Shell Fact Sheet | Climate Accountability Scorecard (2016) | Union of Concerned Scientists

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated Royal Dutch Shell across four metrics: renouncing disinformation, planning for a carbon-free world, supporting climate policies, and disclosing climate risks. While Shell was praised for acknowledging climate science and leaving the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), it was criticized for maintaining ties to trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) that spread disinformation. The report also notes that Shell lacks a company-wide emissions reduction plan aligned with specific temperature goals and provides poor disclosure of physical climate risks.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Royal Dutch Shell is recognized for consistently acknowledging the scientific evidence of climate change and the necessity of achieving global net-zero CO2 emissions to keep temperature rise below 2°C.
  • The company took a positive step by leaving the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2015, explicitly stating that ALEC's position on climate science was inaccurate.
  • Despite its public statements, Shell maintains ties to industry groups that spread climate disinformation; specifically, executives have served on the boards of the American Petroleum Institute (API), the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA).
  • The company's disclosure of climate risks is rated as poor, particularly regarding physical risks; while it acknowledges weather risks, it does not explicitly link them to climate change.
  • Shell supports government-led carbon-pricing mechanisms as a general category of climate policy, but it did not publicly engage the US Congress on climate legislation during the study period.

Cite the original document

APA
Union of Concerned Scientists (n.d.). Shell Fact Sheet | Climate Accountability Scorecard (2016) | Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/10/climate-accountability-scorecard-shell-fact-sheet.pdf
Chicago
Union of Concerned Scientists. Shell Fact Sheet | Climate Accountability Scorecard (2016) | Union of Concerned Scientists. n.d. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/10/climate-accountability-scorecard-shell-fact-sheet.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Union of Concerned Scientists |title=Shell Fact Sheet | Climate Accountability Scorecard (2016) | Union of Concerned Scientists |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/10/climate-accountability-scorecard-shell-fact-sheet.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{unionofconcernedscientistsndshell, author = {{Union of Concerned Scientists}}, title = {{Shell Fact Sheet | Climate Accountability Scorecard (2016) | Union of Concerned Scientists}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/10/climate-accountability-scorecard-shell-fact-sheet.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated