BP's board fired Chairman Albert Manifold on Tuesday, May 27 [1], citing serious concerns regarding governance standards, oversight, and conduct.
The removal of the chairman less than one year after his appointment [2] signals a period of internal instability for the energy giant as it navigates pressure from activist investors.
In a statement, the BP board said the decision followed "serious concerns" relating to governance standards, oversight, and conduct [3]. Several large investors later told the Financial Times that it was difficult to arrange meetings with Manifold before his removal, describing his behavior as "challenging" [4].
Manifold rejected these accounts and said the allegations were "lies" [5]. He denied claims of bullying, though he acknowledged his direct approach to leadership. "I might have 'pushed hard and challenged people directly,'" Manifold said [6].
Reports indicate that Manifold met with the activist shareholder Elliott without the direct knowledge of other board directors [7]. This lack of transparency contributed to the board's concerns over oversight and governance protocols.
Manifold has challenged his anonymous critics and said he was fired without a clear explanation [8]. Despite his denials, the board's decision to remove him so quickly after his appointment suggests a fundamental breakdown in trust between the chairman and the company's leadership.
The company has not yet named a permanent successor to lead the board in London [7].
“BP's board announced the removal of Manifold due to "serious concerns" relating to governance standards, oversight, and conduct.”
The rapid exit of Albert Manifold highlights a volatile relationship between BP's corporate governance and its major shareholders. The friction between a 'challenging' leadership style and the transparency required by a public board—especially regarding interactions with activist investors like Elliott—suggests that BP is struggling to balance aggressive strategic pivots with stable institutional oversight.
