The Netherlands’ chemical industry entered 2025 under heavy pressure, and Shell Netherlands CEO Frans Everts used an April television appearance to put the issue squarely on the political agenda. His warning was simple: Dutch manufacturers are being squeezed by high energy costs and carbon-related charges at a time when competitors in Germany, Belgium and France face a more favorable cost base.
Everts’ concern, first reported by NL Times, goes beyond short-term profitability. He argued that the problem is structural. Dutch industry, he said, is not asking for special treatment, but for the ability to compete on equal terms with neighboring countries. Without that, companies may scale back maintenance, delay investment and eventually shut facilities that no longer make economic sense.
That warning fits a broader pattern in the Netherlands and across Europe. Business group VNO-NCW has argued that Dutch industrial electricity costs are often two to three times higher than in neighboring countries, with the gap driven less by wholesale energy prices than by grid tariffs, taxes and policy choices. In its view, the result is a serious competitive disadvantage for energy-intensive sectors such as chemicals, where production costs are highly sensitive to power and feedstock prices.
The political response began to take shape later that month. On 25 April 2025, the Dutch government announced a “Green Growth” package aimed at easing pressure on industry while keeping decarbonization goals alive. The measures included lower electricity costs for industry, a three-year extension of indirect cost compensation, and adjustments to the national CO2 levy to give companies more time to invest in cleaner production. The package signaled that The Hague had heard the complaints from industrial companies, but business groups still said the steps were not enough to fully restore a level playing field.
That tension captures the central dilemma facing Dutch policymakers. The Netherlands wants to cut emissions, strengthen energy independence and accelerate the transition to cleaner industry. But the faster and more unevenly those costs fall on domestic producers, the greater the risk that investment shifts elsewhere. If production leaves the Netherlands only to continue in countries with looser support structures or cheaper power, emissions may not fall much overall, while jobs, tax revenues and industrial capabilities do.
The chemicals industry matters far beyond its own plants and pipelines. It supplies materials used in construction, healthcare, agriculture, packaging, electronics and clean technology. The European Commission has described chemicals as the “industry of industries,” noting that they are embedded in the overwhelming majority of manufactured goods. That is one reason Brussels later unveiled a European Chemicals Industry Action Plan in July 2025, targeting high energy costs, weak demand and unfair global competition. The Commission’s message was clear: Europe cannot afford to let its chemical base hollow out.
For Shell, the issue is also practical rather than theoretical. Everts said the company was reviewing the future of its chemical operations in Europe and had already lost substantial sums in recent years in the Netherlands. That kind of language matters. When large industrial players start openly questioning the viability of European assets, policymakers know they are no longer debating future risk, but responding to a live investment problem.
The Dutch government has tried to strike a balance by supporting industry while preserving climate ambition. Critics, however, argue that the balance remains unstable. If relief comes too slowly, companies may cut back before reforms take hold. If support is too generous, the government risks weakening incentives to decarbonize. The challenge is not only lowering costs, but doing so in a way that rewards cleaner production rather than simply subsidizing the status quo.
What happens next will determine whether the Netherlands remains a serious location for chemical manufacturing. The country still has major strengths: world-class logistics, port infrastructure, skilled labor and a strong industrial base. But those advantages may not be enough if energy remains persistently more expensive than across the border. The debate sparked by Shell’s warning is therefore about more than one company’s profits. It is about whether the Netherlands can stay both green and industrial at the same time.
Sources
- NL Times: Shell CEO warns high energy costs and taxes threaten Dutch chemical sector
- Dutch government: Green Growth package, 25 April 2025
- Rijksoverheid parliamentary letter on the Green Growth package
- VNO-NCW on Dutch energy costs
- European Commission: Action Plan for a stronger EU chemical industry
