​Scene and Context

In recent years, agencies have found themselves under scrutiny not just for what they make, but for who they make it for. Campaigns are dissected for greenwashing. Consultancies are questioned for their role in enabling harm. Neutrality has become a fragile defence.

At the heart of this scrutiny sits a difficult question. Should agencies be held accountable for the actions of their clients, even when they do not control the final decisions? Or does refusing to engage simply leave flawed systems untouched?

That question framed a recent episode of The Responsible Edge, where Becky Holland, founder and CEO of BH&P, spoke candidly about the ethical tension baked into values-led consultancy work.

“There’s a lot of damage that can be done by good people working inside bad systems,” she said.

Formation Inside the System

Becky has spent her entire career in marketing and advertising. She began in large agencies in the 1990s, working on major brands during a period when long hours and shareholder pressure were the norm. Purpose-led work existed, but usually at the margins.

“The myth was you had to have a retail client, a car client, a finance client, something sexy, and a charity client,” she recalled.

“The charity client didn’t make any money, but everyone wanted to work on it because it made them feel good.”

The imbalance was hard to ignore. Most of the work, she said, existed to keep shareholders happy, whether client-side or agency-side. “You’re working ten, twelve hour days. You spend a lot of time at work. Do you really want it to be that?”

That question stayed with her as she moved between agency, consultancy, and client-side roles, eventually leaving large agencies altogether.

A Shift in Purpose

The turning point was not a single moment, but an accumulation of unease. Becky described looking back on campaigns where creative brilliance was used to sell things that “don’t really do any good in the world”.

At the same time, she saw organisations tackling complex social and environmental problems struggling to change behaviour or communicate effectively.

“We can use that creativity. We can use that strategic rigour,” she said. “And we can use it differently.”

BH&P was founded in 2016 around that idea. The agency positioned itself as a behaviour change consultancy working upstream, focused on insight and strategy as much as creative output. The aim was not awareness for its own sake, but measurable change in what people think, feel, and do.

The Work and the Grey Areas

Today, BH&P works primarily in sectors where impact is complicated rather than cosmetic. Energy, finance, and technology dominate the client list. Becky described these as industries where “choosing positive impact is exactly that. It is a choice.”

One example discussed was work tackling energy meter tampering and energy crime. Funded by the energy sector and delivered through the Retail Energy Code, the programme enables anonymous reporting, makes dangerous properties safe, and directs vulnerable households to support.

On the surface, such work could be dismissed as reputation management. Becky was direct about that criticism.

“You could argue it’s greenwashing,” she said. “It isn’t. It is a very specific initiative that is done to keep people safe. And it works.”

For her, the ethical test is not the sector alone, but the consequence of the work itself.

Interrogating the Brief

Becky was clear that most ethical failures begin long before delivery. They start with accepting a brief at face value.

“The brief will be written to look good,” she said. “What you have to do is put your critical lens on it and go, ‘Which means what?’”

At BH&P, behavioural frameworks normally used with clients are applied internally. Capability, opportunity, and motivation are assessed not just for audiences, but for the organisation commissioning the work.

Is the client capable of change? Do they have the opportunity to act? Are they genuinely motivated, or simply managing reputation?

Sometimes, the answer is instinctive. “You probably know the first time you read the brief,” Becky said. “We don’t give gut feel enough credit in business.”

The Pressure to Compromise

Becky acknowledged how difficult refusal can be, particularly for smaller agencies. Ethical clarity becomes harder when livelihoods are involved.

“If you’re a ten-person company and you’ve got a million-pound contract on the table, and halfway through you realise this isn’t good, that’s a moral dilemma,” she said. “You’ve got people paying their mortgages.”

That reality, she argued, is why rigorous upfront interrogation matters. It is also why blanket judgments about “bad actors” are unhelpful.

“There’s very rarely black and white,” she said. “Sometimes there is. But not very often.”

Standards, Absolutes, and Unintended Consequences

The conversation turned to professional standards, particularly B Corp certification. Recent rule changes now limit how much revenue agencies can earn from fossil fuel companies.

Becky understands the intent, but worries about the effect.

“It potentially goes against the opportunity to get inside those organisations and cause good,” she said.

Her concern is not about defending harmful practices, but about losing access to the places where the biggest change is needed. Ethical work, she argued, often happens inside uncomfortable systems.

Closing Reflection

Becky ended with a call for accountability that goes beyond outputs. Not just what agencies deliver, but what their work actually does.

“If every agency had to demonstrate not just what they’ve delivered, but what impact it’s had on society, the environment, governance,” she said, “it would change the incentives.”

It is not a comforting vision. It offers no moral purity and no easy refusals. But it reflects the reality Becky has spent her career navigating.

Change, she believes, rarely comes from standing outside and pointing. It comes from staying inside long enough to make responsibility unavoidable.