Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC – a peek behind the scenes

The report documents the legal victory of Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC, where the District Court in The Hague ordered Shell to reduce its net carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. It explains the use of the 'duty of care' and human rights arguments to hold a corporate actor liable for its contribution to climate change, including Scope 3 emissions. The document also provides a 'mini-toolkit' for other NGOs planning strategic climate litigation, covering research, fundraising, and media strategies.

• On May 26, 2021, the District Court in The Hague ruled that Royal Dutch Shell PLC must reduce its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 from 2019 levels.
• The ruling is considered historic as it is the first time a corporate actor has been held directly liable for its share in greenhouse gas emissions causing dangerous climate change, requiring a change in future policy rather than just compensation for past damage.
• The court determined that Shell's responsibility extends beyond its own operations (Scope 1 and 2) to include a 'best efforts obligation' to reduce emissions from its suppliers and customers (Scope 3).
• The legal basis for the ruling relied on the 'duty of care' in Dutch law and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, establishing that companies must respect human rights, which includes protecting people against the impacts of dangerous climate change.
• The court rejected Shell's arguments that it should not be held responsible for the energy transition's direction, which it claimed should be left to governments, and that a ruling against a single company would be ineffective or create unfair competition.
• Milieudefensie presented evidence that Shell was aware of the link between fossil fuels and global warming as early as the 1950s, citing a 1959 symposium and a 1962 warning from Shell's own head of the geological department.
• Shell confirmed on July 20, 2021, that it would appeal the ruling, arguing that a judgment against a single company is not effective.
• The report suggests that the ruling creates a financial risk for investors in fossil fuels and may hinder the use of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms by establishing that companies should have anticipated stricter climate measures.

APA

Friends of the Earth International (2021). Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC – a peek behind the scenes. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/How-we-defeated-Shell.pdf

Chicago

Friends of the Earth International. Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC – a peek behind the scenes. 2021. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/How-we-defeated-Shell.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Friends of the Earth International |title=Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC – a peek behind the scenes |date=November 2021 |url=https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/How-we-defeated-Shell.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{friendsoftheearthinternational2021milieudefensie, author = {{Friends of the Earth International}}, title = {{Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC – a peek behind the scenes}}, institution = {Friends of the Earth International}, year = {2021}, month = nov, url = {https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/How-we-defeated-Shell.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }