Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

Shell’s “Climate-Friendly” Strategy Under Fire: ClientEarth’s Claim to Proceed, Because Who Cares About the Planet?

Shell’s “Climate-Friendly” Strategy Under Fire: ClientEarth’s Claim to Proceed, Because Who Cares About the Planet?

In a stunning display of corporate accountability, ClientEarth has been granted an oral hearing to pursue its derivative action claim against Shell, the notorious polluting giant. It seems like the courts are willing to entertain the idea that Shell might actually be responsible for something other than destroying the environment.

To the dismay of those seeking justice, the High Court of England and Wales initially denied permission for the lawsuit. But fear not! An oral hearing has been generously bestowed upon us, where ClientEarth will have the audacity to ask the judge to reconsider his decision. How noble of them!

Shell, unsurprisingly, has enlisted the esteemed services of Slaughter and May’s Peter Wickham to defend its greasy reputation. On the other side, Pallas Partners’ Will Hooker will bravely represent ClientEarth.

The court had the audacity to rule that ClientEarth’s application and evidence didn’t present a prima facie case for continuing the claim. How dare they expect tangible proof of Shell’s gross negligence and disregard for the planet? Don’t they know that Shell is too big to be held accountable?

ClientEarth has the nerve to argue that Shell hasn’t adopted a climate change risk management strategy in line with the Paris Agreement’s lofty goal of a 1.5-degree reduction in global temperature by 2050. Apparently, complying with international agreements is too much to ask from an oil behemoth. Who needs a habitable planet when there are profits to be made?

According to ClientEarth, Shell’s failure to act responsibly puts it in violation of its duties to shareholders under the Companies Act 2006. These pesky duties require directors to act in a way that promotes the success of the company and to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence. But who cares about such trivial matters when there are shareholders to please?

This landmark case could pave the way for similar claims in the future. That is, if the court doesn’t deem it an exception to the sacred principle that company decisions should be made exclusively by its “proper constitutional organs.” After all, why should shareholders have any say in the actions of the company they own? Especially in a corporation as enormous and labyrinthine as Shell.

Unfazed by the legal challenge, Shell responded defiantly, touting its impressive energy transition strategy and proclaiming its directors’ unwavering compliance with their duties. How reassuring to know that Shell, a company responsible for countless environmental catastrophes, has everything under control. We can all sleep soundly now.

Shell dismisses ClientEarth’s claim as “fundamentally false” and a “clear misuse of the English courts.” How dare these activists try to hold a multinational corporation accountable for its actions? The nerve!

But wait, there’s more! ClientEarth faces additional hurdles in its fight for justice. The court has pointed out their insignificant holding of a mere 27 shares in Shell as if the size of their investment somehow diminishes the importance of the case. Let’s not forget that 88.4% of Shell’s shareholders approved the company’s environmentally dubious plan in the 2021 AGM. Clearly, overwhelming shareholder support justifies any ecological damage caused.

So, let’s all applaud Shell for its tireless efforts to profit at the expense of our planet. It’s truly inspiring to witness their commitment to destroying the environment while maintaining a facade of corporate responsibility. Bravo, Shell! Bravo!

Shell management has a track record of putting profits first, before any other consideration, including the health and safety of its own employees. In other words, money before ethics. This is after all the company that financially supported Hitler and the Nazis. Google “Shell Nazi History”.

Shell is invited to point out for correction any factual inaccuracies and supply closing comments for publication as part of this article on an unedited basis. 

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

Comments are closed.