Judgment will be delivered by the Federal Court of Australia tomorrow in the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility v Santos Ltd matter.
The case, brought by the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility against gas company Santos Ltd, concerns allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to Santos’ public statements about its “net zero” emissions targets and clean energy transition strategy.
The decision is likely to have significant implications for:
- Corporate climate transition planning and disclosure
- The legal risks associated with “net zero” and decarbonisation claims
- The role of strategic climate litigation in shaping corporate accountability
- The future trajectory of greenwashing litigation in Australia
Available to comment:
Dr Ella Vines, researcher at Green Lab and lecturer in corporate sustainability regulation at Monash Business School
Contact: +61 3 9903 4840 or [email protected]
Read more of Dr Vines’ commentary at Monash Lens
- Environment and climate change law
- Corporate climate accountability
- Legal and regulatory frameworks to address climate change, biodiversity loss, and other sustainability issues at different jurisdictional scales and governance contexts.
Comments attributable to Dr Vines
“This case highlights how climate litigation is increasingly being used to translate broad decarbonisation imperatives into company-specific expectations for major fossil fuel producers. Courts are emerging as key forums in which civil society can test whether corporations responsible for a significant share of historical and ongoing greenhouse gas emissions – and the resulting climate harms – can be held accountable for the credibility of their transition claims.
“This judgment is a significant moment for corporate climate accountability in Australia. It sends an important signal about how companies must frame their ‘net zero’ commitments and transition pathways.
“At its core, this case is about the credibility of corporate climate promises. Courts are increasingly being asked to scrutinise whether long-term emissions reduction claims are supported by concrete, near-term action and credible assumptions.
“The decision will shape how boards approach climate risk disclosure, transition planning and public communications.”
Ms Rebekkah Markey-Towler, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Monash Business School, Green Lab
Contact: +61 3 9903 4840 or [email protected]
- Climate change litigation
- Corporate, financial institution and state climate accountability
- Environmental and climate change law
- Legal and regulatory frameworks to address climate change, biodiversity loss and other sustainability issues
Comments attributable to Ms Markey-Towler:
“More broadly, the case highlights the growing role of strategic litigation in testing the integrity of corporate sustainability claims. Whether the claim succeeds or fails, it clarifies the legal boundaries around greenwashing and climate-related representations in Australia.
“Litigation to address greenwashing has been a significant trend in the Australian legal landscape, especially over the last few years. Many of these cases have been brought by corporate regulators, ASIC and the ACCC. But civil society also plays a crucial role in holding companies to account for their promises and in protecting consumers, investors and market integrity.
“With the introduction of mandatory climate reporting for companies in Australia, these promises must be more than ‘hot air.’ They must be carefully reasoned and backed by evidence.
“Irrespective of the outcome, we are likely to see continued litigation, as well as regulator action, to address greenwashing in the future.”
For more experts, news, opinion and analysis, visit Monash News.
For any other topics on which you may be seeking expert comment, contact the Monash University Media Unit on +61 3 9903 4840 or [email protected]
