BP suffers historic shareholder rebellion at 2025 AGM

Investors in British energy giant BP sent a clear signal to the firm’s leadership, with 24% voting against the reappointment of the chair, Helge Lund, according to preliminary voting results shared with attendees of the AGM. 

It marks the first time in ten years that more than 10% of shareholders have opposed the reappointment of an energy firm chair, according to campaign group Follow This.

The Annual General Meeting was held in Sunbury-on-Thames against the backdrop of a significant strategic overhaul for the firm.

Lund opened the AGM by defending BP’s new direction, stating: “The company pursued too much while looking to build new low-carbon businesses,” and assuring investors that “lessons have been learned.”

Investor pushback

Five years after introducing one of the most ambitious decarbonisation strategies among major oil and gas companies, BP has seen its share price decline. In February this year, it announced a “complete reset”, scaling up fossil fuel extraction and backtracking on investment in renewables.

The vote against Lund comes despite him having already announced his departure from the firm. Nevertheless, is widely seen as a tool used by shareholders to express frustration, particularly as they were denied a vote on the company’s revised climate strategy.

BP’s February announcement came after the deadline for submitting shareholder proposals had passed. Major investors including Robeco, Rathbones, Legal & General, and Nest had requested a vote on the updated strategy. BP, however, opted not to include the issue on the AGM agenda. This prompted shareholder groups including the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR), ShareAction, and Follow This, alongside several institutional investors, to call for a vote against the firm’s leadership.

Shareholder division

The result highlights growing division within BP’s shareholder base. Some shorter-term-focused investors appear to favour the shift towards fossil fuels, while long-term institutional investors, such as pension funds, have expressed concern over how the firm will now meet its decarbonisation targets.

US hedge fund Elliott has recently acquired a 5% stake in BP, a move analysts interpret as a push for greater investment in fossil fuels. Elliott declined to disclose its voting intentions when approached for comment by Net Zero Investor.

Norges Bank Investment Management, another major shareholder, confirmed it supported Lund’s reappointment.

Speaking at the AGM, Nick Mazan, UK company lead for ACCR, criticised BP’s inconsistency on capital discipline: “We hear a lot about capital discipline with regards to the renewables business, but it appears there is a double standard when applying that same concept to upstream oil and gas projects. How does the company intend to respond to investor calls for new guardrails in the capex framework to ensure capital discipline, in light of the decision to scrap the production target?”

A credibility gap

Other investors raised concerns about BP’s strategic flip-flopping. Diandra Soobiah, director of responsible investment at Nest, said: “BP has changed its strategy three times in three years, undermining investor confidence and trust in the board to deliver on its commitments. This latest shift – scaling back renewables while increasing oil and gas production – ignores the company’s climate impact and exposes shareholders to greater stranded asset risk.”

Soobiah added that BP lacks a credible transition plan: “We are a long-term investor, and we bring that perspective to BP. We want to ensure the company successfully transitions to a low-carbon economic future and remains a strong, sustainable investment for our members.”

“We urge BP to ensure that its next chair has the skills, experience, and long-term perspective needed to guide the company through the energy transition and rebuild trust with all shareholders,” she concluded.

Border to Coast's stewardship lead Colin Baines responded, stating that a 24% opposition was "significant", highlighting " the clear shareholder dissatisfaction with BP’s strategy reset and governance. Border to Coast took the unprecedented step of voting against BP on a raft of measures, including against the re-election of the Chair, due to an inadequate transition plan and BP’s failure to seek a shareholder mandate for the change in strategy.

“We will be engaging BP to publish a comprehensive transition plan that details how it will achieve its 2050 net zero target covering its new strategy and a post-2030 plan and put it to a vote at the 2026 AGM. We believe that long term value in BP is dependent upon a quality transition plan that aligns with pathways to net zero. Border to Coast will continue to manage climate risk via our stewardship activities on behalf of partner funds” he added.

Shareholder votes against company chairs are rare, though not unprecedented. In 2023, 15% of Toyota shareholders voted against chair Akio Toyoda in protest over the company’s lack of transparency in climate lobbying—considered at the time a major shareholder revolt.

A 24% vote against BP’s chair, essentially expressing dissatisfaction with the company’s revised climate approach, sends a signal the firm cannot afford to ignore, argued Mark van Baal, founder of the campaign group Follow This. “The high vote against a chair – who is on his way out anyway – signals deep investor concern about climate, governance, and the alleged influence of Elliott,” says van Baal. "The votes represent almost five times more shareholders than Elliott’s alleged 5%.”