Oil giant Shell has won a landmark case in Dutch courts, overturning an earlier ruling requiring it to cut its carbon emissions by 45%.

The Hague Court of Appeal said it could not establish that Shell had a “social standard of care” allowing it to reduce its emissions by 45% or any other amount, although it acknowledged that the company had an obligation towards citizens to limit its emissions.

Three years ago, a court in The Hague backed an action by Friends of the Earth and 17,000 Dutch citizens demanding that Shell significantly reduce its CO2 emissions, in line with the Paris climate accords.

This decision comes as climate negotiations involving some 200 countries began in Azerbaijan.

Shell said it was pleased with the court’s decision, but Friends of the Earth Netherlands said the decision was a setback that deeply affected them.

The environmental group can now take the case against Shell to the Supreme Court, but the final verdict could take years.

The group’s Donald Pols said “this is a marathon, not a sprint and the race is not over yet.”

At the time, the 2021 ruling marked the first time a court ordered a private company to align its activities with the Paris climate agreement, meaning it was not enough for a company simply complies with the law – it had to comply with global standards. climate policy too.

Under the Paris Agreement on climate change, nearly 200 countries agreed to keep global temperatures “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

The appeal court judge said companies such as Shell were obliged to contribute to the fight against climate change on the basis of the human right to protection from dangerous climate change.

However, the court said Shell was already working to reduce its emissions and was unable to determine whether it should make a 45% reduction or some other percentage because it did not currently exist. no accepted agreement in climate science on the quantity required.

Shell said it was already taking “serious steps to reduce its emissions”. She lamented that the initial decision was unfair in that it targeted a single company for a global problem, and said it was unrealistic to try to hold Shell responsible for its customers’ choices.

Shell said that if people consider progress to be too slow towards reducing emissions, then they should put pressure on governments rather than Shell to change policy and implement a green transition.

The oil company says its goal is to reduce the carbon intensity of the products it sells by 15% to 20% by 2030 compared to 2016. Shell also aims to become a “net zero emissions” company by 2050.

Part of this landmark legal case hinged on the interpretation of an “unwritten duty of care” that exists under Dutch law, which requires companies to prevent dangerous negligence.

Friends of the Earth Netherlands argued that there was an international consensus that human rights offered protection against the dangers of climate change and that businesses should respect human rights.

The success of Shell’s appeal could have far-reaching consequences for corporate climate responsibility.

A number of environmental groups around the world are now trying to force companies and governments to comply with the agreements through the courts.