Top BP investors and former executives are concerned the UK oil major may lose momentum on the aggressive cost-cutting and restructuring plan driven by former chairman Albert Manifold before his abrupt exit last month.
Shareholders said they remained in the dark about the precise circumstances that led to the departure of the 63-year-old Irish executive, and some feared his strategy had made enemies inside an organisation that was resistant to his changes.
“He was aggressively instituting change and that made the bureaucracy uncomfortable,” said one leading investor. “Were people trying to get him out of the door? That is our and many other investors’ concern.”
Manifold was hired last year to shake up BP and planned to simplify and sell off large parts of the energy major, overhaul the company’s board of directors and cut costs.
READ MORE
In a statement after his departure, in which he took aim at the company’s culture of “excessive expenditure”, including chauffeurs, private jets and corporate tickets to sporting events, Manifold said “it felt to me that my priorities were not always shared by everyone”.
BP said Manifold was fired for “unacceptable conduct”, with some people close to the company alleging that his behaviour at times amounted to “bullying”. Manifold has described the claims as “lies”.
[ Albert Manifold’s BP exit defies easy conclusionsOpens in new window ]
Per Lekander, founder of hedge fund manager Clean Energy Transition, said BP had been “a reasonably mismanaged kingdom for the past 30 years”.
“Culture tends to be one of the most stable things in an organisation,” Lekander added. “Of course, when someone tries to do something about it, when you start a row in the kingdom, the king or the princes object to it.”
Investors who spoke to BP said the oil group had pledged to continue with Manifold’s strategy of simplifying the company, but added that they would like further clarity.
David McRedmond: ‘O’Connell Street needs high density housing’
“Details were limited, given both the timely nature of the meeting and the sensitivity of aspects of the allegations,” said Stuart Riddick, senior sustainable investment manager at Aberdeen, who spoke with the company shortly after Manifold’s departure.
Riddick said the asset manager “would like to know more about the governance standards and oversight issues cited by the board”.
At the time of Manifold’s sacking, BP’s interim chairman Ian Tyler said the board had “deep conviction” in the strategy advanced by Manifold and was “moving at pace to deliver it”.
The controversy has reopened long-standing questions about BP’s corporate culture. One former BP executive, who said they had no direct knowledge of what had transpired, suggested that it was possible Manifold’s enemies had lobbied against him. “That place was always a nest of vipers,” they said.
One person close to BP said the company had been unable to give full details of Manifold’s dismissal because it has a duty of care towards the staff who complained about the former chairman. “Everyone wants the colour, and the company will not give it because it would not be fair to the complainants,” they said.
A person close to Manifold previously suggested that BP company secretary Ben Mathews, one of the longest-standing senior figures at the oil major, had been a “driver” of BP’s decision to remove Manifold.
Mathews has taken time off since Manifold was ousted, after having dealt with the departures of both previous chairman Helge Lund and Manifold in rapid succession. Tyler has declined to comment on specific employees or situations, beyond reiterating they removed Manifold for “unacceptable conduct”.
Matthew Lofting, an analyst at JPMorgan, wrote in a note on Friday that he had met BP chief executive Meg O’Neill and that her “overarching message was that the chair has necessarily changed, but [BP’s] strategic direction hasn’t”.
BP laid out its current plan in February 2025, before Manifold’s arrival at the company, and has so far cut $2.8 billion (€2.4 billion) of costs, against an initial target of $4 billion to $5 billion by 2027. Activist investor Elliott, which took a near-5 per cent stake in the oil major, has urged the company to go further, and in March BP increased its target to $6.5 billion to $7.5 billion of cuts.
A spokesperson for BP said: “We remain firmly focused on cost discipline and delivering value for our shareholders.”
One investor said the recent boardroom upheaval would keep BP under scrutiny, making any backsliding difficult, as “cost would have been front and centre of Meg’s appointment”.
Other investors said governance concerns were outweighed by the windfall the company was reaping from high oil prices.
“It’s less consequential who is in the chairman role,” said Brian Kersmanc at GQG Partners, which increased its shareholding in the wake of Manifold’s departure.
“People are so myopically focused on what’s happening within the board that they are missing the forest for the trees ... if oil stays anywhere near $100 a barrel in terms of pricing, the free cash flow these guys are going to generate is going to be off the charts,” he added.
“At the end of the day, we vote with our shares. If we see the business is heading in a different direction, we’ll change course.” – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2026
