BP Needs a Board for the Strategy It Now Claims to Want
I have already argued that BP’s chair question is not simply a vacancy problem, but a process problem. After the removal of Albert Manifold, BP does not just need another permanent chair; it first needs to restore confidence in the machinery that will make that appointment. Hence my case for an interim chair: a temporary stabiliser whose role would be to break the circularity of the current board process, steady the institution, consult shareholders and create the conditions for a credible long-term search.
That chair question is the latest consequence of a strategic error BP made several years ago. In 2020, Covid had crushed oil demand, interest rates were close to zero, ESG capital was abundant, European politics was pressuring oil majors to prove transition credibility, and clean-energy equities were priced as if the future had already arrived. BP did not merely add low-carbon options to an oil and gas business. It began to recast itself around a new identity, one in which the old business looked less central to the future. That strategy has not commanded the confidence of the market. BP has changed course and is now trying to restore a more conventional oil and gas-led investment case.
The board matters because boards are not neutral. Companies build boards around the future they believe they are pursuing. They recruit directors whose experience, instincts and networks seem useful for that future. It was therefore understandable that BP wanted a board suited to its transformation story. It needed people who understood transition risk, stakeholder pressure, climate governance, institutional investors, public legitimacy and the language of long-term corporate purpose. Against that backdrop, it was not surprising that BP appointed Amanda Blanc to the board in 2022. BP highlighted her leadership of Aviva, her connections across UK business and investment, and her strong interest in the energy transition. That was not accidental language. It reflected the BP of the time: a company still trying to make the integrated-energy-company narrative credible.
Aviva itself helps explain the fit. It is an insurer. Its world is regulation, long-term liabilities, climate exposure, policy risk, reputation, social resilience and the pricing of uncertainty. For an insurer, it may be commercially rational to think deeply about transition planning, stakeholder risk and broader social outcomes. These are not necessarily distractions from the business model. They can be part of the business model.
Aviva under Blanc has leaned into that world. It has committed to becoming a net zero company by 2040. Blanc co-chaired the UK Transition Plan Taskforce. Aviva’s public language connects financial resilience, climate, customers, communities and long-term responsibility. In an insurance context, that is coherent. A serious insurer has to think about flooding, extreme weather, regulation, vulnerable customers, long-duration obligations and the resilience of the markets in which it operates.
