A Dutch court has overturned a landmark ruling that required oil giant Shell to establish a substantive emissions reduction target.

The decision followed Shell’s appeal against a 2021 district court ruling in Milieudefensie v Shell, where Milieudefensie—the Dutch arm of the environmental group Friends of the Earth—claimed that Shell’s duty of care required it to reduce its emissions by 45% from 2019 levels by 2030. On November 12, judges on the Hague Court of Appeal ruled [pdf] that Shell is not required to meet a specific target.

“Shell has an obligation to counter dangerous climate change,” they wrote, but “this does not mean that the civil court is able to establish that Shell should reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45%, or any other percentage.”

David W. Wu, a partner with Vancouver-based Arvay Finlay LLP, told The Energy Mix his personal takeaway is that the ruling still “certainly opens the door for other organizations and potential plaintiffs to use the courts to hold Big Oil accountable, even if a court will not be overly prescriptive in terms of how exactly they need to reduce their emissions.”

Milieudefensie v Shell aimed to build on a prior case in which the environmental group Urgenda sued the Dutch government, arguing that its inaction on climate change endangered human rights. The Urgenda decision was seen as groundbreaking, and the Milieudefensie ruling then became the first of its kind to hold a company accountable for climate-related impacts.

The cases in the Netherlands came amid a wave of recent climate litigation across the world. But compared to many other cases—including many launched by states and municipalities in the United States—Milieudefensie was different because it did not seek damages or focus on Big Oil’s disinformation campaigns about climate impacts.

Instead, the claim sought injunctive relief—or a court order to prevent Shell from doing something—and was focused on Shell’s policy targets for its greenhouse gas emissions, Wu wrote [pdf] in 2023.

The appeal court’s decision stated that “there can be no doubt that protection from dangerous climate change is a human right” and that there is global recognition that “states have an obligation to protect their citizens from the adverse effects of dangerous climate change.” But the court also said the obligation to minimize climate change is to be undertaken by legislators and governments.

At the same, to “combat the danger posed by climate change, everyone has a responsibility,” the judges added, and that obligation extends beyond only states. Companies like Shell, “which contribute significantly to the climate problem and have it within their power to contribute to combating it,” also have a responsibility to reduce emissions and align with the Paris climate agreement.

In its appeal, Shell argued that a company could not be singled out to commit to an emissions reduction target, as consumers would simply source fossil fuels from elsewhere to meet demand. The court agreed on this point, saying that “Shell cannot be bound by a 45% reduction standard (or any other percentage) agreed by climate science because this percentage does not apply to every country and every business sector individually.”

But Wu said he doesn’t think this is a “full win” for Shell.

“The court clearly finds it has a responsibility to reduce their emissions,” he said. “It simply did not have enough scientific evidence to support a specific standard that Shell must meet.”

Wu added that the ruling could have important implications for Canadian plaintiffs litigating climate cases—such as the Mathur case in Ontario—because it “reiterates the urgency and importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, makes it clear that protection from climate change is a human right, states there is a role for the judiciary in holding actors accountable, and finds that companies like Shell are a huge part of the problem, have known for decades about the problem, and have a responsibility to reduce their emissions.”

And while in Milieudefensie the court ruled against setting a specific target that a company must conform to, “this is unlikely to be an issue in a Canadian case as likely plaintiffs in Canada would be seeking damages, rather than limiting emissions, against big oil companies,” said Wu.