By Ethical Business Team
Vivo Energy Kenya occupies an uncomfortable space in East Africa’s energy transition. As the region’s largest oil marketing company, commanding 21.34% of Kenya’s petroleum market, the Shell licensee finds itself promoting solar panels at service stations whilst simultaneously distributing millions of litres of fossil fuels daily. This contradiction lies at the heart of a broader question facing Africa’s energy sector: can companies built on hydrocarbon sales credibly lead the transition away from them?
The tension is not merely theoretical. Kenya aims for net zero emissions by 2050, requiring an estimated $600 billion investment. The government projects renewable sources will provide over 60% of installed capacity by 2037. Yet petroleum consumption continues rising, with LPG demand alone growing 13.6% in 2024 to reach 414,900 tonnes. Vivo Energy sits squarely in the middle of this contradiction, caught between the imperative to decarbonise and the commercial reality that fossil fuels remain central to East African economic development.
The credentials problem
Vivo Energy’s sustainability framework, established in 2022, rests on three pillars: people, planet and partnerships. The company has installed solar panels at over 30 service stations in Kenya, cutting electricity bills by roughly 20% during daylight hours. Six motorbike battery swapping stations now operate at Shell sites. The company promotes LPG as a clean cooking solution, contributing to 11 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.
These initiatives sound impressive in isolation. They collapse under scrutiny when measured against core operations. Vivo Energy Kenya operates 114 retail sites, extensive bulk oil storage terminals in Nairobi, Mombasa and Nanyuki, and provides aviation fuel at major airports. The company received awards in October 2024 for highest throughput performance, recognition for efficiently moving more petroleum products through the supply chain. Success, in other words, is measured by how effectively the business distributes fossil fuels.
The numbers tell the story. Solar installations at 30 stations represent barely a quarter of Vivo’s retail network. Battery swapping stations at six locations amount to a rounding error. These projects, whilst beneficial, function as peripheral additions rather than fundamental shifts in business model. Research from Japanese universities examining BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron found that increased use of climate terminology in annual reports bore no relation to meaningful clean energy investment. The magnitude of actions did not match discourse, leading researchers to conclude that accusations of greenwashing appeared well-founded.
The development dilemma
East Africa’s energy challenge defies simple solutions. Over 600 million Africans lack reliable electricity access. In Kenya, 50% of the population still relies on firewood for cooking, followed by LPG, charcoal and kerosene. The newly launched Kenya National Cooking Transition Strategy envisions that by 2050, half of Kenyan households will use LPG for cooking. Removing VAT on LPG and directing public institutions to transition by 2025 forms part of government strategy.
This presents oil marketing companies with a convenient narrative: LPG represents progress towards cleaner cooking compared to firewood and charcoal. The claim contains truth. LPG does reduce indoor air pollution and deforestation. It also locks millions of households into continued dependence on fossil fuels for decades. When Vivo Energy promotes LPG as contributing to SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy) and SDG 13 (climate action), it elides the distinction between cleaner and truly clean.
The International Energy Agency notes that Kenya’s energy sector accounted for 7.1% of total emissions in 2015, projected to rise to 29.7% by 2030 without intervention. Transport and industry will drive emissions growth as population and GDP expand. Oil marketing companies profit directly from this growth trajectory whilst simultaneously claiming alignment with climate goals. The contradiction cannot be resolved through marginal solar installations or tree-planting programmes.
McKinsey analysis suggests global oil demand could peak by 2027 under current trajectory scenarios, or as early as 2024 if net-zero commitments materialise through targeted policies. African markets face different dynamics. Rising populations, expanding middle classes and infrastructure development mean petroleum demand will likely continue growing even as developed economies contract consumption. This creates space for companies like Vivo Energy to argue they serve essential development needs, positioning fossil fuel distribution as a transitional good rather than a climate liability.
The investment gap
Kenya’s renewable energy potential remains largely untapped. The country has proven capacity for geothermal (33.7% of installed renewable capacity), hydropower (30.8%), wind (15.6%), solar (13.2%) and bioenergy (6.7%). Yet solar power, despite 484.9 MW of installed capacity, contributes merely 3.2% of actual generation. The gap between potential and reality reflects infrastructure constraints, financing limitations and integration challenges.
Kenya faces an annual financing deficit of 903 billion to 1.03 trillion Kenyan shillings ($7-8 billion) for energy transition projects. A recently endorsed 9.03 billion shilling ($70 million) Climate Investment Fund plan represents less than 1% of annual needs. Africa accounts for less than 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions but receives just 2% of global climate finance. Solar projects in African countries cost three times more to finance than identical installations in Europe, reflecting perceived risk premiums that often embody investor prejudices rather than actual project risks.
These structural barriers create the context in which oil marketing companies operate. Vivo Energy’s modest solar installations and battery swapping stations represent genuine steps forward within severe financial constraints. The problem lies not in taking these steps but in presenting them as evidence of fundamental transformation. When Vivo Energy Senegal received a “Best ESG & Local Content Supplier Award” in December 2024, the recognition validated sustainability theatre rather than meaningful transition.
The company’s 2024 financial performance underscores where priorities lie. Vivo Energy Côte d’Ivoire reported revenue of 298.1 billion CFA francs, with operating profit soaring 96% to 5.7 billion francs, driven primarily by increased sales volumes in aviation and corporate sectors. Success stems from efficiently distributing petroleum products, not from accelerating away from them.
The credibility question
ClientEarth’s analysis of fossil fuel advertising identified systematic patterns across major energy companies. Marketing campaigns created impressions of rapid transitions to low-carbon energy whilst core businesses remained focused on oil, gas and coal. Companies routinely misrepresented sustainability activities, avoided full disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions, overrepresented clean energy investments and promoted commercially unproven solutions to ongoing fossil fuel production. They publicised net-zero ambitions rarely aligned with Paris Agreement goals, often containing gaps or caveats permitting fossil fuel operations to grow.
Vivo Energy’s sustainability communications follow recognisable patterns. The framework emphasises high standards of corporate behaviour whilst doing business “the right way.” Community investment programmes create lasting social and economic benefits. Green Champions initiatives demonstrate environmental commitment. Shell V-Power provides enhanced engine performance. None of these activities address the fundamental question: how does a company built on petroleum distribution transition to a business model compatible with climate science?
The Lake Turkana Wind Power Project, Africa’s largest wind farm, supplies 13.6% of Kenya’s national electricity whilst cutting emissions by 700,000 tonnes annually. This represents the scale of intervention required. By comparison, solar panels reducing electricity bills by 20% at 30 service stations constitute incremental optimisation rather than transformation. The gap between rhetoric and reality creates space for legitimate accusations of greenwashing.
Course of action
Serious engagement with energy transition requires acknowledging uncomfortable truths. Oil marketing companies cannot credibly position themselves as climate leaders whilst their core business models depend on growing fossil fuel sales. Incremental sustainability initiatives serve important functions but do not constitute transition strategies.
Kenya’s electricity mix demonstrates what genuine transformation looks like. At the close of 2024, geothermal provided 39.5% of generation, hydropower 30.2%, wind 13.6%, and thermal sources just 11.4%. This represents decades of sustained investment in renewable infrastructure. The country’s success with dispatchable renewable sources (geothermal and hydropower) contrasts sharply with solar’s intermittency challenges, highlighting the technical complexity of grid integration.
For Vivo Energy and similar companies, authentic transition would require fundamental business model transformation. This might involve redirecting capital from petroleum infrastructure to renewable energy projects at scale, developing expertise in battery storage and grid management, partnering with utilities on electrification programmes, or accepting managed decline of fossil fuel operations as renewable alternatives mature.
None of these paths appears on Vivo Energy’s current trajectory. The company’s strategy emphasises operational excellence in petroleum distribution, incremental efficiency improvements and community investment programmes. These activities have value but should not be confused with energy transition.
The broader challenge extends beyond individual companies. Kenya requires massive investment in renewable infrastructure, grid modernisation and clean cooking solutions. International climate finance falls far short of needs. Development banks impose risk premiums that reflect historical prejudices rather than project fundamentals. In this context, expecting oil marketing companies to lead transition efforts represents magical thinking.
What can reasonably be demanded is honesty. Companies should distinguish between genuine transition activities and incremental improvements to existing operations. Solar panels at service stations reduce operational emissions but do not transform business models. LPG displaces dirtier cooking fuels but remains a fossil fuel. Tree planting programmes offset tiny fractions of emissions from core operations.
The accountability moment
The contradiction between fossil fuel operations and ESG commitments cannot be resolved through clever communications. It requires fundamental choices about business direction. Companies must decide whether they are petroleum distributors implementing sustainability improvements or energy companies transitioning away from fossil fuels. The distinction matters.
Vivo Energy’s market leadership in Kenya brings influence and responsibility. The company shapes energy consumption patterns through infrastructure investment, product availability and customer relationships. These decisions either accelerate or retard Kenya’s climate transition. Marginal sustainability programmes do not alter this fundamental dynamic.
Kenya’s ambitious climate targets and severe financing constraints create difficult trade-offs. The country needs energy access, economic development and emissions reduction simultaneously. Oil marketing companies can contribute to this effort but only if they acknowledge their actual role rather than claiming transformative leadership they have not earned.
The test of Vivo Energy’s ESG commitments lies not in the number of solar panels installed or trees planted but in how the company responds when forced to choose between profitable petroleum distribution and accelerating transition away from fossil fuels. So far, the choice remains clear. The rest is marketing.
