Skip to main content
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Royal Dutch Shell shareholders overwhelmingly backed the company’s energy transition strategy on Tuesday, but increased support for a second climate resolution filed by an activist group pointed to growing pressure to tackle climate change.

A non-binding resolution submitted by Shell with the support of a large group of investors to vote on its recently unveiled climate strategy won 88.74 per cent shareholder support at its annual general meeting (AGM) which was held online.

The plan, announced in February, aims to reduce planet-warming carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 by slowly reducing oil and gas output, growing its renewables and low-carbon business and offsetting emissions through carbon capturing technologies and measures such as forestation. Shell CEO Ben Van Beurden said at the AGM that the strategy, which will be updated every three years, was “comprehensive... rigorous and... ambitious.”

Story continues below advertisement

The vote comes on the same day the International Energy Agency (IEA) said investors should halt funding for new oil, gas and coal supply projects if the world wants to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Shell plans to grow its investment in low-carbon in the coming years, but at least 75 per cent of its spending will continue to go towards oil and gas.

ABSOLUTE REDUCTION

A second resolution filed by activist group Follow This urging the Anglo-Dutch company to set “inspirational” targets to battle greenhouse gas emissions, was rejected by 69.53 per cent of the votes, according to a tally of most votes.

Still, the nearly one-third of votes supporting the resolution, which Shell’s board urged shareholders to reject, is a sharp increase from last year’s vote where a similar resolution won 14.4 per cent support.

Several investors, proxy advisories and activist groups including Follow This have criticised Shell for setting intensity-based carbon reduction targets, which allow Shell in theory to grow its emissions, rather than absolute reduction targets.

Shell CEO Ben van Beurden however said setting absolute reduction targets would mean Shell will have to unwind its oil and gas business, which would be replaced by other producers.

Follow This director Mark van Baal told Reuters the vote “tells the board that investors don’t accept long-term targets without short and medium-term targets. You need to decrease emissions dramatically and shift investments dramatically in the next decade.”

Story continues below advertisement

In a statement following the vote, the Church of England Pension Board, which led the investor talks with Shell on its strategy, welcomed the support for the plan and also urged Shell to set short and medium-term targets to reduce emissions in absolute terms.

Adam Matthews, Director of Ethics & Engagement for the Church of England Pensions Board said at the AGM that if Shell doesn’t meet its 2023 targets the fund would divest its stake in Shell.

Last week, BP investors rejected a Follow This resolution demanding tougher emission reduction targets, which nevertheless was supported by 20.6 per cent of votes, pointing to growing investor pressure.

Be smart with your money. Get the latest investing insights delivered right to your inbox three times a week, with the Globe Investor newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Tickers mentioned in this story
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies