Welcome back to Built to Last! This week we turn to BP (British Petroleum), one of the most influential names in global energy. After years spent promoting a bold pivot toward renewables and positioning itself as a leader in the race to net zero, BP is now changing direction. The company is refocusing on oil and gas projects, slowing some of its clean energy ambitions and prioritizing profitability in an increasingly uncertain world.

This reversal is not simply a financial decision. It raises an important strategic question. When does reinvention strengthen a legacy brand and when does it threaten its foundation. In BP’s case, the answer tells us something essential about building a company meant to endure across generations.

BP’s story began in 1908 in the Persian desert. After years of failed expeditions, explorers finally located a massive oil deposit in what is now Iran. This discovery led to the creation of the Anglo Persian Oil Company. Within a few years the company became so important to British energy and military needs that the United Kingdom purchased a significant ownership stake. Oil was no longer just a commodity. It had become a strategic asset tied directly to national power.

Throughout the first half of the twentieth century the company expanded rapidly across the Middle East. It built refineries, pipelines and shipping networks that fueled European industry and the British armed forces. Its position seemed secure until 1951 when Iran nationalized its oil resources. Suddenly the company lost its most important asset. Instead of collapsing, it adapted. It diversified into new geographies, including Kuwait and Iraq, and eventually into the North Sea.

During the decades that followed the company reintroduced itself under a new name, British Petroleum, and continued to grow into a global energy leader. It was responsible for some of the largest offshore discoveries of the twentieth century and became a symbol of Western industrial expansion. Yet success in the oil business came with volatility. Oil crises in the 1970s, environmental pressures throughout the 1980s, and shifting global politics repeatedly challenged the company’s identity.

By the 1990s and early 2000s BP began rebranding itself as something more progressive. It adopted the name BP instead of British Petroleum and introduced the Helios logo, which resembled a green and yellow sunburst. The message was clear. BP wanted the world to see it not only as an oil company but as a cleaner and more forward-thinking energy provider.

Then came the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010. The explosion and resulting oil spill was one of the worst environmental catastrophes in modern history. Eleven workers were killed. Millions of barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. BP paid tens of billions of dollars in penalties, cleanup costs and settlements. The company’s public image was severely damaged. Its confidence was shaken. For many executives inside BP, Deepwater Horizon marked an inflection point. Safety and risk management became internal priorities and the company began exploring alternative energy more aggressively.

Across the next decade the narrative shifted again. BP positioned itself to become a leader in the global transition away from hydrocarbons and toward cleaner energy sources. That path set the stage for the ambitious but contentious strategy that would follow.

Around 2020 BP unveiled one of the most aggressive climate strategies ever proposed by a major oil producer. The company aimed to reduce oil and gas output dramatically within a decade and planned to invest heavily in wind, solar, hydrogen and electric vehicle infrastructure. It also committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and to transforming into what its leadership called an integrated energy company.

Supporters viewed the plan as evidence that big oil could play a positive role in climate progress. Critics warned that the strategy relied too heavily on emerging technologies that were not yet economically competitive at scale. At first the market viewed BP’s commitment as admirable. Investors applauded the ambition. Policymakers encouraged the move. Environmental groups cautiously welcomed the shift.

But global conditions changed rapidly. As the world emerged from the pandemic, energy demand surged. Oil and gas prices rose sharply. Inflation increased the cost of renewable projects. Many of BP’s clean energy investments were slow to generate returns. Shareholders who had initially supported the transition began demanding stronger financial performance. Meanwhile BP’s shares lagged behind competitors such as Exxon and Chevron, companies that had not attempted such rapid structural transformation.

The original vision that once seemed bold and inspiring began to appear overextended. The company was trying to reduce profitable hydrocarbon production long before its renewable alternatives could deliver comparable value. Investors began expressing concern that BP was sacrificing reliable earnings to chase a future that was still many years away.

By 2024 it became clear that BP needed to reconsider its approach.

In 2025 BP announced a significant strategy shift. The company communicated that it would increase investment in oil and gas projects, especially in fields that promised strong margins and steady output. It also signaled that it would slow certain renewable initiatives that were proving difficult to scale economically. Leadership began emphasizing financial resilience, dividend stability and disciplined spending.

This was not an exit from clean energy. Instead it was a recognition that the economics of the transition were not progressing as quickly as originally hoped. BP reaffirmed its commitment to long-term climate goals but acknowledged that it must strengthen its core business to fund the journey. Similar shifts were occurring across the European energy sector. Companies such as Shell and TotalEnergies also recalibrated their ambitions, balancing environmental commitments with the realities of current global energy demand.

For BP the shift was not framed as a retreat. Executives described it as a pragmatic response to market conditions. The company had stretched itself too thin. Now it was returning to fundamentals while still preparing for a different future.

In many ways this return to oil and gas represents BP’s most important reinvention yet. It demonstrates the company’s willingness to adapt not only when the world demands change but also when internal goals prove misaligned with external realities.

BP’s story in 2025 highlights an essential truth about long-lasting companies. Reinvention is necessary, but it must be paced correctly. BP attempted a transformation that was visionary but perhaps too ambitious for the economic environment. The company moved faster than the market. The future it wanted to build did not yet exist at the scale needed to support such a dramatic shift.

Legacy companies often face this tension. If they evolve too slowly they risk becoming irrelevant. If they evolve too quickly they risk destabilizing the operations that keep them alive. Endurance depends on striking the right balance. Growth must coexist with realism. Innovation must be anchored by capability. Aspirations must be tempered by execution.

BP’s recalibration represents an acknowledgement that survival sometimes depends on slowing down. The future is still important. Renewable energy is still part of the plan. But the company’s stability rests on understanding what it can achieve today while preparing for what it hopes to achieve tomorrow.

This is the paradox at the heart of building something meant to last. Reinvention is not a single moment. It is a continuous cycle of progress, evaluation and course correction. BP is demonstrating that even a company with more than a century of history must periodically stop and ask whether its trajectory makes sense.

The global energy transition is underway but it is not happening in a straight line. Renewable technologies continue to advance, but the world still relies heavily on oil and gas. Economic cycles, geopolitical pressures and technological constraints all shape the pace of change.

BP’s 2025 reset is not a rejection of climate progress. It is an acknowledgment that transitions unfold in waves. Companies that last understand these cycles and adjust accordingly. They do not abandon the future. They simply prepare for it with patience.

The companies that endure are not the ones that cling stubbornly to old models nor the ones that chase untested futures without restraint. They are the ones that build bridges from the present to the future, one carefully measured step at a time.

BP’s reversal is not an admission of failure. It is a strategic recognition that pushing too hard, too fast can weaken the foundation needed to support the next era of growth. Longevity does not demand constant acceleration. It demands self-awareness. It demands the ability to pause, reflect and adjust.

The essence of being built to last is not about choosing between the past and the future. It is about integrating the two. A company endures when it honors what it already does well while gradually expanding into what it hopes to become.

BP is recalibrating because it intends to survive. That intention is powerful. It is the mark of a company that understands time, pressure and cycles better than most.

That brings us to the end of this week’s edition of Built to Last.

I would appreciate your suggestions for the next company we should explore. Your input shapes the direction of this newsletter and helps us uncover stories that inspire builders to think long term.

Thank you for reading and for being part of the Built to Last community. Until next week keep building with intention and keep building things meant to last!

Over the next year, Roku predicts that 100% of the streaming audience will see ads. For growth marketers in 2026, CTV will remain an important “safe space” as AI creates widespread disruption in the search and social channels. Plus, easier access to self-serve CTV ad buying tools and targeting options will lead to a surge in locally-targeted streaming campaigns.

Read our guide to find out why growth marketers should make sure CTV is part of their 2026 media mix.

Learn more.