NETHERLANDS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Davine Roessingh, Sebastian Hinse and Tom van der Rijt, De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
difficult. Climate risk unfolds over a long-term horizon, the speed of the transition is uncertain, and historical data is not representative of future conditions. These factors make well-informed, forward-looking climate risk decisions inherently challenging. These dynamics, in combination with diverging and evolving climate change regulation, have forced com - panies in the Netherlands, like elsewhere in Europe and globally, to reassess their voluntarily adopted and communicated climate ambitions. The feasibility of these ambitions and the extent to which companies are able to deliver on, among others, emission reduc - tion targets, depend to a great extent on the pace at which the various transitions – in climate, energy and food – progress. This is in addition to the fact that these companies have, for years, formulated climate- transition planning strategies that naturally seek to maintain competitive advantage and financial growth. The reality described leads NGOs, in turn, not only to challenge national policies in court, but also to subject corporate climate obligations to the assessment of national courts. Ever-Increasing NGO Activism in the Netherlands The number of climate cases launched in the Dutch courts has not decreased over the past year. Sev - eral high-stakes proceedings that may affect the core business of major companies are currently ongoing or have been announced in the Netherlands against companies in the oil and gas, financial, food, and The first case launched by Milieudefensie against Shell is nearing its climax, as it is being heard by the Dutch Supreme Court. In the first Shell case, Dutch NGO Milieudefensie appealed to the Dutch Supreme Court after all its claims were rejected by the Court of Appeal. Milieudefensie claims that Shell has an obli - gation to reduce its scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019. The Advocate General is expected to publish his opinion in Q4 2026 or Q1 2027, with the Supreme Court’s judgment expected in Q2 or Q3 2027. infrastructure sectors. Milieudefensie v Shell
In the meantime, in May 2026, Milieudefensie launched a second case against Shell (by then domi - ciled in the United Kingdom), again in the Netherlands. While Milieudefensie brought the first case before the Hague District Court, the second claim was brought before the Amsterdam District Court, as at the time, Shell’s headquarters were in Amsterdam. Milieudefen - sie argues it can choose where in the Netherlands it wishes to sue Shell since the damages caused by the purportedly unlawful actions of Shell occur across the entire country. In its argued position, Milieudefensie and any other NGO for that matter, would therefore be at liberty to sue any company around the globe for that company’s contributions to climate change. Should the court accept jurisdiction in this case, on the basis of Milieudefensie’s arguments, this would essentially make the Netherlands the hub for private enforcement of climate obligations globally. Milieudefensie’s new strategy in this second case stems from the decision of the Hague Court of Appeal in the first Shell case. The Court of Appeal considered, as an obiter dictum, that investments in new oil and gas fields may conflict with obligations under Dutch law based on unwritten norms. That consideration prompted Milieudefensie to initiate new proceedings against Shell, including a claim that Shell be prohibited from continuing to produce oil and gas from fields where the final invest - ment decision was taken after 1 January 2022, and from divesting those fields to third parties. Milieudefensie v ING In March 2025, Milieudefensie initiated proceedings against ING, one of the Netherlands’ leading banks. Milieudefensie claims that ING is obliged to reduce its scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, both at the overall portfo - lio level and for all sectors individually. The claims also include a prohibition on the bank providing new and existing financing to all clients that is in some shape or form related to new fossil fuel projects. This latter claim is similar to the relief sought by Milieudefensie in its second case brought against Shell. ING submitted its Statement of Defence in February 2026. Greenpeace v JBS In April 2026, Greenpeace sent globally operating food processor JBS a notice essentially arguing that JBS’s (meat-based) business model is inherently unlawful. Greenpeace has requested significant amounts of
61 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook