This insight draws on InfluenceMap's assessment of BP and Shell's climate policy engagement from 2021–2025, using publicly available data and company disclosures up to the end of 2025. With investor scrutiny intensifying ahead of both companies' 2026 AGMs, it considers what that record reveals about their positioning on the energy transition.
On January 12, 2026, a coalition of investors representing more than €1.5 trillion in assets under management filed resolutions at BP and Shell's 2026 Annual General Meetings (AGMs), calling on the companies to disclose their long-term strategies under scenarios of declining oil and gas demand. While Shell allowed the resolution to appear on shareholders' ballots, BP chose to block it, claiming that it was legally invalid. BP also proposed resolutions to remove existing climate reporting requirements and shift to online-only AGMs.
BP's decision prompted significant shareholder dissent, with proxy advisors ISS and Glass Lewis recommending that investors vote against BP's chair, and Legal & General Investment Management publicly indicating its intention to do the same. Reporting on BP's AGM described a "triple climate rebellion" by shareholders, including majority opposition to the proposal to move to fully virtual AGMs and notable votes against the re-election of the company's chair.
Corporate policy engagement can provide a forward-looking signal of how companies expect the energy transition to unfold. As urgent calls for the transition mount, investors may wish to examine discrepancies between BP and Shell's climate policy engagement and their stated preparedness for declining fossil fuel demand, as these may pose significant financial risks.
InfluenceMap’s LobbyMap analysis shows deterioration in BP and Shell’s climate policy alignment since 2021. As captured by InfluenceMap's Lobbying Score1 in Figure 1, Shell was first to decline, with BP following after a short peak in 2022–23. Both companies now score below the threshold typically associated with supportive engagement on climate policy.
BP and Shell's overall alignment with science-based climate policy has worsened steadily since 2021
As their advocacy becomes more negative, BP and Shell continue to engage actively, particularly on matters related to the energy transition. These trends appear consistent with BP's pivot back toward oil and gas from 2023 to 2025 and with Shell's gradual shift toward higher-return fossil fuel business in its portfolio.
An important component of the LobbyMap assessment considers the science-alignment of corporate messaging on the transition of the energy mix. Figure 2 illustrates how the composition of both companies' energy transition engagement has shifted since 2021. The share of supportive engagement has fallen steadily, with the most pronounced drop occurring from 2023 onwards. By the end of 2025, neither company registered any evidence of strong support for the energy transition, with obstructive engagement accounting for the majority of both companies' documented positions in this area.
Since 2021, evidence of negative energy transition engagement has made up a growing share of BP and Shell's scores. Each bar shows the breakdown across five scoring grades, from strongly supportive to obstructive.
The following examples illustrate what this increased negative engagement looks like in practice. BP and Shell consistently call for fossil fuel expansion and advocate for a slower transition than advised by the IPCC, actively engaging policymakers across multiple jurisdictions to facilitate continued and expanded fossil fuel production. For example:
While BP and Shell have both supported certain strands of climate policy, such support is generally high-level and limited to areas where they have existing or growing commercial interests:
Notably, the policies these companies support focus on transport electrification, low-carbon fuels, and incentives for renewable hydrogen, none of which directly constrain oil and gas production. Their positive engagement appears selective and does not offset sustained support for continued oil and gas exploration and production.
BP has not published a climate policy engagement review since 2023, raising questions about how the company's board oversees alignment between its lobbying activities and stated climate ambitions.
While Shell is among the most transparent oil and gas companies in disclosing its climate policy engagement activities, disclosure alone does not indicate support for climate policy. Both Shell and BP publicly express high-level support for climate regulation and acknowledge the scientific consensus on climate change. However, Figure 3 reveals a significant gap between this top-line support and their detailed engagement on the transition of the energy mix.
The deterioration in BP and Shell's lobbying alignment is occurring at the same time that both companies have publicly walked back their climate commitments.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is unambiguous: limiting warming to as close to 1.5°C as possible requires a significant decline in global oil and gas use, with no room for new unabated fossil fuel expansion. Recent InfluenceMap analysis shows that global leaders and new corporate voices are rejecting the oil and gas industry's extensive efforts to push fossil fuels as the key to global energy security and affordability in light of the Iran war. The IEA's Global Energy Review 2026, meanwhile, finds that solar became the largest contributor to global energy demand growth for the first time, while renewables and nuclear combined met nearly 60% of new demand.
Despite growing scrutiny of long-term value creation under declining fossil fuel demand scenarios, both BP and Shell continue to advocate for policy environments that may obstruct transition pathways. Their lobbying, in turn, may increase exposure to future demand shocks, policy tightening, or asset stranding.
Climate policy engagement provides a critical lens to assess strategic intent. Where negative lobbying persists alongside high levels of engagement, it may indicate that companies are seeking to shape, rather than prepare for, the transition.
Full profiles for both companies, including underlying evidence, are available on InfluenceMap's LobbyMap platform.
1 Within InfluenceMap's methodology, an entity's Lobbying Score (Organization Score) is a 0–100 measure of how supportive or obstructive a company's direct policy engagement is relative to science-aligned climate policy.
