New report reveals BP and Shell divestment by small investors offset by mega-shareholder buys

A new report published by the Center for Climate Crime and Climate Justice at Queen Mary University of London and Corporate Watch sheds light on the impact of divestment campaigns on BP and Shell. The report, titled “Beyond Divestment,” explores the effectiveness of divestment campaigns in persuading shareholders to withdraw funds from fossil fuel companies, and discusses alternative interventions that could address the global climate crisis.

The report highlights some important findings:

– While 47% of BP shareholders and 54% of Shell shareholders have reduced their stake in the companies, the net share ownership has actually risen by 10% in both BP and Shell.
– It is not always clear if a reduction in shareholdings should be considered divestment, as more than a quarter of the investors who reduced their shares in either BP or Shell actually increased their shares in the other company.
– The divestment trend among smaller shareholders is being canceled out by the largest shareholders, including some of the world’s largest asset managers.
– Only 3% of BP shareholders and 4% of Shell shareholders have sold all their shares in the two oil giants.
– Despite the divestment campaigns, the market capitalization and share price of BP and Shell have continued to increase significantly since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015.

According to Professor David Whyte, co-author of the report, the level of divestment needed to mitigate global warming cannot be achieved by simply transferring ownership of shares. Instead, organizations need to acquire shares in fossil fuel companies with the intention of keeping the fuels in the ground.

The report provides detailed data on the largest 20 divestors for BP and Shell, revealing that some of BP’s biggest divestors have actually increased their shareholding in Shell, and vice versa.

Based on these findings, Professor Whyte suggests that divestment is not truly divestment, but rather a form of reinvestment. To effectively address the global climate crisis, it is necessary to decrease and eventually stop the production of oil and gas.

In conclusion, the report emphasizes the need for alternative forms of intervention that can significantly scale back oil and gas production. Divestment campaigns alone are not having the desired impact, and more drastic measures are required to limit global warming and ensure planetary survival.