The Shell Verdict and Its Implications for Greenhouse Horticulture

The recent Shell verdict caused a global stir, with an internationally renowned, publicly listed oil and gas company being ordered to accelerate its reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Although Shell is expected to appeal, experts anticipate that other major international oil companies in other countries will face similar legal proceedings and be compelled to prevent further environmental damage.

In the Netherlands, the Shell verdict was initiated by Milieudefensie, who have indicated they are now turning their sights on major players in other sectors, particularly those with a relatively large environmental impact. It therefore comes as no surprise that companies such as FrieslandCampina, Vion, and artificial fertilizer suppliers are being mentioned.

In an interview in NRC on Saturday, 10 July, Donald Pols (Milieudefensie) and Roger Cox (lawyer) stated that no company can escape its responsibilities under climate agreements on the basis of these rulings, and that it is not inconceivable that directors of large companies could be held personally liable in the future. This is significant, and the question the greenhouse horticulture sector must ask itself is: what are the potential consequences for our industry?

The fact is that greenhouse horticulture is a major consumer of natural gas, which automatically makes it an attractive target for activist organizations. There are large players in our sector too, even if they may be somewhat less prominent than FrieslandCampina.

It is my view that we must be aware of this and act ahead of it. There are broadly two ways to respond to this development: defensively and passively, by defending current practices as much as possible and delaying the transition to renewable energy and sustainable horticulture for as long as possible; or offensively and proactively, by accelerating the transition to renewable and sustainable horticulture.

The latter option strikes me as by far the wiser choice. Ultimately, we have no time to waste in limiting the consequences of climate change as much as possible, but it is also better for the reputation of our sector and, I am firmly convinced, better for the sector's competitive strength as well.

In an earlier blog, I already highlighted the importance of a strong platform in which various stakeholders engage constructively with one another to achieve an accelerated transition. If we end up in a situation where certain outcomes are forced through legal action, there will be mostly losers, society, through a transition that is too slow, and the sector, through reputational damage.