The Netherlands’ largest bank was prosecuted on Friday for not taking enough action to address climate change, as corporate environmental strategies increasingly become a hotbed of legal action. [emphasis, links added]
Joined a list of companies and other organizations that have been sued for not being adequate to deal with climate change in Europe and the UK
On the other hand, U.S. companies and nonprofits have been sued for being too aggressively focused on their commitment to combat climate change, with some facing costly court challenges.
The bank was sued by the Dutch environmental group Milieudefensie [translation: Environmental Defense]has been one of the largest players in financing commodity projects, including projects related to fossil fuels. '
Milieudefensie said that as one of the world's largest banks, it is responsible for the impact of its investments on the climate.
Ing said Milieudefensie's claim was “unrealistic and unreasonable”, adding that it was confident in its climate approach. “We are concerned about climate concerns, but opinions on what actions are taken are different,” it said in a statement.
The lawsuit comes after a trial in the Netherlands in 2021, finding that the giant oil shell has the responsibility to combat climate change. The lawsuit was also filed by Milieudefensie.
Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that despite Shell's obligation to reduce its emissions, the court could not determine which percentage should be applied and rejected Milieudefensie's claim.
“Climate change is a direct threat to human rights, and the court ruled that companies such as ING must be held liable to reduce emissions,” said Donald Pols, CEO of Milieudefensie, a Dutch faction of friends with the Earth’s environmental groups.
“Its climate policy must be aligned with the Paris climate agreement to do everything it can and help ensure a sustainable future.”
For ING, it will take until next year to make the ruling, but if the case against the Dutch Bank is successful, It can open the door to further legal action against fossil fuel companies and corporate players who work with them, such as banks and asset managers.
This is contrary to the situation in the United States, where banks and asset managers are sued for being too focused on making green investments, while environmental nonprofits are imposed on expensive legal battles.
tIn his month, the U.S. fossil fuel industry won the environmental charity Greenpeace, which ruled that the jury was liable for defamation and trespassing, and the company was ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to an oil pipeline company. Greenpeace said it would appeal the decision.
In December, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Blackstone and other asset managers were seeking profitable returns by making climate-centric investments.
In the U.S. regulatory space, the SEC has suspended its defense of proposed climate disclosure rules, with large companies reporting their emissions similar to regulations passed by Europe and California.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) faces lawsuits saying the proposed rules are arbitrary and capricious, violating the First Amendment.
With litigation on both sides of the Atlantic, companies and charities that operate in both jurisdictions are binding.
In the United States, prosecuted to take action for climate [change] During Trump’s presidency, especially in increasingly likely circumstances. In Europe, litigation that works in the opposite way is equally possible.
For many companies, the current answer seems to be keeping their heads under the railings to avoid criticism and expensive litigation.
Reading Break on WSJ
