If you find this post interesting, you can sign up for the firm’s monthly newsletter here. Each month’s newsletter contains a roundup of blog posts and commentary on climate news, law, and policy.

Last week, the Hague district court ordered oil giant Royal Dutch Shell to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 45% from 2019 levels by 2030. The ruling appears to mark the first instance of a court requiring a major corporation to lower emissions on account of their climate impact. The decision follows a line of recent cases, beginning with the Dutch Urgenda case, in which European courts have ordered governments to strengthen national emission reduction targets.

Dutch environmental organization MilieuDefensie led the legal challenge, arguing that Shell’s lacklustre emission-reduction policies are contributing to harmful climate change affecting current and future Dutch residents, including inhabitants of the Wadden Sea area. This, the group claimed, constitutes a violation of the unwritten standard of care requirement of Book 6 Section 162 of the Dutch Civil Code, “which [establishes] that acting in conflict with what is generally accepted according to unwritten law is unlawful.”

This nebulous area of Dutch law concerns damages arising on account of torts (harm). The harm at issue in this case was the harm associated with climate change that Dutch residents are likely to suffer, and which Shell’s activities (including its scope 3 emissions) are exacerbating. To interpret the unwritten standard of care applicable with respect to Shell’s activities, the court made reference to numerous legal and scientific items of authority, including the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Guiding Principles, the IPCC reports, and several others. Ultimately, the court found Shell’s emission reduction policies did not satisfy the required standard of care.

The judgment against Shell in this case should and likely will be regarded as a powerful precedent. This seems especially likely considering the parallels between this decision and Urgenda; practically every climate litigation matter brought against governments over the last five years cites Urgenda, which was also decided in the Netherlands. Provided the ruling is not overturned on appeal - which Shell says it’s likely to pursue - this case may soon find itself the subject of similar popularity in climate action cases brought against corporations.

Those interested in climate litigation matters against both governments and corporations may enjoy the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law’s Climate Litigation Database, according to which there are at least nine other non-US cases to compel lower corporate emissions.