ClientEarth is taking Shell’s Board of Directors to court
ClientEarth on its website says “We’re going to court against Shell’s Board of Directors for failing to move away from fossil fuels fast enough. This is the first ever case of its kind seeking to hold corporate directors personally liable.
Shell’s Board is legally required to manage risks to the company that could harm its future success, and the climate crisis presents the biggest risk of them all.
Ensuring the company stays competitive in the energy markets of the future, as countries and customers worldwide choose cheaper, cleaner energy, means Shell needs to move away from fossil fuels towards an alternative business model.
But we’re arguing that the plan Shell’s Board currently has for making that shift is simply unreasonable.
Why? It fails to deliver the reduction in emissions that is needed to keep global climate goals within reach and continues with fossil fuel production for decades to come. This will tie the company to projects and investments that are likely to become unprofitable as the world cleans up its energy systems.
That puts the company’s long-term commercial viability at risk, and also threatens efforts to protect the planet, further increasing the risk to the company.
The future consequences of Shell’s flawed climate plans could cause the company’s value to plummet, costing jobs and running the risk of shareholders and investors losing significant amounts of money, including people’s pension funds.
We believe this puts Shell’s Board in breach of its legal duties under the UK Companies Act to manage the climate risk facing the company.
So we’re going to court.”
We’re bringing this case as a shareholder in the company and are asking the court to order the Board to strengthen Shell’s climate plans.
This will be the first time ever that a company’s board has been challenged on its failure to properly prepare for the energy transition.
The case has already received support from institutional investors who together hold over 12 million shares in the company, including, among others, UK pension funds Nest and London CIV, Swedish national pension fund AP3, French asset manager Sanso IS, Degroof Petercam Asset Management (DPAM) in Belgium, as well as Danske Bank Asset Management and pension funds Danica Pension and AP Pension in Denmark. The investors are concerned that the Board’s strategy does not reduce the company’s emissions fast enough.
We argue that putting sufficient emissions reduction targets in place in the short and medium term will secure the company’s long-term value, as well as protecting investors’ capital.
Information Source: Read More “
Energy Monitors , Electric Power , Natural Gas , Oil , Climate , Renewable , Wind , Transition , LPG , Solar , Electric , Biomass , Sustainability , Oil Price , Electric Vehicles,
