Shell Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
980368454
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
London, London, United Kingdom
Phone
+44 (0)20 7934 8000
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$45,331,982
Expenses
$22,671,900
Assets
$697,105,639
Liabilities
$24,951,856

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MR JONATHAN BERMAN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • MR JONATHAN BERMAN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $448,387 total reported compensation
  • MR RICHARD GOMES (CHIEF PROGRAMME OFFICER): $291,371 total reported compensation
  • MS RACHEL SINGH DAVIES (CFO AND COMPANY SECRETARY): $278,988 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Shell Foundation is a philanthropic foundation that enables millions of people in Africa and Asia to increase their incomes with clean energy solutions

What it reported doing in 2024

Microentrepreneurs: urban, peri-urban and rural micro-enterprise owners engaged in the smallscale provision of goods and services for whom reliable and appropriate power can contribute to longer opening hours, lower costs, with net income increase.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 63% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.9%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 59.5%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 50%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 30.75; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.3%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.8% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 54.9% of revenue deployed · 59.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $13.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $448K · 19 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.