TotalEnergies met this Wednesday its shareholders in general meeting. Access to the room was made impossible by hundreds of people seated in front of the Salle Pleyel chanting ” Total Killer “.
Anecdote, the group had taken the lead with journalists by warning them that computers would not be allowed in the room for security reasons. Fortunately, the laptop being spared by this curious restriction measure, I can report to you live on the next events.
I was able to speak with a person in charge of the demonstration. He explained to me that ” questions and disturbances during the GA, it has been done in the past and they wanted to hit hard this time. Total does not respect the recommendations of the Paris climate agreement. We must act. Suddenly, faced with this blockage, it was possible that the GA would not hold. The company itself did not know what was going to happen.
Shareholders waited patiently behind barriers before the start of the meeting, which was scheduled for 10 a.m. We can hear : ” Total, Total, we must choose fossil fuels or our future! »
I am finally in the room, almost empty, the assembly started shortly after the hour indicated, but with very few participants.
Our full report to follow at the end of the meeting.
Why a hot AG?
The Salle Pleyel is almost empty for the holding of the general meeting of TotalEnergies
| Photo credits: DR
Many shareholders are fiercely opposed to the group’s climate strategy and have announced that they will vote against resolution 16 of the “say on climate” (this resolution 16 on the company’s climate policy, which is subject to the advisory vote of shareholders, received 91.88% of “for” votes last year). These are Ofi AM, Meeschaert Amilton, Mandarine Gestion and Sycomore AM. Edmond de Rothschild AM and La Financière de l’Echiquier also regret the company’s lack of alignment with a scenario limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees.
We remember the refusal, at the end of April, of TotalEnergies to put on the agenda an external resolution tabled by a coalition of shareholders on the climate strategy because ” it contravenes the legal rules for the distribution of powers between the company’s bodies. For the group, it is up to the board of directors to define the strategy in terms of energy transition and not to the general meeting. BP and Shell have agreed to put such resolutions on the agenda. To the UNITED STATES, the SEC decides on the admissibility of the resolutions. Dismissed shareholders therefore appealed to the AMF, but the stock market policeman did not respond to their request.