The nation’s biggest oil and gas company is in an uncomfortable position.

And not – as one shareholder tried to raise at its annual general meeting this week – because it sponsors the Dockers rather than the Eagles in a week the Fremantle side lost derby bragging rights.

Woodside made its money, $US1.7 billion net profit after tax last financial year, primarily by taking oil and gas out of the ground and selling it to customers around the globe.

While the transition to net zero by 2050 will require some changes, it’s planning to “thrive through the energy transition” by selling gas as a “transition fuel”.

That’s how it explains its current approach, which includes developing its massive Scarborough project off Western Australia’s Pilbara coast.

Woodside estimated the project will release 878 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over its lifetime, at the same time the International Energy Agency is warning no new coal mines or oil and gas wells can be developed to reach the world’s climate goals.

The company has committed to reach net zero by 2050, is slowly reducing its emissions, and has taken feedback onboard to set a goal around contributing to helping its customers shrink their carbon output too.

But a majority of its shareholders now believe it’s not moving quickly enough – and it’s created an unlikely marriage, which is already on the rocks.

Climate plan rejected

It didn’t take long for the rejection of the company’s climate action plan by 58.4 per cent of shareholders earlier this week to be claimed as a win by those who had been pushing for that result.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific acting CEO Kate Smolski was quick to label the loss a “massive blow to Woodside’s credibility”.

And in many ways, it was. Will van de Pol, CEO of climate activist group Market Forces, which had been pushing for the rejection, said it was a “new world record” for a vote against a company’s climate plans.

The result was made possible by the partnership of activist groups, like Greenpeace, and large investors and proxy advisers, which both have reason to want action on climate change.

For the activists, it’s their reason for existing.

For those other companies, they can see the rising community demand for action on climate change and want to keep the public supporting their work, which means exercising influence over the industries they invest in.

One of those companies is Australian Super, which held a 4.52 per cent stake in Woodside at the end of June last year – one of the larger holdings in its portfolio.

“After a lot of consideration we’ve decided that we still have some ongoing concerns about Woodside’s plan to be net zero by 2050, so based on that we’ve decided to vote against [the climate plan] and we will continue our discussions with the company,” the company’s head of Australian equities Shaun Manuell told a parliamentary inquiry into greenwashing earlier this week.

Investor activism won’t cause ‘significant disruption’

The problem though, is that vote was non-binding. Important in sending a message to the company’s leadership, sure, but without any influence of its own.

The key vote that could have done that was on Richard Goyder’s reappointment to the board.

He was dealt a blow, with a 16.6 per cent vote against, which Market Forces puts in the bottom 2.5 per cent of director re-election votes for ASX 50 companies in the last decade.

But he kept his job and will see out what he has indicated will be his last time around as chair.

This is where the marriage of convenience fell apart.