2020 shareholder resolution on Paris-alignment
At Woodside’s May 2020 AGM, shareholders owning a combined 50% of the company sought disclosure of Paris-aligned climate targets, capital allocation and remuneration.[1] The shareholder concerns, represented by this significant vote, were not addressed. In 2021 the company announced a net emissions reduction target of 30% by 2030 which excluded scope 3 emissions; did not reduce funding to fossil fuel expansion; and did not introduce a remuneration structure prioritising emissions reduction.[2]

https://www.accr.org.au/news/members%E2%80%99-statements-relating-to-the-re-election-of-directors-to-the-woodside-energy-board/

2021 Climate Report and Say on Climate vote
At its 2022 AGM, Woodside received the lowest recorded vote for a Climate Transition Action Plan since the inception of the Say on Climate mechanism, with 49% of votes cast against the 2021 Climate Report. Shareholder concerns included that:

No tangible scope 3 targets had been disclosed;
Woodside lacked science-based/Paris-aligned targets;
Operational emissions reduction targets were insufficiently ambitious, and/or lacked detail;
There was an overreliance on the use of offsets;
Woodside is lagging its peers in relation to its emissions plan;
Woodside's disclosure and responsiveness was poor.
No commitment to second Say on Climate vote
At the 2022 AGM, when the Australian Shareholders' Association asked the Chair if Woodside would provide a 2023 Say on Climate vote considering the lack of shareholder support, the Chair responded that it would not. Consistent with this prior statement, no commitment to a second Say on Climate vote has been made in the reporting suite published 27 February 2023.

The 2022 Climate Report
The 2022 Climate Report presented an opportunity for Woodside to demonstrate that it was responding to the concerns expressed by investors over the last three years. Whilst the company stated that it had engaged with shareholders throughout 2022, this has not translated in any substantive changes in its climate strategy. In fact the Chair stated in his opening remarks that “our understanding and our strategy remains consistent” with the 2021 Report.[3] Key observations relating to investor concerns are below:

Woodside has not committed to targets that are science-based;
Woodside has not set a scope 3 target;
Only incremental improvements in scope 1 emission reductions have been disclosed;
Offsets continue to dominate Woodside’s scope 1 decarbonisation strategy.
In addition, the 2022 reporting suite confirms that Woodside is continuing to allocate the bulk of its capital to developing new oil and gas projects, which increases risk of impairments in a transitioning global economy.

Climate change governance at Woodside
Woodside acknowledges that 'climate change is a complex and material strategic governance issue', one which is directly overseen by its Board with the support of its committees.[4] The Sustainability Committee is responsible for considering the company's 'management of climate change risk and opportunities', and oversaw and reviewed Woodside’s 2021 and 2022 Climate reports.[5] All directors up for re-election have sat on Woodside's Sustainability Committee for the duration of their tenure as board members. In 2022, Woodside reported that the majority of its directors are 'highly competent' across all 'climate change' competencies.[6] The latest annual report confirmed the Board’s self-assessment that Board members 'collectively have the necessary skills and competencies'. However, the company does not disclose any specific information in support of this conclusion.

Ian Macfarlane has been a Woodside director and Sustainability Committee member since November 2016. Consequently, Mr Macfarlane shares responsibility for the Board’s failings with regard to governance and climate change.

Further information can be found online here: www.accr.org.au/news/members%E2%80%99-statements-relating-to-the-re-election-of-directors-to-the-woodside-energy-board/