BP faced a significant shareholder backlash at its annual general meeting on Thursday, as investors challenged the company’s governance decisions and retreat from certain climate-related commitments.
The tensions emerged as the energy major, which has been shifting focus back toward oil and gas operations, failed to secure sufficient support for two key resolutions. The proposals — which included allowing online-only AGMs and removing some company-specific climate disclosure requirements — each garnered roughly 47 percent of shareholder backing, well below the 75 percent threshold needed for approval.
The outcome reflects growing unease among investors over transparency and accountability, particularly as BP recalibrates its strategy amid shifting global energy dynamics.
In a closely watched vote, Albert Manifold was elected as the company’s new chair with 81.8 percent support — a figure significantly lower than the near-unanimous approval typically seen in such appointments. While comfortably above the 50 percent required, the result was widely interpreted by analysts as a signal of discontent among shareholders.
The vote follows a pattern of investor dissatisfaction, after 24 percent of shareholders opposed the re-election of former chair Helge Lund last year.
More Read
A major point of contention at this year’s AGM was the board’s decision to block a resolution proposed by Dutch activist group Follow This. The motion sought to require BP to outline how it would generate value in a future scenario where demand for fossil fuels declines.
The company said it had rejected the proposal on legal grounds, arguing it would have been ineffective even if passed. However, the move drew criticism from several influential investor advisory firms, including Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services, as well as major asset manager Legal & General Investment Management, all of which recommended shareholders vote against the board’s position.
Some large institutional investors backed management, including Norges Bank Investment Management, reflecting a divided shareholder base over the company’s direction.
More Read
Speaking after the vote, Manifold defended the board’s decisions, saying they were taken “in good conscience” and aimed at building long-term shareholder value.
“All of the board’s decisions relating to the resolutions at this year’s AGM were made… with an aim to build a more valuable BP for our shareholders,” he said.
However, critics were quick to frame the results as a warning sign. Mark van Baal, founder of Follow This, described the outcome as “extremely embarrassing” for the company, pointing to investor frustration over climate strategy and governance practices.
Further pressure came from a separate resolution led by climate group Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility and other investors, which called on BP to justify its capital allocation toward oil and gas projects. The proposal received nearly 26 percent support — a notable level for a non-binding motion — obliging the company to engage with shareholders and report back.
Nick Mazan, oil and gas strategy lead at ACCR, said the result was “unprecedented,” adding that it showed investors were increasingly dissatisfied with the company’s approach to capital discipline and shareholder rights.
The AGM comes at a pivotal time for BP, as it navigates a complex transition between traditional hydrocarbon operations and growing investor expectations around sustainability and long-term risk management.
More Read
While the company’s shares have performed strongly this year — rising more than 30 percent and outperforming rivals such as Shell, Exxon Mobil and Chevron — the AGM outcome highlights a widening divide between financial performance and governance concerns.
Analysts say the results place increased pressure on BP’s leadership to clarify its long-term strategy, particularly how it plans to balance shareholder returns with climate-related risks in an evolving global energy landscape.
With investor scrutiny intensifying, the company is likely to face continued demands for greater transparency and clearer alignment between its business strategy and the transition to lower-carbon energy systems.
