Now, if there's a synergy in there — somewhere where an oil company is uniquely positioned to implement renewables — that would be nice. I'm not sure if any such thing exists.
That's not a market failure, but poorly chosen bonus / reward structure (from society's point of view).
What if the bulk of CEO / board members' salaries & bonusses where structured as company share value, cashable no earlier than say, 20y from now? 'Pocket money' now for living expenses, a rich pension later if company does well long term.
That would surely change the incentives. As opposed to "add short-term share value, cash cheque, jump ship" as seems usual for CEOs these days.
Also it depends on whether Shell defines itself as oil company, or energy company. "Oil company"? Ok. No need to expect much from them concerning the energy transition. 1.5% of overall expenditure didn't match with "Shell continues its path as a leader in the energy transition" anyway.
Personally I think oil companies have a shrinking time window in which they'll continue to be profitable. After which market conditions & politics have changed, assets will be restructured, and (mostly small) shareholders will be left holding the bag. If you happen to be one of them: get out before the big boys do! Your funds are better used elsewhere.
Pretty interesting concept actually! Much like stock as a golden cage retainer for tech workers. Who would have to be lobbied for that to go ahead?
Short-termism seems to be an unavoidable condition when markets demand higher efficiencies.