Santos defends against greenwashing allegations in landmark court case
- The Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility alleges Santos misled investors regarding its net-zero emissions strategy.
- Neil Young, representing Santos, claims the case overlooks the company's extensive prior efforts to combat climate change.
- The outcome of this case could set significant precedents for corporate accountability in climate reporting.
In Australia, the fossil fuel company Santos faces allegations of greenwashing brought by the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR). This landmark case began on October 28, 2024, and represents a significant challenge to the legitimacy of corporate climate commitments. The ACCR argues that Santos misled investors by presenting itself as a clean fuels company with a credible strategy to achieve net-zero emissions by 2040. Moreover, they claim that Santos failed to disclose significant emissions associated with hydrogen production and misleadingly used the term 'zero emission hydrogen'. During closing arguments on December 3, 2024, Neil Young KC, representing Santos, asserted that the allegations provided a biased perspective of the company's climate initiatives. He contended that the ACCR neglected to consider Santos's extensive efforts leading up to its vital 2020 investor briefing and subsequent climate reports. These actions demonstrated Santos's commitment to addressing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing its competitive edge by investing in technologies like carbon capture and storage and hydrogen production. Santos has set ambitious climate targets, including a 26%-30% emissions reduction by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2040. Young emphasized that these targets reflect a present intention rather than a definitive promise, as their realization is uncertain and dependent on evolving market conditions, regulations, and advancements in technology. The ACCR is seeking court declarations that Santos engaged in misleading conduct and is asking for injunctions to prevent future deceptive practices, as well as a requirement for the company to issue corrective notices regarding its environmental impacts. The court's decision in this case will likely have significant implications for corporate responsibility in climate reporting and could establish legal precedents for holding companies accountable for their environmental claims. The initial case highlights the growing scrutiny companies face regarding their environmental strategies and the potential legal ramifications of misleading stakeholders about their climate commitments.