Stockholm (NordSIP) – Almost a quarter of BP shareholders have voted against the company chair in the biggest such rebellion in two decades. The 17 April 2025 annual general meeting (AGM) saw a protest vote against chair Helge Lund despite his previously stated intention to leave the post by 2026.
The oil giant has been increasingly coming under fire from both sides of the climate change debate. In the 25 years since it declared that its acronym would stand for ‘Beyond Petroleum’ rather than the original British Petroleum, BP has failed to achieve a meaningful transition towards renewable energy. The company’s share of annual capital expenditure (capex) in low-carbon energy technologies has been typically remained below 10% since 2019. In February 2025 it also announced a substantial reallocation of capex towards oil and gas that involved cutting $5 billion from green investments. Current BP CEO Murray Auchincloss’ decision to revise the firm’s climate targets downwards also attracted the ire of environmental groups, which had previously considered it among the best-in-class fossil fuel producers.
BP’s shift away from a low-carbon transition pathway was also driven by financial considerations. The company’s returns from fossil fuel production have lagged well behind its competitors such as ExxonMobil and Shell, which have been reaping the benefits of booming demand for oil and gas in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This reduced profitability coupled with rising debt levels have led to a weak stock performance with traditional returns-focused shareholders joining the chorus of disapproval. The latter are putting their weight behind activist hedge fund Elliott Capital Management’s (ECM) campaign to boost BP’s fossil fuel production. ECM has acquired a 5% stake in BP that it aims to use as leverage to redirect the company towards the short-term profitability offered by oil and gas.
BP under fire from both flanks
With BP unpopular with both environmentalists and proponents of fossil fuels its 2025 AGM was expected to be volatile. Chair Lund needed to be reappointed for the remaining period until his planned departure, but a record 24.3% of shareholders voted against him in protest at the backtracking on green investments. These included large institutional investors such as Legal and General Investment Management (LGIM). Commenting on the AGM, founder of climate shareholder activist group Follow This Mark van Baal said: “Investors sent a very strong signal that they are concerned about BP’s climate policy, about their governance and about the influence of a short-term investor like Elliott. BP made a panic U-turn on their climate targets.”
In a possible sign of the shifting dynamics in the global climate debate, van Baal also announced that Follow This will be stepping away from its campaigning efforts towards energy giants. Having initially succeeded in pressuring several oil majors to announce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets, van Baal has been disappointed by the low level of support for climate-related resolutions in recent years. This trend, coupled with the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) crackdown on shareholder activism have led van Baal to redirect his time towards getting large asset owners to make more effective use of their voting power at AGMs.
Image courtesy of Ivana Tomášková from Pixabay (edited)
Stockholm (NordSIP) – Almost a quarter of BP shareholders have voted against the company chair in the biggest such rebellion in two decades. The 17 April 2025 annual general meeting (AGM) saw a protest vote against chair Helge Lund despite his previously stated intention to leave the post by 2026.
The oil giant has been increasingly coming under fire from both sides of the climate change debate. In the 25 years since it declared that its acronym would stand for ‘Beyond Petroleum’ rather than the original British Petroleum, BP has failed to achieve a meaningful transition towards renewable energy. The company’s share of annual capital expenditure (capex) in low-carbon energy technologies has been typically remained below 10% since 2019. In February 2025 it also announced a substantial reallocation of capex towards oil and gas that involved cutting $5 billion from green investments. Current BP CEO Murray Auchincloss’ decision to revise the firm’s climate targets downwards also attracted the ire of environmental groups, which had previously considered it among the best-in-class fossil fuel producers.
BP’s shift away from a low-carbon transition pathway was also driven by financial considerations. The company’s returns from fossil fuel production have lagged well behind its competitors such as ExxonMobil and Shell, which have been reaping the benefits of booming demand for oil and gas in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This reduced profitability coupled with rising debt levels have led to a weak stock performance with traditional returns-focused shareholders joining the chorus of disapproval. The latter are putting their weight behind activist hedge fund Elliott Capital Management’s (ECM) campaign to boost BP’s fossil fuel production. ECM has acquired a 5% stake in BP that it aims to use as leverage to redirect the company towards the short-term profitability offered by oil and gas.
BP under fire from both flanks
With BP unpopular with both environmentalists and proponents of fossil fuels its 2025 AGM was expected to be volatile. Chair Lund needed to be reappointed for the remaining period until his planned departure, but a record 24.3% of shareholders voted against him in protest at the backtracking on green investments. These included large institutional investors such as Legal and General Investment Management (LGIM). Commenting on the AGM, founder of climate shareholder activist group Follow This Mark van Baal said: “Investors sent a very strong signal that they are concerned about BP’s climate policy, about their governance and about the influence of a short-term investor like Elliott. BP made a panic U-turn on their climate targets.”
In a possible sign of the shifting dynamics in the global climate debate, van Baal also announced that Follow This will be stepping away from its campaigning efforts towards energy giants. Having initially succeeded in pressuring several oil majors to announce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets, van Baal has been disappointed by the low level of support for climate-related resolutions in recent years. This trend, coupled with the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) crackdown on shareholder activism have led van Baal to redirect his time towards getting large asset owners to make more effective use of their voting power at AGMs.
Image courtesy of Ivana Tomášková from Pixabay (edited)
