A Netherlands appeals court on Tuesday overturned a landmark 2021 ruling requiring Shell to cut its carbon emissions by 45 percent by 2030 . This was a setback for the environmental advocacy group Milieudefensie, which sought legal avenues to enforce corporate climate action.
In the original 2021 decision, the District Court of The Hague found that Shell had a legal obligation under Dutch civil law to align its emissions reduction targets with the goals of the 2015 Paris Climate Accords. The court cited the company’s duty of care to mitigate climate change risks. The ruling mandated that Shell reduce its total CO₂ emissions across all categories, including direct and indirect emissions from purchased energy and using its products.
Shell appealed the decision, arguing that the District Court had overstepped its authority by imposing a global emissions reduction order on a single company. Shell maintained that it was already committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and emphasized that its climate strategy included significant investments in renewable energy and low-carbon technologies. The company’s legal team asserted that setting binding targets should be a matter for policymakers, not the judiciary, and the responsibility for achieving climate goals should be shared between governments, businesses, and consumers.
The Hague Court of Appeal sided with Shell, ruling that while the company is responsible for addressing climate risks, the specific emissions reduction mandate was overly prescriptive and did not adequately consider Shell’s existing climate commitments and the broader economic context. The court found that the order to cut emissions by 45 percent by 2030 placed an undue burden on the company, potentially disrupting its business planning and investments in energy transition projects.
The ruling emphasised the importance of legal predictability and the principle of the rule of law, highlighting that sudden judicial mandates could lead to inconsistent legal expectations for multinational companies operating under varying national regulations. The court noted that Shell’s existing climate strategy, including its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, demonstrated a significant effort towards reducing its carbon footprint in line with international climate targets.
Environmental groups, including Milieudefensie, expressed disappointment with the decision. Roger Cox, attorney for the plaintiffs, stated, “This ruling delays urgent action needed to meet global climate goals and holds back efforts to hold major emitters accountable for their environmental impact.”
Shell welcomed the appeal outcome, reiterating its commitment to achieving net-zero emissions and continuing its transition towards cleaner energy sources. The company noted, “We remain focused on delivering our climate strategy and believe that effective climate action requires a collaborative approach involving governments, industry, and consumers.”
The case has been closely watched as a potential precedent for corporate climate accountability. The original 2021 decision was the first time a court had ordered a private company to meet specific emissions reduction targets based on human rights obligations related to climate change.
Milieudefensie has not yet commented on whether they will appeal in cassation against the appeals court’s decision.
