AGMs 2025: Voting against management at oil and gas companies is the only option

At a time when international climate action is under threat, notably due to the withdrawal of the United States of America from the Paris Agreement and the weakening of European sustainability regulations, temperatures continue to rise [1] and oil and gas companies to develop new projects that contribute to the climate crisis. Far from strengthening their climate plans, some oil and gas majors are taking advantage of the situation to backtrack on their insufficient commitments. Investors urgently need to open their eyes to the ineffectiveness of current shareholder engagement with these companies, and change their methods. Voting against several strategic management-proposed resolutions at 2025 Annual General Meetings is necessary to oppose the fossil fuel expansion plans of oil and gas companies.

The climate responsibility of investors requires them to use their position as shareholders to oppose inadequate climate strategies, especially for those companies that are worsening climate change. They can do so by voting against management-proposed resolutions at these companies’ AGM.

At the end of this article, Reclaim Finance presents detailed voting recommendations for the six largest European oil and gas companies and the two largest US companies. None of these companies has a climate strategy aligned with a credible 1.5°C trajectory.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) show that new upstream oil and gas projects and new LNG export terminals are not compatible with a 1.5°C world. Yet 95% of companies involved in upstream oil and gas are developing new projects [2] that will exacerbate climate change.

Furthermore, the IEA estimates that oil and gas producers would need to dedicate 50% of their capital expenditure to clean energy projects by 2030 to meet a 1.5°C scenario, in addition to the investments needed to reduce emissions from their operations [3]. However, in 2022, the oil and gas industry invested only 2.5% of its total capital expenditure in clean energy.

Even worse, since 2023, the oil and gas majors have been backtracking on their already weak climate commitments. BP, for example, has significantly revised its strategy, planning an increase in oil and gas production between now and 2030 (compared with a 25% drop previously), a decrease in investments in low-carbon energies, and a weakening of its medium-term decarbonisation targets. Also, TotalEnergies, Eni and Equinor are now planning to increase their oil and gas production over the next few years, compared to a decrease or a stagnation before.

Large listed oil and gas companies have been engaged by investors for several years, including through the Climate Action 100+ (CA100+) collaborative initiative and the filing of different shareholder resolutions. However, none of these companies have abandoned their fossil fuel expansion plans, and none have aligned their climate strategy with a 1.5°C trajectory. Some majors are even openly showing their lack of consideration for climate shareholder dialogue, such as BP, that refused to organize a vote on its climate strategy despite a request from 50 investors [4], or TotalEnergies that is no longer organizing a climate vote this year after proposing one for several years.

Some investors are beginning to acknowledge the ineffectiveness of the current engagement, such as the CA100+ lead investor of Equinor, Sarasin Partners, that recently announced its divestment from the company [5].

But investors can also question their engagement methods rather than divesting. Voting against management-proposed resolutions of oil and gas companies is currently under-utilized, even though it has been identified by academic research as an effective lever to influence corporate strategy and governance [6]. Voting against these strategic resolutions on climate grounds sends out the signal that climate is a priority for investors, and that it should be an integral part of corporate strategy. Some major investors, such as Union Investment, now increasingly vote against these resolutions for climate reasons.

Time is running out to tackle the climate emergency. Investors must use every tool at their disposal to oppose fossil fuel expansion, starting by voting against strategic management-proposed resolutions.