Shareholder support for a climate resolution filed by activist group Follow This at today’s Shell annual general meeting (AGM) fell short of expectations.
A group of major pension funds was among a coalition that filed the shareholder resolution at Shell, seeking clarity on how the oil major plans to protect and grow shareholder value if oil and gas demand declines.
At the time of publication, the results of today’s meeting have not yet been officially announced, but reports from attendees indicated that around 13% of shareholders supported the resolution. Meanwhile, the re-election of Andrew Mackenzie as chair was opposed by 6% of shareholders, down from 8% last year.
Today’s result follows a shareholder revolt at BP after it excluded a similar Follow This resolution from its own AGM earlier this year.
The Shell resolution, known as Resolution 23, was filed by Follow This and investors managing more than €1.2trn in assets, including Bernische Pensionskasse, Falkirk Council Pension Fund, Lothian Pension Fund, PUBLICA and West Yorkshire Pension Fund.
At 13%, support was lower than for any Shell climate shareholder vote since 2020 and below the 2021 peak of 30.47%. However, Mark van Baal, chief executive officer of Follow This, said he believes double-digit support still signals shareholder discontent.
Prior to the AGM, van Baal told IPE he expected the resolution to attract stronger backing than in previous years, although he acknowledged it was difficult to predict the outcome.
“Our new resolution resonates with investors who see where the energy market is going,” said van Baal.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has projected that global oil demand will peak by 2029 and decline from 2030, although its forecasts for long-term gas demand vary.
In a speech delivered at today’s AGM, Shell CEO Wael Sawan said: “There is no national security without energy security,” adding: “Meeting demand for oil will be essential – and for decades to come.”
Today’s results suggest mainstream investors remain largely aligned with management’s current strategy, or are unwilling to support this form of climate-risk disclosure.
Speaking at the AGM, Mackenzie, chair of Shell’s board of directors, said: “Shell’s Scenarios aren’t our strategy, business plans, or predictions. But they stretch management to consider a range of possibilities. We update that thinking regularly and share much of it openly, because there’s value in shareholders understanding how we think.”
Lindsey Stewart, director of institutional investor content at Morningstar, told IPE: “It looks like it was a relatively quiet year for climate-related protest votes at Shell’s 2026 AGM.
“Given recent history at the UK-listed oil majors, ‘success’ probably looks like something more in the region of 20-30%,” he added.
LNG strategy
Separately, activist shareholder group Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) criticised Shell over its response to questions on the oil major’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) growth strategy.
ACCR today scrutinised the LNG Portfolio – Strategic Spotlight, published by Shell in March in response to a shareholder resolution backed by more than one-fifth of the company’s investors last year.
Speaking to IPE, Nick Mazan, oil and gas strategy lead at ACCR, said: “The chair seemed unprepared to respond to questions around the expected LNG demand destruction resulting from the crisis in Iran”.
“Shell’s resistance to reevaluating its major bet on LNG, in light of the biggest shock to energy markets, suggests a degree of path determinism in its thinking that is likely to unsettle investors,” he added.
