基本に立ち返る：第四次エネルギー転換期における米欧石油・ガスメジャーのエネルギー政策の変化

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a comparative case study of corporate strategy under energy transition, useful for understanding drivers and outcomes of diversification.

🏢実務担当者:Offers insights for energy companies on balancing hydrocarbon core and low-carbon investments, and the importance of credible commitments.

🏛政策担当者:Highlights the need for stable policy frameworks to support energy transition investments and avoid boom-bust cycles.

Introduction. The aim of this article is to analyze how the strategies of major oil and gas companies have evolved both in their core hydrocarbon business and in its low-carbon component, as a result of the erratic energy policies pursued by many large energy-consuming countries. For decades, oil and gas activities formed the backbone of these companies’ operations. However, with the growing political prioritization of “green energy,” several major players announced intentions to scale back traditional hydrocarbons and dramatically increase investments in renewable energy. Of particular interest are the actual outcomes these companies have faced depending on their chosen policy trajectory and strategic decisions. Materials and methods. The study employs qualitative research approaches that make it possible to synthesize existing perspectives on corporate diversification and to assess its advantages and drawbacks. Corporate reports of leading oil and gas companies were examined to identify the key drivers and strategic directions underlying their ongoing transformation. Research results. The authors analyzed the strategic planning practices of European and American majors in the context of the fourth energy transition, highlighting the differences in their approaches and paying close attention to the gap between the companies’ public commitments and their actual performance. Discussion and conclusion. The research examines U.S. majors (ExxonMobil, Chevron) and European majors (BP, Shell, TotalEnergies), which initially adopted fundamentally different strategies at the outset of the fourth energy transition. The former continued to focus on expanding their core business while emphasizing decarbonization through emissions reduction and the deployment of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies. European companies, by contrast, planned to scale down liquid hydrocarbons production and contribute substantial resources into diversifying towards renewable energy. However, the European approach ultimately failed to deliver the expected results, as evidenced by their recent pivot back to oil and gas and the reversal of many earlier commitments and investments in renewables - effectively bringing their strategies back in line with those of their American counterparts. Another important indicator of the shortcomings of the European model is the widening gap in market capitalization between European and U.S. majors, a trend that has accelerated alongside the rise of the “green” agenda.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.24833/2073-8420-2026-2-79-123-131first seen 2026-09-04 04:59:55