3.

The Shell Case influence in other climate change judgments 

According to the Shell case judgment, it becomes clear that business activities
impact human rights and the environment, and private companies are no longer exempt
from liability. The Hague District Court recognized Shell’s duty of care to take action to
reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, considering the Paris Agreement’s goals and the
scientific evidence regarding the dangers of climate change1. Even though the verdict is
only binding in the Netherlands, this judgment opens a great legal precedent to courts
helping ensure climate justice.
As previously analyzed, in the case proposed against Shell, the group benefited
from the image of signing several voluntary commitments with human rights, such as
the case of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the UN Global
Compact and Guidelines of the OECD for Multinational Companies, without, however,
implementing these objectives within its corporate policies2. The Court decision shows
that, even though these commitments are voluntary, once made they can be used in the
interpretation of legal obligations.
Since then, the litigation aimed at holding businesses and governments liable for
climate harms has made significant strides, especially to pressure and influence
corporate behaviors3. With several court cases and legal actions pertaining to climate
change-related cases currently being heard across the world, the courts will be looking
for precedents to rely on.
In the Netherlands, the Dutch courts have showed a great support for climate
change claims, which is not common in other countries. Even before this
groundbreaking decision, a 2015 ruling determined that the Dutch government reduced
the country’s greenhouse gas emission by at least 25% by 2020 from their 1990 levels 4.
Now, arises other possible consequences in terms of liability, for example the
implications for the transport sector.
The Hague District Court ordered Shell to reduce its CO2 by a net 45% across
both emissions from its own operations and emissions from the use of the oil it
produces. Therefore, the ruling includes emissions from the burning of the fuels it sells
1
Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc. Available at
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/milieudefensie-et-al-v-royal-dutch-shell-plc/
2
PIRES, Julia Stefanello; PAMPLONA, Danielle Anne. Perspectivas da litigância climática em face de
empresas: o caso Milieudefensie et al. Vs. Royal Dutch Shell. Revista de Direito Internacional, Brasília,
v. 19, n. 1, p. 145-163, 2022.
3
Idem. Ibidem.
4
https://news.sky.com/story/its-too-soon-to-say-whether-court-ruling-will-force-shell-to-slash-carbon-
emissions-but-case-could-still-set-a-precedent-12317639
in cars, trucks, ships and planes5. This can also lead to an an impact for emission
responsibilities in other sectors, such as national road authorities. For instance, the
environmental report of the Dutch national road authority reveled that the use of
infrastructure is responsible for a large emission, around 19,000 ktCO2, mostly by
vehicles on their motorways6.
The point in common here is that, if considered the argument of the Dutch Court
in the Shell case, regarding the shared responsibility from the use of its fuels, also the
National Road Authorities may be held responsible for the impact on the CO2 emissions
of the vehicles using their motorways. In fact, the impact of a new road capacity
contributes to generate more traffic and therefore produce more greenhouse gases
emissions. A study for a planned extension of a Dutch motorway capacity showed that
between 2022 and 2027 can cause the same emissions from procurement of materials,
that is scope 1, 2 and 3 upstream. If the Court start to rule this way, it can lead, however,
to a delicate precedent for public authorities.
Besides this prospective future decisions, the Shell Case has already showed
significant positive impact in other countries. In May 2022, the Commission on Human
Rights of the Philippines (CHR) disclosed the results of an investigation demonstrating
major carbon emitters abuses regarding climate-related human rights. With the potential
to influence legal decisions in other jurisdictions, the report showed that the companies
were fully aware of the negative impact of their activities, but decided to continue its
activities under disinformation and delay of a transition away from fossil fuels. In the
same way of the Shell case, the Commission based its arguments on the National law,
establishing that “the companies violated applicable standards of honesty and good faith
under Philippine law”. 7
In the US, the scenario was set differently from the Netherlands. At first, the
American Courts approach was much more light to oil companies, and in an opposite
legal approach, such as the example of the attempt in 2021 of the New York City to
hold five major oil companies responsible for the cost of addressing global warming
harm. That included Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. The US

5
Does the Dutch court case against Shell have consequences for National Road Authorities?
https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/does-the-dutch-court-case-against-shell-have-
consequences-for-national-road-authorities/
6
Idem. Ibidem.
7
A Year after the Shell ruling: big victories and next steps for climate litigation.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/delta-merner/a-year-after-the-shell-ruling-big-victories-and-next-steps-for-
climate-litigation/
federal appeals court rejected the claim, applying a political approach to the matter. It
said that “global warming presents a uniquely international problem of national concern.
It is therefore not well-suited to the application of state law”, displacing the claims in
face of the Federal Clean Air Act. 8
However, in the last year, lawsuits in the US aiming at holding great oil and gas
enterprises responsible have increased, as well as victories for the Climate defendants.
For instance, great oil and gas companies have been defeated in Baltimore, California,
Colorado and Massachusetts. Additionally, in Hawaii a case against several major oil
companies for deceptive practices was moved forward to the discovery phase in state
court, an advancement in terms of climate litigation in the US9.
Moreover, in April 2022, in California, the attorney general started an
investigation regarding the contribution of major oil companies to the global plastics
pollution. The intent is to define whether the investigated broke any laws by “allegedly
misleading the public on whether plastic products can be recycled” 10. This is a new
approach exploring accountability mechanisms for the fossil fuel industry’s role in the
climate crisis.
Moving to France, the Shell case also impacted positively. In March 2022, a
lawsuit was filed in France against TotalEnergies, the country’s largest energy
company, for misleading the public with faulty net-zero claims. TotalEnergies launched
a campaign that stated it could reach net-zero emissions when its plans include massive
fossil fuel expansion. The suit argues that TotalEnergies’s ad campaign is a form of
disinformation that ultimately serves to delay urgent climate action and violates the
European Unfair Consumer Practices Directive. The lawsuit asks the courts to ban such
misleading advertisements.

8
https://news.sky.com/story/its-too-soon-to-say-whether-court-ruling-will-force-shell-to-slash-carbon-
emissions-but-case-could-still-set-a-precedent-12317639.
9
Idem. Ibidem.
10
A Year after the Shell ruling: big victories and next steps for climate litigation.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/delta-merner/a-year-after-the-shell-ruling-big-victories-and-next-steps-for-
climate-litigation/
 
 
(How the shell case arguments is being used in other cases - mainly in the Netherlands
and the possible implications in other sectors like the transportation; and that in other
countries like the US similar cases are more difficult but things have been getting
better.) 

https://news.sky.com/story/its-too-soon-to-say-whether-court-ruling-will-force-shell-to-slash-carbon-
emissions-but-case-could-still-set-a-precedent-12317639

https://blog.ucsusa.org/delta-merner/a-year-after-the-shell-ruling-big-victories-and-next-steps-for-
climate-litigation/

https://corporatejustice.org/news/landmark-ruling-shell-ordered-to-slash-co2-emissions-throughout-its-
global-value-chain/

http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/milieudefensie-et-al-v-royal-dutch-shell-plc/