Global oil majors have quietly withdrawn from a landmark initiative to define what “net zero” really means for the fossil fuel industry, casting fresh doubt over the sincerity of corporate climate pledges and reigniting tensions between science-based targets and commercial interests. Shell, Norway’s Aker BP, and Canada’s Enbridge have exited the expert advisory group of the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), effectively dismantling a six-year effort to establish rigorous emissions standards for one of the world’s most polluting sectors. The fallout from this move extends far beyond the corridors of Big Oil. It underscores a larger crisis of accountability in the energy transition—one that reverberates across the Global South, and particularly across Africa.
The SBTi, which provides emissions benchmarking for thousands of companies worldwide, had taken on the high-stakes task of building a dedicated standard for oil and gas firms—a notoriously complex and politically charged undertaking. By aligning company targets with pathways consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C, the initiative hoped to offer a credible yardstick for the industry.
However, tensions mounted when preliminary frameworks under discussion made it clear that firms would need to halt new oil and gas exploration to be considered compliant. That ultimatum was too much for Shell and its counterparts, who departed the process in late 2024 and early 2025, signaling their unwillingness to be bound by science-backed constraints.
Read also: Tanzania’s $30B LNG project signals energy ambition while it raises sustainability questions
Without the participation of major industry players—and under growing pressure from corporate donors—the SBTi paused its work on the fossil fuel standard altogether. In doing so, it has, intentionally or not, left a regulatory vacuum in one of the most consequential corners of the climate fight. The exit of oil firms from a supposedly science-based initiative reveals the fragility of voluntary climate governance and casts doubt on the integrity of the net-zero commitments that continue to proliferate across corporate sustainability reports.
For Africa, the ramifications are acute. As the continent positions itself at the center of global climate debates—both as a vulnerable region and as a frontier for energy development—clarity and coherence around what constitutes a just, science-aligned transition is more important than ever. African countries are walking a tightrope: striving to industrialize and expand energy access while also engaging with the global decarbonization agenda. In oil-rich nations like Nigeria, Angola, and Mozambique, fossil fuels remain central to GDP, foreign exchange earnings, and public finance. Yet these same countries face mounting climate risks—droughts, floods, food insecurity—that threaten development gains.
The SBTi debacle heightens the asymmetry of this dilemma. If international oil companies can walk away from climate commitments with few consequences, the credibility of the entire transition narrative comes under strain. This is especially troubling for African nations that host extractive operations but lack the regulatory power or capital muscle to demand stricter environmental and social safeguards. It signals that fossil fuel giants may continue to pursue business-as-usual strategies—exploring and extracting more hydrocarbons—while marketing themselves as part of the solution.
Yet this moment of regulatory retreat also opens space for African-led innovation. With multilateral frameworks faltering, the urgency grows for Africa to articulate its own vision of a fair and future-proof energy system. Efforts like the African Voluntary Carbon Markets Initiative, the African Development Bank’s Just Transition Framework, and regional energy financing mechanisms could help fill the void—provided they are rooted in strong governance and scientific integrity. Africa has a chance to lead not by emulating the ambivalence of global players, but by insisting on transparency, accountability, and alignment with the real developmental needs of its people.
The collapse of the SBTi’s oil and gas standard is a wake-up call—not only for the climate community, but for African leaders and institutions navigating a fractured and politicized energy transition. At stake is not just a technical definition of “net zero,” but the moral and economic foundations of how the world confronts climate change. Africa must not be left to absorb the externalities of an energy system that others refuse to reform. Nor should it be expected to sit passively while global standards are rewritten to suit the interests of the powerful. This is the time for clarity, courage, and leadership—from the continent and for the planet.
