Oil giant Shell has won a landmark case in the Dutch courts, overturning an earlier ruling that required it to cut its carbon emissions by 45%.

The Court of Appeal in The Hague said it could not find that Shell had a “social standard of care” to reduce its emissions by 45% or any other amount, even though it agreed that the company had an obligation to citizens to to limit emissions.

Three years ago, a court in The Hague upheld a case by Friends of the Earth and 17,000 Dutch citizens requiring Shell to significantly reduce its CO2 emissions in line with the Paris climate accords.

The ruling came as climate change talks involving around 200 countries began in Azerbaijan.

Shell said it was satisfied with the court’s decision, but Friends of the Earth Netherlands said the decision was a setback that deeply affected them.

The environmental group can now take its case against Shell to the Supreme Court – but a final verdict could take years.

The group’s Donald Pols said “it’s a marathon, not a sprint, and the race isn’t over yet.”

At the time, the 2021 ruling marked the first time a court had ordered a private company to align its operations with the Paris Climate Agreement, meaning it wasn’t enough for a company to simply comply with the law – it had to comply with global requirements. and climate policy.

Under the Paris Agreement on climate change, nearly 200 countries have agreed to keep global temperatures “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

The Court of Appeal judge said companies such as Shell were obliged to help tackle climate change based on the human right to protection from dangerous climate change.

However, the court said that Shell is already working to reduce its emissions and that it could not determine whether it should make a 45% reduction or some other percentage because there is no currently accepted agreement on climate science regarding the required quantity.

Shell claimed it was already taking “serious steps to reduce emissions”. It complained that the original decision was unfair because it singled out one company for a global problem and said it was unrealistic to try to hold Shell accountable for its customers’ choices.

Shell said that if people feel that progress towards reducing emissions is too slow, then they should lobby governments, rather than Shell, to change policies and achieve a green transition.

The oil company says its aim is to reduce the carbon intensity of the products it sells by 15-20% by 2030 compared to the 2016 baseline. Shell also aims to become a “net zero” emissions company ” by 2050.

Part of the landmark legal case was based on the interpretation of an “unwritten duty of care” that exists under Dutch law, which requires companies to prevent dangerous negligence.

Friends of the Earth Netherlands argued that there is an international consensus that human rights provide protection against dangerous climate change and that companies must respect human rights.

Shell’s successful appeal could have far-reaching implications for corporate climate responsibility.

A number of environmental groups around the world are now trying to force companies and governments to comply with the agreements through the courts.