Ecopetrol’s latest General Shareholders’ Assembly in Bogotá unfolded amid open tension focused on company president Ricardo Roa, with both opposition and government‑aligned sources agreeing that minority shareholders repeatedly booed him and chanted for his resignation. Coverage converges on the fact that a proposal from minority shareholders to formally debate Roa’s continuity was put to a vote and failed because of the state’s majority shareholding, that the Board of Directors publicly backed him, and that Roa said he would not resign and declared himself calm, insisting on his innocence in ongoing investigations related to alleged influence peddling and campaign financing. Both sides report that the assembly still carried out its formal agenda: it approved Ecopetrol’s 2025 financial statements, endorsed a dividend of 121 pesos per share (a sizable reduction from the previous year, in line with a near‑40% drop in net profits), and discussed strategic issues such as debt linked to acquisitions like ISA and projects in energy transition, including a proposed merger with Parque Solar Portón del Sol S.A.S. Both camps also note that Roa has been absent from at least one recent ISA shareholders’ meeting, that minority shareholder voices tried to connect this and his legal troubles to corporate governance concerns, and that the government, as majority shareholder, will receive the largest share of the approved dividends.

There is shared acknowledgment that Ecopetrol occupies a central place in Colombia’s economy and public finances, that the Colombian state’s majority ownership decisively shapes corporate decisions, and that this concentration of power limits the impact of minority shareholders’ protests. Both sides agree that the Workers’ Trade Union (USO) is internally divided over how far to go in pressuring for Roa’s departure, with some leaders calling for mobilizations and even the suspension of oil operations, while other union figures question the legality, prudence, and institutional backing of such calls, warning of potential harm to the company’s stability and market confidence. Reports converge on the concern that Ecopetrol’s reputation and governance are under strain due to judicial investigations surrounding Roa and alleged irregularities in campaign financing, and that external actors, including potential scrutiny by US authorities, loom in the background as risks if the company’s governance and compliance are perceived as weak. Finally, both opposition and government‑aligned outlets describe Ecopetrol as navigating a complex moment of balancing energy transition ambitions, exploration and production commitments, and fiscal needs of the state, all under the cloud of political polarization around Roa’s leadership.

Areas of disagreement

Framing of Roa’s legitimacy and performance. Opposition outlets portray Roa as a severely weakened leader whose judicial imputations and alleged ethical breaches have created a reputational crisis that endangers Ecopetrol’s governance and market standing, stressing his absence from key meetings as symptomatic. Government‑aligned coverage, while acknowledging the boos and discontent, emphasizes the board’s ratification of Roa and highlights his defense of Ecopetrol’s financial strength, framing performance indicators and debt ratios as evidence that the company remains solid under his watch. Opposition media focus on shareholder chants of “Out, out!” and treat his refusal to resign as defiance that ignores stakeholders’ concerns, whereas pro‑government reports underline his claim of having a clear conscience and the principle of presumption of innocence.

Corporate governance and transparency. Opposition sources emphasize alleged opacity, giving prominence to the fiscal auditor’s complaint that he lacked full access to Roa’s management report, and arguing that this undermines confidence in the clean opinion on the financial statements. Government‑aligned media largely downplay or omit this specific controversy, instead stressing that the assembly lawfully approved the accounts and that any issues related to Roa’s legal situation are personal and separate from the institution. In opposition narratives, the blocked debate on Roa’s continuity and information gaps are presented as evidence of a captured board and eroding checks and balances, while government‑aligned narratives interpret the same events as the normal operation of majority rule and existing governance mechanisms.

Characterization of shareholder and union protests. Opposition coverage amplifies the voices of minority shareholders and the most combative USO factions, framing protests, booing, and calls for production stoppages as legitimate responses to a leadership crisis and a tool to defend Ecopetrol from politicization and mismanagement. Government‑aligned outlets, while reporting the same protests, place stronger emphasis on internal divisions within USO and quotes from union leaders who oppose extreme measures, presenting calls for strikes or halting operations as risky for national energy security and company stability. For opposition media, mobilization is depicted as necessary pressure on a resistant board and government, whereas government‑aligned reports cast it as a potentially irresponsible escalation that could damage the company and the broader economy.

Interpretation of risks and future outlook. Opposition sources stress downside risks, warning of possible international repercussions, including attention from US regulators, if governance issues persist, and they often link Roa’s continuity to potential declines in investor confidence and share value. Government‑aligned coverage tends to counterbalance risk narratives by highlighting Ecopetrol’s capacity to handle debt from acquisitions like ISA, underlining ongoing energy transition projects, and suggesting that institutional continuity under Roa supports strategic stability. While opposition outlets frame the assembly as a missed opportunity to reset leadership and avert deeper crises, government‑aligned outlets present it as a difficult but ultimately stabilizing reaffirmation of existing management while legal and political issues play out.

In summary, opposition coverage tends to depict a governance and reputational crisis aggravated by Roa’s permanence and minimized scrutiny, while government-aligned coverage tends to acknowledge tensions but stress institutional backing, financial resilience, and the need for stability while investigations continue.