Shell

InfluenceMap Score
C-
Performance Band
68%
Organisation Score
49%
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 and a carbon price, although it does continue to lobby for policy 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 2021 position paper, it stated support for the EU’s Green Deal and 2050 targets, as well as the more ambitious 55% by 2030 GHG target. In the same paper, Shell also advocated for the aviation and shipping sectors to also commit to 2050 targets. In Shell’s global advocacy document, accessed in 2022, it stated support for the goals of the Paris Agreement. In the same document, Shellsupported 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 June 2021, Shell released a position paper on the EU’s ‘Fit for 55 package’ (FF55), in which it appeared to support the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) reforms. This included strengthening the Market Stability Reserve and the Linear Reduction Factor while reducing the number of free allowances while tightening the ETS for the aviation sector, in line with its consultation response on the policy in February 2021. On the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), Shell appeared to support the policy with major exceptions, stating that it supports a gradual phase-out of carbon leakage protection for trade-exposed sectors under the ETS, although it did appear to support a free allocation for entities that export to jurisdictions without a carbon price.

Similarly, in the US, Shell submitted comments on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in which it appeared to support the policy, but again with considerable exceptions, stating that the offset allowance for each facility should be increased from 3.3% to 10%. Shell also appeared to support a carbon tax in the US in a letter to policymakers. Shell has also been supporting the implementation of a standalone ETS for domestic and international maritime sectors. For example, in a comment to the UK government in September 2021, it advocated for such a scheme, stating that there should be no free allowances and mitigations for carbon leakage. Shell also communicated this position to the EU via a consultation response on FuelEU Maritime, stating preference for any price on shipping emissions to be implemented at a global level, and communicated its support for a standalone ETS rather than an EU ETS extension.

Shell’s engagement with renewable energy legislation also appears to be mixed. In its position paper on FF55 from June 2021, 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. 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. In its consultation submission to the EU on the policy in February 2021, the company recommended that the overall renewable target be increased to be in line with the 55% 2030 target, although it again advocated to extend the scheme to include ‘low carbon fuels’. 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.

On methane regulation, Shell’s position appears to be mainly positive. 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 via a consultation response on the EU ETS 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.

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 gas. In the company’s 2020 Sustainability Report, published in 2021, it stated support for an increased role for fossil gas in the energy mix. It also stated on its corporate website in 2022 that fossil l gas will be required to back-up renewables. In its advocacy document, accessed in 2022, Shell again supported a continued role for fossil gas in the energy mix, but did state that it supports a phase-out of unabated coal power generation by 2040 and called for an end to new investments. In a letter to policymakers in the US in April 2021, Shell appeared to advocate for the development of oil and gas reserves in the Gulf of Mexico to be prioritized by the federal oil and gas program, arguing that it has a lower GHG content compared to imported energy. Shell also opposed higher royalty rates to extract these resources and suggested that policies which target hydrocarbon production will harm innovation. In the EU, Shell appeared to support the Gas Package with exceptions, including calling for an adaptation of rules in the Gas Package to allow for blending of fossil gas with other low-carbon gases in the existing gas network.

Shell has published separate advocacy position documents on hydrogen and carbon capture and storage (CCS). In its hydrogen advocacy document, 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, 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 eventually phase-out fossil fuels or the risks associated with CCS use.

Shell’s communications surrounding the decarbonization of transport appears to be more positive. In its global advocacy document, accessed in 2022, it communicated support for the phase out of Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles in developed countries in ‘the 2030s’ and supported a greater use of biofuels for heavy-duty vehicles. In February 2021, it submitted comments to the UK parliament supporting the phase out of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030 in favor of battery-operated electric vehicles.

Industry Association Governance: Shell appears to be fairly transparent over its indirect influence through industry associations. In April 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 industry association review can be found on our CA100+ platform here.

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
11NS112NS
222211NS
11NS111NS
11NA211NS
1NA0NANANANS
000110NS
110111NS
1NS-20-2NSNS
02-1011NS
0110-10NS
221111NS
1NS0NANANANS
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
57%
 
57%
 
60%
 
60%
 
60%
 
60%
 
47%
 
47%
 
39%
 
39%
 
72%
 
72%
 
28%
 
28%
 
24%
 
24%
 
29%
 
29%
 
43%
 
43%
 
29%
 
29%
 
52%
 
52%
 
64%
 
64%
 
47%
 
47%
 
45%
 
45%
 
36%
 
36%
 
42%
 
42%
 
67%
 
67%
 
62%
 
62%
 
45%
 
45%
 
66%
 
66%
 
53%
 
53%
 
76%
 
76%
 
50%
 
50%
 
48%
 
48%
 
52%
 
52%
 
41%
 
41%
 
62%
 
62%
 
27%
 
27%
 
31%
 
31%
 
34%
 
34%
 
46%
 
46%
 
68%
 
68%
 
31%
 
31%
 
42%
 
42%
 
86%
 
86%
 
58%
 
58%
 
41%
 
41%
 
75%
 
75%
 
95%
 
95%
 
33%
 
33%
 
48%
 
48%
 
46%
 
46%
 
79%
 
79%
 
57%
 
57%
 
68%
 
68%

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.