Olivier: Basically, that you can't hope to tackle the climate crisis without tackling corporate power. Parts of the climate movement believed that they could change Big Oil from the outside, whether through engagement, campaigning, name-and-shaming, etc. But Big Oil doesn't want to change and has enough power and influence to avoid or delay change or deflect most of its effects on others. ‘System change’ won't come from them, as they are the system.
There have been very valuable and effective campaigns and actions, which all remain very necessary and very relevant, and on many occasions have achieved victories for the climate movement. Persuading investors to divest from fossil fuels or cultural institutions to give up Big Oil sponsorships is a big deal. So are climate lawsuits against corporations such as Shell, TotalEnergies or ExxonMobil. It has played a key role in undermining these corporations’ social ‘license to operate’. If we look at TotalEnergies, they have been forced to communicate almost exclusively about their investments in green energy and their climate commitments. But on the other hand, they are still there and still powerful and still fighting every communication and legal battle with all their resources. So, there’s always the risk that our victories remain too little, too partial, and could be reversed – indeed, we are currently in a moment of backlash against some of our previous gains. So, I would say what was missing is an attempt to tackle the power of Big Oil from the inside.
Clémence: The divestment movement is a strong example of a system change approach and achieved remarkable success in the last decade. It strategically bypassed calls for Big Oil to change and instead focused on eroding its pillars of support: its social license, funding access, and influence over government and institutions by asking them to cut their ties with the industry.
Grassroots mobilisation was the backbone of the movement, and we should always strive to organise diverse groups and initiate new local initiatives, tying social justice with climate justice.
As our movement grew, increased scrutiny prompted institutions to divest to avoid reputational risks tied to supporting these reckless industries. Then the targets became increasingly broad, leading to a big domino effect, compelling huge financial entities such as the European Investment Bank, or major cultural institutions such as the Tate or the Louvre to reconsider their traditional support. The divestment campaign, on a global scale, created a unified front against fossil fuel investments.
Legal and political advocacy to hold Big Oil accountable, and collaboration with other social justice movements, has also reinforced our strategic efforts, and, of course, first and foremost, supported frontline communities fighting projects on the ground. Our interconnectedness necessitates collective action and solidarity.
Looking ahead, we should stay focused on a long-term vision, recognising that systemic change requires persistence, adaptability and solidarity. Our evolving movement must continue to learn from setbacks and strive to maintain momentum. In a nutshell, this fight against Big Oil has taught us that the best way to resist them is to organise collectively through a diversity of tactics, but with a shared vision and understanding of how we make change happen.