The public perception of energy giants means that CEOs in renewable and non-renewable energy fields are increasingly finding that crossing the reputational divide from villains to heroes requires more than innovation.
Once hailed as titans of industry, fossil fuel CEOs today find themselves cast as out-of-fashion business culprits, while green energy executives are celebrated as visionaries reshaping the future. In the court of public opinion, the divide between these two groups has widened into a chasm — but it doesn’t have to stay that way.
In the early to mid-20th century, oil and coal executives were admired as the architects of modern prosperity. Affordable energy was seen as the engine that fueled economies, raised living standards, and even won wars. Companies like Standard Oil (later ExxonMobil and others) enjoyed near-universal public goodwill. Coal and oil magnates were cast — not without a habitual touch of disdain for capitalism — as benevolent statesmen embodying the spirit of industrial progress.
But as public awareness of pollution and climate change surged in the 1960s and beyond, these reputations began to crack.
The 1989 Exxon Valdez spill — and the company’s slow, tone-deaf response — became a lasting symbol of industrial arrogance. Exxon’s CEO at the time, Lawrence Rawl, faced fierce criticism for his slow and seemingly unempathetic handling of the crisis, a failure that left a stain on the company’s reputation for decades. Later disasters, like BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010, hammered the industry’s image even harder. When BP’s CEO Tony Hayward famously whined, “I’d like my life back” — while millions of gallons of oil devastated coastlines and communities — he became, almost overnight, a villainous caricature of corporate selfishness and blind to the human and environmental catastrophe unfolding around him.
Meanwhile, a different kind of CEO was emerging.
As solar power, wind power and electric vehicle industries gained momentum, a new generation of executives rose to fame. Figures like Elon Musk weren’t just selling cars or batteries; they were selling hope and good feelings. Musk was even named Time’s 2021 Person of the Year, a cultural milestone symbolizing the celebrity status green energy leaders had achieved. CEOs like Ignacio Galán of Iberdrola in Spain and Lynn Jurich of Sunrun in the United States similarly became celebrated figures and were praised for their innovation, vision, and moral purpose.
In sharp contrast, fossil fuel CEOs were increasingly framed as relics of a bygone era — hypocritical ultra-dinosaurs resisting the march of progress.
Fossil fuel CEOs have become frequent targets of reputational attacks and are routinely portrayed as either indifferent to the climate crisis or actively obstructive to progress. Beyond the business pages, press coverage overwhelmingly skews negative, reinforcing a public image of denial, obstruction, and moral failure. It is telling that in October 2021, The Guardian published a “dirty dozen” list of “America’s top climate villains” — prominently featuring oil executives like Darren Woods of ExxonMobil and Mike Wirth of Chevron. It is far easier to label first and rationalize later — a habit all too common in the court of public opinion.
Reality, of course, is far more nuanced.
To put it mildly, not every fossil fuel executive is a climate villain, nor is every green entrepreneur a saint. The collapse of government-backed Solyndra in 2011, as well as more recent controversies over financially shaky or wasteful clean-tech ventures, showed that the leaders of the renewable energy sector are not immune to scandal or ethical failures. Yet such scandals did not gain any sustained traction in legacy media. Part of the reason lies in the broader narrative: clean energy leaders were seen not just as business figures, but as moral pioneers advancing a just and necessary cause. In the public imagination, individual setbacks were framed as growing pains of a righteous movement, rather than evidence of systemic failure.
On the other hand, Elon Musk, once a darling of the climate movement, began to face a significant reputational backlash in 2022 over his new policies at Twitter. Never mind Musk’s unparalleled global contributions to green energy innovation — for many, his perceived personal missteps regarding freedom of speech overshadowed his environmental achievements. And 2025 brought a fresh storm of reputational attacks against Musk for his active involvement in government affairs. A lesson stands out: it is not enough what you have done for the planet — what matters more is how you make people feel right now. In the court of public opinion, emotional reactions often outweigh historical contributions.
If reputational judgments seem already set in the eyes of the public, must traditional energy CEOs resign themselves to relentless attacks?
Not necessarily. Reputations can be rebuilt — but it demands smarter strategies and a candid reckoning with evolving public expectations.
First, traditional energy leaders must reframe the conversation around economic realism. The vision of a borderless “flat world” — dreamed of by many twenty years ago, all powered by renewables — has not materialized. Like it or not, in an era of rising global economic nationalism, reliable and affordable energy remains vital for national security and millions of jobs. Fossil fuel CEOs must champion these realities — not defensively, but as part of a pragmatic dialogue about energy in today’s world.
Second, they must emphasize common-sense pragmatism. Pointing out the legitimate risks of an unbalanced or hasty green transition — from grid instability to job losses in vulnerable communities to taxpayer waste on unproven technologies — can resonate with a public growing wary of overpromised, underdelivered climate dreams. When done thoughtfully, this approach can reposition traditional CEOs as advocates for a smarter, steadier path forward, not as obstructionists clinging to the past.
Third, they must cultivate a new generation of leadership. Today’s young professionals are increasingly shunning traditional energy careers. Companies must project not just technical competence but genuine innovation and responsibility — sponsoring serious work in carbon capture, clean fuels, and environmental remediation. Only then can they shift their image from “dinosaurs” to “engineers of transition.”
Finally, credibility demands humility. Defensiveness deepens distrust. Admitting past mistakes, reasoning with critics, and showing visible accountability will do far more for rebuilding trust than any rebranding campaign.
Few things in life are as difficult to build — and as easy to lose — as a good reputation.
Today, green energy CEOs hold the high ground in the battle for public esteem, and deservedly so. But if traditional energy leaders are willing to evolve and to write the next chapter, rather than be written off, the reputational divide need not become a permanent canyon.
History, it is said, remembers the builders and the destroyers. But more often, it remembers the stories told about them — and it is the public that holds the final word.
Dr. Eric Shiraev is a researcher at George Mason University and the co-founder and director of the CARP (Character Assassination and Reputation Protection) Lab. He is the co-author of numerous books including ‘Cross Cultural Psychology,’ published by Routledge and now in its sixth edition, and ‘International Relations,’ published by Oxford University Press and now in its fourth edition.
Image: Shutterstock/stoatphoto
