Woodside AGM: investor discontent over climate governance grows

“While the importance of decarbonising the world to mitigate the impacts of climate change is not debated”, affirmed Woodside Energy chair Richard Goyder, “the how is”.

Goyder’s address set the tone for the Australian energy major’s 2025 AGM - convened this morning in Perth.

On the agenda, was a closely watched election of three directors – Ann Pickard, Ben Wyatt and Tony O’Neill.

While all three succeeded in their bid, 19.45% of shareholders voted against Pickard – the current chair of Woodside’s sustainability committee.

Climate risk accountability

The three directors on the ballot this year were closely associated with Woodside’s climate governance.

Ann Pickard is the current chair of the company’s sustainability committee. Ben Wyatt chairs Woodside’s audit and risk committee. Tony O’Neill, a former group technical director at Anglo American, is a member of both.

The Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) had recommended a vote against all three – citing a history of shareholder discontent with Woodside’s climate risk management.

Last year, 58% of shareholders voted against the company’s climate transition plan. This year, the plan wasn’t up for discussion.

“It is astounding that Woodside has made no material change to its strategy in response to these votes. This raises serious questions about governance”, says ACCR lead analyst Alex Hillman.

NZI Charities and Endowments Summit | 12/06/2026 | London

Provisional AGM results suggest that 19.45% of shareholders opposed Pickard’s re-election.

“This is the worst vote on record against a committee chair for Woodside and the second worst vote ever against a Woodside director”, says Hillman.

Asset owner votes

Asset owners also opposed some of these appointments. CalPERS and CalSTRS both voted against the re-election of Wyatt while the latter also opposed O’Neill’s bid.

Australian superannuation fund HESTA voted against Pickard’s appointment.

“While recognising her significant contributions, we have voted against the re-election of Ann Pickard as a director based on accountability for Woodside’s climate transition action plan as sustainability committee chair”, said Jeff Brunton - HESTA’s head of portfolio management.

On paper

Ahead of the meeting, Woodside had claimed it was on track to achieve its emissions reduction targets for Scope 1 and 2 while referring to scope 3 progress as ‘material’.

Rohan Bowater, lead oil and gas analyst at Accela Research notes that this progress is more on paper than in practice:

“Woodside’s emissions rose 10% in 2024 once offsets are excluded, despite reporting a decline. It still claims it can cut emissions 30% by 2030, but that only adds up if offsets increase even further; its biggest project, Louisiana LNG, comes online in 2029 and will significantly boost its portfolio”, he told Net Zero Investor.

The Louisiana project was cited repeatedly at the AGM this morning, including by Woodside’s CEO and managing director Meg O’Neill who referred to it as a “game changer”.

The February 2025 update to Woodside’s climate plan raised more questions than it answered - notably around the company’s $5bn energy transition budget.

“Three-quarters of Woodside’s transition spend is going to just one gas + CCS ammonia project in the US. The project is likely to only deliver 1-2% of total company sales by FY30, while leaving little budget for more reliably low-carbon offerings”, Bowater adds.

This year’s AGM proceedings add to mounting concerns over Woodside’s climate risk management. Goyder’s claim – that the ‘how’ of decarbonisation is up for debate – will do little to assuage such concerns.

“Woodside remains on our watchlist as we push for stronger climate action designed to safeguard long-term shareholder value”, warns Brunton.

Shareholders, including asset owners, seem willing to vote against not only climate transition plans but also the individuals behind their design – particularly when the plan itself isn’t even on the agenda.