Shell PLC Corporate Social Responsibility Analysis
In my junior year, I worked on a corporate social responsibility (CSR) analysis of Shell Plc for my business ethics class. Shell, one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world, presents itself as a forward-thinking energy company committed to the clean energy transition. But beneath the surface of its sustainability reports lies a pattern of misalignment between public commitments and corporate behavior. Shell’s case is a sobering reminder of the gap between ESG branding and ESG impact–and the urgent need for stronger accountability mechanisms in corporate sustainability.
Shell claims it will become a “net-zero emissions energy business” by 2050, a goal that suggests full decarbonization across all of its operations. But current data paints a much less optimistic picture. In 2023 alone, Shell emitted 50.4 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent Scope 1 emissions, with only 3% of its total energy portfolio coming from renewable sources.
And while Shell has long touted its climate targets, the company recently weakened its 2030 emissions goals and entirely abandoned its 2035 interim target–a move widely criticized by environmental organizations. This backsliding highlights the challenge of reconciling Shell’s business model, which still heavily reliant on oil and gas, with its stated sustainability ambitions. It’s not just that Shell is behind on its goals; it’s that it’s choosing to walk them back.
One of the most damning aspects of Shell’s CSR profile is its history of human rights violations in the Global South, particularly in Nigeria. Shell has long been accused of environmental destruction and collusion with government forces that targeted activists resisting its operations. In one of the most high-profile cases, Shell was found to be complicit in the arrest and eventual execution of the Ogoni Nine–a group of Nigerian activists protesting oil pollution in the Niger Delta.
Although Shell has denied wrongdoing, multiple lawsuits and investigations over the years, including in Dutch courts, have kept the spotlight on the company’s role in violating the rights of local communities. Going beyond historical context, these human rights issues raise enduring questions about how extractive industries operate in regions with weak regulatory oversight, and who bears the cost of that imbalance.
Shell also exhibits poor performance on the governance side of ESG. Two areas stand out in particular: executive compensation and tax behavior. Their executive pay packages are among the highest in the industry, often justified by “performance” metrics tied to profitability. Excessive executive pay becomes an ESG concern when there is a significant disparity between top executives and the average worker, and when compensation structures incentivize short-term gains over long-term sustainability. For example, Shell's CEO was paid nearly £9.7 million (approx. $12 million USD) in 2023, even as the company fell short on climate goals.
Additionally, Shell has been heavily criticized for its tax avoidance strategies. In 2022, Shell paid zero windfall tax in the UK, despite doubling its profits to a record $9.5 billion that year. The windfall tax was designed to redistribute excessive oil and gas profits during the energy crisis to support households, but Shell used various accounting and investment offset loopholes to avoid contributing. While not technically illegal, this form of tax avoidance raises serious ethical concerns about Shell’s role in society, undermining its credibility as a company that claims to care about people and the planet.
Shell publishes glossy sustainability reports, launches diversity initiatives, and includes ESG language in its marketing. But the data reveals a different reality. The company remains overwhelmingly reliant on fossil fuels, contributes to environmental degradation, faces unresolved allegations of human rights violations, and avoids contributing fairly to the public good through taxes.
So what should a company like Shell be doing?
In our presentation, we recommended that Shell:
Invest meaningfully in community development programs, particularly in regions affected by its operations.
Accelerate its capital shift toward renewables and move beyond symbolic targets.
Lead a collaborative sustainability initiative with other energy companies, promoting shared R&D, just transition principles, and industry accountability.
Shell has the financial and operational capacity to lead the energy transition… if it chooses to. But leadership means more than publishing net-zero targets; it means making bold changes even when they're not the most profitable in the short term.
Shell is a case study in hypocrisy: a company that speaks the language of sustainability while profiting from practices that undermine it. As ESG considerations become more mainstream in investing and corporate strategy, the Shell case study challenges us to look deeper–beyond press releases and CSR statements–to ask: what are companies actually doing, and who is being held accountable?
In the era of climate crisis, we don’t just need corporate responsibility. We need corporate reckoning.
Class presentation slides
Sources: Shell 2023 Sustainability Report, Shell Plc 2023 Annual Report
