Shell

InfluenceMap Score
C-
Performance Band
68%
Organisation Score
51%
Relationship Score
Sector:
Energy
Head​quarters:
London, United Kingdom
Brands and Associated Companies:
Shell Energy, Shell V-Power, Raízen, Greenlots
Official Web Site:
Wikipedia:

Climate Lobbying Overview: Shell appears to be highly engaged on climate change policies, with mixed positions. The company expresses top-line support for emission reduction targets, a carbon price and for the decarbonization of transport. However, it continues to lobby for policies to advance fossil fuel production and consumption, particularly fossil gas. It also retains membership to various industry associations that engage negatively on climate policy.

Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: Shell appears to fully support climate action through its top-line messaging on climate policy. In its 2021 Annual Report, published in March 2022, the company stated support for GHG emissions reductions in line with the 1.5°C target. In a June 2022 position paper, it stated support for the EU’s Green Deal and 2050 targets, as well as the 55% by 2030 GHG target. In Shell’s global advocacy document, accessed in 2022, it stated support for the goals of the Paris Agreement. In the same document, Shell supported government policies to respond to climate change, including an economy-wide carbon price, either through a cap-and-trade system or taxation, adding that this price should increase over time.

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: Shell appears to have mixed engagement with climate-related regulations, as revealed in its advocacy on carbon taxes and cap-and trade policies. In July 2022, Shell released an updated position paper on the EU’s ‘Fit for 55 package’ (FF55), in which it appeared to support the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) reforms. Shell also supported including the refining and chemical sectors in the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), but while only gradually phasing out free allowances in the ETS.

Shell’s engagement with renewable energy legislation appears to be mixed. In its position paper on FF55 from June 2022, it stated that it supported an increased Renewable Energy sub-target for the transport sector within the Renewable Energy Directive (RED), and has communicated support for a higher renewable target and mandates in the policy through its primary messaging. In January 2022, Shell also directly advocated to Congressional leadership to pass the clean energy tax credits in the Build Back Better Act in a joint letter. However, it also appeared to support the inclusion of ‘low-carbon’ fuel sources to be included in the RED, which leaves scope for fossil fuels to be included within the policy.

On methane regulation, Shell’s position appears to be mixed. In a letter to policymakers in the US in April 2021, the company advocated for the reversal of the Trump Administration’s methane policy rule and restore the 2016 federal regulations on methane. Meanwhile, in an EU consultation response in 2020, Shell stressed the need for ‘ambitious’ methane policies, including targets and performance standards across the full fossil gas supply chain.

On emissions standards for transport, Shell supported a CO2 emissions performance standard in the UK for heavy-duty vehicles by 2040 in a February 2021 consultation response. In a separate UK consultation response in July 2020, it supported a CO2 standard with the aim of reaching zero emissions by 2030 to aid electric vehicle (EV) uptake and also appeared to support the UK’s ICE phase-out target. Shell also communicated in a 2021 position paper that although it does not favor an expansion of the ETS to road transport, but that it does support standards and mandates to drive decarbonization in the sector. In a comment to the UK government in September 2021, Shell stated that it fully supported the proposed mandate for sustainable aviation fuels and also appeared to support taxation of aviation fuels based on CO2 emissions

Positioning on Energy Transition: Shell’s engagement on the energy transition appears to be mixed. While its top-line statements show support, the company still appears to support a long-term role for fossil fuels. In the company’s 2021 annual report, published in 2022, it stated support for a continued role for fossil fuels alongside renewables in the energy mix. However, their advocacy for fossil fuels appears to be misaligned from the findings of the iPCC. It also stated on its corporate website in 2022 that fossil gas will be required to back-up renewables. In July 2022, Shell UK Country Chair, David Bunch testified at an Environmental Audit Committee inquiry in which he stated the priority was to ‘accelerate production of renewables’, but argued for the ‘clear requirement in a net zero pathway, for oil and gas’. In April 2022, Shell President Grethcen Watkins testified before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, in which she advocated for the energy transition to be accelerated, but also advocated for the advancement of US LNG export permits and an end on the pause on federal oil and gas leasing, especially in the Gulf of Mexico.

Shell has published separate advocacy position documents on hydrogen and carbon capture and storage (CCS). In its hydrogen advocacy document, accessed in February 2022, it appears to support a range of policies globally that aim to increase the uptake of ‘decarbonized hydrogen’ in the energy mix, such as the EU hydrogen strategy, FF55 proposal and the Canadian Clean Fuels Standard. While in its CCS advocacy document, also accessed February 2022, Shell supports policies to facilitate its use in the energy and industrial sectors. However, it does not appear to communicate a need to significantly reduce the use of fossil fuels or the risks associated with CCS use.

Industry Association Governance: Shell appears to be fairly transparent over its indirect influence through industry associations. In 2021, Shell published an update to its industry association review, in which it identified one further case of material misalignment with the Queensland Resources Council. Shell also identified some misalignment with seven groups, including the American Petroleum Institute, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy West Australia, the National Association of Manufacturers and the US Chamber of Commerce. However, in April 2022, Shell provided an update to its 2021 review, in which it confirmed it remained a member to all of the above associations. Shell is also a member of other associations identified as aligned by Shell, including Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, and International Association of Oil and Gas Producers), groups that traditionally lobby negatively on climate policies.

A detailed assessment of the company's corporate review on climate policy engagement can be found on InfluenceMap's CA100+ Investor Hub here.

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
11NS112NS
222211NS
11NS111NS
11NA211NS
1NA0NANANANS
000110NS
110111NS
1NS-20-2NSNS
11-1111NS
0110-10NS
221111NS
1NS0NANANANS
NS1NS0NSNSNS
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
70%
 
70%
 
62%
 
62%
 
57%
 
57%
 
60%
 
60%
 
59%
 
59%
 
47%
 
47%
 
38%
 
38%
 
71%
 
71%
 
28%
 
28%
 
63%
 
63%
 
23%
 
23%
 
29%
 
29%
 
53%
 
53%
 
47%
 
47%
 
78%
 
78%
 
29%
 
29%
 
52%
 
52%
 
64%
 
64%
 
47%
 
47%
 
42%
 
42%
 
34%
 
34%
 
42%
 
42%
 
66%
 
66%
 
61%
 
61%
 
45%
 
45%
 
66%
 
66%
 
55%
 
55%
 
48%
 
48%
 
75%
 
75%
 
49%
 
49%
 
68%
 
68%
 
47%
 
47%
 
51%
 
51%
 
40%
 
40%
 
63%
 
63%
 
41%
 
41%
 
26%
 
26%
 
34%
 
34%
 
46%
 
46%
 
66%
 
66%
 
57%
 
57%
 
31%
 
31%
 
41%
 
41%
 
85%
 
85%
 
29%
 
29%
 
75%
 
75%
 
95%
 
95%
 
36%
 
36%

How to Read our Relationship Score Map

In this section, we depict graphically the relationships the corporation has with trade associations, federations, advocacy groups and other third parties who may be acting on their behalf to influence climate change policy. Each of the columns above represents one relationship the corporation appears to have with such a third party. In these columns, the top, dark section represents the strength of the relationship the corporation has with the influencer. For example if a corporation's senior executive also held a key role in the trade association, we would deem this to be a strong relationship and it would be on the far left of the chart above, with the weaker ones to the right. Click on these grey shaded upper sections for details of these relationships. The middle section contains a link to the organization score details of the influencer concerned, so you can see the details of its climate change policy influence. Click on the middle sections for for details of the trade associations. The lower section contains the organization score of that influencer, the lower the more negatively it is influencing climate policy.