Issues and Concerns

Fossil fuel expansion is associated with deepening climate-related human rights harms. RELX has been unwilling to signal an end to this for years, while also communicating misleading claims about its own activities and its industry partners and customers.

Europe “need[s] investments in gas plants...we need those additional [gas] plants.”
RELX podcast (2025)

"New fossil fuel projects, anywhere in the world, are a dangerous threat to human rights."
Dr. Yung En Chee, Senior Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne, CRC Science Advisory Board Member

Fossil fuel expansion

Since at least 2011, scientists have warned that the world had discovered more fossil fuels than can safely be burned. By 2021, new fossil fuel projects were declared to be incompatible with the Paris warming target—and that most known reserves must stay in the ground to ensure a safe transition. Yet RELX's products still inform the fossil fuel industry's development of new resources, avoiding its UNGP and UNGC human rights obligations.

Elsevier claims its entire portfolio has updated missions and scopes that are aligned with the midcentury net zero goal. But materials in its journals are informing fossil fuel expansion that realistically renders that goal unobtainable. Elsevier publications—some with editors who are employees of Exxon, Chevron, and other oil majors misaligned with a safe future—provide data and technical resources that enable customers to analyze resource potential, inform exploration, and develop new reservoirs in the remaining frontiers for oil and gas exploration. With research institutions and policy makers compromised by Elsevier's fossil fuel industry customers, these businesses are funding extensive research to suit their business aims while blocking climate policy that would restrict it. Papers from Elsevier's vast portfolio, some authored by oil major employees, falsely claim fossil fuel expansion is needed to meet energy demand, is "environmentally sustainable," is consistent with "green development," and supports carbon neutrality goals; they point to natural gas and blue hydrogen as "clean" and promote industry actions generating fossil fuel lock-in, citing a desire to help meet global demand for oil and gas, not critical climate targets. Elsevier materials include the assertions that global warming is an opportunity to provide guidance for “large-scale exploration and drilling of Arctic resources” in thawing permafrost, that reducing costs and risks in oil and gas exploration could help accomplish the UN's sustainable development goals, and that rapid decarbonization is unnecessary to keep warming under 2°C. Elsevier even promotes its support for a net zero transition by highlighting a paper co-authored by PetroChina employees that focuses on the "great development potential" of shale gas through enhanced oil recovery—pointing to increased emissions when such a transition requires a rapid decrease.

Well into 2023, Elsevier R&D was still openly stating that it acts in service of most Fortune 500 oil and gas companies, with resources to scale up operations, respond to new opportunities, and increase exploration successes. These services promote industry-backed 'solutions,' such as CCS-EOR and blue hydrogen, approaches that are generating emissions increases and fossil fuel lock-in. Into 2024, Elsevier was still listed as an OSDU Forum member, an industry group dedicated to fossil fuel expansion.

LexisNexis, a division of RELX, offers guidance for those engaged in the exploration and production of hydrocarbons. Its data and analytics service ICIS continues to serve hydrocarbon-expanding oil majors with the premise that they're credibly "adopting net zero emissions targets" and moving "away from legacy fuels." RELX has promoted petrochemical customers that are poisoning the planet and generating fossil fuel lock-in as being on the "cutting edge of sustainability." RELX's RX exhibitions until 2024 provided valuable resources for coal companies that are still expanding development of coal; RELX hydrogen conferences now help the industry promote what's been called its latest "false solution."

Formerly a leading member of ALEC, RELX maintains a political action committee (REPAC) that provides financial support for political leaders in the United States, some of whom act to block effective climate policies and deny climate change. This includes support for Donald Trump in 2024, who vowed to increase fossil fuel projects. Said one past recipient: "There isn't any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth."

A lawsuit was filed in 2024, alleging deceptions of the U.S. government and shareholders. (See our Timeline for more)

"A spokesperson for the company said they are not prepared to draw a line between the transition away from fossil fuels and the expansion of oil and gas extraction."

—The Guardian (2022)

"Profoundly depressing. What are our publishers telling editors?"

—Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, upon being provided with evidence contradicting Elsevier's claim it has just 7 journals that only happen to talk about fossil fuels (2023)

"In developing countries use of fossil fuels provides essential employment and aids development...The small number of Elsevier journals covering fossil fuel related topics have already shifted their focus to giving visibility to research that helps make fossil fuel technology more efficient, environmentally responsible, and safer."

—Company message to Elsevier's publishers and external editors (2022); journals across its portfolio continue to serve "sustainable" fossil fuel expansion, with some papers claiming expansion is consistent with green development.

ABOVE: An Offshore Magazine and an Elsevier publication from 2024. RELX has acknowledged that its biggest environmental impact is "through its journals and what [is] published" and claims it "monitor[s] all [its] environmental impacts," but it points to things like energy, water, waste, paper use, and employee travel as primary negative impacts. The company continues to promote its "support [for] the Paris Agreement’s intention to limit climate change to 1.5°C", while driving actions that help put that goal far out of reach.

Industry misinformation

As it serves customers with business plans that are a threat to global health, RELX/Elsevier is assisting an industry committed to hydrocarbon expansion through messaging that misleads the public about the misalignment of these plans with what's required to maintain a livable planet. Promotional messaging about its fossil fuel industry customers is reinforced as accurate by an Ethics Code that requires such representations not be misleading.

Elsevier promotes “the energy transition” of its oil major partners and customers: LexisNexis has framed oil majors Chevron, Shell, ExxonMobil, BP, Eni, ConocoPhillips, andTotalEnergies as “innovators powering the energy transition.” RELX data and analytics services, with customers such as Shell and Chevron, promote them as "working through the net zero change away from legacy fuels, such as coal and oil." Such companies are presented as "making significant investment in renewables" with the opportunity to "lead the transition [and] become retail companies." This "energy transition" myth is supported by Elsevier highlighting Equinor's "push on offshore wind” and the "smart grid investments” of Total, a company touted by Elsevier as a "world leader in solar energy, power storage and biomaterials." (Oil and gas going green white paper) RELX has promoted Shell's green spending, its carbon reduction efforts and investments, and as aiming to meet the challenges of the energy transition as it goes "green." RELX claims oil majors "are today making significant investment in renewables such as wind, solar and hydrogen, reducing their exposure to upstream oil" and moving "away from legacy fuels." In 2021, the energy transition was described as "rapidly under way," with oil majors, “including Total, BP and Shell,” going “full speed ahead.” RELX has a commitment "to supporting the fossil fuel industry as it transitions toward clean energy," assuring employees the industry is "heavily motivated" to make this transition, even promoting the idea in 2021 that "momentum has swung decisively in the favour of embracing sustainability in the hearts and minds of O&G decision makers at the highest levels."

REALITY

This 'transition' is a façade and promotion of oil industry clean energy investments is propaganda, buoyed by false claims that natural gas is "clean." [See below: 'Clean fossil energy' deception] In reality, Shell is investing $11 million per day through 2030 in new oil and gas projects incompatible with a catastrophic 2.7°C of warming. Shell is in the top 4 of average annual investment in oil and gas exploration over the past three years and is under fire for its deceptive advertising, as it fights a lawsuit requiring it accelerate credible carbon reduction efforts. Yet the same year Shell spent $10 million lobbying against low carbon transportation (2020), RELX promoted Shell as its "low carbon transport sponsor."

Total is currently investing $4.5 billion dollars in new oil and gas projects, with Equinor also investing heavily in oil and gas expansion, not a clean energy transition. In December 2023, the ASA banned an ad from Equinor because it misleadingly implied renewable energy was a significant part of its current business. In reality, the vast majority of its business and investments are still in oil and gas. In 2024, the European gas industry, including companies such as Shell, TotalEnergies and Equinor, walked away from an agreement on retraining workers to prepare for the transition to cleaner energy.

Contrary to the misinformation Elsevier is promoting about its partners and customers, the industry has a "renewed commitment to oil and gas," with offshore experiencing a "renaissance," thanks in part to new information being published by Elsevier. Rather than transitioning, they are planting "colossal" carbon bombs and putting more money into developing new oil and gas sites than at any time since the 2015 Paris climate deal. The supposed transition Elsevier claims to be serving, as a justification for its business decisions, does not exist.

The editor-in-chief of Elsevier’s flagship journal The Lancet, Richard Horton, has called for health sector activism “to keep fossil fuels in the ground,” and has more broadly called for scientists to engage “in the struggle for climate justice.” Elsevier has sponsored a conference focusing on "pressing topics in climate justice advocacy," with the conference Chair observing that "we cannot place our faith in future technologies to fix this problem." RELX indicates addressing climate injustice requires a concerted effort to confront disparities of climate impacts being felt in different populations. The company has endorsed the need for “embedding justice in the 1.5°C transition,” including a “more rapid reduction of fossil fuel production” that doesn’t “overlook basic human needs” or generate “uneven distributions of economic wealth.” RELX promotes a book chapter that illustrates “the social injustice inherent in climate change impacts” and “the urgent need to replace fossil fuels”—with it even calling for the democratizing of economic production and degrowth. RELX also promotes an article calling for climate reparations going to the Global South from oil majors that are “willfully ignoring foreseeable climate harm.” Further, the company has amplified a perspective article that calls for “environmental justice activism” to confront “the fossil fuel energy order” and the “environmental racism” of the petrochemical industry. RELX promotes “making knowledge about mental health risks a central component to decisions about free, prior, and informed consent” as it pertains to extractive industry projects on Indigenous lands. The company frames climate justice and human rights as core elements of the SDGs, and that its approach entails ensuring “the voices from the global South are heard” rather than “expecting the Global North to come down and tell the Global South what they should be doing or what they shouldn't be doing.”

The company also points to the fact that efforts in the justice-oriented SDG goals of “eradicating poverty and ending hunger” require meeting “energy demand, particularly in the Global South” in “socially acceptable ways.” Elsevier highlights the need for hydrocarbons to be included in the “energy mix,” helping to justify fossil fuel expansion activities as being a necessary part of a clean energy transition. Other companies facilitating fossil fuel expansion under the banner of “climate justice” use the same argument: In being given a 2020 award sponsored by RELX division ICIS, Saudi Aramco’s CEO expressed hope for a post-COVID recovery in oil and gas exploration, emphasizing that “access to energy and reliable energy systems” is still denied to many populations. Fossil fuel expansion is justified due to its need to be “part of the energy mix for decades to come, and that immense contribution will be made without economic and social harm that a sudden shift from oil and gas would likely cause.” In 2024, ICIS again amplified the Aramco CEO’s call “to invest in these ‘proven and reliable’ energy sources that developing nations need and can afford,” as he stressed “oil demand will continue to grow in the Global South.” Such reasoning was repeated by a presenter at a 2024 Elsevier promotional seminar when he was asked how the company defends informing global hydrocarbon expansion, given “the financial decision that is within the publisher’s power as a business to decide what to keep publishing”:

“What I hear is that, yeah, I agree with you. Climate change and fossil fuel. We’re seeing hurricanes now in the U.S. and so on and so forth. But, still nowadays, this kind of fuel is very important in the world. Because if you go to Africa, if they don’t use that, they don’t have any other ways…it does damage, it really does, but on the other hand it’s still necessary.”

REALITY

Business interests and African leaders misappropriate the concept of climate justice when they invoke this narrative. Continued fossil fuel expansion is not “necessary” in Africa and it does not benefit Africans. What Africans are facing is displacement and violence, as colonial-minded stakeholders serving the fossil-interests of Europe and the West turn Africa into “a new frontier for fossil fuel development.” A recent Elsevier paper, written by authors at a Canadian institution, outlines ways African governments can “attract and retain foreign investors” to their gas and oil sectors “to boost their economy.” But with most fossil fuel projects in Africa controlled by companies of the Global North and over 89% of the new LNG infrastructure being built for export, these resources are leaving Africa and the associated revenue is vastly more likely to go to foreign investors or to a few resource-rich African nations. Fossil fuels are also displacing renewable resources that are urgently required for climate goals and sustainable development. On a continent with 39% of the world’s total renewable energy potential, these technologies tend to be the cheaper options in Africa (as well as Asia and across the Global South). This is especially true in remote locations where energy scarcity largely results from a lack of access to an electricity grid, not fossil fuel resources. Nigeria, Africa's largest fossil fuel producer, also happens to be the nation with the largest energy access deficit in the world. The Global North falsely selling gas as a clean transition fuel under the guise of climate justice is in reality causing deep harms to Africans: slower economic growth, expanding inequality, economic crises, debt, corruption, political repression, environmental damage, climate harms, and health impacts. It’s clear the real winners from African fossil fuels are primarily not Africans.

Elsevier’s Global Head of Sustainability has noted that “we have to think about is who's advocating for this climate justice, whose voices are we hearing, and whose voices are we listening to?” African stakeholders participating in the 2024 human rights grievance mechanism with Elsevier/RELX have offered their voices, which contrast deeply with the fossil fuel expanding interests of the Global North:

‍“As a climate non-profit in South Africa, a country with many vulnerable citizens on a continent of even greater vulnerability, where climate-related wars are already creating immense suffering and pain for Africans, not least in Sudan where six million people have been displaced in the past year, we find it extraordinary that Elsevier continues to enable one of the world’s most brutal and exploitative industries, and we urge you to stop. The oil and gas industries in Sudan have contributed immensely to corruption, pollution, conflict and climate breakdown. The oil and gas industries continue to profit from the suffering of Africans, selling the fairy tale of easy wealth to exploitative elites while taking no responsibility for the long-term costs of these industries. Fossil fuels are no longer essential to ending poverty in Africa – they are now one of its leading causes.” (David Le Page, Director of Fossil Free South Africa);

‍“Instead of transitioning away from fossil fuels, many African countries, like much of the world, are still exploring new fossil fuel projects. This perpetuates the cycle of climate change and its devastating effects on our communities. It is crucial to recognize that the people affected by these activities are real individuals with lives that matter just as much as those in countries that benefit from the expansion of fossil fuels.

We, the people of Africa, are committed to raising awareness about the detrimental impact of fossil fuel expansion and holding those involved accountable. The voices of those directly affected by these activities must be amplified, and we support efforts to challenge the pursuit of corporate profits without regard to the destruction of life on our planet.

While Africa may seem distant to some, it is a place of great importance to the millions of people who call it home. The climate emergency is a universal challenge that requires a collective and unwavering commitment to sustainable and climate-resilient solutions. We urge Elsevier to reconsider its involvement in activities that perpetuate the climate emergency and to prioritize the well-being of communities and the planet.” (Hermice Dossa, President of Healthy Climate Action NGO)

For validation of its “science-based” climate targets, RELX has chosen SBTi, an organization that permits non-financial businesses to continue facilitating fossil fuel expansion. SBTi is under investigation by the U.S. government and that has been criticized in by one of its original instigators for targets that neglect to include “historic responsibility for emissions — a core tenet of the Paris Agreement” as well as “the only way to enact climate justice.”

Elsevier’s Global Head of Sustainability perceives “accountability” as being “what climate justice is all about” and that the fundamental job for climate action “is to make sure that the science that we base any decision on is good and replicable and reliable.” Yet Elsevier papers continue to support industry justifications for fossil fuel expansion with inaccurate claims that natural gas is ‘clean,’ ‘low-carbon,’ ‘green,’ and ‘environmentally friendly’—with RELX promoting it as a ‘key transition fuel.’ Elsevier’s advocacy for information sharing for the sake of “climate justice" lacks credibility when crucial information in its journals helps to rationalize the goals of Western businesses planning a fossil future for Africa. A recent Elsevier special issue was focused on overcoming “the many remaining geological uncertainties and exploration and exploitation technical challenges” in “conventional and unconventional natural gas resources in Africa and Middle East regions.”

In a 2021 podcast, RELX Corporate Responsibility asked a guest about "ensuring equity when it comes to access to energy in Africa in particular. But also the reliance of a number of states like Nigeria, Kenya, on oil production, which really helps with the economic development of those countries." The guest attempted to push back on this perspective: "I’m sorry, but I still feel that even in Nigeria they should be focusing on new forms of energy, and that is solar and wind. The oil should stay in the ground, I’m sorry. And the rest of Africa, frankly, they should be focusing on solar energy because they have more solar energy than we do here in Europe…I hope I’ve helped you on the Africa situation.” RELX amplifying misinformation that fossil fuels are what “developing nations need and can afford" provides fuel for policymakers to do the same. But the reality remains that this type of development is devastating Africa’s natural environment, people, and communities—as well as our climate.

The Global North using Africa’s desire for development as a colonialist excuse to extract as much gas as possible for its own use and profit is not a "socially accepted energy transition." RELX promoting actions to address the environmental racism of the petrochemical industry is undermined by it sponsoring an award for a CEO whose business is described as "committed to growing its global petrochemicals and plastics business." Simply noting that “effective policies” are needed—some to curb the very business activities Elsevier is informing—does not generate consistency with climate goals or human rights standards. Maintaining a global “energy mix” does not require expansion that’s condemning vulnerable populations to the overwhelming effects of fossil fuel lock-in and an unstable climate. Pushing fossil fuels on Africa is not “necessary.” It is not “climate justice.”

Below are other voices from the Global South addressing RELX’s business decisions:

‍“To label yourselves an important academic journal [publisher] while contributing to death and destruction through your promotion of fossil fuels is beyond unethical. The people who are affected—our family members, colleagues, and friends—are real people with lives that matter just as much as those in the countries most profiting from the expansion of fossil fuels.” (Barani Dalbot & staff, The Institute of Wellbeing, Bangladesh)

“We earnestly request companies like Elsevier to continue support for renewables but to reconsider their involvement with companies and activities that are contributing to the climate crisis - and to prioritize the welfare of communities and the Earth. It is well past the time for the global community to end support for new hydrocarbons and fossil fuel companies that are misaligned with our net zero goals.” (Project Affected People’s Association, India)

“The actions of Elsevier/RELX, in light of UN human rights guidelines and climatejustice principles, warrant careful public consideration. We encourage the company to attentively listen to the concerns of those impacted by climate change and acknowledge the potential risks associated with its ongoing engagement in fossil fuels to safeguard its broader business interests.” (Myron Mendes, The Indian Network on Ethics and Climate Change)

RELX has amplified Shell's call for expanding gas resources for the purpose of achieving net zero, describing it as a "clean" energy. Elsevier papers substantiate this claim, describing gas as "a clean and low-carbon fossil fuel." (Natural Gas Industry B) They claim natural gas has “emerged as a pivotal and promising clean energy resource with immense potential for commercial development.” (Gas Science and Engineering) Due to concerns for a “global clean energy shortage” and “environmental pollution caused by the burning of conventional fuels,” natural gas is presented as “a potential source of clean energy with vast resources widely distributed in permafrost and marine sediments.” (Fuel)

The "exploitation and exploration of non-conventional hydrocarbon resources” of shale gas is being promoted as “crucial given the rising demand for clean energy on a global scale.” (Rock Mechanics Bulletin) Shale gas is presented as “a clean and low-carbon natural gas resource, (Gas Science and Engineering) a "clean energy," (International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements) the "green energy of the future," (Geoscience Frontiers) an “efficient and clean low-carbon energy,” (Applied Energy) a "key contributor to the clean energy landscape," (Journal of Molecular Liquids) a "resource-rich clean energy," (Engineering Fracture Mechanics) a "green energy" (Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics) and “an environmentally friendly fossil energy” with “immense potential” (Petroleum Science) that's "contributing significantly to environmental conservation." (International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer)

At RELX, LexisNexis offers practice notes and legal guidance serving new LNG projects, while the ICIS LNG Edge platform houses ICIS’ entire suite of global LNG market intelligence—including an LNG contracts database and educating users on "risks and opportunities" in gas and LNG (a "key transition fuel"). ICIS promotes gas and LNG as "building blocks for change" in "decarbonising the economy" by replacing "more polluting fuels."

REALITY

Fossil fuel companies and their allies are portraying natural gas as a green, climate-friendly 'transition fuel.' A U.S. Senate report concluded this messaging is deceptive and dangerous, as the industry internally acknowledges there is significant scientific evidence that the lifecycle emissions from natural gas are as harmful to the climate as coal and are incompatible with scientific emissions reduction targets. Elsevier's promotion of the industry talking point that gas is a safe "transitional fuel" misleads policymakers. Experts warn gas development impedes a just energy transition and risks increasing warming far beyond 1.5°C.

The parity between gas and coal shifts for liquefied gas: In 2023, 170 scientists signed a letter asking U.S. President Joe Biden to reject plans to build more LNG export terminals on the grounds that liquefied gas is “worse for the climate than coal.” New LNG projects could produce 10 gigatonnes of emissions by the end of the decade, close to the annual emissions of all coal plants, rendering them "incompatible with climate goal objectives." Presenting LNG as "clean" is satire for some, but for RELX it remains serious business. RELX's chosen partners and customers, ones that it promotes as "transitioning," are "locking in demand long term."
‍
With regards to fracking—the method used for shale gas extraction—it's long been considered “more damaging to the climate than coal.” As methane emissions continue to rise, new satellite data suggest methane emissions from such projects have long been underestimated. Additionally, it’s been observed that natural gas infrastructure being developed to accommodate new discoveries of this “environmentally friendly fossil energy” is a deep threat to any just energy transition.

As found in a 2025 report, industry misinformation—such as "promoting fossil gas as a 'low-carbon fuel'"—is "turning the [climate] crisis into a catastrophe."

RELX has pointed to its facilitation of oil and gas exploration as being necessary for addressing "a worldwide energy crisis." (2022) Papers in Elsevier's portfolio also justify the fossil fuel expansion being informed by them by claiming hydrocarbon expansion is needed to meet demand. Some examples from 2024 papers:
‍
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences: X: The increasing demand for hydrocarbon fossil fuels and the expansion of the petroleum industry, driven by their substantial resource potentials, have led researchers to focus on unconventional petroleum sources, such as shale gas, as well as deep petroleum systems
‍
Journal of Molecular Liquids: As global energy needs rise and conventional oil and gas reserves dwindle, shale oil has emerged as a key focus for the petroleum industry
‍
Gas Science and Engineering: The exploration and development of shale gas plays a vital role in addressing energy crisis
‍
Geoenergy Science and Engineering: To meet the huge energy demand, the application of extended-reach wells in the development of oil and gas is becoming increasingly widespread
‍
Energy: In light of escalating global energy demands and the gradual depletion of conventional energy reserves, shale oil, an unconventional energy resource with immense potential, has garnered significant attention and has been the subject of extensive research.
‍
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering: As the demand for oil and gas increases, exploration and production efforts of these resources have been extended to ever-greater depths.
‍
Petroleum Science: The rapid advancement of the society and economy cannot be achieved without a stable supply of energy. Consequently, the demand of oil consumption is increasing at a rapid rate

Results in Earth Sciences: The escalating global demand for energy has driven extensive research into the depositional environments and petrophysical properties of reservoir sands, which are crucial for discovering new petroleum resources.”
‍‍
Fuel: Owing to the ever-increasing global energy consumption and gradually depleted conventional oil and gas resources, researchers are extraordinarily focusing on unconventional oil and gas development
‍
Journal of Cleaner Production: World economic growth results in an increasing demand for fossil fuels. Meanwhile, conventional oil and gas resources have become considerably difficult to meet the ever-increasing energy demands. Consequently, the current focus on energy exploitation is shifting to unconventional oil and gas resources
‍
Applied Thermal Energy: How to meet the growing energy needs of human society? Improving the recovery rate of shale gas is an important way.
‍
Geoenergy Science and Engineering: To meet energy demands and ensure energy security, the development of unconventional oil and gas resources, such as shale gas and coalbed methane, has gained significant attention.

Ocean Engineering: To meet the ever-growing demand for oil and gas, the offshore oil-gas industry has extended into deepwater and ultra-deepwater areas.

Heliyon: Expansion of shale gas can lead to increased supply of energy, and ultimately leading to cheap energy prices for both residential and industrial users.
‍
Gas Science and Engineering: Unconventional gas like shale gas, natural gas hydrate, coalbed methane is playing an increasingly important role in meeting the energy demands all over the world.

Process Safety and Environmental Protection: To fulfill the global demand for petroleum fuels, there is an imperative need to expedite the exploration of heavy oil resources...The global demand for heavy oil continues to rise, driven by the need for sustainable and reliable energy sources. The efficient extraction of heavy oil through in-situ combustion is crucial for meeting this demand.
‍
Petroleum Science: Unconventional reservoirs, especially shale gas or tight oil reservoirs, have emerged as promising contributors to the global energy demand
‍
Fluid Dynamics and Materials Processing: With the depletion of conventional oil and gas resources and the steady growth of global energy consumption, the interest in unconventional oil and gas resources has steadily increased

Materials Today Communications: The amount of oil produced cannot meet people's demand for oil…it is particularly important to choose a new method to enhance oil recovery
‍
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering: With the increasing global demand for oil and gas and the progress of mining technology, more countries have focused on shale gas
‍
Geoenergy Science and Engineering: With the increasing global demand for crude oil, the depletion of light oil reserves, and advancements in hydrocarbon resources exploitation technology, the proportion of heavy oil in exploitation accounts is rising

International Journal of Thermofluids: Methane gas production from unconventional reservoirs, such as shale formations, is in high demand due to the global energy needs.
‍
Geoenergy Science and Engineering: Oil shale represents a highly significant unconventional hydrocarbon resource in the contemporary era marked by extreme resource scarcity. Its immense strategic value lies in its potential as a substantial supplement to future oil and gas energy needs.
‍
Marine and Petroleum Geology: The continuous rise in demand for oil and gas has pushed exploration to drill in deep and ultra-deepwater and towards unconventional petroleum systems, such as shale gas/oil, enhancing the necessity of identifying and constraining source rocks
‍
Energy: The increasing demand for fossil energy necessitates forecasting of reservoir performance and informed decision-making under various production scenarios…The continuous economic growth of a country relies heavily on a consistent supply of energy to meet its basic needs.

International Journal of Coal Geology: The exploitation of shale reservoirs has increased significantly in several parts of the world due to the increasing demand for energy resources.
‍
Fuel: As the world's second-largest economy, China's demand for oil continues to rise in tandem with its sustained economic growth
‍
Geoenergy Science and Engineering: The continental clastic reservoirs mainly distributed in the eastern region of China are regarded as the “ballast stones” for ensuring national energy security
‍
Organic Geochemistry: With increasing oil demand this study enhances our knowledge of petroleum geochemistry, especially crude oil samples discovered in the Dongpu Depression and the Bohai Bay Basin.

Petroleum Science: With the increasing demand of hydrocarbon energy, carbonate reservoirs, one of the most important oil and gas resources widely distributed worldwide, presents substantial exploitation potential.

Journal of Natural Gas Geoscience: Petroleum resources are one of the important energy sources for human survival.
‍
Fuel: As an essential portion of unconventional oil resources, the efficient and economical extraction of heavy oil and bitumen becomes paramount in satisfying the demand for fossil fuels
‍
International Journal of Mining Science and Technology: To meet the soaring energy need, hydrocarbon has been still the majority of the world’s energy consumption. A large unconventional natural gas resource has been identified within deep coal seams worldwide
‍
Applied Energy: Assist in the enhancement of hydrocarbon production from immature oil shale reservoirs, and further improve energy security.

REALITY

Along with being inconsistent with the aims of the Paris Agreement, new fossil fuel projects are not needed to meet global energy demands. RELX has amplified Saudi Aramco's call for fossil fuel investment (2024) under the premise that's what "developing nations need and can afford," but renewables are actually cheaper. The Executive Director of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change has noted that there is "clearly a strategy to retain our dependence on fossil fuels by scare-mongering — a claim that the alternative would be disastrous." With fossil fuel subsidies on the rise and exploration surging, she observes that countries are "talking investment in fossil fuels with the excuse of solving the energy crisis." Oil majors such as Chevron openly promote that they're increasing oil and gas production to meet "energy demand." U.S. President Trump, who obtained the RELX PAC's financial support in the 2024 election, declares an energy ‘emergency' to justify more oil and gas drilling. Sources for such deceptive narratives can also be found in Elsevier's fossil fuel-oriented content, materials that omit the fact that development of new fossil fuel resources is a deep threat to human rights and the health of the planet.

In 2018, RELX business ICIS noted "the winds of change" in Saudi Arabia's SaudiVision 2030, "a plan that will reduce Saudi Arabia’s dependence on oil." In 2020, ICIS sponsored an award given to Saudi Aramco's CEO, who promoted its mission to "support a cleaner future for our planet" and that "climate protection is at the top of our priorities and receives our highest attention." A 2023 RELX (ICIS) news article promoted Saudi Aramco’s aims for "net-zero greenhouse gas emissions across its assets by 2050,” which is “in line with Saudi Arabia’s target of achieving net-zero emissions by 2060.” It also promoted Saudi Arabia as hosting the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) Climate Week 2023. Elsevier's Global Director of Sustainability moderated a panel at the 2023 Global SDG conference in Saudi Arabia titled, Clean Energy Focus in the Middle East. The event description promotes the Middle East’s “fast-paced ambition is to lead in renewable energy” and the Saudi Arabian government’s economic blueprint, “Vision 2030.” The “clean energy in the region” is noted as a source of inspiration for the world as “it will contribute to a sustainable future for all.” In 2024, the Aramco CEO's promotion of "Aramco and Saudi Arabia [having] a clear interest in solar, wind, hydrogen, and electro fuels" was amplified by RELX (ICIS).

REALITY

The reality is that Saudi Arabia is obstructing climate action and “working to keep fossil fuels at the center of the world economy for decades to come,” a strategy neglecting “that the world must swiftly move away from fossil fuels, including oil and gas, to avoid the worst consequences of global warming.” Saudi Arabia, a top contributor to US higher education, works to cast doubt on electric vehicles, and pushed at the United Nations global climate summit in Egypt to block a call for the world to burn less oil and a rapid oil phase-out. Saudi Aramco, which has had employees serving on Elsevier journals, [NOTE: changes made following the launch of this website; other Aramco examples here and here] “envisions a world where it will be selling even more” oil, with the big threat being any “lack of investment in oil and gas.” Saudi Arabia and Saudi Aramco’s leadership—which will increase natural gas production by more than 50% by 2030—believe the industry should invest more in new oil supply. The Saudi Ministry of Energy has said hydrocarbons would “continue to be an essential part of the global energy mix for decades," a talking point also being used by RELX, deflecting from the fact that new projects need to have stopped. Like other oil majors, Saudi Aramco’s "net zero" target excludes scope-3 emissions, which cover emissions from the burning of their products.

In 2023, United Nations human rights investigators warned Saudi Aramco and companies still facilitating oil and gas expansion that they are at risk of generating deep human rights harms. Despite this, the CEO of Saudi Aramco declared in 2024, "we should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas," with Saudi Arabia labeled a 'wrecking ball' at global climate talks. This man received a 2020 award sponsored by RELX division ICIS. ICIS amplified his 2024 call for more investment in fossil fuels "amid growing oil demand." As LexisNexis attests, a key goal under Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 is to invite foreign investment. LexisNexis offers materials that cover procedures for obtaining a foreign investment license in new oil and gas projects, while ICIS partners with the Aramco/Dow petrochemical company Sadara, operator of "the world’s largest petrochemical facility, locking in capital, infrastructure, and organizations in continued fossil dependence for decades. The connections and lock-ins that characterize the petrochemical industry make it of central concern for the global energy transition and the need to phase out fossil fuels.” Saudi Arabia has simultaneously worked to thwart global efforts that would curb plastic production.

Along with the fossil fuel industry, Elsevier has promoted carbon capture (CCS or CCUS) "emission-reduction" technologies as being able to broadly “remove existing carbon dioxide emissions" and "store them safely and effectively.” CCS is framed as having a significant role in supporting the energy industry’s "emission reduction goals,” "sustainable business model[s]," and "net-zero initiatives." CCUS has been promoted and framed by Elsevier as enabling "large-scale emissions reduction" for oil major customers with a "commitment to advance a lower-carbon world." Elsevier has presented CCUS as contributing to the "#SDGs" by enabling the removal of excess carbon "to make carbon-free energy vectors from #FossilFuels."

A 2023 guest on RELX's Corporate Responsibility podcast described the technology this way: “Storing CO2 that’s been extracted from the atmosphere permanently...provide[s] the opportunity for the capture project to generate carbon credits that can be sold and traded…CCS contributes positively to the majority of the SDGs” and “can reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly and deeply.” The researcher, an employee of TNO, was on the podcast to promote an Elsevier book that presents CSS as "a proven technology." It also references an Elsevier paper that finds "CCS is ‘indivisible’ with SDG 13 regarding combating climate change" and "does not prohibit the achievement of any other SDG." RELX has also promoted this paper, co-authored by employees of TNO and IEAGHG, on the SDG Resource Center.

REALITY

That paper was funded by IEAGHG, an organization dedicated to "accelerat[ing] the deployment of CCUS and carbon dioxide removals projects worldwide." With members including BP, Chevron, Eni, Equinor, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies, the paper explicitly indicates that IEAGHG and its members assume no liability for the "accuracy, completeness or usefulness" of the information in it. In reality, this criminally deceptive industry is backing off its "emission reduction goals" and CCS is not carbon negative or neutral—it is not a climate solution but a false one, pushed by industry to prevent the phasing out of fossil fuels.

The current strategies for reducing emissions to net zero by the middle of the century being endorsed by the fossil fuel industry implausibly assume that the world will acquire great capabilities to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Plans for keeping climate change to 1.5°C targets generally include CCS, but "none envisage it as more than a small part of a large mix of approaches." The reality is that entire efficacy of the carbon capture process has been called into question by the IPCC. RELX (LexisNexis) emphasizes that a benefit of CCS is that it counters criticism of oil and gas expansion by framing it as "green-friendly" and that it would be "‘virtually impossible’ for the world to meet its climate targets without it, according to the International Energy Agency." But the IEA has made it clear the industry needs to let go of "the illusion that implausibly large amounts of carbon capture are the solution." This illusion has been echoed for years in RELX's annual Corporate Responsibility report, regarding a 1.5°C pathway: "Carbon capture and storage will need to be widespread to remove excess carbon from the atmosphere." (This assumption seems to violate the UN Race to Zero guideline that members "not make unrealistic assumptions on development and deployment of future technologies.")

As an Elsevier editor said in a 2021 presentation that highlighted the "anti-climate change propaganda" of Elsevier's oil major customers, "in order to make [net zero] work, we have to reserve [CCS] for these truly residual emissions. We can't use them as an excuse not to decarbonize our other sectors." A U.S. Senate report has found industry promotion of CCS is "inconsistent with statements the companies make in internal documents" and that "fossil fuel giants view publicizing CCS without actually deploying it at scale as a method to ensure that fossil fuels like natural gas are used for as long as possible." Proponents of CCS “assume that we can burn more coal, produce more oil, and still keep the world below 1.5 degrees," with carbon capture technology "a PR fig leaf designed to help Big Oil delay the phaseout of fossil fuels."

A 2020 Elsevier paper found that deployable carbon capture technologies at the required scales do not exist; it is unproven “magical thinking” that’s “extremely expensive and cannot deliver zero emissions.” A Shell carbon capture plant a RELX expo has promoted as exceeding its targets was found to emit more carbon than it's captured. Observers see CCS is a "proven failure," not developed "to stop climate change, but to actually drive up the consumption of coal, oil and gas." The industry is pushing it because it “enables oil and gas producers to continue to source fossil fuels for energy” and fossil fuel lock-in. It's a "dangerous distraction," and a license for them to continue "oil and gas expansion" and “ramp up emissions.” Guest editors for a 2024 Elsevier special issue of a CCUS conference include representatives of big oil and industry-funded research groups that are aiming to sustain fossil fuel expansion. UN secretary-general António Guterres gas has accused fossil fuel producers of justifying expansion by using CCUS “proposals to become more efficient planet wreckers.”

A majority of global CCS plants are in fact being used to extract even more fossil fuels. An Elsevier website notes "there is a high cost to capturing carbon and dumping it into a cavern, so its use in EOR [enhanced oil recovery] makes economic sense"—and promotes "Knovel and other Elsevier sources" for engineers working in CCS. Occidental Petroleum is one such customer, using “Elsevier’s research tools” to “make informed decisions and improve outcomes” with CO₂capture—supposedly enabling “large-scale emissions reduction[s]” to “advance a lower-carbon world.” RELX has amplified Oxy's claim that it has "net-zero ambitions and [is] helping the world meet the Paris Agreement’s climate goals." (2022)

In reality, Oxy is marketing bogus “net zero” (or “carbon neutral”) oil while utilizing CO₂ EOR to increase oil supplies for a “carbon-intensive future” featuring the “indefinite production of dirty oil.” The CEO of Oxy, labeled a “climate criminal” who promotes net zero plans with zero credibility, sees carbon capture as a “long-lasting business” that generates “no reason not to produce oil and gas forever.” This is why there's been a huge increase in lobbying for government support for the technology, despite it being a waste of money that could go to renewables in support of the urgent need to move away from fossil fuels. As founding member of the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change, The Lancet has declared: "Phasing out fossil fuels would prevent 3.6 million deaths due to ambient air pollution worldwide annually. The same cannot be said for proposed false solutions, such as carbon capture and storage, which do little to protect health and introduce new risks."
‍
In contrast, Elsevier has emphasized that CCS projects can benefit society by "reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change," but this misrepresents the realistic scope of its effective deployment and that it's clearly being used by oil major customers to generate fossil fuel lock-in. The company has acknowledged that EOR does have "several drawbacks, most importantly, environmental impacts in the form of increased seismic activity" (emphasis added)—but adds that it offers firms enticing "financial incentives to explore" in the form of tax credits and grants.

"Blue hydrogen" is hydrogen produced from fossil fuels in which the “mature technology” of carbon capture is used. "The carbon dioxide (CO2) generated from [blue hydrogen] operations is captured," claimed ICIS, a division of RELX, in 2021. Blue hydrogen can potentially be "a close-to-zero carbon fuel that could be produced at scale," making "low-carbon" blue hydrogen "a massive opportunity in the global energy transition." ICIS more recently promoted ExxonMobil's blue hydrogen as part of its "low-carbon strategy." The utilization of CCS strategy, claims a recent Elsevier paper, “remarkably reduc[es] the carbon,” rendering blue hydrogen “a relatively clean fuel.” Another publication frames blue hydrogen, with very low methane emissions and very high carbon removal rates, as “clean hydrogen, the same classification as green hydrogen.” A 2023 review article identifies it as “a key tool to reach a low-carbon economy” and “an ever-important necessity to enable decarbonisation at a rate to ensure Net Zero by 2050.” Similarly, another paper claims that the use of blue hydrogen “has been shown to significantly reduce CO2 emissions.”

In 2024, RELX acquired the Sustainable Energy Conferences and its array of hydrogen-oriented conferences as part of a “strategy to expand in the growing low carbon sector,” claiming hydrogen is “crucial to ensure a decarbonised energy future” and will “significantly contribute to reaching net-zero goals.” RELX claims its hydrogen efforts “bring together world leaders to build a sustainable energy future.” For its energy customers, ICIS is looking at the “capacity for blue hydrogen as grey hydrogen phases out between now and 2050…[and] we can look at our models and we can forecast exactly what that demand is going to be.” (Video) The demand for blue hydrogen is growing significantly, driven by the perception that it's a low carbon fuel.

REALITY

The science is “undeniable” that blue hydrogen is “a fossil fuel-derived chemical masquerading as an energy solution” that is “neither clean nor low-carbon.” Greenhouse gas emissions from the production of blue hydrogen are, in fact, “quite high" and ”more emissions-intensive than simply burning fossil gas to begin with." Blue hydrogen as a “clean” energy is a myth, resting “on the viability of carbon capture and storage technology at scale and addressing fugitive emissions of methane.” Such production of blue hydrogen does not exist and even 90% capture is “incompatible with net zero.” To be a clean fuel, “its production would need to have almost no carbon dioxide or methane emissions,” both unlikely to be realized “in the real world.” Although the climate credentials of blue hydrogen have been thoroughly debunked by scientists without fossil fuel ties as another industry “marketing scam,” Elsevier papers justify natural gas expansion due to the need for “carbon neutrality and blue hydrogen.” Others note that “abundant” and “vast fossil fuel resources” are available to be developed for “meeting large-scale demands of hydrogen” via CCS—even though such plans “result in huge emissions” that are “worse than fossil fuels.”

Evidence indicates that “the marketing hype surrounding blue hydrogen as a clean energy source is based on false and misleading claims – also known as greenwashing.” While providing “little or no benefit for transitioning to a carbon-free future,” investment in hydrogen infrastructures is actually “the largest share among the sustainable solutions by oil and gas companies.” The industry is simultaneously undertaking vast lobbying efforts to secure billions in subsidies to support CSS and blue hydrogen. Employing a strategy that “perpetuates our reliance on fossil fuels,” oil majors like ExxonMobil are touting blue hydrogen as having a “vital role in a lower-carbon energy system.” A 2022 Elsevier paper funded by SINTEF Industry—Equinor's biggest research partner that’s joined with oil and gas entities to provide “strategic guidance and investment support” for the export of blue hydrogen—also portrays blue hydrogen as a “clean” and “vital technology class for oil & gas producers” that allows for “continue[d] profitable energy exports.”

The industry has recognized that if it can’t “get the world hooked on hydrogen made from methane, it will face a declining market due to economic competition from renewable power.” Another Elsevier paper promoting blue hydrogen states this clearly: the industry must adapt “to ensure that these [hydrocarbon] resources will continue to maintain their share in the global energy mix and generate high economic returns.” To aid these efforts, the authors propose “a concept through which crude oils and petroleum products can be marketed as low-carbon footprint energy sources.” Insisting that limit global heating “to 1.5 °C necessitates wide-scale introduction of hydrogen,” blue hydrogen is promoted as providing the industry with a way to meet world energy needs with reduced CO2 emissions for decades beyond 2050. This paper was co-authored by employees of the Petroleum Research Center, which supports Kuwait’s oil industry in reservoir characterization and its goal to increase production as it moves to developing “deeper and more difficult oil.”

Supporting the development of blue hydrogen will directly help the industry to achieve these goals—while contributing to the irreversible harms associated with increasing emissions. This support also comes in the form of industry-funded Elsevier content that seeks to promote public acceptance of "clean" blue hydrogen. A 2024 study, sponsored by the UK's largest gas distribution network, sees “hydrogen strategies…as a critical pillar of climate change policy” and the “important roles for both ‘blue’ and ‘green’ hydrogen to meet net zero ambitions.” The study seeks to find methods of “information exposure” that can generate “a socially acceptable pathway” to public acceptance of both green and blue hydrogen (“twin-track”). The study expresses a concern that, “should a negative social representation of the twin-track approach manifest within the public consciousness, there is palpable risk of consumer resistance towards the domestic hydrogen switchover, which may undermine the broader transition to a national hydrogen economy.” It highlights that “scepticism over blue hydrogen appears more probable when consumers are actively engaged in environmental issues.”

Along with other companies involved in promoting the development of new hydrocarbons, Elsevier points to activity aligned with sustainability-oriented corporate initiatives, reinforcing such mechanisms as effective in generating positive outcomes. Elsevier’s Global Head of Sustainability boasts that “between 2019 and 2020, about 41.2% of publications published in Fuel were linked to the SDGs [Sustainable Development Goals], including 27% related specifically to Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy and 14.3% related to Goal 13: Climate Action.”

Pledges such as UN Race to Zero, the UN Global Compact, and others, describe a company that would not be fueling climate change the way that RELX does. Its code of ethics implies that RELX wouldn't be misleading the public and spreading fossil fuel industry misinformation.

REALITY

Extensive Elsevier-published research shows that companies use the SDGs and other voluntary initiatives largely symbolically, mapping existing initiatives onto the SDGs to greenwash and manage their reputation at the expense of societal needs. Corporations face little to no consequences for non-compliance with voluntary initiatives that ultimately don’t entice firms to end destructive activity in the face of revenue considerations.

In this way, Elsevier can point to Fuel as being indicative of the company’s SDG-alignment, when in fact the journal publishes extensive content aiding “risk assessment in oil exploration” and new oil field development, revealing “unconventional production potential,” and generating “future petroleum exploration”—activity that by 2021 was determined to be entirely at odds with the possibility of achieving the actual aims of the SDGs. Promotion of such ineffective initiatives enables companies still supporting fossil fuel expansion to deflect criticism with an image of sustainability.

A 2021 email to RELX Corporate Responsibility indicated that "it’s unclear what threshold of premature deaths RELX considers to be impactful enough to discontinue a product or service," with a follow-up email asking what RELX policies prohibit. Another follow-up to RELX Corporate Responsibility in 2022 indicated that "there remains genuine and avoidable confusion at the company regarding what our environmental, ethical, and human rights policies do in fact prohibit. It may be helpful for people at all levels of the company to understand these things better, especially given leadership’s plan to continue offering products and services that facilitate fossil fuel expansion beyond this year, activity which experts universally regard as antithetical to our pledges and a livable planet." The reply affirmed RELX's commitment to serving fossil fuel companies in their "energy transition."

Management responses to a 2022 report on greenwashing and management practices included claims that the Company does not generate any misinformation, employees should refrain from using that term, that the RELX Board disapproves of employees documenting their observations in reports, and they should have positive (“glass half full”) feelings about the Company.

Regarding Race to Zero, an editor at One Earth in 2022 made it clear that he pressed Anne Kitson, Elsevier's Premium Brands Director, on RELX addressing the misrepresentations in its Race to Zero pledge: "I have made the point that in many respects, this is less about whether the company is doing the right or wrong thing more generally (although there are of course fundamental issues there) but specifically about how we have signed a pledge (without paying sufficient attention to the small print) and now much either a) abide by that pledge or b) withdraw). I am pushing for management to commission an independent audit of the company’s activities." Another inquiry was subsequently made by another Cell Press employee to RELX Corporate Responsibility and RELX Compliance: "Leadership has confirmed we’re going to continue maintaining some commercial commitments that contradict our environmental pledges, despite a pledge that no function of the company is conflicting with our sustainability commitments. While our messaging indicates that the company’s climate actions are 'science led' and in line with the scale of action deemed necessary by science, we’ve been unable to find a climate scientist who agrees. Could you help explain why and to what extent these types of marketing statements are exempt from the company’s restrictions on making misleading statements about the company?" A follow-up message was also sent: "Since the science is clear that the world continuing fossil fuel expansion renders our global net zero and warming goals realistically unachievable (not to mention the SDGs—or the massive loss of life associated with such activity), we’ve found no credible scientist to testify that the company is being truthful in its statements. This echoes the findings of many colleagues that have already made this known to leadership. With the company admitting (internally to some) that it has no intention to honor our latest [Race to Zero] pledge—to end our facilitation of fossil fuel expansion by June 15—we’re continuing to deceive customers, investors, current employees, and have been prohibited from disclosing this activity to prospective employees. While it’s the company’s right to do this, stakeholders like me are wondering why and how false claims are determined to be exempt from our ethical commitments around how we achieve our business goals." No response was provided.

In 2023, a sustainability leader was provided with an employee advocacy group update PDF, which questioned why RELX had "Not issue[d] a correction after an email was sent to the 1.5K employees in STMJ informing them that our Company, in keeping with its Race to Zero pledge, will stop facilitating fossil fuel expansion after June 2023—a pledge we still uphold while commercial commitments won’t allow us to meet its requirements." It also highlighted unanswered questions that had been sent to Compliance and HR:

1) "The company’s publicly claiming through our Race to Zero membership that by mid-June it will refrain from facilitating fossil fuel expansion, while internally leadership has conceded it will not do this. Why is this deception considered compatible with the ethics code and the Do the Right Thing principles?"

2) "Due to the company’s continued facilitation of fossil fuel expansion, there are zero known credible climate scientists who agree with leadership’s claim it is responding to the crisis “at the scale deemed necessary by science.” Leadership has conceded we’re continuing to maintain fossil fuel-expanding commercial activities—despite the objections of the research communities we serve—but simultaneously claiming the business’ climate commitment is “science led”. Why is this deception considered compatible with the ethics code and the Do the Right Thing principles?"

Such questions remained unanswered.

In 2024, a lawsuit was filed addressing RELX's use of voluntary initiatives to deceive shareholders, the SEC, and other stakeholders.

“RELX appears to have signed up to the UN Race to Zero Initiative and the Race to Zero Initiative has recently updated and strengthened its criteria…So maybe that is a case for them cutting back their work [promoting] fossil fuel exploration and use?” —Dr. Steve Smith, Oxford Net Zero (July 2022)

“I would say your interpretation is correct…our starting line criteria says: ‘Pledge at the head-of-organisation level to reach (net) zero GHGs as soon as possible, and by 2050 at the latest, in line with the scientific consensus on the global effort needed to limit warming to 1.5C with no or limited overshoot, recognising that this requires phasing down and out all unabated fossil fuels as part of a global, just transition.'” —Race to Zero Policy & Engagement Lead, Climate Champions (2023)
‍
“It was rejected because their activity was inherently related to [fossil fuel] production despite not being a producer. So, from my sector perspective, if you are an enabler, you don’t make the cut.” —Global Energy Cluster Lead, Climate Champions, on a company promoting fossil fuel extraction being rejected by UN Race to Zero (2023)

"It is an industry that has already contributed to the suffering of many millions of people across the planet [and] has repeatedly stood in the way of technical progress towards a cleaner, better world. This is the industry Elsevier decided to work with while talking about the importance of sustainability."

—Paul Behrens, Associate Professor of Energy and Environmental Change, Leiden University, and Speaker at Elsevier's 2021 SUSTAIN Festival

"The longer these companies hold on to their social license to operate the longer they can maximise their production.”

—Elsevier paper: White Knights, or Horsemen of the Apocalypse?, 2021

"[Fossil fuel] enablers are still racing to expand production, knowing full well that their business model is inconsistent with human survival.”

—UN Secretary-General António Guterres (2023)

Greenwashing

The Union of Concerned Scientists and Scientists for Global Responsibility have concluded that the company is engaged in greenwashing and labeled RELX's stance that it's focused on a transition as being "demonstrably false." The company has oil and gas customers with no science-based, just transition plans, but plans that are fundamentally altering the planet's capacity to sustain life. RELX has made a variety of statements and pledges that give the impression that it would not be involved in aiding such businesses. After a 2021 employee ethics complaint, RELX forbid the reporter from sharing any copyrighted content such as the materials below without the permission of Elsevier's Premium Brands Director or RELX's Head of Corporate Responsibility. The company then removed and altered some of its marketing materials to better match its sustainability narratives, but has fallen short of ending support for new fossil fuel projects—activity carrying deep human rights risks.

Former content

Altered content

R&D—Oil and Gas:
"Solutions for Oil and Gas"

R&D—Sustainability and climate change: "Solutions for a Sustainable World"

R&D: Oil and gas company testimonials

R&D: "For sustainable growth in energy and mining"

R&D—exploration and production: Drive E&P investment decisions

R&D: "Scientific insights for net-zero transition"

Books: "An abundance of important topics within the oil, chemical, and petrochemical engineering fields."

Books: "An abundance of important topics within sustainable oil, natural gas, chemical, and petrochemical engineering fields."

R&D ScienceDirect: "ScienceDirect literature review is vital to successful evaluations”

CONTENT REMOVED

R&D ScienceDirect: "Oil and gas researchers are accelerating their discoveries."

CONTENT REMOVED

R&D Solutions: "Oil and gas going green"

CONTENT REMOVED

R&D—Knovel: "Enable confident investment in oil and gas exploration and production"

CONTENT REMOVED

R&D—Knovel: "Next generation of CO2-enhanced oil recovery"

CONTENT REMOVED

R&D—Knovel: "Reducing risk in Exploration and Production investments"

CONTENT REMOVED

R&D: "Accelerate exploration efforts"

CONTENT REMOVED

R&D: Oil and Gas: "Do More With Less"

CONTENT REMOVED

R&D—Knovel Oil and Gas: "Accelerated discoveries"

CONTENT REMOVED

R&D—Knovel Oil and Gas: "Enhanced Oil Recovery"

CONTENT REMOVED

R&D—Oil and Gas Promo Video: "Exploration has never been more seamless."

CONTENT REMOVED

R&D—Deepwater Exploration: Locate “hydrocarbon accumulations that we couldn’t find before”

CONTENT REMOVED

R&D—Knovel:
"Knovel helps oil and gas companies achieve operational excellence and reduce risk in an unpredictable environment

CONTENT REMOVED

R&D Solutions for OIL& GAS EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION:
The Best Path to Operational Excellence May Require Being More Innovative.

CONTENT REMOVED

R&D—Oil and Gas:
"Solutions and data for the oil and gas industry that increase productivity"

CONTENT REMOVED
(September 2023)

"We need to make sure that we are definitely focused on data for good. Our colleagues are doing just that."

—Dr. Márcia Balisciano, Global Head of Corporate Responsibility, RELX
'Unique Contributions' podcast, 2021

"Fossil fuels are the greatest contributor to climate change. Allowing the continued expansion of this industry is unconscionable."

—Muhammad Yunus
Keynote speaker at RELX SDG Inspiration Day (2021) and endorser of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty

"It is vital that businesses firstly identify their full [...] impact on the whole of the environment, not exclusively their carbon emissions and pollution."

—Ban Ki-moon
Keynote speaker at RELX SDG Inspiration Day (2023) and endorser of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty

"I don't think you understand what 'transition' means."

—Dr. Caroline Vincent, speaking to RELX leaders at the 2023 Annual General Meeting

Declaring journals as having 'transitioned' has not resulted in a prohibition on content that serves new oil and gas, activity the IEA has declared needs to already have stopped to realistically ensure a just and timely transition. Some Elsevier journals remain staffed by fossil fuel industry professionals whose employers are working to develop extensive new hydrocarbon resources. They have introduced industry propaganda, such as fossil fuel expansion being consistent with green development, into the scientific literature. Despite this, the company maintains its journals have transitioned to be aligned with the SDG's and promote a net zero future—goals requiring fossil fuel expansion to have already stopped.

An email to Richard Horton of The Lancet from March 2023: “What I’ve been told by senior leadership is that ‘if we stopped publishing those papers, they will go somewhere else’ and indicating that oil majors are inhibiting an energy transition was dismissed as ‘a difference of opinion’…Given the growth in emissions being locked in with activity informed by our journals, I fear the approach may be more in service of our marketing rather than the science—meaning, I’ve noticed the tendency to highlight content that can be framed as supporting a transition, even if the same product or journal also informs fossil fuel growth…Beyond the climate harms, having messaging that still indicates we’re acting ‘at the scale of action deemed necessary by science’ (or, as this letter [to external editors] says, are ‘science-led and comprehensive’) strikes me as profoundly irresponsible.”

Previous scope

Altered scope

Recent paper examples

Unconventional Resources:
Covering “geologic, geophysical, and engineering aspects of all unconventional resource opportunities.”

Unconventional Resources:
‍Focusing "on energy transition and achieving net-zero emission targets."

• Potential target for oil exploration
• Reservoir prediction method
• Favorable oil exploration areas

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering:
To "bridge the gap between the engineering, the geology and the science of petroleum and natural gas."

Rebranded: Geoenergy Science and Engineering:
Focusing "on energy transition and achieving net-zero emission targets."

• Potential target for oil exploration
• Guidance for deep hydrocarbon exploration
• Targets for hydrocarbon exploration

Marine and Petroleum Geology:
"The exchange of multidisciplinary concepts, interpretations and techniques for all concerned with marine and petroleum geology."

Marine and Petroleum Geology:
"The journal aims to advance the environmentally sustainable exploration and utilization of natural resources of petroleum and gas hydrate."

• Significant exploration potential
• Prediction of oil potential
• Petroleum exploration targets

Energy Geoscience:
"A quarterly, international, open access journal with a multidisciplinary focus."

Energy Geoscience:
"A a quarterly, international, open access journal with a multidisciplinary focus, particularly on energy transition and achieving net-zero emission targets."

• Important insights for the exploration for oil & gas
• Guidance for shale oil exploration and development
• A scientific basis for expanding exploration targets

Gas Science and Engineering:
Unknown

Gas Science and Engineering:
"The journal aims to advance the environmentally sustainable exploration, processing, and utilization of gas resources to support energy transition and net-zero carbon goals."

• Inform exploration and production strategies
• A new way for identiﬁcating favourable reservoir areas
• Reduced uncertainty in the oil and gas exploration and development

Issues and Concerns

Fossil fuel expansion

"A spokesperson for the company said they are not prepared to draw a line between the transition away from fossil fuels and the expansion of oil and gas extraction."

"Profoundly depressing. What are our publishers telling editors?"

Industry misinformation

"The longer these companies hold on to their social license to operate the longer they can maximise their production.”

"[Fossil fuel] enablers are still racing to expand production, knowing full well that their business model is inconsistent with human survival.”

Greenwashing

Former content

Altered content

"We need to make sure that we are definitely focused on data for good. Our colleagues are doing just that."

"Fossil fuels are the greatest contributor to climate change. Allowing the continued expansion of this industry is unconscionable."

"It is vital that businesses firstly identify their full [...] impact on the whole of the environment, not exclusively their carbon emissions and pollution."

Previous scope

Altered scope

Recent paper examples

About this website

Website links