Twenty-four former and current Shell professionals publicly support the new Follow This shareholder resolution.
With an average of 20 years at Shell, these insiders are pressing the company to explain something basic: how does its business strategy work if demand for oil and gas declines over the next decade, as many experts predict.
Why does this matter?
This kind of public support from insiders is rare. People who spent decades building Shell are now publicly asking whether the company has a real plan for its future. They want the company to thrive. They just don’t want Shell to avoid tough questions about its future as oil and gas decline.
From the statement: “As a group, we have been and remain loyal to Shell and want the company to succeed, also for those of us who have recently left Shell due to differences in view on the path forward. We want to be able to remain proud of Shell — now and in the future — and want to continue holding a strong stock. Pride depends not only on financial performance, but also on its credibility, transparency, and long-term relevance as an energy provider in a changing world.”
Why is this support crucial for Follow This?
When Shell’s own people back a resolution like this, it carries real weight. This isn’t just activists from the outside pushing for change. It’s the people who know how the business works saying shareholders deserve straight answers about where the company is headed. It highlights a growing concern that Shell’s current trajectory may not be robust enough to handle the economic realities of the energy transition.
THE STATEMENT
Statement by 24 former and current Shell professionals in support of a shareholder resolution on long‑term strategic clarity
We are a group of 24 former and current Shell professionals, with the alumni having an average of ~20 years of experience at the company. We have helped build Shell over many years and remain shareholders today.
We support the shareholder resolution filed by Follow This and institutional investors, as well as its intent. The resolution asks Shell to provide clearer information on how its strategy aligns with different IEA scenario pathways and what this means for long‑term value creation. We see this as a fair and reasonable request for information; one that shareholders, employees, governments, and the wider public need to assess long-term value creation.
Over recent years, it has become clear to many of us that shareholders play a decisive role in shaping strategic choices of Shell and its peers. Engaging as shareholders is therefore a legitimate and responsible way for current and former employees to contribute to Shell’s future direction.
As a group, we have been and remain loyal to Shell and want the company to succeed, also for those of us who have recently left Shell due to differences in view on the path forward. We want to be able to remain proud of Shell — now and in the future — and want to continue holding a strong stock. Pride depends not only on financial performance, but also on its credibility, transparency, and long-term relevance as an energy provider in a changing world.
From our perspective as shareholders, the central strategic challenge Shell faces today is uncertainty. Credible outlooks increasingly suggest that oil and gas demand may peak and weaken within the coming decade, driven by policy, technology, efficiency improvements, and substitution. Shell acknowledges the need for the transition, and set a Net Zero target for 2050. Shell’s own Horizon scenario makes clear that achieving net zero by 2050 requires profound changes, including shifts in policy, pricing, regulation, and demand. The Shell scenarios, however, do not provide a pathway for Shell as an actor in the scenario.
This leads to a fundamental strategic question: how does Shell generate sustainable returns in a world where demand for fossil fuels declines at pace? We believe it is essential for Shell to be open and clear about how it defines its role, business model, and limitations in an evolving and uncertain world.
We believe it is in Shell’s interest to address this question openly and explicitly. If Shell concludes that protecting shareholder value requires limiting exposure to certain transition activities, or focusing on specific areas such as biofuels, hydrogen, or carbon capture, that too is a valid strategic outcome — provided it is explained transparently and grounded in economic and policy realities. Clear communication about strategic choices, opportunities, and limitations enables informed decision-making by all stakeholders. Employees can make informed career choices, governments can adjust subsidies and policy support, the public can assess corporate lobbying positions in context, and shareholders can determine their risk/reward appetite.
We are not advocating unrealistic or fragile strategies. We understand the importance of resilience, shareholder value, and geopolitical realities. By submitting this resolution, we hope Shell will act on what is, in essence, a common‑sense request for clarity on how it intends to act and address a future scenario where global dependency on fossil fuels decreases more rapidly than Shell’s current strategy.
We believe discussing the pathways for Oil & Gas companies is critical, but many current employees, in their role as shareholder, are not in a position to raise such issues publicly. Therefore, we as a group take responsibility, knowing many current employees will (anonymously) support us in doing so. Our intention is constructive. Clear communication and disciplined decision-making by Shell are, in our view, essential to sustaining trust, credibility, and long-term shareholder value in an uncertain world.
Arjan Keizer
Bas Kikkert
Evert van der Heide
Harry van der Velde
Heiko Tit
Franc Rosendal
Marcel van de Laar
Sander Groenteman
Stijn van den Enden
+ 10 anonymous alumni
+ 5 anonymous employees
