Shell’s Climate Strategy Under Fire

Shell recently faced a significant investor revolt at its annual general meeting (AGM) near Heathrow Airport, with over one-fifth of shareholders (20.56%) voting in favour of a resolution demanding greater transparency about how the company’s plans to increase liquefied natural gas (LNG) production align with its climate commitments. This move highlights increasing frustration among investors regarding Shell’s focus on expanding its gas business while simultaneously scaling back short-term climate targets.

The shareholder resolution, supported by major institutional investors including pension funds and climate-focused NGOs, called for clearer disclosure on how Shell’s ambitious LNG growth strategy fits with its pledge to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Notably, Shell’s LNG demand outlook is significantly higher than scenarios published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) for a net-zero pathway, raising concerns about financial and governance risks for investors. Shell has also weakened its 2030 carbon reduction target and retired its interim 2035 target, citing robust gas demand and uncertainties in the energy transition.

During the AGM, Shell’s board defended its strategy, emphasising the need to balance current energy demands with future decarbonisation goals. The CEO, Wael Sawan, stated that shareholders have “strongly backed our strategy to deliver more value with less emissions,” while critics accused the company of shifting blame onto consumers and clinging to an outdated business model. The meeting was marked by protests inside and outside the venue, with environmental demonstrators highlighting Shell’s climate record and its ongoing operations in regions like the Niger Delta.

It’s no secret that Shell has long been a culprit of environmental scandals and greenwashing, and this is certainly reflected clearly in the company’s scores. The “Oil Major” has already racked up an Environmental Penalty of 27%, bringing its Environmental Score down to 49, placing it at the lower end of similarly sized peers. Plus, this year alone, the company has already been flagged for 30 environment-related controversies. We’ll be keeping an eye on how this recent news further impacts these scores and whether Shell can stick to the net-zero pathway it currently has planned.

UnitedHealth’s Secret Payments Scandal

UnitedHealth Group is facing intense scrutiny after an investigative report by The Guardian revealed that the company allegedly paid nursing homes secret bonuses to reduce hospital transfers for their residents. The practice, which reportedly saved UnitedHealth millions of dollars in medical costs, is now under fire for potentially compromising patient care and raising serious ethical concerns.

According to the investigation, UnitedHealth implemented incentive programs such as “Premium Dividend” and “Shared Savings” payments, financially rewarding nursing homes for keeping hospital admissions low. The Guardian’s report, based on thousands of documents, court files, and interviews with current and former employees, found that some facilities received hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for participating. However, in several cases, this led to delayed or denied hospital care for residents who needed urgent treatment, including at least one patient who suffered permanent brain damage after a postponed transfer.

The report alleges that UnitedHealth’s remote medical teams sometimes overruled nursing home staff who wanted to send residents to the hospital, prioritising cost savings over patient health. In response, UnitedHealth has strongly denied any wrongdoing, stating that all payments to nursing homes were contractually structured to incentivise quality care and were not secret. The company emphasised that the US Department of Justice investigated the allegations and found no grounds for legal action after reviewing extensive evidence.

UnitedHealth’s stock fell sharply following the report, dropping over 4% in a single trading session, and has declined nearly 40% year-to-date amid a series of challenges. The revelations have sparked calls for greater oversight and transparency in how insurance companies manage care for vulnerable populations.

Looking at UnitedHealth’s scores, we can see that it currently holds a Consumer Protection Related Offences Score of 1/100, ranking the company last against its industry peers. And if we look at our Violation Tracker, we can see that the company has already had over 30 penalties relating to healthcare and consumer protection, with some dating back to 2000. On top of this, UnitedHealth has already been flagged in our system for 27 controversies so far this year. It will be interesting to see if this report serves as motivation for UnitedHealth to clean up or if they’ll continue with similar behaviour.

Qantas Faces Legal Fallout for Unlawful Staff Sackings

Qantas Airways is facing significant legal and reputational fallout after a landmark court case revealed that the airline illegally fired nearly 1700 ground staff in 2020 to survive what it described as “business calamities.” The case, heard by the Federal Court of Australia, centres on Qantas’ outsourcing of its ground operations, including baggage handling and aircraft cleaning, during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. The court found that Qantas breached the Fair Work Act by sacking the employees to prevent them from taking protected industrial action, which would have given them the right to negotiate pay and conditions.

The ruling, delivered by Justice Michael Lee, determined that Qantas’ decision to outsource these jobs was not primarily motivated by cost-saving or operational efficiency, but rather to avoid potential industrial action. This finding was based on internal communications and evidence presented during the trial, which showed that Qantas executives considered the risk of future strikes and negotiations as a key factor in their decision-making. The court heard that the airline used the pandemic as a pretext to accelerate outsourcing plans that had been under consideration for years.

Qantas has defended its actions, arguing that the outsourcing was necessary to ensure the company’s survival during unprecedented financial challenges. However, the court rejected this justification, stating that the move was unlawful and undermined workers’ rights. The Transport Workers’ Union, which represented the affected employees, hailed the decision as a victory for workers and a warning to other companies considering similar tactics.

The case has sparked widespread debate about corporate responsibility and workers’ rights in Australia, with calls for stronger protections against unfair dismissal and greater accountability for large employers. Qantas now faces the prospect of substantial compensation payments and further legal action as it seeks to rebuild trust with its workforce and the public.

Qantas currently hold a Workforce Score of 53, placing it 33 out of 81 industry peers. Looking closer, we can see that the company holds a Talent Attraction and Retention Score of 53 and a Percentage Change in Total Employees Score of 38, placing it at the lower end for both metrics. Looking at violations, the company already has 2 employment-related offences under its belt, with this being a potential third. It’s clear that Qantas has some work to do regarding its workforce if it wants to remain competitive in its industry.

Dior Settles Italian Antitrust Case Over Labour Practices

Dior, owned by French luxury conglomerate LVMH, has settled an Italian antitrust investigation into its labour practices by agreeing to a series of corrective actions and financial commitments. The Italian Competition Authority closed its probe after Dior pledged to allocate €2 million over five years to support initiatives aimed at assisting victims of labour exploitation, with these programs also accessible to other brands. The settlement follows revelations last year by Milan prosecutors, who uncovered workshops employing underpaid, and often undocumented immigrant workers to produce leather bags for Dior and Armani at a fraction of the retail price.

The investigation focused on whether Dior and its subsidiaries misled consumers about working conditions at their suppliers, highlighting discrepancies between the brands’ public messaging on craftsmanship and ethical responsibility versus the actual labour practices uncovered in judicial investigations. As part of the agreement, Dior committed to revising its ethical and social responsibility statements and implementing stricter protocols for selecting and monitoring suppliers to improve transparency and oversight throughout its supply chain.

Italy’s competition watchdog acknowledged Dior’s commitments as an appropriate remedy, closing the case without finding any legal infringement. The luxury brand stated that it collaborated closely with authorities to establish these measures and remains dedicated to upholding values of transparency and respect across its operations. Meanwhile, the investigation into Armani’s practices continues, with the company previously stating its full cooperation with authorities and denying the merit of allegations.

LVMH has some really strong ESG scores under its belt, with an Overall Score of 73 (miles ahead of the industry average, which sits at 44) and a Social Score of 88, placing it 23rd out of 367 industry peers. However, if we look closer at the company’s Workforce Score, we can see that it holds a Living Wage Score of 42, significantly lower than the rest of its scores, and in the bottom half when measured against its peers. The accountability taken since this news has broken will hopefully signal a change in the conglomerate's behaviours, so we’ll be keeping an eye on these scores to see if they improve over the next few months.

Nestlé’s “Natural” Water Ruse Exposed by French Senate

A recent French Senate inquiry has accused the government of France, under President Emmanuel Macron, of covering up years of illegal treatment of bottled mineral water by Swiss food giant Nestlé, including its iconic Perrier brand. The report, released earlier this month, detailed how Nestlé used prohibited treatments, such as activated carbon filters and ultraviolet disinfection, to address bacterial or chemical contamination in water labelled as “natural mineral water” or “spring water.” These practices are strictly banned under both French and European regulations, which require such waters to remain untreated to preserve their natural status.

The Senate inquiry found that the French government not only failed to enforce the law but also engaged in a “deliberate strategy” of concealment, particularly after a government meeting on the issue in October 2021. Months later, authorities agreed to a Nestlé plan to phase out banned treatments in favour of microfiltering. The report highlighted that the presidency had known since at least 2022 about Nestlé’s long-standing violations, yet took no meaningful action to stop them. The inquiry also criticised the lack of transparency from both Nestlé and the government, noting that former top aide Alexis Kohler had multiple contacts with Nestlé executives and refused to testify before the commission.

Nestlé publicly acknowledged the use of unauthorised treatments last year and agreed to pay a €2 million fine to avoid legal action. The inquiry, which interviewed over 120 people, called for greater oversight and made 28 recommendations to safeguard the quality and authenticity of mineral and spring water in France. The scandal has eroded consumer confidence, with many French citizens expressing outrage and distrust toward both the bottled water industry and government regulators. The findings have sparked calls for stronger enforcement and accountability in the food and beverage sector.

Key Takeaways

From Shell’s investor revolt over climate transparency and UnitedHealth’s controversial nursing home incentives, to Qantas’ unlawful staff sackings, Dior’s supply chain settlement, and the Nestlé water scandal, this week’s top ESG stories show how rapidly controversies can arise and disrupt even the world’s most established brands.

Each example demonstrates how compliance failures can trigger regulatory scrutiny, legal action, and public backlash. These events can often have a direct impact on ESG scores and, more often than not, can influence financial performance.

GaiaLens’ controversy detection platform is designed to catch these types of incidents as they happen. By monitoring news, regulatory updates, and stakeholder sentiment in real time, GaiaLens provides early warnings and assigns Controversy Scores. This gives investors the information they need to react quickly and make informed decisions before controversies escalate.

In today’s market, where ESG risks can surface suddenly and have lasting effects, having a system that identifies and tracks controversies is essential. GaiaLens helps investors stay alert to these risks, supporting more responsible and proactive investment strategies.

Don’t miss out. Sign up for our daily S&P 500 controversy alerts here and stay up to date on the latest developments impacting ESG performance.