There’s a Climate Showdown Ahead for Big Oil Investors

Votes to elect board members of major corporations are typically pro forma affairs. Companies make their recommendations, and shareholders certify it, usually with near unanimity. That wasn’t the case this week at BP’s closely watched annual meeting. On Thursday, nearly a quarter of BP’s shareholders voted against the oil and gas major’s current chairman. It was a stunning rebuke of the company’s management.

The dissatisfaction with BP’s direction is driven by a constellation of factors. While different for every shareholder, it ultimately boils down to how the company has sought to address climate change. On one end of the spectrum, institutional investors are dismayed at the company’s pullback from its ambitious climate targets. On the other end, hedge funds and other short-term investors want to slim down long-term bets on the energy transition and focus instead on securing better returns as soon as possible.

This dynamic isn’t isolated to BP and it’s not going away anytime soon. With trillions in capital on the line, not to mention the fate of the planet, investors will continue to wrestle with how to reward and punish businesses for their climate work. It strikes right at the heart of the climate challenge for companies: the need to create long-term value while still generating competitive returns in the short term.    

For the last several decades, debates over the future of oil and gas firms in a climate-changed world have occupied investors, climate activists, corporate executives, and policymakers. Unsurprisingly, the range of views is wide. Some argue that oil and gas companies should stick to what they know best and ignore the climate challenge altogether. Others, meanwhile, say oil and gas companies should use their massive balance sheets to embrace the energy transition and fund renewables, turning themselves into diversified energy companies. Many, particularly U.S. firms, have embraced an approach where they invest in clean technologies that are close to their core competencies—think of hydrogen or carbon capture.   

BP took the most aggressive position of the so-called supermajors. In 2020, it said it would cut oil and gas production by at least 35% by 2030 and invest $5 billion annually in energy transition projects. “We can create value for our shareholders through this shift,” then-CEO Bernard Looney told me in 2020. “And we would argue that we will create more value through this shift than we would if we keep doing what we’re doing.”

So what happened? First, the market shifted. Oil and gas prices rose, so BP trimmed their renewables plan to take advantage of higher prices. And then Elliott Investment Management—a hedge fund known for aggressively pushing companies to change practices—came along, turning a pullback into a u-turn. In February, new reports revealed that Elliott had bought a 5% stake in BP with an eye to getting it to ditch its renewable program entirely, double down on oil and gas, and boost the short-term share price. The markets rewarded the news, and that same month BP announced an even bigger pivot away from renewable energy. 

But the short-term bump in the stock price obscures a much more complicated picture. As a governance matter, some investors complained that the pivots are too chaotic. And major institutional investors like Legal & General and Robeco, both of which manage hundreds of billions in assets, have also expressed concern about whether BP’s new approach is durable in the energy transition. “We are deeply concerned by the recent substantive revisions made to the company’s strategy,” Legal & General wrote in a statement on its website.

All of which created a perfect storm for this week’s show of dissent. More than 24% voted against BP chair Helge Lund, a symbolic vote given that he had already announced his intention to step down. A search for his successor is underway.

These choppy waters for investor relations will continue as long-term and short-term value creation become increasingly divergent. In the short term, there’s a quick buck to be made as the demand for oil and gas remains high, driven by lingering supply constraints after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and energy intensive AI use (though the U.S.-initiated trade war may temper this somewhat).  

But the long-term picture will look different. Costs continue to decline for clean technologies. And anyone in the industry knows that prices are cyclical. Moreover, the costs of climate change will eventually weigh on the returns of all sectors. In this dynamic, standout firms will be able to thread that very difficult needle: positioning the company for a long-term future while generating short-term returns. As I’ve heard many institutional investors say, “there are no returns on a dead planet.”

To get this story in your inbox, subscribe to the TIME CO2 Leadership Report newsletter here.

This story is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. TIME is solely responsible for the content.