Major U.S. pension funds plan to resist the reappointment of the chairman at Woodside Petroleum
**Investors Call for Change at Woodside Amid Climate Concerns**
A group of major institutional investors, including the two largest US pension funds, CalPERS and CalSTRS, and a Norwegian manager, Storebrand, have announced their intention to oppose the reappointment of Woodside's chair, Ann Pickard. This move comes as pressure mounts on the Australian energy giant over its climate strategy.
The opposition stems from dissatisfaction with Woodside's continued reliance on fossil fuel expansion, slow pace of decarbonization, and lack of credible targets to address climate risk.
**Continued Fossil Fuel Expansion**
Investors are critical of Woodside’s persistent focus on large-scale fossil fuel projects, such as the North West Shelf, which has recently been approved for extension until 2070. They argue that such long-term commitments to oil and gas are incompatible with global climate goals and the Paris Agreement.
**Insufficient Decarbonization Efforts**
There is growing frustration that Woodside’s transition plans lack ambition and specificity. Compared to peers, Woodside is seen as lagging in setting science-based emissions reduction targets and in investing in renewable energy and low-carbon technologies.
**Governance and Accountability Concerns**
Investors are questioning the board’s oversight and whether it is sufficiently holding management accountable for climate-related risks. The chair’s reappointment is seen as a signal of business-as-usual governance, despite increasing regulatory, market, and societal pressures for change.
The decision to extend the North West Shelf’s life until 2070, described by Greg Bourne, a former industry executive and current Climate Council councillor, as “almost inevitable” after decades of lobbying, exemplifies why investors are dissatisfied. They argue that such decisions lock in high emissions for decades, expose the company to stranded asset risks, and fail to align with the net-zero transition required to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
**Context of Institutional Investor Activism**
Institutional investors, including pension funds and asset managers, are under mounting pressure from their own stakeholders—such as beneficiaries and regulators—to ensure portfolio companies are aligned with net-zero pathways. Voting against board reappointments, including that of the chair, has become a key tool to signal displeasure with inadequate climate strategies and to push for more ambitious action.
The news of institutional investors' votes against Woodside's leadership was reported in Australian media, with The Australian publishing a report about the matter. Last year, a majority of 58% of investors opposed Woodside's climate transition plan.
Storebrand plans to vote against Ann Pickard due to her role as chair of the committee responsible for climate risk oversight. CalSTRS will vote against the re-election of Ben Wyatt and the election of Anthony O'Neill. CalPERS has also opposed the re-election of Ben Wyatt.
The AGM of Woodside is scheduled for tomorrow, and the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) has called for a vote against all directors. The opposition to Woodside's chair is due to pressures over the firm’s climate strategy. Storebrand's decision to oppose Ann Pickard was explicitly motivated by climate concerns, while CalSTRS' decision was not directly motivated by climate concerns.
The NZI Charities and Endowments Summit is scheduled for 12/06/2026 in London, but it is not directly related to the information provided in the article. Woodside is an Australian energy giant that has embarked on sustained fossil fuel production under Pickard's supervision, committing $18 billion to an LNG project in the US. Under her leadership, the company's LNG project is expected to add 1.6 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions over the next 40 years.
- "Given the Paris Agreement's objectives, the investors find Woodside's persistent focus on large-scale fossil fuel projects, like the North West Shelf, incompatible, as these projects' long-term commitments to oil and gas hinder global climate goals."
- "In comparison to industry peers, Woodside lags behind in setting science-based emissions reduction targets and investing in renewable energy and low-carbon technologies, a concern raised by the investors due to the necessity of transitioning away from fossil fuels towards a greener future."
