Shareholder Activism and the Environment: The Battle for the Great Australian Bight

Climate urgency and legal involvement

Environmental protection became a defining issue of 2019.

Public opinion shifted dramatically, with climate change recognised not as a distant threat but as an immediate emergency, illustrated by severe bushfires in Australia. Alongside protests, strikes and changes in manufacturing practices, the law has increasingly become a tool for environmental activism.

One notable example is the use of shareholder rights to challenge corporate decisions.

Equinor vs an Australian surfer

In May 2019, Norwegian energy company Equinor released plans to extract oil from the Great Australian Bight, a marine environment central to the culture and identity of nearby communities. Concerned about the environmental impact, local surfer Heath Joske joined campaign groups that had purchased significant shares in Equinor.

As shareholders, these groups tabled a motion opposing the extraction plans at Equinor’s Annual General Meeting. Joske spoke on behalf of organisations including Greenpeace Norway, highlighting risks such as oil spills, wildlife destruction and air pollution.

The Bight is one of the few untouched marine areas and is home to endangered southern right whales, making its protection a priority for residents.

The Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) supported the motion, arguing that shareholder activism is an effective way to expose environmental harm and encourage corporate reform. The ACCR also suggested that such motions could deter lobbying efforts inconsistent with the aims of the Paris Agreement 2015.

Although the motion did not receive enough votes to pass, it generated significant publicity. Equinor continued to pursue its plans, leaving Australia’s National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) to decide whether drilling would be permitted.

That decision was delivered in November 2019.

Who are Equinor?

Equinor, founded in 1972, is a multinational energy company headquartered in Norway. It employs more than 20,000 people and operates across oil and gas production, pipeline management, biofuels and wind energy. The company publicly states that sustainability is central to its values and practices.

What is a shareholder motion?

A shareholder motion is a proposal raised by an individual or group that owns company stock. Motions can request policy changes or alterations to company practice. Other shareholders vote on the proposal. Although non‑binding, successful motions can influence corporate behaviour. Because shareholders come from diverse backgrounds, their proposals often reflect varied personal or organisational interests.

Why does Equinor continue to pursue oil extraction?

Despite increased climate activism and research into the environmental harm caused by oil production, companies remain driven by high global demand for oil, limited supply and profit incentives. Regulatory oversight of extraction practices is often limited.

Equinor argued that it had a strong safety record and that Australians would benefit from its plans. Critics suggested that the Norwegian government, which owns a majority stake in Equinor, would benefit most. Equinor pays relatively low fees for access to Australian land, while Norway receives substantial revenue from petroleum activities.

Can this be taken to the courts?

After the motion failed, the ACCR suggested that shareholders could sue if Equinor continued spending more on extraction than it earned in production. Because Equinor is majority state‑owned, members of the public indirectly hold shares, making a class action possible.

Residents of Southern Australia could also pursue claims on human rights grounds, arguing that environmental damage and pollution breach rights to a healthy environment. Australia’s common law system gives judicial decisions significant influence, and similar environmental litigation has succeeded in other jurisdictions.

With Australia experiencing devastating bushfires in late 2019, public concern for environmental protection intensified.

NOPSEMA’s decision

In November 2019, NOPSEMA requested further clarification from Equinor, recognising the environmental and economic importance of the Bight. After delaying its initial decision, NOPSEMA gave Equinor 21 days to provide additional information. This was described as standard procedure for environmental proposals.

Although drilling was not rejected outright, NOPSEMA stated that Equinor had failed to conduct a full risk assessment and accepted only 10% of the submitted plans. Equinor remained optimistic and hoped to begin drilling in summer 2020. Environmental groups argued that the company should abandon its plans due to the Bight’s cultural and ecological significance.

Shareholder activism and the future

This case demonstrates how shareholder activism can be used to challenge environmentally harmful practices without immediately resorting to litigation. However, legal action remains a viable option where environmental destruction or pollution is unjustified.

Authorities have now reviewed Equinor’s plans twice, suggesting a growing willingness to prioritise environmental protection over commercial interests. Many hope this marks the beginning of a more sustainable and environmentally conscious future.