A sign at a BP PLC petrol station in London, UK, on Monday, August 4, 2025.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | getty images
It appears that a group of dissenting investors are increasing the pressure BP Before its annual general meeting.
The Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF), a peak UK pension fund body, Said It said late last week it would recommend its members vote against BP Chairman Albert Manifold and other board-backed proposals at its April 23 meeting.
It follows recommendations from two influential proxy advisors, Glass Lewis and ISS, and one of Europe’s largest asset managers. Legal and General Investment ManagementFor shareholders to vote against BP’s wishes.
Glass Lewis and ISS have a significant influence on how institutional investors vote at AGMs and rarely advocate voting against a firm’s board.
BP’s AGM comes as the energy major is in the process of pivoting back to its core business of oil and gas – and away from renewables – and former Woodside Energy boss Meg O’Neill takes the reins as CEO.
Shares of the London-listed company have risen since early April last year, when the company found itself in the headlines as a major takeover candidate. BP has gained about 32% so far this year, outperforming many of its US and European rivals.
BP shares in the last 12 months.
In a statement, LAPFF urged its members to vote against the re-election of BP’s Manifold, who only took up his role as chairman in October, rejecting pressure from BP to retire two motions requiring company-specific climate reporting and opposing a motion allowing virtual-only AGMs.
LAPFF said its recommendations came amid “serious governance concerns” and cited BP’s recent move to throw out a shareholder proposal put forward by Dutch activist group Follow This.
The proposal put forward by FollowThis, which has a long history of pushing Big Oil to do more to tackle climate change, would require BP to share its long-term strategy under scenarios of falling demand for oil and gas.
BP said its board concluded, after taking legal advice, that the proposal was not valid and would have been ineffective if passed at the AGM.
A customer refuels a vehicle at a BP PLC petrol station in London, UK, on Monday, August 4, 2025.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | getty images
In a Q&A with the chair of BP late last month, Manifold Said The company would like to withdraw the two climate-related proposals because the world has moved forward since they were passed in 2015 and 2019 and the requirements under these BP-specific proposals were “substantially duplicative” of what the firm discloses under other industry rules.
Referring to its plan to eliminate these climate pledges, a spokesperson for BP told CNBC: “After extensive engagement with our largest investors, we are solely focused on building a simpler, stronger and more valuable BP. That’s why we are making these recommendations to provide transparent, standardized disclosures that support clear comparability across companies.”
The company has also tried to clarify that ending these proposals will not change the company’s net zero ambition.
shareholder democracy
Mark van Baal, founder of FollowThis, which is backed by European investors and represent less than 0.3% of BP shareholders, said the company had “crossed a red line” by refusing to table the group’s proposal.
“We’re just talking about value creation for shareholders. BP wants to get as little shareholder impact as possible and they call it simplification. We want transparency,” Van Baal told CNBC by video call.
He added, “I think what’s at stake here is bigger than just BP. It’s shareholder democracy that’s at stake here.” “If BP survives a resolution, it would be a major blow to shareholder democracy because if BP can survive, other companies can too.”
LAPFF said it would also support a proposal put forward by climate group ACCR, known as Resolution 24, which seeks clearer disclosure on how BP evaluates the cost-competitiveness, execution risks and long-term value of its oil and gas investments.
Glass Lewis, for its part, recommends investors support against BP management on Resolution 24 as well as Resolutions 23 and 4, which refer to climate-reporting requirements introduced several years ago and the election of the president, respectively.
ISS has recommended voting against BP management on resolutions 22 (the move to a virtual-only AGM) and 23, while Legal & General Investment Management has made public its intention to vote against BP on resolutions 22, 23, 24 and 4.
BP’s Manifold said that ACCR’s proposed solution would “move the company in the opposite direction to where we want to go and where it needs to go – which is towards simplified, standardized and comparable reporting.”
Manifold also said that many other large global companies already hold virtual-only AGMs and the support of the firm’s shareholders would give BP’s board the option to do so from time to time.
