Frans Everts (Shell Netherlands): ‘The market demand is not there yet’

04-02-2025 | Interviewer: Eric Vennix | Author: Angelo van Leemput | Image: Gregor Servais
Since April 2023, Frans Everts has held the position that was once arguably the most coveted corporate role in the Netherlands: President-director of Shell Netherlands. But times have changed. In the societal debate on industrial sustainability, Shell—using Everts’ own words—is facing gale-force headwinds. Yet, for him, that was no reason to turn down the position. On the contrary: ‘I found it important to bring our story to the fore,’ he tells Eric Vennix, partner at Deloitte, with whom he reflects on his first two years as president-director. Everts firmly believes he can contribute to a greener future, not only for Shell, but for the entire industry, and even for Europe as a whole. One thing is clear: Everts and Shell cannot do it alone. ‘As a country, we are currently unable to make meaningful progress because we lack industrial policy.’
You have been president-director of Shell Netherlands for nearly two years now, but you have been with the company for thirty-five years. Was this role always your ambition?
‘That thought never crossed my mind. I did not fit the typical Shell profile at all. I am not an engineer by training, as is the norm within the concern. I have a commercial background as business administrator. Early on, my ambition was to become Director of Shell Netherlands Sales, which includes all the gas stations, for example. That seemed like a cool job to me. However, I achieved that goal by the time I was thirty-six. After that, I stopped planning my career. Shell is a company that is always in flux. It is nearly impossible to plan more than one or two roles ahead. By the time you are eligible for a position, the role has often been changed, merged, or even eliminated.’
Why did you choose Shell in the first place?
‘One of the reasons was that I wanted to work for a company in a sector that truly matters, in an international environment. The Netherlands is fantastic, but I have always enjoyed working abroad. Beyond that, Shell offers the chance to make an impact on a large scale. The reasons why I initially chose Shell are the same reasons why I am still here. You could even say those reasons have only become more relevant over the years, especially in view of the energy transition, which I see as the greatest challenge of our generation.’
Two years ago, you clearly felt ready to take on the challenge of becoming president-director of Shell Netherlands. What drew you to the role?
‘I love to create, build, achieve and to make an impact. That is possible with the contribution we are making to energy transition. In fact, I think what we are doing at Shell Netherlands is truly remarkable. We have a €6.5 billion investment agenda, and work on offshore wind, green hydrogen, electric vehicle charging, and CO₂ reduction and storage. At the same time, as a company, we are under immense scrutiny. We are in the spotlight and there are countless opinions about us. I felt it was important to bring our story to the fore, to engage in the discussion. It is precisely this external aspect of the role that I find particularly interesting. I spend a lot of time talking to stakeholders: politicians, civil servants, business peers, and customers. Far more than I have ever before.’
What stands out to you in those conversations?
‘There are numerous misconceptions about Shell. Many people I speak to have no idea what we are in fact working on. Often, their understanding is incomplete. I find it both enjoyable and valuable to correct that perception: to explain what we are doing, where we are investing, what is going well, what is going not so well, and what we need.’
Reflecting on the past two years as president-director of Shell Netherlands, what are you most proud of?
‘I am proud that we have been able to continue investing in a range of complex projects. A project like Holland Hydrogen I – it is the first time we have undertaken a green hydrogen project on this scale. And I am also quite proud that some understanding has developed in the outside world. How important the industry is for the Netherlands. How important industry is for Europe. That sentiment is changing. It is shifting. This shift is in part driven by geopolitical tensions and the related issues of energy availability and affordability.
Where have the challenges been recently?
‘The real challenge is that the energy transition is simply not moving fast enough. And I am not even referring to Shell exclusively, but in general. That has largely to do with the business cases. Companies are willing to embrace sustainability, but how do they write the business case? We are dealing with projects of such massive scale that securing the necessary investments becomes a significant hurdle. That is the dilemma of our time. The market demand is simply not there yet, which means it is hard to recover those investments.’
It strikes me that, in the past, Shell’s communication often came across as coming from a technical perspective. That seems to have shifted. Has Shell’s narrative changed?
‘At our core, we are an engineering company. Seventy-five percent of our employees are engineers. In general, they tend to approach things with rational, fact-based logic. That is deeply ingrained in our DNA. We have always been successful with large projects, with engineering solutions, with building to scale in difficult circumstances. But as I mentioned earlier, my background is different: I originally come from a more customer-focused part of Shell. I believe we need to lean into that customer-centric approach more, especially when it comes to the energy transition. Ultimately, the real solution lies in changing customer demand. If we can achieve that, the impact will be massive. I am convinced that the only way forward is to work hand in hand with our customers.
It is however important to realize that, when you look at the energy transition, it is manifestly evident that solutions vary by customer group. For everyday car traffic, the answer may lie in electric vehicles. For the transport sector, it might be biofuels. But here is the catch: biofuels cost 10 to 30 cents more per liter than regular fuel. And that is where the problem arises. A transport company might say, ‘Biofuels are great, but if I switch, my competitor will undercut me and take the contracts.’’
So should the government intervene?
‘One of my key insights over the past years is that voluntary action does not work. Or at least not on a sufficient scale. Regulation is also essential. We are one of the largest traders in biofuels. In Europe, there is an agreement that by 2030, 6 percent of aviation fuel must be sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Such an agreement – which, in my view, could have been drafted far more strictly – is essential to create demand. The same dilemma applies here: KLM may want to switch to SAF, but if they do it alone, they risk being priced out of the market by competitors. We need to change the playing field. We need to compel ourselves to act. And that is where politics comes in. We need policymakers to set the rules that will drive action.’
Is this a plea for industrial policy?
‘It is a call for energy transition policy. Look, as a company, we want to be at the forefront. But getting too far ahead of the curve does not work. For example, we built hundreds of hydrogen stations in Germany, thinking the demand would follow. But it never did. If I want to build a second hydrogen factory, I can only do so if the first one is a success. Something is only sustainable if it is also financially sustainable. Unfortunately, that is not always well understood. We are eager to pioneer, but it must be at scale. If we only serve six motorists a day with hydrogen, then it makes no sense at all.’
What would your solution be?
‘We need to shift from focusing on ‘tonnage reduction’ to focusing on ‘investment generation.’ Yes, reducing CO₂ emissions is essential, but we will only achieve that with substantial investments. We need large-scale investments that create value for products that there is a demand for and reduce emissions in the process. That is complicated. It is not something a company can do on its own. Right now, we are struggling to make significant progress because we lack industrial policy. Fortunately, the European Commission led by Ursula von der Leyen is committed to an Industrial Deal. It is desperately needed. Europe’s industry is in poor shape. The chemical sector, for example, has been performing dramatically poorly for years. That sector is under enormous pressure in Europe, while chemistry is at the base of an enormous number of value chains. If we want green steel, we will need to create a market for it. Tata Steel cannot achieve that on its own. The key for the coming period is: create market value for circular chemical products and products that have lower carbon intensity.'
How do you see your role in that debate?
‘We are working to align with the Dutch industry and engage with government. I talk to cabinet members, policymakers in Brussels, ministry officials, customers, and other companies. What I sense is broad agreement with the report by former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi, which calls for large-scale investments in Europe’s industrial future. However, I am disappointed with the Dutch government’s response. When it comes to the investment agenda, they are quick to pass the responsibility to others, saying that as a major net contributor to the EU, the Netherlands should not be expected to do more. That is a huge risk. By 2030, Europe could wake up to find its manufacturing base gone. We will be forced to import all our products. Would that solve the emissions problem? Far from it.’
Is the industry not pointing fingers at the government too much? Should businesses not look in the mirror more?
‘But we have done that. We have significantly reduced emissions, by 30, 40, even 50 percent. But if you want to get to 80, 90, or even 100 percent by 2040, something radically different needs to happen. We have invested €1 billion in a hydrogen plant. One billion! But there is no market! We are our own customer. We are doing what we can. In Amsterdam, we have a major R&D lab where 800 people are working on solutions involving hydrogen, biofuels, and synthetic fuels. Technically, we know how to do this. But if you think biofuels are expensive, synthetic fuels are exponentially costlier. Who is going to buy those at scale on their own initiative? Honestly, the bottle neck no longer is with technological breakthroughs.’
Could the thirty- or forty-year-old Frans Everts have imagined we would need the government this much?
‘No, not at all. But that is entirely tied to the energy transition. We really need to rewrite the rules of the game completely, or we will not succeed. Transitions go well and fast if it becomes more affordable for customers. Gets better. Take solar energy, for example. It has become so affordable that it has practically taken off on its own. Half of the Netherlands is covered in solar panels. Why? Because it is better for people’s wallets. That is where it all starts.’
In the Netherlands, we always pay extra attention to Shell. Apparently, we still see it as Royal Dutch Shell. How do you explain that?
‘We operate all over the world, but it is in the Netherlands where we face the most scrutiny. Expectations for a company like Shell are higher here than anywhere else. That stems from our history, from our roots as a company. But it is also because we are, simply, a major player in the Netherlands. We are a very big fish in a very small pond. Another factor is the classic Dutch dynamic of the merchant and the minister. And finally, some people seem to think there is a fence around the Netherlands. That we can solve all these global issues within our borders, on our own.’
Do you notice this tension in the Shell network? For example, because Shell Netherlands is pushing harder than the rest?
‘In many areas, we are at the forefront within the group. We are often the first to try things, whether it is offshore wind or hydrogen. Shell Netherlands serves as a bit of a testing ground for Shell globally. That does bring pressure because we want to demonstrate that it can be done, that it works. Both technically and economically. We want to prove we can build competitively. From our global organization, this is of course followed with interest as well as pride. But we need to deliver. And it needs to also result in a viable business model.’
Did the climate case against Shell by the environmental group ‘Milieudefensie’ bring any benefits?
‘It reinforced the importance of staying in dialogue. NGOs play a critical role in societal debates. We want to keep engaging with them. We want to listen, understand and work together to find solutions. This has led us, for example, to focus more on reducing absolute emissions. Naturally, we are pleased with the court’s ruling. It is a good decision, not just for Shell but for the wider industry in the Netherlands and the global energy transition. The environmental group Milieudefensie has targeted other companies as well, generally companies that are in the lead in their sectors. Take ING. Say what you will, but they are doing meaningful work in the financial world. It would be a real setback if companies were forced to shrink simply because they happen to have Dutch headquarters. That contributes nothing at all to the solution.’
Do you feel you are in the right position here to contribute to society?
‘I have resolved to commit even more to achieve this. I need to be more vocal – towards stakeholders and politicians. That is where I really see a role for myself. I want to prevent a situation where, five years from now, we wake up to find that European industry has disappeared. If we do not make a concerted effort now, that will be the outcome. I hope we realize in time that we need these companies and that this must be addressed on a European level. That is the awareness I hope to ignite, including in the Netherlands. The Netherlands has a tremendous starting position. We are right on the North Sea, with a high-tech port, roads, railways, waterways and an immediate market of 350 million relatively wealthy consumers. Our workforce is highly educated and our knowledge institutions are well regarded. The potential remains enormous.’
This interview was published in Management Scope 02 2025.
This article was last changed on 04-02-2025