Samenvatting van Shells verweerschrift in de procedure bij de Hoge Raad 7 november 2025
Dit document vat verschillende argumenten samen uit het verweerschrift van Shell, dat is ingediend bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden.1 Deze samenvatting is geen officieel juridisch document en dient uitsluitend ter informatie. Zij kan niet worden beschouwd als een volledige of gezaghebbende bron. Raadpleeg voor volledige details het origineel ingediende processtuk.
Op 12 november 2024 heeft het Gerechtshof Den Haag het vonnis van de rechtbank vernietigd op grond van het feit dat:
- Scope 1 en 2: Shells bestaande emissiereductiedoelstellingen voor scope 1- en 2-emissies verder gaan dan het door Milieudefensie gevorderde bevel en voldoende concreet en verwezenlijkt zijn;
- Scope 3: er onvoldoende klimaatwetenschappelijke consensus bestaat om oplegging van een emissiereductiepercentage aan een individuele onderneming zoals Shell te rechtvaardigen. Verder heeft het gerechtshof geoordeeld dat enig reductiebevel met betrekking tot scope 3-emissies niet effectief zou zijn om de wereldwijde emissies te verlagen, omdat andere ondernemingen de verkoop van energieproducten zouden overnemen.
Milieudefensie (MD) heeft in februari 2025 cassatie ingesteld bij de Hoge Raad tegen het arrest van het gerechtshof. Op 7 november 2025 heeft Shell haar verweerschrift ingediend. In het verweerschrift worden verschillende redenen uiteengezet waarom aan Shell geen MD-reductieplicht zou moeten worden opgelegd. Het bevat nog geen reactie van Shell op de klachten van MD. Die reactie zal worden opgenomen in een aanvullende schriftelijke toelichting die in 2026 wordt ingediend. De Hoge Raad hoeft alleen op deze argumenten in het verweerschrift in te gaan als hij van mening is dat de klachten van MD gegrond zijn.
MD-Reductieplicht: wanneer in de tekst wordt verwezen naar een MD-Reductieplicht, wordt daarmee een rechtsplicht bedoeld voor een individuele onderneming om de door haar gerapporteerde emissies met een bepaald (minimum)percentage op een in de toekomst gefixeerde datum te reduceren.
Onderdeel 1: een MD-Reductieplicht is in strijd met het Unierecht
Het Unierecht heeft een belangrijke rol bij het vormgeven van een ordelijke energietransitie. Gecoördineerd handelen op Europees niveau is belangrijk om ervoor te zorgen dat de vele onderling verbonden belangen op een rechtvaardige, ordelijke en billijke manier worden behartigd. Een MD-Reductieplicht:
- ondermijnt het bestaande Europese wettelijke en beleidskader: het opleggen van iedere rechtsplicht door een nationale rechter moet verenigbaar zijn met de doelstellingen van het Europese klimaatbeleid en met de Unierechtelijke beginselen van loyale samenwerking, energiesolidariteit en evenredigheid. Een MD-Reductieplicht doorkruist dit wettelijke en beleidskader (zoals het Europese emissiehandelssysteem ETS) en het door de Europese wetgever getroffen evenwicht tussen de verschillende betrokken belangen, waaronder de belangen die onderdeel uitmaken van het energietrilemma klimaat, energiezekerheid en betaalbaarheid van energie.
- maakt inbreuk op het vrij verkeer van goederen en beperkt de mededinging: een MD-Reductieplicht is in strijd met het doel van de Europese Unie tot het creëren van een level playing field en het veiligstellen van het concurrentievermogen van de Europese Unie en het vrij verkeer van goederen. Reductieverplichtingen opgelegd door nationale rechters aan individuele ondernemingen leiden onvermijdelijk tot gefragmenteerde standaarden in de gehele Europese Unie en tot ernstige verstoringen van de energiezekerheid en betaalbaarheid van energie, de vrije mededinging en het algemene concurrentievermogen van de Europese Unie.
Indien en voor zover de Hoge Raad meent dat daarover nog onduidelijkheid kan bestaan, bestaat aanleiding voor het stellen van prejudiciële vragen aan het Europese Hof van Justitie.
Onderdelen 2 & 3: een MD-Reductieplicht heeft geen basis in de Nederlandse ongeschreven zorgvuldigheidsnorm
Een MD-Reductieplicht heeft geen basis in de Nederlandse ongeschreven zorgvuldigheidsnorm, nu deze
- geen rekening houdt met niet-klimaatgerelateerde belangen en in strijd is met het Europese/Nederlandse kader: in het vormgeven van de energietransitie dienen Europese en Nederlandse wetgevers een balans te vinden tussen meerdere en soms tegenstrijdige belangen, inclusief klimaat, energiezekerheid en betaalbaarheid. Het opleggen van een MD-Reductieplicht verstoort die balans. Belangrijk is dat geen van de democratisch gekozen wetgevers bij het vormgeven van het energietransitie- en klimaatbeleid en het invoeren van mechanismen ter uitvoering van de doelstellingen van het Akkoord van Parijs heeft gekozen voor een rechtsplicht met die strekking.
- geen grondslag kent in enige juridische- of andere externe bronnen: geen van de door MD aangehaalde bronnen – waaronder wet- en regelgeving, instrumenten, jurisprudentie op het gebied van mensenrechten en andere niet-bindende aanbevelingen (zoals de OESO-richtlijnen) – ondersteunen en rechtvaardigen het bestaan van een algemene rechtsplicht om emissies te beperken, laat staan een MD-Reductieplicht.
- geen onderscheid maakt tussen verplichtingen van staten en ondernemingen: in tegenstelling tot ondernemingen kunnen staten deze emissiereductie in de economie als geheel realiseren, door uitoefening van staatsmacht en een scala aan wettelijke en beleidsmaatregelen. Ondernemingen zoals Shell hebben dergelijke macht niet en hebben geen controle over de samenstelling van de (nationale) energiemix of de keuzes van eindgebruikers met betrekking tot de energieproducten die zij gebruiken.
- eraan voor voorbij gaat dat het Unierecht voldoende mensenrechtelijke bescherming biedt: het Unierecht wordt vermoed een gelijke bescherming te bieden als het Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens (EVRM). Het EVRM biedt daarom geen grondslag voor oplegging van een MD-Reductieplicht.
- disproportioneel is voor Shell: een MD-Reductieplicht is bijzonder bezwarend voor Shell omdat een dergelijke reductieplicht niet direct aan haar concurrenten wordt opgelegd en haar concurrenten het marktaandeel van Shell in de olie- en gasmarkt noodzakelijkerwijs zouden overnemen als Shell de verkoop van olie en gas zou verminderen. Het effect op het verminderen van wereldwijde emissies is verwaarloosbaar, hooguit minimaal, en op zijn slechtst zelfs contraproductief.
- op gespannen voet staat met de verplichtingen van het bestuur van Shell: een MD-Reductieplicht staat op gespannen voet met de verplichting van de bestuurders van Shell om de verschillende belangen die een rol spelen bij het besturen van een onderneming zoals Shell – waaronder, maar niet uitsluitend, de reactie op klimaatverandering – tegen elkaar af te wegen. Dit zou Shell immers mogelijk verplichten tot het nemen van maatregelen die niet voor andere ondernemingen gelden, en daarmee de beslissingsvrijheid en afwegingsruimte van het bestuur ontoelaatbaar inperken.
- in het bijzonder verstrekkend is ten aanzien van Scope 3-emissies: Scope 3-emissies zijn klantemissies en vormen meer dan 90% van de emissies die Shell rapporteert. Shell heeft geen controle over de (rechtmatige) activiteiten van haar klanten. Een MD-Reductieplicht zou erop neerkomen dat Shell niet alleen verantwoordelijk wordt gehouden voor haar eigen emissies, maar ook voor de emissies van haar klanten. Verder betekent het vrijwillig rapporteren van emissies niet dat deze emissies kunnen worden toegerekend aan Shell of dat Shell verantwoordelijk is voor deze emissies. In ieder geval zou een MD-Reductieplicht niet effectief zijn: noch het gebruik van energieproducten door klanten van Shell, noch de totale wereldwijde emissies zullen noodzakelijkerwijs afnemen - de emissies die eerder door Shell werden gerapporteerd zullen simpelweg door een andere leverancier worden gerapporteerd.
Onderdeel 4: de overwegingen van het gerechtshof over investeringen in nieuwe olie- en gasvelden zijn ontoelaatbaar
Het hof heeft enkele overwegingen gewijd aan Shells investeringen in nieuwe olie- en gasvelden. Deze overwegingen betreffen obiter dicta, dat wil zeggen aanvullende opmerkingen zonder rechtsgevolg. Dat komt omdat het onderwerp van nieuwe investeringen in nieuwe olie- en gasvelden buiten de rechtsstrijd valt en geen onderwerp is geweest van een behoorlijk partijdebat bij het gerechtshof.
Onderdeel 5: oplegging van een MD-Reductieplicht gaat de grenzen van de rechtsvormende taak van de rechter te buiten
De vraag of op individuele ondernemingen zoals Shell civielrechtelijke reductieverplichtingen (zouden moeten) rusten en de inhoud en reikwijdte van dergelijke verplichtingen vergt complexe beleidsbeslissingen, prioriteringen en afwegingen over de rollen en verantwoordelijkheden van verschillende landen, sectoren en actoren. De uitkomst van deze wettelijke en beleidsafwegingen, die slechts kunnen worden gemaakt door overheden in Nederland, de Europese Unie en derde-landen, kan niet eenzijdig door de Nederlandse rechter worden bepaald. Het opleggen door de Nederlandse rechter van een ongeschreven MD-Reductieplicht overschrijdt de grenzen van diens rechtsvormende taak en treedt ontoelaatbaar in het politieke domein van de Nederlandse wetgever en alle andere landen waarin Shell actief is.
1. De vennootschappen waarin Shell plc direct en indirect investeringen bezit, zijn afzonderlijke entiteiten. In dit verweerschrift wordt soms gemakshalve “Shell” of “Shell Groep” gebruikt om in algemene zin te verwijzen naar Shell plc en haar dochterondernemingen. Op dezelfde manier worden ook de woorden “wij”, “ons” en “onze” gebruikt om te verwijzen naar Shell plc en haar dochterondernemingen in algemene zin, of naar degenen die voor hen werken. Deze woorden worden ook gebruikt wanneer het geen bruikbaar doel dient om de specifieke entiteit of entiteiten te identificeren.
Shell en de Klimaatzaak
Shell is het met Milieudefensie eens dat dringende actie nodig is om klimaatverandering tegen te gaan. We hebben alleen een andere kijk op hoe dat doel moet worden bereikt. Wij geloven niet dat een gerechtelijke uitspraak tegen één bedrijf de juiste oplossing is voor de overgang naar schonere energie.
Cautionary note
Cautionary note
The companies in which Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate legal entities. In this announcement “Shell”, “Shell Group” and “Group” are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words “we”, “us” and “our” are also used to refer to Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These terms are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular entity or entities. ‘‘Subsidiaries’’, “Shell subsidiaries” and “Shell companies” as used in this announcement refer to entities over which Shell plc either directly or indirectly has control. The term “joint venture”, “joint operations”, “joint arrangements”, and “associates” may also be used to refer to a commercial arrangement in which Shell has a direct or indirect ownership interest with one or more parties. The term “Shell interest” is used for convenience to indicate the direct and/or indirect ownership interest held by Shell in an entity or unincorporated joint arrangement, after exclusion of all third-party interest.
Forward-looking Statements
This announcement contains forward-looking statements (within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995) concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Shell. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Shell to market risks and statements expressing management’s expectations, beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as “aim”; “ambition”; ‘‘anticipate’’; ‘‘believe’’; “commit”; “commitment”; ‘‘could’’; ‘‘estimate’’; ‘‘expect’’; ‘‘goals’’; ‘‘intend’’; ‘‘may’’; “milestones”; ‘‘objectives’’; ‘‘outlook’’; ‘‘plan’’; ‘‘probably’’; ‘‘project’’; ‘‘risks’’; “schedule”; ‘‘seek’’; ‘‘should’’; ‘‘target’’; ‘‘will’’; “would” and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this announcement, including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for Shell’s products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserves estimates; (f) loss of market share and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, judicial, fiscal and regulatory developments including regulatory measures addressing climate change; (k) economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, including the risks of expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement for shared costs; (m) risks associated with the impact of pandemics, such as the COVID-19 (coronavirus) outbreak, regional conflicts, such as the Russia-Ukraine war, and a significant cybersecurity breach; and (n) changes in trading conditions. No assurance is provided that future dividend payments will match or exceed previous dividend payments. All forward-looking statements contained in this announcement are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional risk factors that may affect future results are contained in Shell plc’s Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2024 (available at www.shell.com/investors/news-and-filings/sec-filings.html and www.sec.gov). These risk factors also expressly qualify all forward-looking statements contained in this announcement and should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this announcement, November 7, 2025. Neither Shell plc nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement.
Shell’s Net Carbon Intensity
Also, in this announcement we may refer to Shell’s “Net Carbon Intensity” (NCI), which includes Shell’s carbon emissions from the production of our energy products, our suppliers’ carbon emissions in supplying energy for that production and our customers’ carbon emissions associated with their use of the energy products we sell. Shell’s NCI also includes the emissions associated with the production and use of energy products produced by others which Shell purchases for resale. Shell only controls its own emissions. The use of the terms Shell’s “Net Carbon Intensity” or NCI are for convenience only and not intended to suggest these emissions are those of Shell plc or its subsidiaries.
Shell’s net-zero emissions target
Shell’s operating plan, outlook and budgets are forecasted for a ten-year period and are updated every year. They reflect the current economic environment and what we can reasonably expect to see over the next ten years. Accordingly, they reflect our Scope 1, Scope 2 and NCI targets over the next ten years. However, Shell’s operating plans cannot reflect our 2050 net-zero emissions target, as this target is currently outside our planning period. In the future, as society moves towards net-zero emissions, we expect Shell’s operating plans to reflect this movement. However, if society is not net zero in 2050, as of today, there would be significant risk that Shell may not meet this target.
Forward-looking non-GAAP measures
This announcement may contain certain forward-looking non-GAAP measures such as cash capital expenditure and divestments. We are unable to provide a reconciliation of these forward-looking non-GAAP measures to the most comparable GAAP financial measures because certain information needed to reconcile those non-GAAP measures to the most comparable GAAP financial measures is dependent on future events some of which are outside the control of Shell, such as oil and gas prices, interest rates and exchange rates. Moreover, estimating such GAAP measures with the required precision necessary to provide a meaningful reconciliation is extremely difficult and could not be accomplished without unreasonable effort. Non-GAAP measures in respect of future periods which cannot be reconciled to the most comparable GAAP financial measure are calculated in a manner which is consistent with the accounting policies applied in Shell plc’s consolidated financial statements.
The contents of websites referred to in this announcement do not form part of this announcement.
We may have used certain terms, such as resources, in this announcement that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) strictly prohibits us from including in our filings with the SEC. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 20-F, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website www.sec.gov
Summary of Shell’s Statement of Defence in the Supreme Court Proceedings
7 November 2025
This document summarises various arguments contained in Shell’s Statement of Defence, which has been filed with the Supreme Court of the Netherlands.1 This summary is not an official legal document and is for informational purposes only. It should not be considered a complete or authoritative source. For full details, please refer to the official court filing (PDF, 2 MB).
On 12 November 2024, The Hague Court of Appeal dismissed the District Court’s judgment in its entirety on the basis that:
- Scope 1 and 2: Shell’s existing Scope 1 and 2 emissions reductions targets exceed the order sought by MD and are “sufficiently concrete and progressed”; and
- Scope 3: There is insufficient consensus in climate science to justify the application of a specific reduction percentage on an individual organisation like Shell. Further, the Court of Appeal found that any reduction order in respect of Scope 3 would not be effective in reducing overall global emissions because other companies would take over Shell’s energy product sales.
In February 2025, Milieudefensie (MD) appealed the Court of Appeal Judgment to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. On November 7, 2025, Shell filed its Statement of Defence (SoD). The SoD sets out various reasons why an MD Reduction Duty should not be imposed on Shell; it does not yet contain Shell’s response to MD’s complaints, which will be included in an additional written submission to be filed in 2026. The Supreme Court only has to address such arguments if it considers there is merit to the complaints put forward by MD.
MD Reduction Duty: Where the text refers to an MD Reduction Duty, it means a proposed legal obligation for an individual organisation to reduce the absolute emissions it reports by a set (minimum) percentage at a date fixed in the future.
Part 1: An MD Reduction Duty is Contrary to EU Law
EU law has a key role in shaping an orderly energy transition. Coordinated action at the European level is important to ensure that the many interlinked interests are advanced in a just, orderly and equitable manner.
An MD Reduction Duty:
- undermines the existing European legal and policy frameworks: the imposition of any legal duty by a national court must be compatible with European climate policy objectives and the EU law principles of sincere cooperation, energy solidarity, and proportionality. An MD Reduction Duty cuts across this legal and policy framework (such as the EU Emissions Trading System) and fundamentally disrupts the balance struck by the EU legislator between the various interests involved, including those forming part of the energy trilemma: climate, energy security and affordability of energy.
- infringes on free movement of goods and restricts competition: an MD Reduction Duty is at odds with the EU’s objective of creating a level playing field and safeguarding the competitiveness of the EU and free movement of goods. Reduction duties imposed by national courts on individual organisations will inevitably lead to fragmented standards throughout the EU and could cause serious disruptions to energy security and affordability, free market competition and the EU’s overall competitiveness.
If the Supreme Court considers that this is any ambiguity in relation to matters of EU law, there is reason to refer such questions to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Parts 2 & 3: An MD Reduction Duty has No Basis in the Dutch Unwritten Standard of Care
An MD Reduction Duty has no basis in the Dutch unwritten standard of care in that it:
- fails to account for non-climate related interests and is inconsistent with European and Dutch frameworks: in shaping the energy transition, the European and Dutch legislature must balance multiple and sometimes conflicting interests – including climate, energy security and affordability of energy – and the imposition of an MD Reduction Duty disrupts that balance. Importantly, none of the democratically elected legislatures have opted to impose such legal duty when shaping energy transition policy and putting in place frameworks to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
- finds no support in any legal or other external sources: none of the sources cited by MD – including legislation and regulations, instruments and case law on human rights and other non-binding guidance (e.g., the OECD guidelines) – support the existence of a general legal duty on the part of individual organisations to limit emissions, let alone an MD Reduction Duty.
- fails to distinguish between corporate and state obligations: while States can achieve economy-wide emissions reductions by implementing a range of legislative and policy measures, individual organisations cannot. Although such organisations can take positive steps to help facilitate the energy transition, they do not have the power of a state and cannot control the composition of its energy mix or the choices end-users make about which energy products to consume.
- ignores the fact that EU law provides sufficient human rights protection: European regulations are presumed to provide a level of protection equivalent to that of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ECHR therefore offers no further basis for the imposition of an MD Reduction Duty.
- has a disproportionate impact on Shell: an MD Reduction Duty is particularly onerous for Shell because no such duty is being imposed on its competitors, who will necessarily take over Shell’s market share if Shell were to reduce its oil and gas sales. Any impact on the reduction of global emissions would likely be negligible, at best minimal and at worst even counterproductive.
- is at odds with the obligations of Shell’s Board of Directors: an MD Reduction Duty cuts across the obligation of Shell’s Board to balance the various interests involved in running the organisation, including, but not limited to, any response to climate change. This would potentially oblige Shell to take measures not applicable to other organisations, impermissibly limiting the Board’s decision-making.
- is especially far-reaching in the context of Scope 3 emissions: Scope 3 emissions are customer emissions, which constitute more than 90% of what Shell reports. Shell does not and cannot control its customers’ (lawful) activities; an MD Reduction Duty would therefore be tantamount to holding Shell responsible not only for its own emissions but also those of its customers. Further, voluntary emissions reporting does not mean that such emissions are “attributable” to Shell or that Shell is legally responsible for those emissions. In any event, an MD Reduction Duty would be ineffective: neither Shell’s customers’ use of energy products, nor total global emissions, would necessarily decrease – the emissions previously reported by Shell would simply be reported by another supplier.
Part 4: The Court of Appeal’s observations concerning new oil and gas investment are inadmissible
The Court of Appeal made various observations concerning Shell’s investments in new oil and gas fields. Importantly, these are considered ‘obiter dicta’, i.e. additional remarks made by the Court that have no legal effect. This is because the topic of new oil and gas investment fell outside the scope of the case and was not the subject of proper debate before the court.
Part 5: The imposition of an MD Reduction Duty oversteps the bounds of judicial lawmaking
The question of whether individual organisations like Shell should have a civil law reduction obligation, and the content and scope of such obligation, requires complex legal and policy judgements, prioritisations and trade-offs about the roles and responsibilities of different countries, sectors and actors. The outcome of such considerations, which can only be undertaken by governments in the Netherlands, the EU and other countries, cannot be unilaterally determined by the Dutch courts.
The imposition by a court of an MD Reduction Duty on an individual organisation like Shell therefore oversteps the bounds of the law and the court’s lawmaking task and encroaches on matters falling within the political domain of the Dutch legislature and that of every other country where Shell may operate.
1. The companies in which Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate legal entities. In the Statement of Defence, “Shell”, “Shell Group” and “Group” are sometimes used for convenience to reference Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words “we”, “us” and “our” are also used to refer to Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These terms are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular entity or entities.
Cautionary note
Cautionary note
The companies in which Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate legal entities. In this announcement “Shell”, “Shell Group” and “Group” are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words “we”, “us” and “our” are also used to refer to Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These terms are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular entity or entities. ‘‘Subsidiaries’’, “Shell subsidiaries” and “Shell companies” as used in this announcement refer to entities over which Shell plc either directly or indirectly has control. The term “joint venture”, “joint operations”, “joint arrangements”, and “associates” may also be used to refer to a commercial arrangement in which Shell has a direct or indirect ownership interest with one or more parties. The term “Shell interest” is used for convenience to indicate the direct and/or indirect ownership interest held by Shell in an entity or unincorporated joint arrangement, after exclusion of all third-party interest.
Forward-looking Statements
This announcement contains forward-looking statements (within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995) concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Shell. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Shell to market risks and statements expressing management’s expectations, beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as “aim”; “ambition”; ‘‘anticipate’’; ‘‘believe’’; “commit”; “commitment”; ‘‘could’’; ‘‘estimate’’; ‘‘expect’’; ‘‘goals’’; ‘‘intend’’; ‘‘may’’; “milestones”; ‘‘objectives’’; ‘‘outlook’’; ‘‘plan’’; ‘‘probably’’; ‘‘project’’; ‘‘risks’’; “schedule”; ‘‘seek’’; ‘‘should’’; ‘‘target’’; ‘‘will’’; “would” and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this announcement, including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for Shell’s products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserves estimates; (f) loss of market share and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, judicial, fiscal and regulatory developments including regulatory measures addressing climate change; (k) economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, including the risks of expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement for shared costs; (m) risks associated with the impact of pandemics, such as the COVID-19 (coronavirus) outbreak, regional conflicts, such as the Russia-Ukraine war, and a significant cybersecurity breach; and (n) changes in trading conditions. No assurance is provided that future dividend payments will match or exceed previous dividend payments. All forward-looking statements contained in this announcement are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional risk factors that may affect future results are contained in Shell plc’s Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2024 (available at www.shell.com/investors/news-and-filings/sec-filings.html and www.sec.gov). These risk factors also expressly qualify all forward-looking statements contained in this announcement and should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this announcement, November 7, 2025. Neither Shell plc nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement.
Shell’s Net Carbon Intensity
Also, in this announcement we may refer to Shell’s “Net Carbon Intensity” (NCI), which includes Shell’s carbon emissions from the production of our energy products, our suppliers’ carbon emissions in supplying energy for that production and our customers’ carbon emissions associated with their use of the energy products we sell. Shell’s NCI also includes the emissions associated with the production and use of energy products produced by others which Shell purchases for resale. Shell only controls its own emissions. The use of the terms Shell’s “Net Carbon Intensity” or NCI are for convenience only and not intended to suggest these emissions are those of Shell plc or its subsidiaries.
Shell’s net-zero emissions target
Shell’s operating plan, outlook and budgets are forecasted for a ten-year period and are updated every year. They reflect the current economic environment and what we can reasonably expect to see over the next ten years. Accordingly, they reflect our Scope 1, Scope 2 and NCI targets over the next ten years. However, Shell’s operating plans cannot reflect our 2050 net-zero emissions target, as this target is currently outside our planning period. In the future, as society moves towards net-zero emissions, we expect Shell’s operating plans to reflect this movement. However, if society is not net zero in 2050, as of today, there would be significant risk that Shell may not meet this target.
Forward-looking non-GAAP measures
This announcement may contain certain forward-looking non-GAAP measures such as cash capital expenditure and divestments. We are unable to provide a reconciliation of these forward-looking non-GAAP measures to the most comparable GAAP financial measures because certain information needed to reconcile those non-GAAP measures to the most comparable GAAP financial measures is dependent on future events some of which are outside the control of Shell, such as oil and gas prices, interest rates and exchange rates. Moreover, estimating such GAAP measures with the required precision necessary to provide a meaningful reconciliation is extremely difficult and could not be accomplished without unreasonable effort. Non-GAAP measures in respect of future periods which cannot be reconciled to the most comparable GAAP financial measure are calculated in a manner which is consistent with the accounting policies applied in Shell plc’s consolidated financial statements.
The contents of websites referred to in this announcement do not form part of this announcement.
We may have used certain terms, such as resources, in this announcement that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) strictly prohibits us from including in our filings with the SEC. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 20-F, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website www.sec.gov
