The issue was raised by several shareholders at Woodside's recent annual general meeting, just before Commonwealth energy minister Josh Frydenberg and foreign affairs minister Julie Bishop announced Australia would join the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the international standard for increased transparency and accountability in the resources sectors.

Countries implementing the EITI disclose information on taxes and other payments made by companies in these sectors to governments as well as other information such as licences, contracts, production and exports.

The issue being brought to a head at Woodside's AGM comes at a time when links between big business and governments are the subject of increasing scrutiny and Australia is facing a double dissolution election of both houses of parliament on July 2.

The Australian Shareholders Association's Barry Nunn, who described donations as an inappropriate use of shareholder funds, asked why the donations in the 2015 year were 8% higher than the previous year even as dividends to Woodside shareholders went down.

Woodside's disclosed donations were, in fact, it paying $111,100 each for membership of the business network forums of the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia, and an additional $46,820 attending conferences and other business events associated with the ALP, Liberals and the National Party and not cash donations, Woodside chairman Michael Chaney said.

He defended Woodside's high ethical standards, and said all payments were approved by the board, with the term ‘political donations' being interpreted broadly by Woodside to include such things as its membership in various business networks, and funding attendance of politician's fundraisers.

He said Woodside aimed to be even-handed in its largesse, and said that the donations were only made where it is in the company's interest.

Cheney said it was sensible for the company to participate in business networks, and if some money finds itself in the coffers of political parties "they need money to run and it is part of our political system."

Managing director Peter Coleman said Woodside's voice needed to be heard in the corridors of power, and its membership in business networks was the best way for it to participate in debates around topics such as taxation, depreciation, and labour laws, as unlike some companies it does not pay to maintain a permanent presence in Canberra.

Shareholder activist Stephen Mayne urged Woodside to end all donations because of the general movement in transparency globally, particularly in the wake of the Panama Papers tax issues, the Unaoil corruption scandal, and Woodside's move into new jurisdictions globally.

He said companies such as BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto had adopted policies not to make donations, and Woodside should do the same.

Chaney said Woodside had guidelines for all payments, particularly in nations where the standards may not be the same as those in Australia.

"We have very strict rules in the way we behave in other countries, and if any payment is made to a government official which can be deemed to be payment to the government it is reported to the board, such as taking a mines department official in Korea to a rig that is reported, even though it is not reported," he explained.

Coleman said that the company has clear processes for navigating the sometimes conflicting demands of dealing with governments and regulators around the world.

Around a dozen people have been sacked from Woodside over the past two years, with five employees terminated in the last 12 months for fraud-related offences.

Coleman said the company strived for complete transparency, beyond simple issues such as donations, but also its social contributions.

"In this regard Woodside is very firm, that we do not make contributions or charitable donations or corporate philanthropy in the sense that it Could be seen in any way as influencing the decision makers in the countries in which we work."

Woodside is already a member of the EITI and reports revenues in all EITI nations, and it has more recently also been accepted into the Organisation of Voluntary Principles for Security and Human Rights, particularly now that Woodside has started working more globally.

"We are very serious about this," Coleman said.

He said Woodside does not pay donations outside Australia, and confirmed it has been asked to donate to any Australian political party in the lead up to the next election.

Chaney said Woodside would consider any request, but he did not expect any approach.

Woodside, which recognises that climate change is real, and says that gas is a key fuel in any clean energy future, was also asked about $4 million that UK group Influence Map said the Australian Petroleum and Production Association was accused of paying to fund climate change denials, despite the settled science.

Coleman said that while Woodside is represented on the APPEA committee, it was perfectly reasonable for the lobby group to have a different set of policies around donations and climate change.

"From time to time we have differences of opinion, and Woodside has a clearly stated view on climate change and we accept that it is with us, and we are contributing to the reduction in carbon intensity," Coleman said.

"Woodside's view is clearly articulated, and we support APPEA across many issues, although from time to time on particular issues we may differ."

Influence Map said APPEA appeared to oppose progressive climate policy in Australia, by advocating for less stringent emission standards at COP21 and opposed the Australian Carbon Tax and lobbied the Australian government to remove the renewable energy target, all while broadly recognising the work of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.

It said APPEA spend the millions of its member's funds supporting gas as a long term fuel and talking up CSG and unconventional gas, while being "obstructive" in the wider climate change debate.

AN APPEA spokesperson said the lobby group was apolitical, and did not make donations to political parties, but confirmed the group's communications were in support of the Australian oil and gas sector, both to government and the wider community.