The Oil Fund votes with oil giants against the climate
This new report by Framtiden (Future in Our Hands) shows that the fund votes with the oil companies' management – and against the climate – in almost all important matters.
The Oil Fund itself says that the climate crisis is a fundamental financial risk the fund must manage. Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), which manages the fund, has its own guidelines stating they should vote against board members who fail on climate risk, and that they should promote their own proposals where companies do not deliver.
However, when the world's largest oil and gas companies hold owner meetings, NBIM does almost none of this. This is the main finding of the report Oil Fund Vote Watch: Climate 2025, launched today by Future in Our Hands (Framtiden i våre hender). The report examined 23 central votes at twelve of the largest oil and gas companies in the portfolio, including Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP.
"The Oil Fund talks loudly about climate, but votes quietly with the companies that pollute the most. It is a serious credibility problem," says Tale Hungnes, leader of Future in Our Hands.
Yes to top executive pay, no to climate The findings are discouraging reading for anyone who believes the Oil Fund uses its ownership power for the climate:
- NBIM signaled dissatisfaction with company management in only three of 23 cases. Only one of these can be linked to climate considerations.
- The fund supported 100 percent of top executive salaries and 100 percent of board reports.
- Two climate-related shareholder proposals were submitted during the period; NBIM voted against both.
- The fund promoted no climate proposals of its own, despite this being a tool they say they can use.
- No new companies were excluded under the fund's own climate criterion, which has stood almost unused since 2020.
Tough on the small, silent toward the large
The report reveals a "double standard". In 2025, NBIM reported voting against 21 other companies in the portfolio due to climate risk, but none of the twelve largest emitting companies in this analysis were on that list. This means the fund sets stricter requirements for smaller companies than for those actually responsible for the lion's share of world emissions.
The BP case: voted against a historic investor rebellion
The pattern was again made clear at BP's general meeting in April 2026. There, NBIM voted with the BP board in all climate matters, despite the majority of shareholders and the largest advisory firms for investors (ISS and Glass Lewis) recommending the opposite.
Over 50 percent of shareholders voted against the BP board's proposal to remove existing climate reporting. 18 percent voted against the re-election of the chairman, which is unusually high. NBIM was among the minority that supported the board in both matters.
Future in Our Hands demands that NBIM:
- Align voting with its own climate expectations and guidelines.
- Stop the double standard and hold the largest polluters accountable on equal terms with the rest of the portfolio.
- Start promoting its own climate proposals at general meetings.
- Utilize the climate exclusion criterion, which has stood almost unused since 2020.
