Why Everything Isn’t Awesome With Lego

[dropcap]L[/dropcap]ego may have released one of the strongest box office breakouts of 2014, but everything is far from awesome in the world of little plastic building blocks. The multinational oil and gas company, Royal Dutch Shell, has enjoyed a long-standing partnership with Lego, peddling toy sets from petrol stations in return for brand visibility on products, like this cute, inoffensive little car set. But with plans for Lego to renew the deal later this year, environmental campaigners are now calling for Lego to #BlockShell and end the partnership once and for all.

Branding toys might seem like a fairly innocuous marketing strategy – Shell and Lego have been doing it fairly routinely for the past five decades. But we are reaching a critical stage in the history of the oil industry, with extravagant drilling plans still being hatched, despite overwhelming evidence to suggest that we need to transition away from fossil fuels if we are to remain below catastrophe-inducing temperatures.

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhbliUq0_r4&w=563&h=339]

A report released this month by Friends of the Earth and Amnesty reminds us of Shell’s shady background. According to the report, Shell has made “no progress”in clearing up after devastating oil spills in the Niger Delta, despite being mandated to do so three years ago by the UN Environment Programme. Along with a fitful repertoire of human rights abuses and collusions with Nigerian para-militaries, Shell’s unsavoury history holds little promise for future reform. By now the fossil fuel industry has become extremely predictable. If regulations are not placed on the Shell’s drilling plans, the results will be disastrous. And those regulations are considerably less likely to materialise while the public regards Shell as an amicable oil-drilling buddy to an iconic toy company.

[pullquote]Further, as The Lego Movie teaches us, the raison d’être of these plastic toys is creativity, vision and making the world a better place.[/pullquote]

The generic PR narrative that contextualises Shell and Lego’s partnership would have the public see oil and gas companies as innovators in their sector, when in reality their monopolisation of the  energy market continues to stifle diversification and the growth of renewables. The wholesome, family friendly reputation of Lego helps to gloss over a history of corporate lobbying, tax evasion and nefarious activities in hidden corners of the globe. Further, as The Lego Movie teaches us, the raison d’être of these plastic toys is creativity, vision and making the world a better place. It’s a great philosophy, and totally counterintuitive to the systematic trail of destruction left in the wake of Shell’s ‘grab what you can’ethos, but branding can do an efficient job of masking reality, and Shell knows it. The connotations of play and childhood imagination safeguard Shell, making criticism of their practices seem fundamentally anti-fun. After all, isn’t that what Arctic drilling is all about? Displacing a few polar bears, threatening biodiversity, causing irreparable spillages…it’s all just a bit of fun.

It’s the oldest trick in the book. Take BP, for another example (you know, the company whose idea of ‘Beyond Petroleum’is extracting gallons of the dirtiest oil known to man from the Canadian tar sands). BP may be getting their hands dirty polluting the land and water of First Nations communities in Alberta, but they’re also promoting cultural engagement at the British Museum by plastering their logo over this spring’s Viking exhibition, so it’s essentially swings and roundabouts. Perhaps BP feels a powerful affinity with the whole ‘plundering the earth’vibe the vikings had going for them, or perhaps they just want the public validation from an esteemed institution, but you can decide for yourself.

[pullquote style=”right” quote=”dark”]Perhaps BP feels a powerful affinity with the whole ‘plundering the earth’vibe the vikings had going for them, or perhaps they just want the public validation from an esteemed institution, but you can decide for yourself.[/pullquote]

Like the British Museum is for BP, Lego is an extremely prudent choice of partner for Shell, but the same cannot be said of the other way round. Lego’s public relations department seemed to completely misinterpret the gist of Greenpeace’s campaign, tweeting a few weeks ago: “We’re determined to leave a positive impact on our society & children. We’re saddened when the LEGO brand is used as a tool in any dispute.” Sorry Lego, but that is entirely the point. The Lego name is being used – by Shell, to service a very particular agenda which actively undermines any “positive impact on our society.”By piggy-backing Lego’s championship of creativity and architectural ambition, Shell is basically pulling a cruel and unfunny prank on future generations, handing over a ravaged and unstable world and saying: “here you are kids, see what you can make out of this!”

Good relationships are two-way streets. They are powered by reciprocality and shared values. But when one party stands for creativity and childhood innocence, and the other for reckless consumption of the earth’s resources, it seems as though Lego would do well to reconsider who it hooks up with.

[divider]

Header Photo: Courtesy of Offshore Energy Today

Footer Photo: Courtesy of Greenpeace