A Dutch court ordered Royal Dutch Shell to slash its greenhouse emissions, and 61% of
The string of wins was followed in
The court rulings are particularly significant. Courts have often been reluctant to interfere in what is viewed as an issue best left to policymakers. These recent judgements, and others, suggest courts are more prepared to scrutinise emissions reduction by businesses and - in the case of the Dutch court - order them to do more.
Court warns of 'irreversible consequences'
In a world-first ruling, a
The case was brought by climate activist and human rights groups. The court found climate change due to CO2 emissions "has serious and irreversible consequences" and threatened the human "right to life". It also found Shell was responsible for so-called "Scope 3" emissions generated by its customers and suppliers.
The
And last week, shareholders of
Engine No. 1 explicitly links
Climate-savvy shareholders unite
As human activity causes Earth's atmosphere to warm, large fossil fuel companies are under increasing pressure to act.
A mere 20 companies have contributed 493 billion tonnes of CO2 and methane to the atmosphere, primarily from the burning of their oil, coal and gas. This equates to 35% of all global greenhouse gas emissions since 1965.
Shareholders - many concerned by the financial risks of climate change - are leading the corporate accountability push. The Climate Action 100+ initiative is a leading example.
It involves more than 400 investors with more than
Shareholders in
Last year, shareholder resolutions on climate change were put to Santos and Woodside. While neither resolution achieved the 75% support needed to pass, both received unprecedented levels of support - 43.39% and 50.16% of the vote, respectively.
And in
The litigation trend
To date, the question of whether corporate polluters can be legally forced to reduce greenhouse emissions has remained unanswered. While fossil fuel companies have faced a string of climate lawsuits in
Cases brought against governments have been more successful. In 2019, for example, the
The decision against Shell is significant, and sends a clear signal that corporations can be held legally responsible for greenhouse pollution.
Shell has previously argued it can only reduce its absolute emissions by shrinking its business. The recent case highlights how such companies may have to quickly find new forms of revenue, or face legal liability.
It's unlikely we'll see identical litigation in
This includes the case decided on Thursday involving young people opposed to a company's coal mine expansion, and Australian cases arguing for greater disclosure of climate risk by corporations, banks and super funds.
Change is nigh
Oil and gas companies often argue Scope 3 emissions are not their responsibility, because they don't control how customers use their products. The Shell finding and shareholder action against
The Shell case may also set off a global avalanche of copycat litigation. In
Clearly, a seismic shift is looming, in which corporations will be forced to take greater responsibility for climate harms. These recent developments should act as a wake-up call for oil, gas and coal companies around the world.
Source: http://australianmanufacturingnews.com
Copyright 2021 ACN Newswire . All rights reserved.
© Japan Corporate News, source