Votes to elect board members of major corporations are typically routine affairs, where companies submit their recommendations and shareholders endorse them with overwhelming consensus. However, the recent annual meeting of BP, one of the world's largest oil and gas companies, shattered this norm. On Thursday, nearly a quarter of BPs shareholders voted against the current chairman, Helge Lund, marking a significant rebuke of the companys management strategies and direction.

This unexpected discontent among shareholders stems from a complex mix of factors, predominantly revolving around BP's approach to addressing climate change. Shareholders perspectives vary widely; while institutional investors are frustrated by the companys retreat from its previously bold climate goals, hedge funds and other short-term investors are advocating for a reduction in long-term investments in the energy transition. Instead, they are pushing BP to focus on immediate returns, a stark contrast to the sustainable path that many believe is necessary.

This conflict is not unique to BP; it reflects a broader trend across the energy sector that will likely persist. As trillions of dollars remain at stake, alongside concerns about global climate stability, investors will continuously grapple with how to incentivize and penalize companies for their environmental actions. The challenge lies at the very core of corporate sustainability: striking a balance between creating enduring value and delivering competitive short-term returns.

Over the past few decades, the future roles of oil and gas firms in a climate-altered world have sparked vigorous debates among investors, climate advocates, corporate leaders, and policymakers alike. Opinions vary widely. Some argue that oil and gas companies should strictly adhere to their core competencies, sidelining climate issues altogether. Conversely, others assert that these companies should leverage their substantial financial resources to embrace the energy transition, transitioning into diversified energy providers.

Many U.S. firms have adopted a strategy that involves investing in clean technologies that align closely with their core operations, such as hydrogen production or carbon capture mechanisms. BP previously took the lead among major oil companies in advocating for aggressive climate action. In 2020, the company committed to cutting its oil and gas production by at least 35% by 2030 and announced plans to allocate $5 billion annually to projects supporting the energy transition. Former CEO Bernard Looney was vocal about the potential for creating shareholder value through this shift, claiming that it could yield better returns than continuing with traditional practices.

However, the landscape shifted dramatically as oil and gas prices surged. BP adjusted its renewable energy plans to capitalize on these higher prices, leading to a strategic pivot. Compounding this change, Elliott Investment Management, a hedge fund known for pressuring companies to alter their practices, acquired a 5% stake in BP. Elliott's strategy aimed to persuade BP to abandon its renewable initiatives, intensifying its focus on oil and gas to boost short-term stock performance. The announcement of Elliotts investment led to a spike in BPs stock price, but the underlying implications were far more complex.

Investors raised concerns regarding the chaotic nature of BP's strategic changes. Major institutional investors, including Legal & General and Robeco, which manage vast sums of assets, voiced apprehension about the sustainability of BP's new approach in the context of the energy transition. Legal & General expressed their worries in a public statement, highlighting their deep concerns regarding the substantive revisions to BP's strategy.

These factors culminated in the recent shareholder vote, where over 24% of participants opposed Helge Lund's chairmanship. Notably, this was a symbolic gesture, as Lund had already announced his intention to resign. Currently, the search for his successor is underway. The turbulence in BP's investor relations is likely to persist as the divergence between long-term and short-term value creation becomes increasingly pronounced. Short-term gains remain attractive, driven by ongoing high demand for oil and gasa trend exacerbated by supply constraints following geopolitical events such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and increased energy demands from sectors like artificial intelligence.

Looking ahead, however, the long-term outlook for the energy sector appears to diverge sharply from short-term opportunities. The costs associated with clean technologies continue to decrease, and industry insiders are acutely aware of the cyclical nature of energy prices. Additionally, the financial repercussions of climate change are expected to impact all sectors significantly. In this evolving landscape, companies that can effectively position themselves for a sustainable future while delivering immediate returns will stand out. As many institutional investors aptly put it, There are no returns on a dead planet.

To stay informed on this topic and more, consider subscribing to the TIME CO2 Leadership Report newsletter.

This article is supported through a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners, with TIME maintaining full editorial independence.