Abstract

This research examines how multinational fossil fuel companies have strategically adapted their communication regarding renewable energy to obstruct and delay climate policy. Based on a textual analysis of annual reports from four of the world’s largest energy companies—ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, and TotalEnergies—the study compares how narratives evolved between 2016 and 2022. The research identifies a pervasive use of “doublespeak” and mixed-sentiment messaging that links renewable energy to fossil fuels, reinforcing discourses that slow the energy transition.

Background

The combustion of fossil fuels remains the largest contributor to rising greenhouse gas emissions. While major companies have publicly supported the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals, investigations reveal a clear discrepancy between their external discourses and internal operational positions. Discourses of climate delay are categorised into four types: redirecting responsibility, pushing non-transformative solutions, abandoning climate action, and emphasising the downsides of climate action. These strategies are used to obfuscate climate actions and tame the concept of a renewable energy transition.

Methods

The study analysed 28 annual reports from Shell, BP, TotalEnergies, and ExxonMobil for the period 2016 to 2022. Using NVIVO 12 Pro software, the researchers inductively coded and analysed 2,273 mentions of renewable energy. Content analysis was employed to examine the frequency of keywords, while sentiment analysis assessed whether renewable energy technologies were positioned in a positive, negative, or neutral context.

Results

The study reveals that mentions of renewable energy generally increased over time, except at ExxonMobil, which reduced references. However, references to oil, coal, and gas remained significantly more frequent than mentions of renewable technologies across all firms. The companies focused on specific technological niches: Shell and ExxonMobil prioritised biofuels, BP focused on wind, and TotalEnergies led in solar power generation. Solar energy was the most frequently mentioned technology across the reports, followed by biofuels and wind.

Solar, biofuels, and wind

Positive messages about solar energy emphasised company investments and its ability to reduce emissions. Neutral messages discussed how solar could integrate with fossil fuel operations, while negative messages focused on intermittency and promoted fossil gas as a necessary partner. Biofuel messaging was largely positive, highlighting its ability to blend with and reduce the emissions of existing products. Wind power was mentioned the least, with communications often stressing the expertise of the fossil fuel industry in building offshore platforms.

Discussion

The combination of positive and negative messaging acts as a form of doublespeak. By pointing out the economic benefits of renewables while simultaneously highlighting high costs, intermittency, and business risks, companies create a type of cognitive dissonance. This strategy makes continued fossil fuel use seem acceptable by framing it as a dependable partner to variable renewable sources. Neutral messaging also frequently obscured inadequate climate actions by claiming fossil fuels are necessary for sustainable development.

Emphasising downsides & doublespeak

Companies deployed nuanced doublespeak by euphemistically highlighting renewables’ benefits while emphasising potential tradeoffs. For instance, reports described renewable projects powering households while simultaneously promoting the narrative that these energy sources must be paired with fossil gas to be dependable. Such messaging matched company responses to shareholder activism, allowing them to hedge technologies against development while appearing to reflect climate concerns.

Non-transformational solutions & hiding insufficient climate action

Messaging often linked renewable development to fossil fuels, a non-transformational action designed to delay the energy transition. Phrases like “low-carbon” and “zero-carbon” were used to describe different renewable and fossil energy sources in the same context, facilitating the greenwashing of fossil fuels. Research indicates that the sector continued to prioritise fossil fuel investments, with low-emissions fuel investment comprising only about 3% of total fuel investment, while 97% remained dedicated to fossil fuels.

Conclusions

The study concludes that fossil fuel companies have evolved their climate obstruction efforts into sophisticated discursive strategies. There is an urgent need for regulators to mandate and standardise the reporting of financial and sustainability communications to prevent the use of doublespeak. These companies continue to use annual reports as key documents to deploy discursive power, misleading stakeholders and obscuring the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels to achieve global climate goals.