Quality matters: how Shell is working to build confidence in its carbon credit portfolio for customers
Sam Hoffer, Nature Based Solutions Global Technical Manager at Shell, explains the screening process that Shell uses to help assess the quality of carbon credit projects which includes safeguards that aim to protect local communities and ecosystems.
Sam Hoffer
Global Technical Manager for Shell’s Nature Based Solutions business – manages a global team of experts responsible for overseeing the quality of Shell’s carbon credit portfolio. Sam’s background is in climate change science and environmental economics. Sam joined Shell in 2020 and works out of Washington DC.
Research from late 2024 indicates a growing commitment among Fortune 500 companies to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. In 2020, just 8% of these companies had set such a goal; by 2024, that number had risen to 45%. A parallel, though more modest, increase has been observed in the use of carbon credits among this group, with adoption rising from 40% in 2023 to 42% in 2024.1
However, this momentum risks being undermined. Media and industry reports have brought to light concerns around the quality and impact verification of certain carbon credit projects. As a result, some companies pivoted to delay public disclosure of their climate strategies – including their use of credits – in response to this scrutiny and potential reputational and legal risks.2 Despite this, while Shell believes that efforts to avoid and reduce emissions should be prioritised, there is a clear and immediate role for carbon markets to play, especially in hard-to-electrify sectors such as marine and aviation, as a way to compensate for emissions that can’t yet be avoided or significantly reduced.
To overcome the negative perception of carbon credits and build trust in the VCM, companies investing in projects need a full understanding of the quality of the carbon credits that these projects can generate. However, identifying projects that make a measurable difference can be challenging.
To address this, Shell has developed its own due diligence process to help customers feel confident in engaging with this growing market.
How, then, does Shell aim to verify the quality and efficacy of the projects that it invests in?
Tapping into carbon market experience to determine carbon credit quality
To help answer this question, we asked Sam Hoffer, Nature Based Solutions Global Technical Manager at Shell. He and his team bring considerable expertise in areas from biodiversity, forestry, agriculture and more. Collaborating with Shell experts across the company, the team evaluates carbon credit projects for Shell’s Environmental Products Trading team’s offtake.
“Because a lot of my team come from the world of carbon certification, we know how the standards are built,” he explains. “We understand how the rules and requirements can vary depending on the project type and we know what to look for to determine the quality of the carbon credits. All of that is crucial to our success as a team – and to Shell’s success as an investor in projects and as a supplier of high-integrity carbon credits.”
Going above and beyond: Shell’s carbon credit screening process
To evaluate projects, Sam and his team conduct a screening process designed to determine the strength and trustworthiness of a project’s work.
That starts with the prerequisite that projects must have achieved internationally recognised, independent accreditation (such as those provided by Verra, Gold Standard or the American Carbon Registry). Then Sam’s team uses a standardised process to analyse the projects, covering more than 40 individual risk criteria within seven key areas of risk. These are:
Geographical location
Looking at the stability of the local regulatory environment, including the threat of corruption and the potential for policy change to impact the project’s long-term success.
Business ethics
Exploring the organisations involved in developing and implementing a project (along with any partners) to understand their experience and track record of delivering on project outcomes.
Technical risks
The broadest element of the review looks at factors like additionality, baseline setting, project design and delivery capacity. It also includes a detailed assessment of the number of carbon credits the project could generate based on the quantification of its emissions reductions.
Labour and working conditions
Many projects work with local communities, often directly hiring residents to help implement a project. Sam and his team evaluate the project’s standing in this regard, reviewing things like conditions of employment and work policies including anti-discrimination.
Community engagement and benefits
Evaluating the project’s stakeholder consultation approach, grievance mechanisms and the success with which it shares its benefits with local communities.
Biodiversity and environment
Assessing the impact of the project on biodiversity and the natural environment. For example, is there a risk of deforestation when preparing the development of a renewable energy facility?
Other reputational risks
Determining the overall credibility of the project, including possible negative market sentiment.
To explore these risk factors, Sam’s team gathers a range of evidence from a project’s operators. But while a project might have all the correct processes in place on paper, they also test whether this translates into real-world action. This includes visiting some projects to see how a project is set up and performing while gaining the opportunity to engage with the wider community surrounding it. They can also use technologies like satellite mapping to help verify the work of the project. Together, these methods help the team to assess the integrity of the carbon credits being generated.
Due diligence is ongoing: Why the screening process never really ends
Even for projects that get the green light, the screening process does not end at the point of the initial investment. As Sam explains:
“Accurately quantifying emissions reductions is a scientific question, and science is evolving all the time. Standards therefore often need to change, and projects must evolve with them.”
Working with a broad team of internal Shell experts in fields such as biodiversity, social performance, and ethics and compliance, Sam and his team carry out ongoing due diligence to stay on top of this. First, by checking the independent certification cycle (which requires projects to regularly re-certify their credentials), reviewing any new evidence and calculations. And second, by talking to third-party stakeholders and monitoring market sentiment for changes to a project’s risk profile. Recommendations are then modified as needed in order to respond to changes.
Choosing a partner that can help build trust in carbon credits
The importance of quality is not just a challenge for Shell but is a prerequisite to the credibility of carbon markets as a whole. In-depth due diligence is not simple but investing the time and effort to evaluate projects helps Shell to invest in high-quality projects.
At Shell, we believe carbon markets can play an important supporting role in the transition to a lower-emissions future, alongside efforts to avoid and reduce emissions. Our due diligence process is one way we believe we can help to build trust and improve transparency in the constantly evolving carbon market.
Ready to explore how carbon credits may support your broader climate strategy?
Get in touch with our experts to discuss procuring carbon credits and navigating the voluntary carbon market.
Date of publication: August, 2025
Shell Environmental Products
Used in addition to emissions-reduction measures, carbon credits can play a role in managing emissions that cannot yet be avoided or reduced, particularly in harder-to-abate sectors.
Sources
1 Morgan Stanley. “Where the Carbon Offset Market Is Poised to Surge.” 2023.
2 World Economic Forum. “The Voluntary Carbon Market: Climate Finance at an Inflection Point - PDF (PDF).” 2023.
Disclaimer
Disclaimer
Cautionary Note
The companies in which Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate legal entities. In this content “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. ‘‘Subsidiaries’’, “Shell subsidiaries” and “Shell companies” as used in this content refer to entities over which Shell plc either directly or indirectly has control. The terms “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 content 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, including (without limitation) those concerning Shell’s strategy and operating plans, macroeconomic conditions, future energy demand, supply and product mix, commodity prices, demand for Shell’s products, production results and reserve estimates, development, execution and management of projects, energy transition and climate change, management of safety and environmental risks, costs, cash capital expenditures, technology advancements, legislative, judicial, fiscal and regulatory developments, regional conflicts and trading conditions, 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’’; “aspire”, “aspiration”, ‘‘believe’’; “commit”; “commitment”; ‘‘could’’; “desire”; ‘‘estimate’’; ‘‘expect’’; ‘‘goals’’; ‘‘intend’’; ‘‘may’’; “milestones”; ‘‘objectives’’; ‘‘outlook’’; ‘‘plan’’; ‘‘probably’’; ‘‘project’’; ‘‘risks’’; “schedule”; ‘‘seek’’; ‘‘should’’; ‘‘target’’; “vision”; ‘‘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 content, 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, including climate change; (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 tariffs and 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, regional conflicts, such as the Russia-Ukraine war and the conflict in the Middle East, and a significant cyber security, data privacy or IT incident; (n) the pace of the energy transition; and (o) 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 content 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, 2025 (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 content and should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of the publication mentioned in this website. 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 content.
Shell’s net carbon intensity and net-zero emissions target
In this content 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 is for convenience only and not intended to suggest these emissions are those of Shell plc or its subsidiaries.
Shell’s operating plan and outlook are forecasted for a three-year period and ten-year period, respectively, and are updated every year. They reflect the current economic environment and what we can reasonably expect to see over the next three and ten years. Accordingly, the outlook reflects our combined Scope 1 and 2 target, NCI target and our oil products ambition over the next ten years. However, Shell’s operating plan and outlook cannot reflect our 2050 net-zero emissions target, as this target is outside our planning period. Such future operating plans and outlooks could include changes to our portfolio, efficiency improvements and the use of carbon capture and storage and carbon credits. In the future, as society moves towards net-zero emissions, we expect Shell’s operating plans and outlooks 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.
The information provided above regarding Shell’s NCI and net zero emissions target are not intended, nor should they be construed as introducing, suggesting or making any claim, target or representation thereof other than what is included in the content.
Forward-Looking non-GAAP measures
This content may contain certain forward-looking non-GAAP measures such as free cash flow and underlying operating expenses. 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. These forward-looking non-GAAP measures are provided to assist readers in understanding management’s use and expectations of such measures and may not be appropriate for other purposes.
The contents of websites referred to in this content do not form part of this content.
We may have used certain terms, such as resources, in this content 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.
