Litigimi ESG në Holandë: detyrimi i kujdesit, raportimi dhe përgjegjësia

ESG litigation in the Netherlands rests on ordinary Dutch tort law, not on a single ESG statute. Claimants rely on the duty of care in article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek, BW), usually through a collective action, and ask a court to order a company to change its conduct; the main exception is greenwashing, which is tested against the specific rules on unfair commercial practices.

European reporting rules and the amended Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) add a second layer of obligations. But the enforceable core is still the open standard of care: what could this specific company reasonably have been expected to do?

What does ESG mean in Dutch law?

No Dutch statute defines ESG. The legal obligations behind it come from tort law, company law, consumer protection law and directly applicable European legislation.

The term itself comes from investment and reporting practice. There it groups environmental, social and governance factors into one lens for assessing a company beyond its financial figures. In legal terms it is a container, not a source of duties.

That distinction matters in practice. A company cannot be sued for having a weak ESG score. It can be sued because a particular act or omission falls below the standard of care it owes. It can also be sued because a public sustainability claim misleads consumers, or because its annual reporting does not meet the requirements of Title 9 of Book 2 BW. The first question is therefore always which concrete norm a claimant is invoking.

The table maps where those norms sit for each of the three pillars.

Which legal duty sits behind most ESG claims?

Almost every ESG case in the Netherlands is built on article 6:162 BW, the general provision on wrongful acts (onrechtmatige daad). Its open standard of care is what makes ESG disputes possible without a specific statutory prohibition.

Under article 6:162 BW, conduct is wrongful if it infringes a right, breaches a statutory duty, or breaches the unwritten standard of care in society (de ongeschreven zorgvuldigheidsnorm). That third ground is an open norm. It is the reason ESG disputes can be litigated at all.

An open norm has to be filled in. Dutch courts look at several factors:

• the seriousness and foreseeability of the harm;
• the cost and feasibility of precautions;
• the state of scientific knowledge;
• human rights instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights;
• soft law the company itself has endorsed, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

Soft law does not become binding because a court cites it. It is treated as evidence of what a careful company in that sector was expected to do.

The Urgenda case shows the mechanism most clearly. On 20 December 2019 the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) upheld an order requiring the Dutch State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 per cent by the end of 2020 compared with 1990 (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007). The court reasoned from the positive obligations in articles 2 and 8 of the Convention.

That judgment binds the State, not private companies. The Convention does not apply horizontally between a claimant and a company in the same way. Its importance for corporate cases lies in the method: an open standard of care can be given concrete content with external, verifiable benchmarks.

A claimant therefore does not have to prove that ESG is binding, only that this defendant did less than reasonable care required under Article 6:162 BW.

What did the Shell judgment actually decide?

The Court of Appeal in The Hague accepted that Shell owes a duty of care to counter dangerous climate change, but it set aside the 45 per cent reduction order. The case is now before the Supreme Court.

The Shell case is the most cited and most often misdescribed decision in this field, so the facts matter. On 26 May 2021 the District Court of The Hague ordered Shell to reduce the CO2 emissions of the group and its value chain by net 45 per cent by the end of 2030, measured against 2019 (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5337). On 12 November 2024 the Court of Appeal in The Hague set that order aside and dismissed the claims (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2024:2099).

The reversal did not reject the underlying principle. The Court of Appeal held that Shell owes a duty of care to counter dangerous climate change. It held that human rights considerations help give that duty content, and that such a duty can in principle be enforced through the civil courts.

What the Court declined to do was fix a reduction percentage for this individual company. It found no sufficient consensus on a figure that could be attributed to a single firm. It also refused an order on investment in new oil and gas fields, because the claim as formulated was not sufficiently defined.

Milieudefensie lodged an appeal in cassation. The Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) heard oral argument in May 2026; its judgment is still pending. Until the Supreme Court rules, the judgment of the Court of Appeal stands. There is currently no court-imposed reduction percentage on Shell. Any memo or policy document that still assumes the 45 per cent order is in force is out of date.

For other companies, the practical reading is narrow but real. A duty of care for climate harm has been accepted at appellate level. The obstacle for claimants is quantification. They must show what this defendant should concretely have done and failed to do, rather than point at a global carbon budget. That shifts the argument towards company-specific evidence: internal knowledge, feasible alternatives and the company’s own published commitments.

How does an ESG claim reach a Dutch court?

Almost always through a collective action under article 3:305a BW, brought by a foundation or association. Individual claimants rarely bring ESG cases.

The claim organisation must have objects that cover the interest at stake. Since the Act on the settlement of mass damages in collective actions (Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie, WAMCA) entered into force on 1 January 2020, this route is open for damages as well as for injunctions and declaratory relief. The admissibility requirements are demanding, though.

A claim organisation must show:

• an adequate governance structure and a supervisory body;
• transparent and acceptable third-party funding;
• sufficient representativeness for the group it acts for;
• a sufficiently close connection between the claim and the Netherlands.

Collective claims must be entered in the central register for collective actions. Where several organisations bring competing claims about the same event, the court appoints one exclusive representative. These are real filters: a significant share of collective actions is decided on admissibility before the court reaches the substance.

In practice the injunction remains the more effective ESG instrument. An order to stop or start doing something avoids the causation and quantification problems that make collective damages claims for diffuse environmental harm very hard to win. Where damages are claimed, the claimant must still prove causation under Dutch law. The more diffuse the harm, the heavier that burden.

Jurisdiction is a second reason why these cases are filed here. A company with its registered seat in the Netherlands can be sued before the Dutch courts. Claims against foreign group companies have been joined to proceedings against a Dutch parent.

In the Nigerian oil spill litigation, the Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled on 29 January 2021 on the liability of a Nigerian subsidiary (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2021:132). It also imposed an obligation on the parent side of the group to install a leak detection system. That confirmed that a Dutch anchor defendant can pull foreign conduct into a Dutch courtroom. Group structure is therefore a litigation risk in itself, and worth reviewing alongside the liability exposure of the directors who run those entities.

Why is greenwashing the fastest-moving ESG risk?

For most companies the realistic exposure is not a climate injunction but a challenge to what they say about themselves. Dutch law treats misleading sustainability messaging as an unfair commercial practice under articles 6:193a and following BW.

A claim is misleading if it contains inaccurate information. It is also misleading if it is accurate but presented in a way that deceives the average consumer. A material omission counts as well. Under article 6:193j BW, the burden of proving that a factual claim is correct rests on the trader.

Dutch courts already apply this framework to sustainability advertising. On 20 March 2024 the District Court of Amsterdam held that a series of statements by an airline about the sustainability of flying painted a misleading picture and were therefore unlawful (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:1512). This included messaging built around offsetting and fuel contributions. The judgment did not stop the company from advertising; it required the advertising to be capable of substantiation.

What changes from 27 September 2026?

The rules have become stricter. Directive (EU) 2024/825 on empowering consumers for the green transition had to be transposed by 27 March 2026 and applies from 27 September 2026. The directive:

• bans generic environmental claims such as “environmentally friendly” or “climate neutral” where no recognised excellent environmental performance can be demonstrated;
• prohibits claims that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive environmental impact based on offsetting schemes;
• restricts sustainability labels that are not based on a certification scheme or established by public authorities.

In the Netherlands, the Authority for Consumers and Markets (Autoriteit Consument en Markt, ACM) enforces these rules. The ACM has published guidance on sustainability claims and has previously required companies to amend or withdraw them.

The practical rule is simple. Every environmental claim needs a substantiation file that exists on the day the claim is published, not one assembled after a complaint.

How do reporting duties fit into Dutch annual accounts law?

Sustainability reporting under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is part of the annual accounts, not a separate exercise. The information forms part of the management report (bestuursverslag) governed by Title 9 of Book 2 BW.

The report is prepared on a double materiality basis. It covers both the effect of the world on the company and the effect of the company on the world, and it is subject to external assurance.

The scope and timetable of the CSRD have been amended at European level through the Omnibus I package. After that amendment, EU companies fall in scope with more than 1,000 employees and a net turnover above EUR 450 million. The first question for any company is therefore whether it is still in scope, and from which financial year.

The litigation relevance of reporting is often underestimated. Published sustainability information is evidence. It can be held against the company in an advertising dispute, in a supply contract that warrants compliance, in a tender, and in a tort claim about what the company knew and promised. Companies that describe ambitions in the language of commitments create the benchmark against which their conduct will later be measured.

What changed in the CSDDD after Omnibus I?

The CSDDD, Directive (EU) 2024/1760, was substantially amended by the first omnibus directive, Directive (EU) 2026/470, published in the Official Journal on 26 February 2026. Three changes matter most.

Is there still an EU civil liability regime?

No. The original directive required Member States to provide a specific liability route for damage caused by non-compliance with the due diligence obligations. That regime is gone, and liability is left to national law. In the Netherlands, claimants therefore fall back on article 6:162 BW and the standard of care described above, rather than on a dedicated statutory cause of action.

How high can penalties be?

The ceiling for financial penalties is now 3 per cent of net worldwide turnover. This replaces the original rule that the maximum could not be lower than 5 per cent.

Kur zbatohen detyrimet?

Member States must transpose the amended directive by 26 July 2028, and the obligations apply from 26 July 2029. Companies in scope have a longer runway. But the core duty to identify, prevent and mitigate adverse human rights and environmental impacts in their chain of activities, on a risk-based approach, has not disappeared.

Contractual cascading through supplier terms continues in the meantime. That is why many mid-sized Dutch suppliers already face these requirements through their customers rather than through legislation. Our separate guide to Direktiva e Kontrollit të Duhur të Qëndrueshmërisë së Korporatave sets out the scope thresholds and due diligence steps in more detail.

What does this mean for directors?

Sustainability decisions are board decisions, and Dutch company law already contains the standards for judging them. Directors are rarely liable personally, but poorly documented decisions increase the risk.

Under article 2:9 BW every director must properly perform the tasks assigned to him or her. Internal liability towards the company arises only where a serious reproach (ernstig verwijt) can be made. Under articles 2:129 and 2:239 BW, the management board is guided by the interests of the company and its business. That is a broader yardstick than shareholder return. It gives a board room to weigh environmental and social consequences without breaching its mandate.

Listed companies also work with the Dutch Corporate Governance Code. The Code puts long-term value creation and sustainability at the centre of the board’s task and works on a comply-or-explain basis. It is not statute, but a departure that is neither applied nor explained is exactly the kind of material a claimant or a works council will use.

Can the Enterprise Chamber get involved?

Yes, and this forum is easy to overlook. Under articles 2:344 and following BW, the Enterprise Chamber (Ondernemingskamer) can order an inquiry into the policy and affairs of a company where there are well-founded reasons to doubt sound policy. It can also find mismanagement (wanbeleid).

A board that ignores clearly foreseeable environmental or human rights exposure, or decides without any documented weighing of it, is exposed on that route as much as on a tort claim.

External liability of a director towards a third party is harder to establish. It requires a personal serious reproach against that individual. It is not theoretical, though, where a director personally signed off on statements or decisions known to be unsupportable.

The practical protection is process: documented options, documented advice, and minutes showing that the trade-off was actually made. See also our note on roli dhe detyrat e bordit të drejtorëve.

Çfarë duhet të kontrolloni si kompani?

• Check whether you fall within the amended CSRD scope (more than 1,000 employees and net turnover above EUR 450 million) and from which financial year.
• Keep a substantiation file for every public sustainability claim on the day it is published, as Article 6:193j BW puts the burden of proof on you.
• Remove generic green claims and offsetting-based neutrality claims that are banned from 27 September 2026.
• Compare what you have publicly promised with what you actually do; that gap is the core of a conduct claim.
• Make sure reporting, supplier terms, customer warranties and advertising say compatible things.
• Record in board minutes how environmental and human rights risks were weighed (Articles 2:129 and 2:239 BW).

What should you check as a claimant or claim organisation?

• Check that your foundation’s objects cover the interest at stake, as Article 3:305a BW requires.
• Check your governance structure, supervisory body and third-party funding against the WAMCA admissibility requirements.
• Check that the claim has a sufficiently close connection with the Netherlands.
• Formulate a concrete, company-specific order rather than a global reduction target; that is where the Shell claim failed on appeal.
• Register the collective claim in the central register for collective actions.

What can we do for you with ESG litigation?

Vizioni i avokatët e korporatave advise Dutch and international companies on the legal side of ESG, both in advice and in litigation.

• We assess your exposure to a collective action under Article 3:305a BW.
• We review sustainability claims against Articles 6:193a and following BW and the rules applying from 27 September 2026 before you publish them.
• We check whether the CSRD and the amended CSDDD apply to your company and from when.
• We draft supplier terms that deal with contractual due diligence cascading.
• We advise the board on documenting sustainability decisions, and act in Enterprise Chamber inquiry proceedings.

përmbledhje

• ESG claims in the Netherlands rest on the open duty of care in article 6:162 BW, usually enforced through a collective action under article 3:305a BW.
• The Court of Appeal accepted a climate duty of care for Shell in 2024 but set aside the 45 per cent reduction order; the Supreme Court has yet to rule.
• Greenwashing is the most immediate risk: from 27 September 2026, generic green claims and offsetting-based neutrality claims are banned.
• After Omnibus I, the CSDDD has no EU civil liability regime, a penalty cap of 3 per cent of turnover, and applies from 26 July 2029.
• For directors, documented decision-making is the best protection against liability and Enterprise Chamber proceedings.

Pyetjet më të shpeshta