Santos says the alleged greenwashing case against it represents a “biased retelling” of the company’s net zero roadmap and climate reports.
Neil Young KC, representing Santos, presented the company’s closing arguments in the federal court on Tuesday, in response to allegations of greenwashing by the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR).
The landmark case, which began on 28 October, was the first to challenge the veracity of a company’s net zero plan, and test whether corporations could be held legally accountable for their climate reports and strategies.
According to the ACCR, Santos misled investors by positioning itself as a “clean fuels company” with a “clear and credible pathway” to net zero emissions by 2040, that the company failed to disclose the emissions associated with hydrogen production and that use of the term “zero emission hydrogen” was false and misleading.
In his closing address, Young argued the ACCR’s case ignored years of work by Santos in the lead-up to the company’s 2020 investor briefing and annual report and its 2021 climate change report, which were the focus of the court case.
For example, Santos was looking into large-scale carbon capture and storage hubs and a hydrogen business prior to 2020, he said, driven by the role of the technologies in addressing greenhouse gas emissions and Santos’ competitive advantage in pursuing them.
Santos’ climate targets and strategies – to reduce emissions by 26% to 30% by 2030 and reach net zero emissions by 2040 – represented a statement of “present intention” and “not a promise or prediction”, Young said.
The company had reasonable grounds to think that its 2040 net zero targets “might be achieved”, he said, but were inherently uncertain due to their dependence on future markets, regulations and technologies.
ACCR has a right of reply on 6 December, once Santos has concluded its closing arguments, with a decision in the case to follow.
ACCR was asking the court to make declarations that Santos had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, and for injunctions prohibiting Santos from engaging in deceptive conduct in future and forcing it to issue a corrective notice about the environmental impacts of its operations.
