Ben van Beurden

In May 2021, The Hague District Court ordered Shell to reduce its worldwide net emissions by 45% by 2030 compared with 2019. Van Beurden described the decision as unreasonable and Shell appealed, maintaining that it did not need to fundamentally change its strategy. In 2024, after his departure, the Court of Appeal overturned the binding numerical target of 45% while confirming that Shell had a duty to contribute to emissions reductions.

State of the evidence

First-instance judgment and appeal outcome documented

Legal status — source text

2021: Shell ordered to reduce worldwide net emissions by 45% by 2030; 2024: Court of Appeal overturned the binding numerical target while recognising a climate duty

Attribution

Substantial institutional responsibility as CEO at the time of the judgment and decision to appeal

Role of the person profiled

Protagonist not prosecuted

Van Beurden's remuneration regularly attracted controversy: approximately €24.2 million in 2014 according to figures including pension and tax equalisation, opposition exceeding 25% to the remuneration report in 2018, and renewed criticism in 2022 when his potential package substantially exceeded ten million pounds.

State of the evidence

Published remuneration figures and shareholder votes documented

Attribution

Direct responsibility as beneficiary

Shell decided to abolish its Anglo-Dutch structure and move its principal headquarters to the United Kingdom. The decision caused political shock in the Netherlands, and the finance department acknowledged that Dutch dividend withholding tax was a decisive factor in choosing London.

State of the evidence

Proposal, shareholder vote and tax rationale documented

Attribution

Direct responsibility as CEO who championed the simplification

During the parliamentary inquiry into gas extraction in Groningen, a 2015 Shell memorandum was disclosed referring to the objective of making earthquakes accepted once again as a normal part of operations. Van Beurden stated that he was unaware of that wording, acknowledged that Shell had probably been naive and expressed 'regret, shame and sadness' over the harm suffered by residents.

State of the evidence

Parliamentary testimony and internal Shell document established; personal knowledge of the memorandum denied

Legal status — source text

Parliamentary inquiry; no personal criminal liability established

Attribution

Direct responsibility as Shell CEO during much of the crisis; knowledge of the specific memorandum not established

A few days after the invasion of Ukraine, Shell purchased a cargo of Russian crude oil at a substantial discount despite the withdrawal of numerous Western companies. Ukraine's foreign minister and other officials strongly criticised Shell. Van Beurden acknowledged that the decision had been wrong and apologised, before announcing an end to Russian spot purchases and a gradual withdrawal from Russian hydrocarbons.

State of the evidence

Purchase, international reaction and official apology documented

Legal status — source text

No breach of sanctions then in force established

Attribution

Direct responsibility as CEO and author of the apology

Reuters documented more than $2.7 billion in untaxed profits recorded in 2018-2019 by Shell subsidiaries in Bermuda and the Bahamas, through internal insurance, banking and trading services. The investigation fuelled criticism of profit shifting to tax havens.

State of the evidence

Offshore structures and profits documented by Reuters investigation; unlawfulness not established

Attribution

Substantial institutional responsibility as CEO

Faced with the collapse in oil demand and prices during COVID, Shell cut its dividend by approximately two-thirds, its first reduction since 1945. The decision broke a historic precedent for one of the British market's largest dividend payers and caused its share price to fall.

State of the evidence

Decision and scale of reduction documented

Attribution

Direct responsibility as CEO

Shareholders organised around Follow This submitted several resolutions calling for stricter climate targets explicitly aligned with the Paris Agreement. Van Beurden defended Shell's strategy and rejected the resolutions as unnecessary or excessively restrictive, while acknowledging that the pressure had influenced the adoption of carbon intensity reduction targets.

State of the evidence

Resolutions, votes and Van Beurden's statements documented

Attribution

Direct responsibility as CEO

In 2019, Shell Nederland acknowledged that it paid no corporation tax in the Netherlands, with local profits offset by costs and deductions permitted under the Dutch tax system. The disclosure prompted a parliamentary hearing and debate over advantages granted to multinational companies.

State of the evidence

Tax position officially acknowledged by Shell Nederland and documented by NOS

Legal status — source text

Lawful structure; no personal tax fraud established

Attribution

Substantial institutional responsibility as group CEO