Shell has successfully appealed a landmark Dutch court ruling that had previously ordered the company to cut its carbon emissions by 45%. The Hague Court of Appeal ruled that while Shell has a duty to limit its emissions, it could not definitively determine that the company had a specific “social standard of care” requiring it to reduce emissions by the set 45% or any other specific figure.

In 2021, Friends of the Earth Netherlands, along with 17,000 Dutch citizens, won a court case that required Shell to significantly cut its CO2 emissions in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. This was a historic ruling, as it was the first time a court had mandated that a private company align its practices with global climate goals rather than just adhering to local laws.

The recent ruling comes as climate talks with about 200 countries are underway in Azerbaijan. Shell expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, but Friends of the Earth called it a significant setback. The environmental group still has the option to take the case to the Dutch Supreme Court, although a final ruling may take years. Donald Pols of Friends of the Earth likened the legal battle to a “marathon, not a sprint,” emphasizing that their fight isn’t over yet.

The Paris Climate Agreement aims to keep global temperature increases well below 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels. The appeals court acknowledged Shell’s duty to combat climate change, tied to the human right to be protected from harmful environmental effects. However, it concluded that Shell was already working on reducing emissions and that no clear scientific consensus exists on how much the company should cut emissions, whether by 45% or another figure.

Shell has argued that it is unfair to single out the company for a global problem. It said that it was already making efforts to cut emissions and that customers’ choices are beyond its control. The company suggested that those pushing for faster progress should lobby governments for policy changes instead of targeting Shell. The company has set goals to reduce the carbon intensity of its products by 15-20% by 2030, based on a 2016 baseline, and aims to become a “net-zero” company by 2050.

A key aspect of the original case was based on the interpretation of an “unwritten duty of care” under Dutch law, which requires companies to prevent harmful negligence. Friends of the Earth argued that human rights, including the right to protection from dangerous climate change, are universally recognized and that corporations must respect these rights.

Shell’s successful appeal could have broad implications for corporate climate responsibility, as many environmental groups globally are increasingly turning to the courts to compel companies and governments to meet climate targets.

Source: TheDotNews.