This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Shell's disclosures on climate policy engagement. This does not include an assessment of the company's real-world climate policy engagement, which can be found on InfluenceMap's online profile of Shell, accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
The disclosure assessments are directly integrated into the CA100+ Net Zero Company Benchmark as part of InfluenceMap's Climate Policy Engagement Alignment’ assessment, under two distinct indicators:
In 2023, InfluenceMap’s methodology to assess corporate disclosures on climate policy engagement was formally updated in line with the Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying and stakeholder input. The detailed methodology - as well as additional resources including best practice guidance and Shell's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Shell's performance under this assessment is shown below, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key. A more detailed breakdown is available below.
| Indicator | Score |
|---|---|
| Accuracy of Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | Partial, meets some criteria |
| Sub-Indicator | Score |
|---|---|
| Accuracy of Direct Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | Partial, meets some criteria |
| Accuracy of Indirect Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | Partial, meets some criteria |
A summary of Shell's performance under this assessment is shown below, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key. A more detailed breakdown is available below.
The Review Score (0-100) assesses corporate performance against seven indicators, using the same traffic-light framework. A ‘Green’ scores 2 points, a ‘Yellow’ scores 1 point, and a ‘Red’ scores 0 points. This total is converted into a percentage from 0 to 100, calculated using the total number of points available (14). As such, only certain scores within the 0 to 100 range are possible under this methodology. A Review Score of 100 would indicate that a company has met all of the assessment criteria related to the review process.
| Date of Review | Score |
|---|---|
| April 2023 | 5/14 (36%) |
| April 2024 | 5/14 (36%) |
| May 2025 | 5/14 (36%) |
This is an assessment of the accuracy of a company's reporting on its direct and indirect (via industry associations) climate policy engagement activities.
InfluenceMap utilizes its proprietary database to assess how corporate disclosures on climate policy positions and engagement activities compare to InfluenceMap's independent assessment of the companies' and industry associations' real-world climate policy engagement. In short, it assesses the extent to which the company has disclosed on all climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
The tables below provide: (1) a breakdown of Shell's performance under each sub-indicator, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key; and (2) examples of leading practice by companies.
Has the company published an accurate account of its corporate climate policy positions and engagement activities (as compared to InfluenceMap’s database)?
Shell has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, but appears to exclude 4 material evidence of direct climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
Shell has disclosed its position on, and engagement with, specific climate-related policies in 2024 in several regions in which it operates including Australia, the EU, UK, US, Canada, Brazil, Malaysia, Oman, Qatar and the Netherlands.
However, Shell does not appear to have disclosed Its engagement with the Indian Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board in July 2024; engagement with Canada's Parliamentary Committee study: “Profits and Emissions Reduction Efforts in Canada’s Oil and Gas Industry,” in June 2024; comments on California's Cap and Trade Regulation in July 2024; or engagement with the US Internal Revenue Service's Clean Energy Investment Tax Credit Regulations in January 2024.
However, despite these omissions, the disclosure still provides a broadly accurate account of the company's climate policy engagement, as compared to the LobbyMap database.
Enel has published a complete and accurate account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, and this is aligned with InfluenceMap's assessment of the company using its LobbyMap database. Enel included its climate advocacy activities, positions, and links to the company’s government consultation responses to specific climate-related policies from 2022-2024 in its 2023 Climate Policy Advocacy report, published April 2024. It also covered a range of regions in its disclosure, including Global, Europe, North & South America, Africa, and the Asia Pacific.
BP partially met the assessment criteria under this indicator, as it excluded material evidence of climate policy engagement. However, BP’s ‘Advocacy Activities’ webpage provides a clear and detailed disclosure of the company’s climate policy engagement, with filters for jurisdiction; date; and topic, including links to relevant consultation responses. It also contains sorting options for most recent, and most relevant.
Has the company published an accurate account of the climate policy positions and engagement activities of the industry associations of which it is a member (as compared to InfluenceMap’s database)?
Shell discloses a list of its industry association memberships in its 2024 Climate and Energy Transition Lobbying Report, published in May 2025. However, it appears to omit 23 industry associations which are actively engaged on climate-related policy such as the Asociación Mexicana de Empresas de Hidrocarburos (AMEXHI), Australian Pipelines and Gas Association, Federation of German Industries (BDI) and Business Unity South Africa (BUSA).
The review does include some policy-specific engagement, such as Australian Energy Producer's engagement on the Climate Change Authority's 2024 Issues paper: Targets, Pathways and Progress in May 2024, the American Petroleum Institute's engagement on the US Environmental Protection Agency's methane regulation and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) comments on the Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap Regulations.
However, it also excludes material evidence of indirect climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database for more than 3 industry associations. For example, Shell did not appear to fully disclose the Australian Energy Producers comments on the Senate Inquiry into Nature Positive Bill 2024 in July 2024, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia (CME) engagement with the Australian Government's Inquiry into Nuclear Power in November 2024, the International Gas Union's engagement on the US LNG export pause in January 2024 or the National Association of Manufacturers and US Chamber of Commerce's comments on the US 45V tax credits in March 2024.
See Appendix A below for details of the company's industry association memberships.
Unilever has published a complete and accurate account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies. In its March 2024 industry association review, the company attached LobbyMap profile links to each association’s assessment. Iberdrola published a largely complete and accurate of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies.
Iberdrola and its North American subsidiary Avangrid both disclosed the climate policy engagement activities of their industry associations in their respective industry association climate lobbying reviews.
This is an assessment of the quality and robustness of a company's processes to identify, report on, and address specific cases of misalignment between its climate policy engagement activities (direct and indirect) and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
The Review Score is split into seven indicators, which fall within one of three categories:
Review Process: Does the company have clear and robust governance processes to regularly assess alignment against the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and address potential cases of misalignment?
Review Assessment (Direct - Company): Has the company identified and addressed specific cases of misalignment between its direct - i.e. corporate - climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement?
Review Assessment (Indirect – Industry Associations): Has the company identified and addressed specific cases of misalignment between its indirect – i.e. via industry associations - climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement?
The table below provides an overview of Shell's performance under each sub-indicator, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key.
| Review Process | Review Assessment (Direct) | Review Assessment (Indirect) |
|---|---|---|
| Monitor & Review | Identify & Assess | Identify & Assess |
| Alignment Assessment Method | Act | Act |
| Framework for Misalignment |
The tables below provide: (1) a breakdown of Shell's performance under each sub-indicator, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key; and (2) examples of leading practice by companies.
Has the company established an annual monitoring and review process to ensure that all of its direct and indirect climate policy engagement activities across all geographies are consistent with the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels?
Shell has published an annual review of its industry associations since 2019. These reviews include a comprehensive report every two years, with interim updates provided in the alternate years.
Rio Tinto has published detailed assessments of its climate policy engagement on an annual basis from 2018 to 2024, with detailed updates on misaligned industry associations each year. The company has committed to continue reviewing its memberships on an annual basis. Alternatively, Shell publishes a detailed review of its climate policy engagement every two years, with a detailed update in the interim year.
Has the company disclosed a clear and detailed framework for assessing alignment, including: (1) the criteria it uses to assess whether its climate policy engagement activities (direct or indirect) align with the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels; and (2) a clear and detailed explanation behind each evaluation?
Shell's 2025 industry association review includes an updated methodology from its last full review in 2023. The alignment assessment method includes assessing its associations against 5 criteria across 4 policy areas based on Shell’s own global climate and energy transition policy positions: Paris Agreement and net-zero emissions, carbon pricing, methane emissions, ending routine flaring by 2030, and road transport. Shell states that these 5 criteria are where the most misalignment was identified in the last full review in 2023, which assessed against 15 policy areas.
InfluenceMap analysis suggests that Shell’s own policy positions, against which it has assessed alignment, are not aligned with policy pathways for delivering the 1.5ºC goal, as shown in the Identify & Assess (Direct) indicator below. As such, a finding of alignment by the company against its own policy positions may not constitute alignment to science-aligned climate policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Additionally, while its industry association assessments do refer to specific policy positions, Shell does not provide sufficient information to indicate how its alignment assessments on these policy specific positions are made. Specifically, it has not provided criteria for determining what constitutes alignment or misalignment when looking at the 5 policy areas overall. Furthermore, Shell did not provide details of the assessment outcomes for associations it has found to be aligned.
Unilever assessed its industry associations’ climate policy engagement against both its own climate policy positions, and against science-based policy, determined by “what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said is needed to keep global warming below 1.5°C”. Unilever states that this assessment does not mean associations should be expected to support every proposed climate law, but that when an association opposes a specific climate policy, it is incumbent on the association to engage constructively with policymakers to help find alternative, viable policy options that would be (at least) equally effective at reducing emissions.
The company also clearly disclosed the criteria for findings of alignment and misalignment with both its own policy positions and science-based policy, and measured the engagement intensity of each association. It also provided clear and detailed explanations behind each evaluation including their detailed policy positions and links to each industry association’s LobbyMap profile.
Has the company established a clear framework to address misalignments between its climate policy engagement activities (direct or indirect) and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, including the escalation strategies it will use and when it will use these escalation strategies?
Shell has disclosed a clear framework for addressing misalignments, including escalation strategies. This includes remaining in the association and increasing Shell’s engagement in areas where misalignment has been identified; pursuing advocacy independently or through other associations; reassessing membership including ending activities such as board and committee participation; or ending overall membership.
However, there are no deadlines attached to this framework for industry associations that do not reform misaligned climate policy engagement practices.
Iberdrola has disclosed a clear and detailed framework to address potential misalignments, including escalation strategies and deadlines for industry associations that do not amend misaligned practices. Iberdrola's escalation strategy includes engagement with the industry association, sending a "notification of dissatisfaction", and formal notification that a termination of membership is being assessed. If the association does not provide a clear and credible action plan to address the misalignment within 12 months, Iberdrola will implement one or more of the following actions: make a clear public statement regarding the misalignment, request the industry association refrains from engaging on misaligned issues, and/or suspension or discontinuation of membership.
Has the company identified and reported on the existence of all misalignments between its direct climate policy engagement activities and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, in line with InfluenceMap's database (including all of its subsidiaries, business areas, and operational jurisdictions)?
Shell's 2024 Climate and Energy Transition Report, published in May 2025, includes a ‘Direct Lobbying Review’ for activities in calendar year 2024. This review details some of Shell’s lobbying activities across 11 different policy areas. While the company states that it is “committed to lobbying for policy positions that we believe are in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement and the world achieving net-zero emissions by 2050”, InfluenceMap’s analysis suggests that the company does not base this assessment on science-based pathways set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
For example, while Shell did disclose its advocacy on the EU Hydrogen and Gas Decarbonization Package Delegated Act in October 2024 in its direct lobbying review, it did not disclose that it advocated directly to policymakers in October 2024 for a significantly weaker EU Hydrogen and Gas Decarbonization Package Delegated Act. In its response to the EU Commission’s call for feedback, Shell proposed a revision that would make it easier for low-carbon hydrogen producers to use pre-existing renewable electricity capacity, circumventing stricter production criteria finalized by the EU Commission in 2023.
Similarly, Shell’s direct lobbying review disclosed the company’s engagement with Canada’s Clean Hydrogen Investment Tax Credit in January 2024, but did not disclose that it appeared to be unsupportive of the proposals. It also disclosed Shell’s advocacy on methane regulations in Canada, stating that it ‘supports the intent’, but did not disclose that it advocated against the proposed requirements leak inspection requirements for non-producing wells or advocated for less stringent criteria for venting allowances in February 2024 comments.
At time of this assessment, Shell's Organization Score metric was 61%, with an Engagement Intensity of 51%, indicating highly strategic engagement but partial misalignment between its detailed climate policy engagement and policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement identified by InfluenceMap’s database. Please see Shells profile in the LobbyMap database for additional details on the company's real-world climate policy engagement activities.
Danone assessed 12 of its own climate policy positions and engagement activities across Europe, the US, and globally. It found all 12 to be aligned. According to InfluenceMap’s database, Danone does not appear to have any material evidence of negative climate policy engagement during the reporting period. As a result, Danone has assessed its climate policy engagement activities in line with InfluenceMap’s findings. It is the only company to have ‘broadly met’ the criteria for this indicator.
Sasol published a detailed review of its direct climate policy engagement in August 2023. Sasol assessed the alignment of five of its own climate policy positions, including four in South Africa (Climate Change Bill; Carbon Tax; PCC Just Transition Framework; Upstream Oil and Gas Tax Regime Discussion Document) and one in the EU (European Union Delegated Acts). However, Sasol did not identify any cases of misalignment with its own climate policy engagement. As such, the company has not identified any cases of misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement identified by InfluenceMap’s database. The company has not updated its review in 2024.
As a result, no company has shown evidence of identifying cases of misalignment of its direct climate policy engagement and delivering on the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Has the company reported on what action is being (or has been) taken to address misalignments, if and where they exist, between its direct climate policy engagement activities and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, in line with InfluenceMap's database?
In its 2024 Climate and Energy Transition Report, published in May 2025, Shell does not identify any instances of misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement activities and science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal, in line with InfluenceMap's database. As such, Shell has shown no evidence of action to address cases of misalignment.
Danone and Unilever are the only companies to have ‘broadly met’ the criteria for this indicator by default. Both companies do not appear to have any material evidence of negative climate policy engagement according to InfluenceMap’s database, and therefore have no cases of misalignment to act upon.
As a result, no company has actively shown evidence of acting to address cases of misalignment between its own direct climate policy engagement activities and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Has the company identified and reported on the existence of all misalignments between the climate policy engagement activities of its actively engaged industry associations, and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, in line with InfluenceMap's database?
In its review, Shell assessed 49 industry associations, including 11 it had not assessed in its last full review in 2023. However, it excludes several industry associations that actively engage on climate-related policy, including but not limited to the Federation of German Industries (BDI), the Australian Pipelines and Gas Association, and Business Unity South Africa.
The company found 37 to be ”aligned” and 12 to be “partially aligned”. These 12 associations include: the American Petroleum Institute (API); Australian Energy Producers (AEP, formerly Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association); Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), and the International Gas Union (IGU), among others. InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has 20 memberships to industry associations with active climate policy engagement misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked D or below on InfluenceMap’s database). InfluenceMap analysis indicates that Shell has a further 29 memberships to industry associations with active climate policy engagement partially aligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked B- to D+).
According to InfluenceMap’s database, 14 of the associations Shell has assessed are misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, with 20 partially misaligned and 3 aligned.
Therefore, Shell has not identified multiple cases of misalignment and partial misalignment between its industry associations and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement in line with InfluenceMap’s database.
See Appendix A below for further details on the company’s industry association memberships.
Unilever assessed 27 industry associations in its review and identified all cases of misalignment and partial misalignment with its industry associations and the 1.5⁰C goal of the Paris Agreement in line with InfluenceMap's database. Unilever has membership to 1 misaligned industry association (Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry), and 10 partially aligned associations.
Has the company reported on what action is being (or has been) taken to address misalignments, if and where they exist, between the climate policy engagement activities of its industry associations, and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, in line with InfluenceMap's database?
Shell outlines some evidence of action to address ongoing misalignments between its industry associations and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. For example, it states that it will write to the 12 partially aligned associations and encourage them to address the misalignment identified.
In its 2023 Climate and Energy Transition Report, published in May 2024, Shell ended its membership with Queensland Resources Council in 2023, stating that it would focus its advocacy with the national association, Australian Energy Producers. However, more recently, Shell does not outline any specific action to be taken with associations determined to be partially misaligned in its 2024 Climate and Energy Transition Report, published in May 2025.
Despite this, Shell does not appear to have shown evidence of action to address other specific cases of its industry associations’ misalignment and partial misalignment with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement identified by InfluenceMap’s database.
Unilever is the only company to have met investor expectations in this area, showing evidence of action to address all cases of misalignment between its industry associations and delivering the 1.5⁰C goal of the Paris Agreement, as identified by InfluenceMap’s database. In its review, the company included a section for each association titled “Actions (to be) taken” in which it outlined the actions taken or to be taken with the industry association as per its assessment. For example, Unilever stated that it would write to the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry stating that their positions do not reflect those of Unilever. It also disclosed it would encourage the European Roundtable for Industry to continue to engage constructively on the EU Green Deal and explore how it can revise its position on the EU Emissions Trading System.
Additionally, Unilever stated that for the 12 associations that were deemed “passively aligned” (minimal to non-existent policy engagement), the company will aim to push the associations to become more actively engaged in promoting outcomes and policies that aid in decarbonization.
Yes, meets criteria
Partial, meets some criteria
No, does not meet criteria
The table below provides a ranking of Shell's industry associations currently covered by InfluenceMap’s database by Performance Band, i.e. a full measure of a company’s climate policy engagement, accounting for both its own engagement and that of its industry associations. Detailed profiles for all industry associations can be explored via the links in the table.
Industry associations are categorized by InfluenceMap as having climate policy engagement that is aligned, partially misaligned or misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement by Performance Band:
The ranking table below is updated automatically on a continual basis as: (1) new evidence is collected for the industry associations; (2) new industry associations are added to the company profile; (3) industry associations are removed from the company profile, e.g. if the company leaves the association.
As such, the industry associations and/or scores in the ranking table below may differ from the findings in Identify & Assess (Indirect) above, which was written on the date of assessment. See the top of this page for the date of assessment.
