Green Transition or Greenwashing? The Truth About Big Oil’s Climate Promises

Back in 2020, as climate pressure increased and investors began to demand sustainability, many of Europe’s oil giants announced what appeared to be a generational shift. Shell stated its commitment to becoming a net-zero energy company by 2050, and along with TotalEnergies (TE), they rebranded from oil producers to “integrated energy companies”. BP too made a series of promises that went far beyond those set out by its competitors. It was the only oil major to pledge an actual cut in production, promising a 40% reduction while increasing green energy spending tenfold in the same period. Across the sector, billions were allocated for offshore wind and solar farms, as well as EV and hydrogen projects. For a short while, it appeared as if the industry’s ‘ugly ducklings’ were finally preparing to transform.

Yet several years later, the transformation looks a lot less certain. Oil majors experienced record profits following the global energy crisis, and many have since reduced their emissions targets and welcomed new investment into oil and gas production. While some climate pledges remain in place, a critical question is raised: are oil giants really transitioning to a greener future, or has sustainability just become a form of strategic greenwashing that shifts whenever the market pressures it?

In the years of 2020 and 2021, oil giants made plenty of green promises. TotalEnergies, the world’s fourth largest privately owned oil and gas producer, set aims of reaching carbon neutrality by 2050, partly through investment into more solar and wind projects. The company’s plans were approved with more than a 90% vote at its annual meeting; it seemed almost everyone was on board with the proposed transition. The CEO of TE, Patrick Pouyanné, said the rebranding would symbolise the company’s “new commitment to being a leader in a world with more energies and fewer emissions”, and that it would undergo “a genuine transformation” to meet its net zero target by 2050.

BP also set ambitious targets for their journey to net zero, including a 50% cut in carbon and methane intensity of operations before the half century. It’s CEO at the time, Bernard Looney, announced the new purpose of the company to be ‘reimagining energy for people and our planet’. He said, “The world’s carbon budget is finite and running out fast; we need a rapid transition to net zero”, showing what appeared to be a strong commitment to change.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) were keen to fuel this transformation and released a report suggesting fossil fuel production needed to slow down far quicker than firms were planning for. The IEA explicitly stated there could be no new investment in fossil fuel projects after 2021 if the world wanted to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

However, 2020 seemed to be the year of false promises, as now over five years down the line many of these commitments are beginning to fade. As of February 2025, BP’s CEO, Murray Auchincloss, scrapped short-term targets to increase renewable energy generation and chose to shift the focus back to fossil fuels – a decision made in response to investor concerns over earnings. Auchincloss told investors the company is abandoning more of its previous targets and divesting assets, cutting low-carbon investments to help reduce their debt and boost returns.

Across the wider energy sector, similar patterns have emerged. Companies that had shifted their portfolios to help curb climate change have now returned to focus on gas and oil, where returns have become easier following the rebound in fossil fuel prices after pandemic lows. Shell, one of those companies looking to abandoned key targets, have “chosen to retire their 2035 target of a 45% reduction in net carbon intensity” due to “uncertainty in the pace of change in the energy transition”, as per recent reports. On top of this, the company says investment in oil and gas “will be needed” to meet sustained demand and emphasised the importance of liquefied natural gas (LNG), announcing plans to grow its LNG business up to 30% by 2030.

While Shell and BP may have drawn the most attention, the pattern extends beyond two firms. Since 2022, record oil profits, coupled with energy security concerns following the Russia-Ukraine conflict, have led companies such as TE, Equinor, and ExxonMobil to prioritise fossil fuel growth, leaving renewable expansion with comparatively less capital allocation.

Ultimately, the future of fossil fuel giants is no longer defined by what they promise, but instead by where they place their capital. Net-zero targets and pledges to reduce production may signal intent, yet recent investment into oil and gas continues to suggest that fossil fuels are here to stay within these companies. The “ugly ducklings” of the energy sector may still transform, but genuine change requires more than ambitious targets and strategic language. It demands a sector-wide reallocation of capital away from fossil fuels and toward green projects, even when market conditions and investors suggest the opposite. Until then, the line between genuine transformation and greenwashing remains very thin.