BP is making headlines again, and not in a good way. The energy giant’s board just axed Chairman Albert Manifold with immediate effect, citing “serious concerns” around governance standards, oversight, and conduct. The announcement sent shares tumbling as much as 9% before they recovered somewhat to trade around 4% lower.
Here’s the crazy part: Manifold has only been in the chair role since October. That’s less than a year. He took over from Helge Lund, who himself stepped down after a record shareholder rebellion last year. And now we’re on to the third chairman in under three years. If that doesn’t scream dysfunction, I don’t know what does.
The company hasn’t elaboration on exactly what those governance concerns are, but the language is pretty stark. The board said it was “surprised and disappointed” to learn of issues it deems “unacceptable.” Senior independent director Amanda Blanc tried to put a positive spin, praising Manifold for bringing “focus and pace” to BP’s transformation, but you have to wonder how much of that is corporate polite-speak versus genuine sentiment.
Shareholder Rebellion Was Already Brewing
Looking back, this shouldn’t have come totally out of nowhere. Manifold already received a pretty bruising vote at BP’s annual general meeting last month. He got 81.8% support from shareholders — which sounds decent until you realize board members typically get near-100% support and only need 50% to get elected. Even a 5% vote against would have marked a severe reprimand, according to some activist investors. This was way past that threshold, especially following that 24% vote against Lund the year before.
And if you dig a little deeper, there’s more context. BP made a contentious decision to block a shareholder proposal from Dutch activist group Follow This at its AGM. Lindsey Stewart, director of institutional investor content at Morningstar, pointed out that the company needlessly antagonized a wide swath of investors by excluding a proposal that seemed to tick all the boxes. That move raised further questions about governance at the company.
Is This Just A Blip Or A Deeper Problem?
To be fair, it’s not like BP has been standing still. The company has been making what looks like serious operational improvements and a strategic refocus back toward oil and gas, away from renewables. New CEO Meg O’Neill took the reins in April, replacing Murray Auchincloss after less than two years. There’s been progress on underlying performance and financial discipline.
But here’s the tension: with a resurgent share price this year, BP should be riding high and taking credit for its strategic reset. Instead, it’s dealing with its third CEO and third chairman in under three years. As Maurizio Carulli from Quilter Cheviot noted, BP has had more than its fair share of senior personnel leaving abruptly over the past two decades — Lord Browne, Tony Hayward, Bernard Looney, Murray Auchincloss — all with very different circumstances, but the pattern is nevertheless striking.
Stewart put it bluntly: BP has “the most volatile boardroom” of the oil supermajors. That’s not a distinction you want.
What Happens Now?
The company has appointed Ian Tyler as interim chair, and a formal succession process will get underway. Climate group ACCR is calling for a full, transparent account of what led to Manifold’s dismissal. Follow This wants the new chair to have real expertise in governance, climate risk, and transition risk. Those aren’t unreasonable asks given everything that’s happened.
CNBC has reached out to the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office for comment, though the SFO hasn’t responded yet. The Metropolitan Police declined to comment. So for now, we wait — and we watch.
BP still has operational momentum on its side. But when your boardroom turns into a revolving door, even the best strategy starts to look unstable. The next permanent chair has a tall order: restore confidence, steady the ship, and prove that this latest upheaval is an anomaly, not a pattern.
