CIVICUS speaks with Mark van Baal, founder and director of Follow This, about its decision to pause filing climate-related shareholder resolutions. Follow This is a Dutch environmental organisation that was founded in 2015, based on the idea that shareholders should use their power to push oil and gas companies to align with the Paris Agreement.

On 10 April, Follow This suspended its filing of climate-related shareholder resolutions for the upcoming annual general meeting season for fossil fuel companies, breaking its consistent practice since 2016. This change of direction is the result of mounting political and financial constraints, with institutional investors reducing their backing for climate initiatives. While this tactical shift raises questions about effective climate advocacy strategies, Follow This remains committed to holding fossil fuel companies accountable.

How do climate resolutions influence fossil fuel companies?

The goal is to pressure the world’s biggest polluters to reduce their emissions and shift to clean energy. Without major changes from these companies, we can’t meet climate goals in time. And these companies only listen to their shareholders, particularly large institutional investors and pension funds.

Our core strategy is to submit shareholder resolutions, co-filed with institutional investors and our members, urging oil companies to align their business models with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Specifically, we call on them to set clear and measurable targets to reduce their Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. These are direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by the company, indirect emissions from purchased energy and all other indirect emissions in the value chain, upstream and downstream.

In 2016, our first resolution at Shell got just 2.7 per cent support, but it still had symbolic value. Just a year later, support more than doubled to 6.3 per cent, and by 2021 we reached 30 per cent. As a result, Shell became the first major oil company to set Scope 3 targets, which cover emissions from the use of its products. This was a landmark achievement, as most companies avoid taking responsibility for these.

We then took the same approach to BP, Chevron, Equinor and Phillips 66. Although they resisted, once shareholders increasingly voted for our resolution, they followed. They began setting Scope 3 targets and modestly investing in clean energy. However, many made vague promises to reach net zero by 2050, too far off to be trusted. What’s urgently needed are clear, medium-term targets for 2030 and 2035.

Our biggest success thus far is pushing five oil majors to set Scope 3 targets. Getting these companies to commit to Paris Agreement-aligned goals is the first step to stopping them expanding their oil and gas operations and starting significant investment in clean energy. One sign that our strategy works was when ExxonMobil, the only major company without Scope 3 targets, filed a lawsuit to prevent our resolution being put to a vote in 2024. They see us as a threat because our approach is effective.

What factors led to your campaign pause?

The primary reason is institutional investors’ shifting attitudes. We saw real progress between 2016 and 2021, with some of our resolutions achieving majority votes in the USA. But after 2021, particularly following political changes, companies intensified their pushback. They began spreading disinformation about our work and resorted to legal action.

Our message has always been clear: we’re not asking companies to shut down overnight. We’re asking them to use their skills and resources to move towards clean energy over the next 15 years. But companies have twisted this message and misrepresented our resolutions to scare investors. Some major investors that once supported us, such as BlackRock, reversed their position. Support for our resolution at Phillips 66 dropped from 80 to 36 per cent in just one year.

Between 2022 and 2024, support for our resolutions has plateaued around 20 per cent. We’ve observed a clear pattern: when support increases, companies strengthen their climate targets; when support drops, they roll them back. BP and Shell have already weakened or scrapped their climate targets.

This is why we’ve decided to pause our campaign. We realised that continuing and receiving only 20 per cent support won’t move the needle. Instead, we’re now focusing on building stronger alliances with investors: we need to understand why they claim to support climate action but vote against it. Only by working with them can we effectively push fossil fuel companies toward meaningful change.

How will you maintain momentum during this pause?

We’re still very active. We recently led a campaign urging investors to vote against the chair of BP to express concerns about its climate strategy, governance and the influence of the short-term activist investor, Elliott Management. Twenty-four per cent voted against him, despite him announcing his resignation anyway – an unprecedented result and a strong signal.

We’re also growing our membership. For €30 (approx. US$34) a year, anyone can join Follow This and become a green shareholder in major oil and gas companies such as Shell. This may seem counterintuitive, but it’s how people can gain influence and demand climate action from the inside. Our strategy is to change the system by actively participating in it.

We want to make people understand that climate risks are also financial risks. Extreme weather, floods, hurricanes and wildfires damage people’s homes, jobs and pensions. We reject the idea that we must choose between climate and profit. That’s a fallacy. Smart financial choices should support climate action.

Is the pause temporary?

Yes, it’s a temporary pause. But for us to resume filing resolutions, investors must step up. Right now, it’s disappointing that a small organisation like ours is leading this work. Institutional investors have the power and should be taking the lead or at least co-filing these resolutions with us.

Investors must use the power of their votes. If they stay passive, we can’t solve the climate crisis. It’s their responsibility to act. Shareholder resolutions have already made a difference: thanks to them, five oil majors set Scope 3 targets, which sent a powerful message.

Our main goal remains the same: to empower shareholders to push oil companies to change. If we find a more effective tool, we will use it. But for now, these resolutions remain the strongest strategy we know. We will continue making financial arguments, because that’s what investors listen to. At the end of the day, the biggest shift needed is for large investors to accept that climate risk is financial risk and act accordingly.