Royal Dutch Shell
What do our scores mean?
The organizational score represents the degree to which the organization influencing climate policy and legislation. Corporations also have relationship scores reflecting their links with influencers like trade associations. Both are combined to place the corporation in a performance band. Full details can be found here.
Engagement Intensity
The engagement intensity (EI) is a metric of the extent to which the company is engaging on climate change policy matters, whether positively or negatively. It is a number from 0 (no engagement at all) to 100 (full engagement on all queries/data points). Clearly energy companies are more affected by climate regulations and will have a higher EI than, for example retailers. So an organization’s score should be looked at in conjunction with this metric to gauge the amount of evidence we are using in each case as a basis for scoring. On our scale, an EI of more than 35 indicates a relatively large amount of climate policy engagement.
Relationship Score, December 2020
A new batch of industry associations has been uploaded onto the InfluenceMap system and the relationship scores recalculated accordingly.
- Details of Organization Score
-
What do the 0,1,2 and NSs, NAs mean?
Each cell in the organization's matrix presents a chance for us to assess each data source against our column of climate change policy queries. We score from -2 to 2, with negative scores representing evidence of obstructive influence. "NA" means "not applicable" and "NS" means "not scored" - that is we did not find any evidence either way. In both cases, the cell's weighting is re-distributed over others. Red and blue cells represent highly interesting negative or positive influence respectively. Full details can be found here.
- Details of Relationship Score
-
What is the Relationship Score
A corporation, as well as its organizational score will have a relationship score. It is computed by aggregating the organizational scores of the Influencers (trade bodies etc.) it has relationships with, weighted by both the strength of these relationships and the relative importance of the Influencers towards climate change policy. Full details can be found here.
QUERIES
|
DATA SOURCES | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents. |
Social Media
We search other media and sites funded or controlled by the organization, such as social media (Twitter, Facebook) and direct advertising campaigns of the organization. |
CDP Responses
We assess and score responses to two questions from CDP's climate change information request (12.3 a & 12.3c) related to political influence questions (currently these are not numerically scored by the CDP process). |
Legislative Consultations
Comments from the entity being scored on governmental regulatory consultation processes, including those obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests. |
Media Reports
Here we search in a consistent manner (the organization name and relevant query search terms) a set of web sites of representing reputable news or data aggregations. Supported by targeted searches of proprietary databases. |
CEO Messaging
Here we search in a consistent manner (the CEO/Chairman, organization name and relevant query search terms) a set of web sites of representing reputable news or data aggregations. Supported by targeted searches of proprietary databases. |
Financial Disclosures
We search 10-K and 20-F SEC filings where available, and non US equivalents where not. . |
EU Register
Information provided by to the voluntary EU Transparency Register. |
|
Climate Science Transparency
Is the organisation being transparent about climate change science? |
1
|
2
|
NS |
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
NA |
Climate Science Stance
Is the organization supporting the science of climate change and the response demanded (as per the IPCC) |
1
|
1
|
NA |
1
|
0
|
0
|
-1
|
NA |
Need for Climate Regulation
To what extent does the organization express the need for climate policy and regulations in general. |
1
|
1
|
NS |
1
|
0
|
0
|
NA | NA |
UN Treaty Support
Is the organization supporting a global treaty on climate change and the UN FCCC process? |
1
|
1
|
NA |
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
NA |
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation being transparent about their positions on climate change legislation and policy, including CEO statements. |
0
|
NA |
1
|
NA | NA | NA | NS | NA |
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
NS | NA |
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
NS | NA |
Energy Efficiency Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Energy efficiency standards and targets |
1
|
0
|
-2
|
-2
|
-1
|
0
|
NS | NA |
Renewable Energy Legislation
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy targets, subsidies and legislation. |
NS |
1
|
0
|
0
|
-1
|
1
|
NS | NA |
Energy Policy and Mix
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: energy policy and the energy mix. We refer to IPCC thinking on renewables, coal, oil and gas. |
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
NA |
GHG Emission Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: GHG emission standards and targets. |
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
-1
|
1
|
NA |
Disclosure on Relationships
The Caring for Climate “inventory” of climate change policy influences: Are companies being transparent about their business associations which may impact climate debate and policy |
0
|
NS |
-1
|
NA | NA | NA | NS | NA |

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior executive of Shell is a member of the management committee of the IOGP
Graham Henley

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior executive is chair of Environment Committee at IOGP
Charles Wood

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of Shell was a member of the management committee of the IOGP.
Monika Hausenblas,

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior executive of Shell is a member of the management committee of the IOGP
Graham Henley

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior executive is chair of Environment Committee at IOGP
Charles Wood

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of Shell was a member of the management committee of the IOGP.
Monika Hausenblas,

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of Shell, Chief Climate Change Adviser is on the board of IETA
David Hone

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of Shell is on the board of IETA (Up-to-date, 03/2019)
David Hone

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of Shell, Chief Climate Change Adviser is on the board of IETA
David Hone

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of Shell is on the board of IETA (Up-to-date, 03/2019)
David Hone

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of Shell is on Executive Committee of Eurogas
David WELLS

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
InfluenceMap Comment:
Shell is a direct member of Eurogas
not specified

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of Shell is on Executive Committee of Eurogas
Slavko Preocanin

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of Shell is on Executive Committee of Eurogas
David WELLS

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
InfluenceMap Comment:
Shell is a direct member of Eurogas
not specified

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of Shell is on Executive Committee of Eurogas
Slavko Preocanin

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
VP of Shell Australia is on the board of APPEA
Tony Nunan

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Executive of regional arm of Shell is Chairman of the board of APPEA
Zoe Yujnovich

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
VP of Shell Australia is on the board of APPEA
Tony Nunan

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Executive of regional arm of Shell is Chairman of the board of APPEA
Zoe Yujnovich

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Shell senior executive is on the board of WindEurope
Hessel de Jong

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A Shell subsidiary is a member of WindEurope.

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Shell senior executive is on the board of WindEurope
Hessel de Jong

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A Shell subsidiary is a member of WindEurope.

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Shell has identified some misalignments on climate policy with the trade group

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Shell has identified some misalignments on climate policy with the trade group and has put its membership on review

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior executive is Chair of the Green Taxation working group (Up-to-date, 10/2020)
Ann Theeuwes

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Shell has identified some misalignments on climate policy with the trade group

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Shell has identified some misalignments on climate policy with the trade group and has put its membership on review

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior executive is Chair of the Green Taxation working group (Up-to-date, 10/2020)
Ann Theeuwes

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Shell has identified some misalignments on climate policy with the trade group

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Shell is a member of the board of directors.

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Shell has identified some misalignments on climate policy with the trade group and has put its membership on review

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior executive of Shell is a board member of NAM
Odeh Khoury

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior executive of Shell is a board member of NAM
Lori Ryerkerk

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Shell has identified some misalignments on climate policy with the trade group

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Shell is a member of the board of directors.

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Shell has identified some misalignments on climate policy with the trade group and has put its membership on review

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior executive of Shell is a board member of NAM
Odeh Khoury

InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior executive of Shell is a board member of NAM
Lori Ryerkerk
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.
Climate Lobbying Overview: Since 2015, Shell has become more positive across different areas of climate policy, although it does continue to simultaneously lobby for policy to advance fossil fuel production and consumption, particularly gas. It also retains membership to various trade groups that directly contradict Shell's own position.
Top-line messaging on climate policy: In its Climate-related Policy Positions paper, updated in April 2020, Shell stated it strongly supports the goal of the Paris Agreement to limit the average rise in global temperatures to well below 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. In 2019, CEO Ben Van Beurden stated support) for the EU Commission's proposal for net zero emissions by 2050, and in 2020, Shell [698613 supported the European Climate Law, which formally legislates the net zero by 2050 target. Shell has also stated support for the implementation of the 'Green Deal’ in the EU and for UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson's 10 Point Plan for Green Industrial Revolution.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: Throughout 2018-2020, the company has offered broad support for the need for carbon pricing policies, although its detailed engagement on specific carbon pricing policies appears to be mixed. In 2020, on its corporate website Shell appears to support both carbon taxes and emissions trading as forms of carbon pricing mechanisms. Despite this, in 2018, US subsidiary Shell Oil lobbied against measures to strengthen the ambition of the Cap and Trade scheme in California. Furthermore, in 2018, Shell’s CEO publicly criticized a carbon tax policy in Washington prior to a public vote. In 2020, however, it advocated reforming the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) to be aligned with the EU's more ambitious 2030 target as well as the net zero by 2050 target. Additionally, in 2020, Shell advocated finalizing Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which would establish the framework for international emissions trading. While Shell stated Article 6 could achieve Overall Mitigation of Global Emissions, it has also argued for the inclusion of offsets as part of the mechanism.
In 2019-2020, Shell appears to have been broadly supportive of emissions standards and targets. In 2019, Shell supported the Netherlands’ 2030 emissions reduction target of 49%, stating it was challenging yet offered the company 'opportunities'. In 2020, Shell supported raising the EU Commission's 2030 GHG target to 55%, however, in its response to the 2030 Climate Target Plan in June 2020, Shell appeared to promote a weaker GHG emissions target (50-55%) than that originally proposed by the Commission. In 2019, Shell called on the US Environmental Protection Agency to tighten rather than weaken methane regulations, and in July 2020 Shell called upon policymakers in the EU to implement measures to reduce methane emissions across the full natural gas supply chain. However, the company previously attended meetings with Trump Administration officials along with the American Petroleum Institute in 2017-2018 to discuss methane, disclosing in 2018 that it advocated “fixing” the EPA’s Obama-era methane rule to make it “workable”. This suggests Shell met with the Trump Administration to weaken the Obama-era methane regulations. Similarly, in 2018, Shell opposed the rollback of US Fuel Economy Standards despite being on the board of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, which appears to have played a significant role in pushing for their weakening in 2018.
Positioning on Energy Transition: Regarding the energy mix, Shell appears to support the development of low-carbon and clean technology including through the electrification of transport. At the same time, however, Shell also continues to push a role for fossil fuels in the energy mix, particularly gas. In 2018, the company lobbied the EU commission to embed natural gas in the EU’s future energy mix. Between 2017-18, the company also lobbied US policymakers in support of opening new areas of US federal land for oil and gas exploration and production. In its Climate-related Policy Positions, updated in April 2020, Shell states support for low-carbon electrification of the energy system, however, it also appears to support a long-term role for gas in the energy mix. In its 2019 Sustainability report, Shell also supports a continued role for oil in the energy mix. Most recently, in August 2020, it was reported Shell's Vice President of Exploration and Transformation stated 'To meet growing energy demand, hydrocarbons will remain a part of the energy mix for decades to come.'
Industry Association Governance: In April 2019, Shell published its first review of its industry association memberships and their alignment on climate change. The company identified one case of material misalignment and left AFPM. In April 2020, Shell published an update to this review outlining its on-going engagement with 9 partially aligned associations (including: American Petroleum Institute, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, National Association of Manufacturers, and US Chamber of Commerce, Western States Petroleum Association). However, Shell is still a member of these associations, which continue to actively lobby against progressive climate policy, as well as other associations identified as aligned including [514825 Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, and International Association of Oil and Gas Producers).