Oil giant Shell successfully appealed a major climate ruling in the Dutch Court of Appeal that imposed emissions reductions across all three scopes.
Shell has successfully overturned a landmark climate ruling in the Netherlands.
On 26 May 2021, the Hague District Court had mandated that Shell align its emissions with the Paris Agreement’s objectives across all three scopes of emissions.
This decision followed a case initiated by a consortium of NGOs, spearheaded by Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands).
However, on 12 November 2024, the decision was reversed by 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.”
The background of the legal battle
The original legal case, Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc., was filed by Milieudefensie and its co-plaintiffs on 5 April 2019.
It argued that Shell was obligated to mitigate its greenhouse gas emissions in adherence to the Dutch Civil Code and the European Convention on Human Rights – specifically Articles 2 and 8, which protect rights to life and a private and family life.
The trial procedures saw hearings held throughout December 2020 and in February 2021 Shell committed to achieving net-zero by 2050.
The court’s mandate required Shell to cut its emissions by 45% across Scopes 1, 2 and 3 by the end of 2030 relative to 2019 levels.
This ruling was made provisionally enforceable, so it remained operational 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 Shell appealed the ruling
Following the initial ruling, Shell announced it would appeal the ruling in July 2021 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.”
