Woodside Energy has weathered shareholders’ rejection of its climate plan.

Woodside faced significant opposition at its annual general meeting in Perth this week, where shareholders decisively voted down the company's climate action plan. 

Close to 60 per cent of proxies voted against the plan, highlighting deep-seated concerns over the company’s approach to climate change and its alignment with the Paris Agreement’s goals.

The meeting involved hours of discussion and questions from shareholders focused on the adequacy of Woodside’s strategy to help limit global temperature increases.

Richard Goyder, the chairman of Woodside, defended the plan alongside CEO Meg O’Neill but ultimately acknowledged the shareholders' verdict. 

“Naturally we’re disappointed but we respect the vote,” Goyder stated. 

Despite the failed climate strategy vote, Goyder was re-elected as chairman with significant support, receiving more than 80 per cent of the proxy votes.

“The climate vote is a disappointing outcome, but I think in many ways it reflects the complexity and the challenge of what we’re facing, both here and globally,” Ms O’Neill said. 

Woodside’s shareholder revolt is not isolated, as other energy giants including BHP, Rio Tinto, and Santos have also faced similar scrutiny over their environmental policies. 

However, this is the first time a climate plan from Woodside has been rejected.

Activist groups and environmentally focused investors have become increasingly vocal, with organisations like the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility urging Woodside to adopt a more credible strategy for risk mitigation related to climate change.

In the wake of the vote, Woodside announced plans to continue significant investments in fossil fuel projects, which include spending approximately $18 billion over the next five years. 

Major projects such as the development of the Scarborough gas field and the Pluto LNG plant are expected to proceed, with considerable financial commitment projected at around $5.5 billion for these initiatives alone.

The investment in traditional energy projects contrasts with the calls for a transition to greener energy alternatives.