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

The appeals court in The Hague said it could not establish that Shell had a “social standard of care” to reduce its emissions by 45% or any other amount, although it agreed that the company had an obligation before citizens to limit emissions.

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

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

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

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

Donald Pols of the group said, “It’s a marathon, not a sprint, and the race is not 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 follow the law: it had to comply with the global standards. climate policy too.

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

The appeals court judge said companies like Shell were obliged to contribute to the fight against climate change based on the human right to protection from dangerous climate changes.

However, the court said Shell was already working to reduce its emissions and the court could not establish whether it should make a 45% cut or another percentage, as there was currently no accepted agreement in climate science on the amount required.

Shell has stated that it is already taking “serious steps to reduce emissions.” He complained that the original ruling was unfair, singling out one company for a global problem, and said it was unrealistic to try to hold Shell accountable for its customers’ decisions.

Shell said that if people felt that progress towards reducing emissions was too slow, then they should put pressure on governments rather than Shell to change policies and achieve a green transition.

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

Part of the landmark legal case revolved around the interpretation of an “unwritten duty of care” that exists under Dutch law, which requires companies to avoid dangerous negligence.

Friends of the Earth Netherlands argued that there was an international consensus that human rights offered protection against dangerous climate change and that companies should respect human rights.

The success of Shell’s appeal could have far-reaching implications for corporate climate responsibility.

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