BP board fires chairman Manifold after “serious” conduct concerns, deepening leadership crisis
BP’s abrupt removal of chairman Albert Manifold on governance grounds extends a leadership vacuum that has weighed on the supermajor’s shares and strategic credibility.
BP’s board removed chairman Albert Manifold with immediate effect on Tuesday (2026-05-26), citing “serious” and “unacceptable” governance and conduct concerns in a unanimous decision that prolongs leadership turmoil at the London-listed supermajor. The move came less than a year after Manifold replaced Helge Lund as chair in July last year, and just months into what was meant to be a stabilising tenure following the abrupt exit of former CEO Bernard Looney.1
The board acted after concerns were lodged about “governance standards, oversight and conduct,” stripping Manifold of both his chairmanship and his directorship. Amanda Blanc, senior independent director, said the board had been “surprised and disappointed” by the issues and “has taken decisive action.” BP shares fell 5.7% to 519.6 pence as of 1:47 p.m. in London on the day of the announcement, before paring losses to close the session down 4.3% at 527.4 pence.2,4
That market reaction matters because BP was already navigating a period of acute leadership instability. Looney forfeited roughly £32.4 million in remuneration following his departure in 2023, and Lund faced a near 25% vote against his re-election at the 2025 annual general meeting amid conflicting shareholder pressures over climate strategy. Manifold’s removal now leaves the board hunting for a second permanent chair in under a year.1,4
The circumstances of Manifold’s dismissal are still emerging. The Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter, reported that Manifold clashed with non-executive director Simon Henry and held a fractious relationship with chief executive Murray Auchincloss in the months before his ouster. Media reports described the tensions as longstanding and worsening, though BP has not detailed the specific conduct that triggered the board’s action.6
Manifold has rejected the characterisation of his tenure. He launched a defence of his short-lived chairmanship on Thursday (2026-05-28), dismissing the “false narrative” surrounding his departure and pushing back against any suggestion of bullying or misconduct. That rebuttal sets up a potentially messy public dispute with the company’s board, with Manifold signalling he will not go quietly.5
The governance crisis compounds a strategic question that remains unresolved. BP’s previous leadership struggled to reconcile investor demands for higher oil and gas returns with pressure from climate-focused shareholders, and the split over Lund’s re-election showed how fractious that debate had become. The board’s statement offered no clarity on how the company’s strategy might shift under new leadership, leaving investors to guess whether the ouster signals a pivot toward or away from the energy transition agenda.1,4
Analysts were swift to frame the risks. Will Hares, senior energy analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, said the incoming permanent chair “must rekindle investor confidence in the company’s strategy and internal controls.” Maurizio Carulli, global energy analyst at Quilter Cheviot, called the departure “certainly a surprise” and a short-term negative, while cautioning that the longer-term impact depends on who takes the role.3,5
The leadership vacuum also has a UK dimension that extends beyond BP’s own share price. Sentiment on British North Sea oil and gas is “bearish,” an analyst told Montel News in the week of 2026-08-03, though the analyst stressed that the mood was driven by high production costs rather than BP’s decision to sell its North Sea business. BP’s retreat from the basin, combined with boardroom instability at the corporate level, sharpens questions about the sector’s investment outlook even as UK regulators and fiscal policy shape the economics of remaining fields.7
The timing compounds the challenge. BP is searching for a chair while its chief executive is still relatively new and while the company is making portfolio decisions, including its North Sea exit, that will define its production profile for years. A board distracted by governance disputes and a public war of words with its former chairman is not well positioned to drive a coherent strategy through that transition.7
Manifold’s public rebuttal raises the stakes. If he airs details of board discussions in his defence, the dispute could spill into a broader examination of how BP’s directors handled the succession from Looney and the strategic divisions that produced Lund’s protest vote. That would keep the governance story in the headlines for weeks, delaying any recovery in investor confidence.5,6
For now, the market’s message was clear on Tuesday (2026-05-26): a 5.7% intraday drop is not the reaction of investors confident in the board’s ability to steady the ship. BP’s shares have since stabilised, but the underlying issue is unresolved. The board must find a permanent chair who can command support from both institutional investors and climate-focused shareholders, a constituency that delivered a quarter of votes against Lund last year.2,4
The next signal to watch is the appointment timeline. If BP moves quickly to name a permanent chair with a clear mandate, the market may treat Manifold’s exit as a necessary reset. If the search drags, or if Manifold escalates his dispute, BP faces a prolonged period of distraction at the top, with strategy decisions deferred and the North Sea retreat handled by an interim leadership team.3,7