Over the last few years, courts in Europe have heard several important climate-related cases, and some of them have ruled in favour of the plaintiffs resulting in international attention. Shell has seen its fair share of such cases. In May last year, a lower court in the Netherlands ruled that it needed to do more to reduce emissions resulting from the production and use of oil and gas sold internationally. This includes emissions across the entire value chain, including as a result of the use of fossil fuel-based energy (known as scope 3).  This case has attracted special attention because it deals with corporate responsibility outside of the direct control of companies, as well as whether a court can make a ruling affecting matters outside of a country’s own jurisdiction. Shell appealed the ruling at a higher court last summer. The winner of the case against Shell, Milieudefensie, indicated to 29 multinational companies the impacts they believe this judgment will have on their climate efforts.

In March, a new climate-related case against Shell gained attention when the environmental organisation ClientEarth sued 13 Shell UK directors for breaching the UK’s Companies Act. The basis of the case is that ClientEarth, as a Shell shareholder, believes that Shell management has not made an adequate assessment of the climate risks facing the company when presenting a strategy that is not in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement. ClientEarth is arguing that its intention is to protect Shell and the long-term interests of its shareholders.

Please visit our CCS dictionary if there are professional expressions or abbreviations in this text you are not familiar with.