abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

這頁面沒有繁體中文版本,現以English顯示

文章

2024年12月17日

作者:
Dr. Carlo Vittorio Giabardo, University of Turin

Expert highlights corporate climate responsibility and limits of litigation after “Milieudefensie vs. Shell”

"Corporate Climate Responsibility After “Milieudefensie vs. Shell” Court of Appeal Decision", 17 December 2024

The recent decision by The Hague Court of Appeal on 12 November 2024 in the case Milieudefensie vs. Shell was eagerly awaited in both legal academia and the oil and gas industry. It overturns the path-breaking initial 2021 judgment, in which the Shell group was ordered to reduce its aggregate annual volume of CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030, relative to 2019 values.

...The first point worth making clear is that the appeal decision did not retract the crucial reasoning that underpins the first-instance pronouncement, that is, under Dutch tort law principles, corporations do have a special ‘social’ duty of care to reduce emissions, in alignment with international and scientific goals, beyond existing European or domestic laws.

The Court of Appeals reiterates that Shell, in order for its actions to be considered lawful, must take into account all this vast body of formal and informal provisions well beyond strict climate legislation, to which it is directly subject (such as, at EU level, among others, the EU ETS and the next ETS 2 Directives, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, and the recent Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).

The message conveyed is that corporate compliance with existing legislation is insufficient...

For the Court of Appeal, the problem lies in the precise content of this social duty of care – i.e., the percentages of reduction and their concrete application...

Interestingly, the Court also pointed out that Shell has «tools» at its disposal that «have been developed that can help Shell influence its customers’ choices....

..[T]he Court of Appeal ... rejects a straightforward application of the 45 per cent reduction. It notes that these percentages are not meant to be equally and uniformly imposed on specific world regions, economic sectors, or companies. In the Court’s reasoning, also different sources of emissions should be burdened with different standards of reduction....The conclusion is that «the court cannot determine what specific reduction obligation applies to Shell» (§ 7:73)...

時間線

隱私資訊

本網站使用 cookie 和其他網絡存儲技術。您可以在下方設置您的隱私選項。您所作的更改將立即生效。

有關我們使用網絡儲存技術的更多資訊,請參閱我們的 數據使用和 Cookie 政策

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

分析cookie

ON
OFF

您瀏覽本網頁時我們將以Google Analytics收集信息。接受此cookie將有助我們理解您的瀏覽資訊,並協助我們改善呈現資訊的方法。所有分析資訊都以匿名方式收集,我們並不能用相關資訊得到您的個人信息。谷歌在所有主要瀏覽器中都提供退出Google Analytics的添加應用程式。

市場營銷cookies

ON
OFF

我們從第三方網站獲得企業責任資訊,當中包括社交媒體和搜尋引擎。這些cookie協助我們理解相關瀏覽數據。

您在此網站上的隱私選項

本網站使用 cookie 和其他網絡儲存技術來增強您在必要核心功能之外的體驗。