Shell, Aker BP and Enbridge Leave SBTi Expert Advisory Group

Major oil and gas companies Shell, Aker BP and Enbridge have withdrawn from the Science Based Targets initiative’s (SBTi) expert advisory group. The decision follows a proposal from the initiative that would require companies to stop developing new oil and gas fields in order to align with its net zero standards.

What prompted the withdrawal

The companies cited concerns about the practicality of the proposed rule and the level of industry input in its development. Specifically, they questioned whether an absolute halt to new field developments is feasible in the short to medium term and whether the standards sufficiently considered operational realities across the oil and gas sector.

Those departures reflect a fundamental tension between stringent climate-aligned targets and the operational, financial and energy-security considerations that companies in the sector face. Financial and technical feasibility, timing, and the need for industry engagement in rule-making were central to the companies’ stated concerns.

Broader significance for net zero initiatives

The exit of three prominent industry members from the SBTi advisory group underscores the challenges that voluntary net zero frameworks encounter when applying strict restrictions to high-emitting sectors. It highlights how achieving consensus among industry, climate experts and civil society can be difficult when rules would force significant changes in business models and investment plans.

More broadly, the move illustrates the friction between climate ambition and implementation. Net zero initiatives must balance credibility and scientific rigor with pragmatism and engagement if they are to maintain broad participation and real-world impact.

Impact on fossil fuel financing rules

The Science Based Targets initiative is also delaying a deadline related to financial institutions’ financing of new fossil fuel projects. The initiative pushed the cutoff date for financial firms to phase out financing for new fossil fuel development to 2030. This postponement signals recognition of the complexity in aligning capital flows with strict net zero criteria, and of the need for clearer pathways for banks, insurers and asset managers to adjust portfolios.

What this means for companies and investors

For companies, the decision to leave the advisory group removes a formal channel for influencing how industry-specific guidance is shaped. That may increase the likelihood of disputes over future standards or prompt companies to pursue alternative standards and frameworks that better reflect their operational perspectives.

For investors and other stakeholders, the departures raise questions about the consistency and comparability of corporate climate commitments. If major firms disengage from a common standard-setting process, it could fragment the landscape of net zero frameworks and complicate efforts to assess corporate alignment with climate goals.

Next steps and considerations

Moving forward, constructive engagement among standards bodies, industry participants and financial institutions will be crucial. Policymakers and standard-setters face the task of designing rules that are scientifically robust while offering clear, practical pathways for companies and financiers to transition.

At the same time, companies that remain committed to climate targets will need to explain how their strategies align with evolving standards and how they intend to manage the transition risks associated with stricter guidelines on new fossil fuel developments.

Conclusion

The withdrawal of Shell, Aker BP and Enbridge from the SBTi expert advisory group highlights real tensions in the global push toward net zero emissions. The episode underscores the need for transparent, inclusive processes when setting sector-specific expectations, and for pragmatic timelines that allow companies and financial institutions to adapt. As the SBTi adjusts deadlines and consults further, the outcome will shape how the energy sector and its financiers respond to the accelerating demands of climate accountability.