The global energy sector is in transition, with major oil companies under pressure to cut emissions while staying profitable. Shell, Chevron, and ExxonMobil—three of the world’s biggest energy giants—are taking different paths to navigate this shift.
Their latest earnings reveal how each company is balancing investments in oil, gas, and low-carbon initiatives. While some struggle with declining profits, others are outperforming expectations.
Beyond financials, their sustainability goals and net-zero targets set them apart. But are these commitments keeping pace with financial performance? Let’s dive into their latest financial results and see which energy giant leads the charge toward a greener future.
Who’s Winning the Oil Game? A Financial Face-Off
Shell: Struggling Profits, Big Promises
Shell reported Q4 2024 earnings of $1.20 per ADS (American Depository Share), missing the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.78 and significantly lower than $2.22 per ADS in Q4 2023. The company’s revenue dropped to $66.8 billion from $80.1 billion, falling short of expectations by 16.6%. The decline was driven by weaker realized prices, reduced trading margins, and lower LNG sales.
Shell repurchased $3.6 billion in shares and increased its dividend by 5%, with plans for another $3.5 billion in repurchases in Q1 2025. Here is the oil giant’s income per segment:
- Upstream: Profit fell to $1.7 billion from $3.1 billion, missing expectations due to lower oil and gas prices. Liquids prices fell 11%, while natural gas declined 7%.
- Chemicals & Products: Reported a $229 million loss, reversing a $29 million profit from the previous year, due to lower margins and unfavorable tax movements.
- Integrated Gas: Adjusted income dropped to $2.2 billion from $4 billion, missing the expected $2.8 billion due to a 14.3% drop in LNG sales.
- Marketing: Income rose to $839 million from $794 million, but missed expectations of $885 million.
- Renewables & Energy Solutions: Recorded a $311 million loss, down from a $173 million profit a year earlier, due to rising costs and adverse tax effects.
Chevron: A Mixed Bag of Losses and Growth
Chevron’s Q4 earnings fell below Wall Street expectations, reporting adjusted EPS of $2.06 versus the estimated $2.11. This led to a 4% drop in its stock price. The company’s downstream segment posted a $248 million loss, compared to a $1.15 billion profit in Q4 2023. This is because refining margins weakened amid declining fuel demand in the U.S. and China.
- Oil & Gas Production: Profits rose to $4.3 billion from $1.59 billion a year ago, despite a flat overall output of 3.35 million boepd (Barrels of oil equivalent per day). Permian Basin production grew 14% to a record 992,000 boepd.
- Refining: Weak jet fuel demand contributed to the company’s first refining loss since 2020.
Chevron expects global output to grow 6-8% in 2025 and 3-6% in 2026. The company raised its quarterly dividend by 5% and reaffirmed share buyback plans of $10-$20 billion annually.
Exxon: Defying Expectations Amid Industry Headwinds
Exxon announced Q4 2024 earnings of $7.6 billion, or $1.72 per share, exceeding analyst estimates of $1.56. Despite lower oil prices, higher production helped offset the weaker refining margins of this big oil company.
- Oil & Gas Production: Adjusted earnings rose to $6.28 billion from $4.15 billion a year earlier. Production increased to 4.6 million boepd, driven by low production costs in the Permian Basin and Guyana projects.
- Refining: Earnings from gasoline and diesel production dropped sharply to $323 million from $3.2 billion a year earlier due to increased refinery capacity in Asia.
Exxon reported $33.7 billion in earnings for 2024, down from $38.57 billion in 2023, but highlighted strong operational efficiency and profitability.
The three energy giants all faced challenges in Q4 2024, with weaker refining margins and lower oil prices impacting profitability. However, Exxon outperformed expectations, while Chevron and Shell struggled with underwhelming results. All three companies remain focused on capital discipline, shareholder returns, and production efficiency moving forward.
The Green Pivot: Are Big Oil’s Net Zero Pledges Enough?
Shell, Chevron, and ExxonMobil are charting distinct paths toward sustainability as the energy landscape evolves. Their climate commitments, emissions targets, and investment in renewables illustrate their vision for a lower-carbon future.
Each of the energy giants has its own roadmap to net-zero emissions, with varying approaches and strategies. To have a clearer picture of how much carbon pollution each of them emitted in 2023, look at the image below.
While some are making bolder moves in renewables, others remain focused on carbon capture and efficiency improvements. Understanding Shell, Chevron, and ExxonMobil’s strategies provides insight into the future of the oil and gas industry.
Shell’s Carbon Commitment: Big Talk or Real Action?
Shell aims to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050 as part of its Powering Progress strategy. This commitment includes eliminating operational emissions and reducing the emissions from the energy products it sells.
The company has set several targets to achieve this goal:
- 50% absolute emissions reduction by 2030 (Scopes 1 and 2) compared to 2016 levels.
- Eliminate routine flaring of natural gas by 2025 to curb carbon emissions.
- Reduce methane emissions intensity below 0.2% and reach near-zero methane emissions by 2030.
- 15-20% reduction in customer emissions from oil products by 2030 (Scope 3, Category 11, 2021 baseline).
Progress Achieved
By the end of 2023, Shell had cut more than 60% of its emissions goal for 2030. The company’s methane emissions intensity was 0.05% for facilities with marketed gas and 0.001% for facilities without marketed gas.
Shell tracks its emissions reductions through Net Carbon Intensity (NCI), which measures emissions per unit of energy sold. Key milestones include:
- 6-8% reduction achieved in 2023 (from 2016 levels)
- 9-12% reduction target for 2024
- 100% reduction goal by 2050
Shell’s strategy for 2030 balances energy security with sustainability. The company plans to reduce emissions by evolving its product mix and shifting towards low-carbon solutions such as biofuels, hydrogen, and renewables.
Shell has also invested heavily in carbon offset initiatives to negate its GHG emissions. However, under CEO Wael Sawan’s leadership, the oil giant is reducing its focus on nature-based projects and is considering engineered carbon removals instead.
- READ MORE: Shell and Microsoft Are The Biggest Carbon Credit Buyers in 2024: What Projects Do They Support?
Today, 70% of Shell’s cash flow comes from Integrated Gas and Upstream businesses, while 75% of its emissions come from Downstream, Renewables, and Energy Solutions. Additionally, Shell has invested heavily in offshore wind projects, with plans to expand its renewable energy portfolio across multiple continents.
Chevron’s Climate Play: Real Solutions or Greenwashing?
Chevron is investing $8 billion in lower-carbon energy projects from 2021-2028, including renewable fuels, carbon capture, hydrogen, and offsets. An additional $2 billion is allocated to reducing emissions within its operations.
The company is also developing new partnerships with tech firms to enhance energy efficiency and reduce its environmental impact.
Chevron targets net-zero upstream Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2050 but acknowledges that achieving this goal depends on technological advances, regulatory support, and viable carbon capture and offset mechanisms.
2028 Carbon Intensity Targets
Chevron’s plans to lower carbon intensity include:
- 71 g CO₂e/MJ portfolio carbon intensity (Scope 1, 2, and 3)
- 24 kg CO₂e/boe oil carbon intensity (Scope 1 and 2)
- 24 kg CO₂e/boe gas carbon intensity (Scope 1 and 2)
- 36 kg CO₂e/boe refining carbon intensity (Scope 1 and 2)
GHG Reduction Initiatives
Chevron uses the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) to optimize carbon reduction. The company has identified 150+ GHG abatement projects, with over $600 million in investments planned for 2024.
Between 2021-2028, Chevron expects $2 billion in GHG reduction investments, targeting 4 million metric tons (mt) of annual emissions reductions. Here are the company’s other sustainability plans and strategies to achieve its ambitious 2050 net zero goal.
Methane and Renewable Energy Expansion
- Methane emissions goal of 2.0 kg CO₂e/boe by 2028
- Advanced methane detection programs, including satellite monitoring
- Growing renewable fuels capacity to 100 mbd by 2030, including renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel
- Significant CCUS investments, including Bayou Bend (Texas) and Gorgon (Australia)
- Expanding hydrogen production to 150 mtpa by 2030
- Developing advanced geothermal energy projects to enhance clean energy production
SEE MORE: Chevron Reports Lower Q2 Earnings! What About Its Emissions?
ExxonMobil’s Bold Bet on Decarbonization
ExxonMobil has cut 23% of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and volatile organic compounds emissions since 2016. In 2023, its GHG emissions stood at 111 MMTCO₂e, marking a 2 MMT reduction from the previous year. The company is also exploring new ways to enhance energy efficiency across its global operations.
ExxonMobil aims for a 20% absolute reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, compared to 2016 levels. The company aligns its emissions reductions with the Paris Agreement while emphasizing intensity-based reductions.
Beyond burning down emissions in its own operations, Exxon is also helping other industries decarbonize. Its Low Carbon Solutions business focuses on hard-to-decarbonize sectors like heavy industry, power, and transportation. The oil giant seeks to lead in profitable, large-scale emission reduction solutions, with the following key strategies.
Key Sustainability Actions
- Investing in carbon capture, biofuels, and hydrogen
- Advancing methane management with innovative detection technologies
- Deploying CCUS projects, including the world’s largest CCUS facility at LaBarge, Wyoming
- Developing low-carbon solutions for hard-to-abate industries
- Launching a $17 billion investment plan in lower-carbon solutions through 2027
- Exploring direct air capture (DAC) technologies to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere
READ MORE: ExxonMobil’s First-of-its-Kind Carbon Capture Solution for the U.S. Data Centers
Big Oil’s Race Against Time
Shell, Chevron, and ExxonMobil are taking different approaches to sustainability and emissions reduction. While Shell focuses on reducing absolute emissions and net carbon intensity, Chevron prioritizes carbon intensity reduction and methane management. ExxonMobil, meanwhile, is expanding CCUS and methane detection efforts to lower emissions.
As global climate policies tighten, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and other energy companies should accelerate their transition strategies to meet net-zero targets.
- FURTHER READING: Shell’s Polaris Project Fuels Canada’s Carbon Capture Revolution
The post Big Oil’s Showdown: How Shell, Chevron & ExxonMobil Balance Big Profits with Net Zero? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits