How Significant is Shell's Climate Appeal Court Win?
A landmark climate ruling has been overturned in the Netherlands.
On 26 May 2021, the Hague District Court ordered Shell to reduce its emissions in line with the Paris Agreement across all three scopes after a case was brought against the oil giant by a group of NGOs led by Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands).
On 12 November 2024, Shell successfully won against the ruling in the Dutch Court of Appeal.
“We are pleased with the court’s decision, which we believe is the right one for the global energy transition, the Netherlands and our company,” says Wael Sawan, Chief Executive Officer at Shell.
“Our target to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050 remains at the heart of Shell’s strategy and is transforming our business. This includes continuing our work to halve emissions from our operations by 2030.
“We are making good progress in our strategy to deliver more value with less emissions.”
Donald Pols, Director of Milieudefensie, says: "We are shocked by today’s judgement.
“It is a setback for us, for the climate movement and for millions of people around the world who worry about their future.
“But if there’s one thing to know about us, it’s that we don’t give up. This setback will only help us grow stronger.
“Large polluters are powerful. But united, we as people have the power to change them.”
Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc.
The case was originally filed by Milieudefensie and co-plaintiffs on 5 April 2019.
It argued that Shell has a duty of care to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Dutch Civil Code and to not violate Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Article 2 guarantees a right to life and Article 8 guarantees rights to a private and family life.
During the trial, Shell announced its pledge to reach net zero by 2050.
Hearings were held throughout December 2020, and the court decided to order Shell to reduce emissions by 45% across Scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions by the end of 2030 relative to 2019 levels.
This decision was provisionally enforceable, so applied throughout the appeals process.
The case is considered to be the first major climate change litigation ruling against a corporation.
In response to the ruling, Shell said: "Urgent action is needed on climate change which is why we have accelerated our efforts to become a net-zero emissions energy company by 2050, in step with society, with short-term targets to track our progress."
“We are investing billions of dollars in low-carbon energy, including electric vehicle charging, hydrogen, renewables and biofuels. We want to grow demand for these products and scale up our new energy businesses even more quickly.
“We will continue to focus on these efforts and fully expect to appeal today’s disappointing court decision.”
Why did Shell appeal the ruling?
In July 2021 Shell confirmed that it would appeal the ruling which was submitted one year later.
“We agree urgent action is needed and we will accelerate our transition to net zero,” said former Shell CEO Ben van Beurden.
“But we will appeal because a court judgement, against a single company, is not effective. What is needed is clear, ambitious policies that will drive fundamental change across the whole energy system.
“Climate change is a challenge that requires both urgent action and an approach that is global, collaborative and encourages coordination between all parties.”
The appeal says it is based on four points:
- The ruling does not reflect the full context of the energy transition
- It places obligations on Shell for a global net emissions reduction target,
- It is not supported by, and at times conflicts with, international human rights principles, the multilateral climate change regime and EU law
- Imposing an emissions reduction on Shell alone is not an effective mechanism for reducing global emissions
Roger Cox, a lawyer for Milieudefensie, explains: “The scientific basis on which we’ve founded our claims against Shell has only solidified. In court, it’s facts that matter, which is why I am confident that we can once again convince the judges that Shell needs to act in line with international climate agreements.”
However, Saskia Kapinga, Vice President for External Relations at Shell, says: “We do not believe the court ruling is the right solution for the energy transition – it is ineffective and counterproductive.
“An order from a Dutch court against an individual company will not bring down global emissions and will not help the climate.
“For example, if Shell stopped selling kerosene for aviation or petrol for cars, people would not fly or drive less, customers would simply turn to other suppliers.”
Make sure you check out the latest edition of Sustainability Magazine and also sign up to our global conference series - Sustainability LIVE 2024
Sustainability Magazine is a BizClik brand
