit closely with a corporation’s communications and marketing. You can tell if a company is serious about being responsible if they have people from the core of the business connected to the CSR work. But most don’t.

Actually many corporates don’t actually call it CSR anymore – just CR. They have dropped the ‘social’. This came in a few years ago. Another new name is ‘Corporate Sustainability’.

Who is it directed at?

I think a big target audience for CR is internal – the company’s own staff. It helps companies’ recruitment. Especially when it comes to young people – millennials usually want to work for companies that they see as ‘purposeful’. It can attract young people and keep them there for longer, knowing that what they do is part of something bigger.

CR teams, in particular, are usually made of people who might otherwise have worked for a big charity. Of course, staff are still aware of the less responsible activities their company is involved in but they are quite happy to swallow the pill of CR to justify high stress positions and long working hours.

How has it changed over the past decade?

Corporate philanthropy is now totally out. That is the past. Now CR is about making changes in your business to make it responsible. But of course, many companies don’t make any real change to their core business.

I read Corporate Watch’s 2006 report on CSR. It’s great but things are much scarier out there now.

The corporations have invested lots of money in it. And NGOs are so much closer to the companies now. The environmental NGOs used to be radical but now they advise and communicate with companies more, hoping they will listen. In some cases they do, but in most cases it’s temporary or very limited.

The corporates are more and more recruiting people from NGOs and using the NGO’s language.

Dialogue with NGOs helps corporates look like they are serious about being responsible. And for the NGOs, it makes them feel like their work is having some kind of effect if a company mentions them or responds to them in some way.

And the CR process is changing. The Corporate Responsibility reports that come out together with a company’s annual report have gone out of fashion. They just put the information on their websites now.

So those reports are becoming much shorter. Before companies would spend about £100,000 for a CSR report. Now it’s more like £50,000.

Many corporates still have what’s called a quarterly approach to CR because they have to report quarterly to shareholders. There is a big push for responsible investment, with many NGOs set up purely to get investors to care about specific CR issues, like animal cruelty. But this is still not picking up enough traction.

I would say that the biggest issue is how quickly CR policies can change. Most CR activities are set at the top, so as soon as you get a new CEO an entire programme can be scrapped, no questions asked. In fact – CR teams are usually the first to go during big budget cuts.

How do you see it changing in the future?

Increasingly corporates are getting more political messages out because they think it goes down well to take a stand on certain issues. For example a lot have embraced the Paris climate agreement and started the ‘We Mean Business’ campaign. So far the messages have been relatively good, but I worry about listening and trusting business – because in the end they are driven by profit and are completely unaccountable.

But CR, CSR, Corporate Sustainability, or whatever it is called, won’t really change. There will still be no real standard or benchmark for it. It is all designed by the companies – you cannot compare two companies with each other as they individually set their own standards for what is ‘social’ or ‘responsible’ or ‘sustainable’.

The identity of the interviewee has been kept anonymous at their request

The post ‘We give them the language to hide what they are doing’: a CSR insider spills the beans appeared first on Corporate Watch.

Mining PR drive in Mongolia

Corporate Watch — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 17:21:46 +0000

[responsivevoice_button]

Mining companies are on a charm offensive in Mongolia, attempting to convince Mongolians that the corporate takeover of large swathes of the Gobi desert will benefit local communities.

This year mining companies sponsored a community event in the town of Tsogt-Tsetsii in Omnogovi, South Gobi. The Nadaam festival is a traditional event, featuring wrestling, horse riding and archery, that happens all over Mongolia. This year, however, the flags of dozens of mining companies flew over the sports arena and corporate gers (or yurts) gave away free food, vodka and snuff as part of a PR drive aimed at keeping the local population sweet as the vast empty spaces of the Gobi give way to open cast mines and mining infrastructure.

A mining company worker takes this photo as a PR ploy: horse riders at Naadam in the corporate ger

Until recently the town has only been accessible by dirt tracks through the desert. Now, a brand new unfinished paved road stretches south towards China, where a border crossing at Gashuun Sukait exclusively serves the mining industry. If the mining companies have their way, a network of new roads will be built connecting mines in the Gobi with the country’s capital – Ulanbataar – and the road to China. Additionally, a rail track is planned linking the mining region with the train line from Moscow to Beijing. Mining firm Energy Resources has already built hundreds of miles of paved road from its mine at nearby Ukhaa Khudag to the Chinese border to facilitate the export of coal to China.

As you enter Tsogt-Tsetsii from the west you pass mining compounds secured by CCTV and barbed wire and a mountain of waste from the mines in the area. A corporate translator playing host at the Erdenes Tavan Tolgoi (ETT) corporate ger tells us that the company plans to make this mountain into a “beautiful hill” with trees on it.

ETT is part of a joint partnership with Australian firm Macmahon. Corporate promotional material available at the event explains that ETT was set up to mine the Tavan Tolgoi coal deposit, which the company estimates contains 7.4 billion tonnes of coal. Mining operations at Tavan Tolgoi are among the largest in the world. ETT is currently employing about 345 workers to mine at East Tsankhi. Heavy equipment for the excavations is provided by multinationals, Caterpillar, Liebherr and Terex.

Our hostess comes from Ulanbataar, 540km to the north. Only 20% of the workers at Tavan Tolgoi are local, the majority come from Ulanbaatar and stay for two to three weeks at a time. There are also Australians and South Africans working there. The workers live at a camp at East Tsankhi mine.

ETT’s project got the go-ahead from the Mongolian parliament in 2010. The company is also planning the construction of a power plant, using technology supplied by German firm Siemens.

An exploratory mining camp in South Gobi

A mountain of mining waste near Tsogt-Tsetsii

ETT’s plans will require huge amounts of the Gobi’s precious water to process and wash the coal. This will come from bore holes exploiting underground water supplies and from Balgasyn Ulaan Nur lake in Khankhongor to the west of Tsogt-Tsetsii. The company plans to pipe over 1,300 cubic metres of water from the lake every day and construct 80km of water pipeline.

About 100km east, Chinese company Jintai is conducting exploratory mining for gold. Again, many of the workers are either Chinese or from Ulanbataar rather than from the local area.

A mining worker from the area told us that he was paid 50,000 MNT a day (about £16). He is not happy with the wage and tells us that mining “is not good for Mongolia, only for Chinese companies. Mongolians don’t like to see their mountains drilled. It only happens because politicians benefit from it”. Another worker reported that “drunken local people had attacked the mining camp where I work” because they were angry about the mines.

The expansion of the mining industry in Mongolia threatens to engulf the vast wildness of the Gobi and also challenges the livelihoods of people living in the region. The majority of people living outside Ulanbataar are either nomadic or semi-nomadic, living in gers and herding animals. Nomadic lifestyles depend on access to land on which to live and keep animals. More and more mines, coupled with corporate plans for massive infrastructure developments, do not bode well for local people’s access to the land in the future.

For critical information about mining in Mongolia and elsewhere see the London Mining Network website.

Some of the other companies doing PR work at the Tsogt-Tsetsii Naadam Festival:

Energy Resources: owns and operates Ukhaa Khudag coking coal mine located within the Tavan Tolgoi coal formation in the South Gobi. Listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

MCS: The largest holding group in Mongolia. Shareholder in Energy Resources.

Mera LLC: Company involved in drilling, blasting and manufacturing of explosives.

Wagner Asia Equipment Ltd: Caterpillar’s partner in Asia

Flora and Fauna International (FFI): Not a mining company but a registered conservation charity in England and Wales, FFI states on its website that it works directly with businesses to “ensure that businesses fully understand, and take account of, their impacts on the environment and that they recognise that adopting strong environmental standards makes good business sense.” This kind of charity engagement with business, which has become a routine part of corporate PR strategies, runs the risk of helping greenwash the destructive practices of mining companies.

Tavan Tolgoi Trans: Another corporate sponsor of the Nadaam.

Grupo ACS: The Spanish civil engineering firm were not sponsoring the Nadaam. However, the company’s signage could be seen around Tavan Tolgoi.

The post Mining PR drive in Mongolia appeared first on Corporate Watch.

‘If you don’t fight, you’ve already lost’

Corporate Watch — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:00:00 +0000

[responsivevoice_button]

Debbie Vincent, an animal rights activist from the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign was sentenced to six years in prison for conspiracy to blackmail after a five week long trial at Winchester Crown Court. She was also given an Anti Social Behaviour Order which means she can be arrested if she protests against or contacts Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) or its business partners for a further five years after her release from prison.

Today Debbie Vincent, an animal rights activist from the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign was sentenced to six years in prison for conspiracy to blackmail after a five week long trial at Winchester Crown Court. She was also given an Anti Social Behaviour Order which means she can be arrested if she protests against or contacts Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) or its business partners for a further five years after her release from prison.

The sentence should serve as a wake up call to anti-capitalists of the need to offer solidarity to those who have been singled out for repression because of their involvement in effective resistance to corporate power.

A press release from the Blackmail 3 support campaign quotes Debbie: “I have been made an example of because I put myself up as a public face of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and for believing that such places as Huntingdon Life Sciences should be resigned to the history books.” “In some ways I’m really not surprised I was found guilty, as I don’t believe anyone can get justice when faced with a political conspiracy charge and the huge resources of the state and multinationals against me. I will always have hope and will always continue to try my best to make the inhabitants of this planet more compassionate to all and try to make the world a better place for all.”

What we are seeing is a coordinated campaign against animal rights activists in an effort to silence dissent,” said Adrian Shaw of the Blackmail 3 Support Campaign. “This is the third conspiracy to blackmail trial in the UK involving people accused of campaigning against Huntingdon Life Sciences.”

Corporate Watch spoke to Debbie prior to the sentencing. She said: “What is scary in this world is oppression and injustice, when people hurt people, animals and nature. What is beautiful in this world is resistance, when people say ‘enough is enough’ and act. Oppression and injustice are everywhere, but so is resistance. Because some people know that if you fight you might lose, but if you don’t fight, you’ve already lost.”

The campaign

SHAC was set up in 1999 with the aim of closing down Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS). HLS is one of the largest contract testing companies in the world. They keep about 70,000 animals on site at their lab in Huntingdon. According to SHAC, “HLS will test anything for anybody. They carry out experiments which involve poisoning animals with household products, pesticides, drugs, herbicides, food colourings and additives, sweeteners and genetically modified organisms. Every three minutes an animal dies inside Huntingdon totalling 500 innocent lives every single day.”

SHAC’s tactics have been groundbreaking for direct action campaigns in their targeting of the network of companies with business relationships with HLS: from its customers to its service providers and from its suppliers to its investors. To read an analysis of the SHAC model of campaignining click here.

Over the years SHAC has published details of the companies doing business with HLS on its website and has encouraged people to persuade these companies to cease their business with HLS. The SHAC website is clear that it is not encouraging people to break the law. SHAC contacts the companies and tells them that they will remain listed on its website until they cease doing business with HLS. Hundreds of companies have ceased trading with HLS. View a list here.

HLS have been infiltrated and their practices exposed several times. To read undercover exposes of animal abuse at HLS click here.

The arrests of the ‘Blackmail 3’

In June 2012 European arrest warrants were issued in the UK for two activists in Holland, who will be referred to as SH and NS in this article.

On 6th July 2012 Debbie Vincent, who had been targeted by the police for many years for her involvement in the SHAC campaign, was arrested and detained on suspicion of conspiracy to blackmail. Her home address was searched. On the same day SH and NS were arrested and premises in Amsterdam were searched. Debbie was charged in July 2012 with conspiracy to blackmail, an offence under the 1977 Criminal Law Act. The British police have sought the extradition of the Dutch activists and the Dutch courts granted it. However, until now there is an ongoing dispute over the extradition as the lawyers for one of the Dutch defendants have demanded an undertaking from the British Secretary of State that he would serve his sentence in Holland if he was convicted.

The charge placed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) against Debbie was conspiring with 16 named people, including the two Dutch activists, and unnamed others “to blackmail representatives of companies and businesses and other persons” “by making unwarranted demands, namely to cease lawful trading with HLS, with menaces and with intent to cause loss to another.” The 13 other ‘co-conspirators’ have already been jailed for conspiracy to blackmail, at trials in 2009 and 2010 for a total of almost 70 years between them. For many of them the only evidence presented was involvement in lawful campaigning against the company and association with those involved in direct action. The use of the charge of blackmail against Debbie is another example of the twisting of the law to repress grassroots dissent against powerful corporations.

Blackmail?

The events relied on in Debbie’s case were that in 2008 and 2009 actions were carried out in France, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland against Novartis, EuroNext, Schering Plough, BDO, AstraZeneca, Fortress and Nomura, all companies with business relationships with HLS. The actions included setting fire to directors’ cars, company buildings and, in one case, the holiday hunting lodge of Daniel Vasella, Director of Novartis. Graffiti was daubed on directors’ homes overnight and the ashes of Vasella’s mother were stolen from the family tomb. However, in the words of Michael Bowes QC, the prosecutor in the case: “There is no evidence that Ms Vincent was present at the scene of any of the attacks, or incidents in Europe. There is no evidence that she was outside of the United Kingdom at the time of any of these attacks”. Instead the Crown Prosecution ‘Service’ (CPS) claimed that Debbie was guilty of involvement in a ‘conspiracy to blackmail’ involving those actions.

The CPS claimed that there was evidence linking SH and NS to some of these actions. However they were not the ones in the dock. The prosecution argued that Debbie had been in phone contact with SH and NS and had attended the 2009 Animal Rights gathering in Oslo that they also attended.

But the case went much further than that. The CPS argued that the SHAC campaign itself, in publishing details of companies on their website and encouraging people to protest against them, was guilty of blackmail. The effects of this legal ‘logic’ have broad implications for anti-corporate activists. For example, during the movement against apartheid in South Africa activists published details of companies like Barclays Bank and encouraged people to protest against them until they pulled out of South Africa. Was this an act of blackmail? Do campaign groups who publish the names and addresses of companies involved in fracking and encourage people to protest against them run the risk of convictions for blackmail?

Is activist security a crime?

The CPS’s case summary says that “Debbie Vincent has taken steps to conceal her criminality by the use of encrypted computers (she has failed to provide the encryption codes despite being known to have been using a totally encrypted computer shortly before it was seized). Encrypted storage media was found hidden behind the kickboard of kitchen units at her address”. In highlighting this, the prosecutors were implying to the jury that Debbie had something to hide. The implication that the taking of lawful steps to protect privacy in the context of a concerted police campaign to monitor, criminalise, arrest and imprison activists seems laughable. However, it is a well rehearsed argument in animal rights cases.

The set-up

The prosecution had evidence that Debbie had contacted the directors of Novartis after the direct action against the company had taken place. However, they had no evidence linking Debbie to the direct action itself apart from the circumstantial links to NS and SH. In order to try and strengthen their case, the police worked with Novartis to try to entrap Debbie and another SHAC activist (who was also arrested but had his charges dropped, he will be referred to in this article as ‘X’) into admitting links to the robbing of the Vasella grave.

SHAC had emailed Novartis, requesting that they cease dealing with HLS. Andrew Jackson, Global Head of Corporate Security at Novartis, replied and requested a meeting with the campaign. Jackson said that this meeting would be to discuss the issues raised in the email from the campaign. Debbie and the other activist arranged to meet representatives of Novartis at the Le Meridien Hotel in Piccadilly on 10th March 2010. Unknown to them, the company had arranged with the police to bug the meeting, and one of the people they were due to meet was an undercover officer, using the alias ‘James Adams’, who was masquerading as a Special Contracts Manager for Novartis. The activists were swept for bugs at the beginning of the meeting and each time they went to the toilet. They were told that the meetings were strictly confidential. After the meeting Adams got in touch with SHAC again and said that “certain things are outside the parameters of the dialogue” and asked Debbie and ‘X’ to set up another meeting, encouraging them to communicate with him via PGP email encryption. ‘Adams’ was eager to communicate directly with Debbie and ‘X’ rather than through the campaign. The clear intention was to coax the activists into offering to secure the return of the Vasella remains.

Throughout the discussions in the meetings with Novartis, Debbie was clear that SHAC had no idea who took the remains and had no control over them. ‘Adams’, the undercover officer, took the lead during the conversations with Debbie. According to Debbie, he asked “leading questions about whether we were the right people” to talk to. Debbie’s notes of the conversation record her as saying: “We’re taking a risk the way the legal system is in this country to meet with you… [X] and I are painfully aware that going to these meeting with Novartis puts us in the spotlight, puts us at risk…” A representative of Novartis then says: “This is a confidential process…” In a later email to the company, Debbie said that she had spoken to some of the activists conducting demonstrations against Novartis and confirmed that they had agreed to stop protesting should Novartis end its contract with HLS.

Soon after the second meeting with Novartis Debbie met ‘James Adams’ on the underground, as if by chance. In fact he had followed her onto the train. He tried to broach the issue of the Vasella remains again but Debbie refused to discuss the issue.

Targeting of activists by political police units

The arrest and prosecution of Debbie, and cases against animal rights activists more generally, are overseen by specialised political police units designed to protect corporations from public anger. In 1999 the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) was set up following the publication of a Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabularies report, which claimed that some protest groups “have adopted a strategic, long-term approach to their protests, employing new and innovative tactics to frustrate authorities and achieve their objectives”. The NPOIU has been responsible for planting undercover officers in protest movements.

Debbie regards the use of undercover officers against her as a “sting operation”. She said she believed that Adams was “clearly part of National Domestic Extremism and Disorder Intelligence Unit”, formerly the National Domestic Extremism Unit, “who are just a re-branding of the Special Demonstration Squad and National Public Order Intelligence Unit” and that “there is now a 25 year history of unaccountable practice by a secretive and unaccountable police unit”.

Specialised political police units aim to criminalise and imprison activists and neutralise political movements that pose a challenge to corporate power or other aspects of the current system.

‘Decapitating’ the ‘leaders’

The strategy of the police units involved in overseeing Debbie’s case is explored in the January 2013 edition of the European Journal of Criminology. It includes an article by John Donovan and Richard Timothy Coupe. Donovan is employed by the Metropolitan Police ‘Service’. The article encapsulates the police and CPS’s approach to the SHAC campaign as one of “leadership decapitation”: “Police agencies combating terrorist or organised crime groups principally employ intelligence-led activities (Innes et al., 2005) and covert investigative techniques for identifying group participants and linking them to criminal activities. These involve human surveillance, informants and under-cover officers, as well as covert, electronic techniques, including wire-tapping, to monitor incriminating communications and understand member roles and ties in criminal networks, such as the Neapolitan Camorra (Campana, 2011; Campana and Varese, 2012). As well as the arrest of members of terrorist groups who commit or plan crimes, leaders and upper echelons have been specifically targeted in order to ‘decapitate’ and weaken or terminate groups (Cronin, 2009; David, 2002; Jordan, 2009; Price, 2012), an approach still emphasised in counter-insurgency doctrine (Hauenstein, 2011). This was the approach adopted by UK police in seeking to disrupt and terminate SHAC’s campaign of intimidation.”

The CPS’s case summary claimed that Debbie was the representative of SHAC in the UK. Alistair Nisbet, the Senior Crown Prosecutor in the case, said: “Following the conviction of SHAC’s main leaders in 2008, Debbie Vincent’s role within the organisation grew. She became the public face of SHAC”. Of course, the police’s notions of leaders within the SHAC campaign betray a fundamental lack of understanding of horizontal organising by protest movements. Nevertheless, this tactic of painting individuals as leaders and targeting them is the strategy behind the police efforts to railroad Debbie and other activists to prison; an organised attempt by the police to neutralise a political protest movement through the twisting of the law to imprison those who the authorities label as ‘leaders’.

Media greenscare

So why aren’t more people rallying to support Debbie and other SHAC campaigners? One reason is the police’s attempts to discredit the movement in the media and thus to limit public solidarity for those under their cosh. In the past, mainstream media scare-stories about animal rights and environmental campaigners have been found to have been fabricated by political police units – see here. During Debbie’s case the media coverage was deeply offensive, defamatory and discriminatory, focusing on the fact that Debbie had undergone gender reassignment. The Mirror’s headline was “The boy who grew up to become a woman of terror” while the Daily Mail ran with “Sex-change soldier who became an animal rights terror commander” and made the unsubstantiated claim that Debbie had “been attacking animal testing labs for over ten years”. Debbie has already made a successful claim to the Press Complaints Commission and forced the Mail to amend an article which erroneously linked her to the Animal Liberation Front and linked SHAC to a previous blackmail case against the Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs campaign. This defamation in the press is undoubtedly stirred up by police press releases, aimed at generating a negative image of animal rights campaigners in the media in order to limit public support for the movement. It is of utmost importance that anti-corporate campaigners are not taken in by this spin, which is designed to protect corporate profits, and to stand in solidarity with those experiencing repression.

Protecting corporations from dissent

Pharmaceutical companies that are facing public anger over their activities have seized on Debbie’s conviction to further restrict protest outside their premises. After the verdict in the trial, Novartis applied for a strengthened injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act (PHA) of 1997 against animal rights protesters. It was granted on 14 April 2014. The harsh terms of the injunction were requested, by notorious corporate lawyer Timothy Lawson Cruttenden, on the grounds that there could be a “backlash that occurs after the sentence”.

The PHA Act was drafted and made its way through parliament as a provision designed to protect vulnerable people from harassment. Before the law was passed, the media had been evoking emotional accounts of the effect of stalking and the need to protect vulnerable individuals. The Act was never portrayed as a law designed to protect corporations and restrict protest. Yet, that’s exactly what its being used for.

The new conditions put in place by Novartis are an interim measure and will be examined at another court hearing. The interim injunction has been made against ‘persons unknown’ but potentially affects anyone demonstrating against Novartis. It restricts demonstrations to six people or fewer, in designated protest zones, with no amplified sounds, and forbids face-coverings or blood-splattered costumes. Anyone deemed to have breached the conditions can be arrested and may face up to five years in prison. However, last year a test case at the Old Bailey of two SHAC activists put into question the practicality of prosecuting activists arrested under PHA injunctions. See this Corporate Watch article for details of the case.

Solidarity needed

Debbie’s conviction is part of an ongoing campaign of repression against the UK animal rights movement. A further seven SHAC activists have been charged with ‘conspiracy to interfere with the contractual relations so as to harm an animal research organisation’ under Section 145 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005). The charges relate to demonstrations against companies with business relationships with HLS. They are due to appear in court later this year.

For more information on the ongoing repression of UK animal rights activists see the website: www.stopukrepression.org

When we asked Debbie if she would need any particular support from people if she got a custodial sentence, she replied: “Practically, I’m not sure what my needs will be in prison, it will depend to a degree to where I go. I’m pretty sure I’ll be able to cope, but being isolated from nature and friends will be the worst part. I will try to make the best of the bad situation, it’s all a bit daunting and new. The whole charge and court case are still amazingly surreal.”

“Keep on campaigning against all oppression and capitalist domination. Don’t be afraid to speak out and never apologise for trying to make a difference and caring.”

To see a list of imprisoned animal rights activists worldwide click here.

Update: We have just heard that Debbie has been taken to Bronzefield Prison. Her prisoner number should be available soon.

The post ‘If you don’t fight, you’ve already lost’ appeared first on Corporate Watch.

Oxfam’s PR firm helping to greenwash Sodastream

Corporate Watch — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:56:55 +0000

[responsivevoice_button]

UPDATE 09/04/2014 – Response from Oxfam America: Oxfam claims that “Fenton does not do any work for SodaStream at this time. It had a one-year relationship with the company that ended in 2012. Oxfam did not begin to work with Fenton until 2013.” Since this article was written Fenton Communications have removed the Sodasteam logo from their website.

If Fenton’s relationship with Sodastream ended in 2012 it begs the question: why was the Sodastream logo listed on the company website last week?

There has been a lot of negative media attention in the last few months on Sodastream, an Israeli fizzy drinks company with a factory in the illegal Israeli settlement of Mishor Adumim. A partnership between Oxfam and Scarlett Johansson ended recently after an international campaign put pressure on the charity to end its relationship with Johansson because she was undertaking ongoing work for Sodastream.

However, a high profile US public relations (PR) firm, which boasts of its “ethical business practices”, is providing services to both Sodastream and Oxfam America. Fenton Communications states on its site that “We do not take on clients that we do not believe in ourselves” and claims that it works “for companies and foundations advocating social change”. Fenton’s corporate social responsibility rhetoric and greenwash doesn’t bear more than a few minutes of scrutiny. The PR firm has a client list which includes large multinationals such as General Mills and Unilever. General Mills jointly own the General Mills (Pillsbury) plant in the Atarot settlement Industrial zone, while Unilever only pulled out of the Barkan settlement industrial zone after years of pressure from the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. Both companies are also responsible for selling, marketing and lobbying hard for processed foods globally, which are damaging to people’s health. One of Fenton’s other clients is Oxfam America.

In response to the public campaign about Scarlett Johansson, Oxfam stated: “While Oxfam respects the independence of our ambassadors, Ms. Johansson’s role promoting the company SodaStream is incompatible with her role as an Oxfam Global Ambassador… Oxfam is opposed to all trade from Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law.” Why then does Oxfam America find it acceptable to work with a PR firm that includes Sodastream on its client list?

It is not surprising that Sodastream feels the need for a PR firm. The company sells consumer products, marketing them as ‘green’. It relies on maintaining a positive public image. The international boycott campaign against the company has been growing apace and is taking its toll. Sodastream has reported a loss in the last three quarters and its share price is suffering.

Why not contact Oxfam encouraging them not to work with a PR firm doing business with a company working in Israel’s settlements:

Oxfam America office

226 Causeway Street 5th Floor

Boston, MA 02114-2206

United States

info@oxfamamerica.org

+1 617 728 2594

+1 617 482 1211 (Toll-free 1-800-77-OXFAM)

Oxfam GB office

Oxfam House

John Smith Drive Cowley

Oxford OX4 2JY

United Kingdom

enquiries@oxfam.org.uk

+44 1865 472 600

+44 1865 473 727

The post Oxfam’s PR firm helping to greenwash Sodastream appeared first on Corporate Watch.

Corporate Watch condemns the killing of journalist Kawa Mohammed Ahmed

Corporate Watch — Mon, 09 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0000

[responsivevoice_button]

Kawa Mohammed Ahmed was killed by a group of gunmen outside his home in Kurdistan on 5 December 2013.

Kawa was a well-known journalist – the editor of Rayal Magazine and a correspondent for Awene news.

He had published a series of articles investigating corruption by officials from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) party in the Garmyan region.

He recently announced on his Facebook page that he was in possession of documents relating to land corruption and that his next article would reveal the names of officials. He said that he received anonymous death threats over the phone shortly afterwards.

Kawa had received other threats in previous years in connection with his work.

He was shot in front of his mother. The gunmen fled the scene.

Corporate Watch joins individuals and organisations in Kurdistan in condemning Kawa’s killing.

The post Corporate Watch condemns the killing of journalist Kawa Mohammed Ahmed appeared first on Corporate Watch.