Albert Manifold Refutes Allegations Over Conduct
The boardroom conflict at BP intensified after its recently removed chairman, Albert Manifold, publicly rejected claims regarding his behaviour, describing them as “lies”.
In a detailed statement, Manifold challenged reports about his conduct, asserting that “at no point in my tenure as chairman of BP has anyone raised with me any issue about my conduct or my relationship with my colleagues”.
He also dismissed media suggestions that he sought to control the FTSE 100 company in an executive chair capacity as “nonsense”. Manifold noted he had “many other commitments” and had only spent 13 days in BP’s London office during the current year.
BP Terminates Manifold’s Role Citing Governance Concerns
BP terminated Manifold’s position with immediate effect on Tuesday, after less than a year in the role, citing serious concerns about his governance standards, oversight, and conduct.
Multiple media outlets, referencing anonymous company sources, described Manifold’s interactions with colleagues as aggressive.
On Thursday, Manifold contested these accounts, stating:
“What I do not accept is that lies can be told about me, nor that anyone should be allowed to hide behind anonymity when commenting on my time at BP.”
Background and Mandate at BP
Manifold’s departure came less than eight months after his appointment in October 2025. Prior to joining BP, he served over a decade as chief executive of the Irish building materials company CRH.
At BP, he was charged with overseeing the company’s strategic shift to refocus on fossil fuel extraction and reduce investments in renewable energy, following BP’s abandonment of its previous net zero energy company ambitions.
Manifold’s Response to Behavioural Criticism
Manifold acknowledged he may have “pushed hard and challenged people directly” driven by his “determination to drive change on costs, performance, the balance sheet and shareholder communications”.
However, he rejected internal reports characterising his behaviour negatively, adding:
“There is a considerable distance between driving an organisation with urgency and the characterisation of my conduct that is now being put about.”
He further stated that such “accusations” had not been made against him during his 40-year career.
Manifold emphasized that he “called out … unnecessary or excessive expenditure” but felt that not all colleagues shared his priorities.
Rejection of Executive Perks
He also highlighted his refusal to accept many traditional executive benefits, which he described as a “culture of entitlement”, including chauffeur-driven cars, private jet travel, and corporate hospitality.
“I had no interest in having a dedicated chauffeur-driven limousine at my beck and call on the occasions that I was in London. I, like most people, walked, took taxis, trains, etc. I had no interest in taking private aviation nor in availing myself of corporate tickets for sports events. I made my own coffee, bought my lunch in the local cafe. I sat in a small office, eschewing the grand corner-office privilege of previous chairmen,”
Manifold explained he adopted these practices to “set an example” during a period when the company was undergoing significant changes.
BP’s Strategic Continuity and Interim Leadership
Following Manifold’s exit, BP indicated on Tuesday that it would maintain the strategy he had overseen. The company’s chief executive, who was appointed in December, will lead this continuation.
Ian Tyler, a board member and former chief executive of FTSE 250 infrastructure group Balfour Beatty, has been named interim chair as the search for a permanent replacement proceeds.
BP issued a statement on Thursday responding to Manifold’s remarks:
“We note the comments of our former chair. We stand by the statement we have made. We have a duty of care to all our employees, particularly those impacted by his behaviour.”
