ESG litigation in the Netherlands

Published on 16 April 2024 · Last updated 28 October 2026

ESG litigation in the Netherlands means court cases about a company’s environmental, social or governance conduct: climate cases, greenwashing claims, disputes over sustainability reporting and collective actions. Dutch law makes these cases possible because foundations and associations can sue on behalf of others (Article 3:305a Dutch Civil Code), and Dutch courts have ordered the State to cut emissions, declared company advertising misleading and accepted that large emitters have a climate duty of care.

This page is for directors, general counsel and compliance officers of foreign companies with Dutch subsidiaries, customers or listings. You will read which types of ESG claims are brought in the Netherlands, what the leading judgments decided, how collective actions work and what you can do now to reduce the risk of a claim. For advice on ESG compliance itself, see legal advice on ESG in the Netherlands.

What is ESG litigation in the Netherlands?

Litigation in which a company’s conduct on environmental, social or governance matters is challenged in court, usually on the basis of tort (Article 6:162 Dutch Civil Code), the rules on misleading commercial practices, or company law. Claimants are often interest groups, but competitors, investors and authorities also bring cases.

Four types of cases recur in Dutch practice:

Type of case	Typical claimant	Main legal basis
Climate and emissions cases	Environmental foundations and associations	Duty of care in tort (art. 6:162 Dutch Civil Code), read in the light of human rights
Greenwashing and misleading sustainability claims	Foundations, competitors, the ACM	Unfair commercial practices (art. 6:193a-6:193j) and misleading advertising (art. 6:194)
Annual report and disclosure disputes	Any interested party, the Advocate General, the AFM	Annual accounts procedure before the Enterprise Chamber (art. 2:447-2:448)
Supply chain and human rights claims	Affected persons, often through foundations	Tort; collective action (art. 3:305a)

What did the Urgenda and Shell climate cases decide?

In Urgenda, the Supreme Court upheld an order requiring the Dutch State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 compared with 1990, based on Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (HR 20 December 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007). That case concerned the State, not a company.

Against Shell, the District Court of The Hague ordered in 2021 a net 45% reduction of the CO2 emissions of the Shell group, including the emissions from products it sells, by the end of 2030 compared with 2019 (Rb. Den Haag 26 May 2021, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5337). The Court of Appeal of The Hague overturned that order on 12 November 2024. It held that Shell has an obligation to counter dangerous climate change, but that a civil court cannot establish that Shell must reduce its emissions by 45% or any other specific percentage (Hof Den Haag 12 November 2024, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2024:2100 (English version of ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2024:2099)). Milieudefensie and others have taken the case to the Supreme Court; as at October 2026, no final judgment had been published.

For companies, the appeal judgment matters more than the headline outcome. A Dutch court accepted that a large emitter has a duty of care regarding climate change that interest groups can invoke. Whether a specific reduction order follows depends on the facts and the available standards. Companies with significant emissions should therefore expect to be asked to explain their transition plans and their basis.

Can a company be sued in the Netherlands for greenwashing?

Yes. A foundation sued KLM over its advertising, and the District Court of Amsterdam held in 2024 that several advertisements suggesting that flying can be sustainable, and several suggesting that “compensation” products offset the climate impact of flying, were misleading and unlawful under the rules on unfair commercial practices (Rb. Amsterdam 20 March 2024, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:1512).

Consumer-facing sustainability claims fall under the Dutch rules on unfair commercial practices. A practice is misleading if it gives incorrect or misleading information about, among other things, the environmental or social characteristics of a product (Article 6:193c(1)(b) Dutch Civil Code). A claim about future environmental performance is misleading unless it is backed by clear, public and verifiable commitments in a detailed and realistic implementation plan, regularly checked by an independent external verifier (Article 6:193c(2)(d)). The trader bears the burden of proving the accuracy of its claims where appropriate (Article 6:193j(1)).

Competitors can also act. Between businesses, misleading statements and unlawful comparisons are unlawful under Article 6:194 and 6:194a Dutch Civil Code. See acting against greenwashing by competitors and greenwashing under Dutch law.

Received a letter from an interest group or a competitor about your sustainability claims? The answer you give in the first weeks often determines whether a court case follows. Contact our litigation team in Amsterdam.

How do collective ESG actions work under Dutch law?

A foundation or association can bring a claim to protect similar interests of other persons, if its articles cover those interests and the interests are sufficiently safeguarded (Article 3:305a(1) Dutch Civil Code). Since the Act on Collective Damages Actions (WAMCA), such claims can also seek damages, subject to strict admissibility requirements.

The requirements are detailed. The organisation must be sufficiently representative and have a supervisory body, adequate means, relevant experience and a public website with its articles, governance and the status of its cases (Article 3:305a(2)). The claim must have a sufficiently close connection with the Netherlands, because most of the persons represented live in the Netherlands, because the defendant is based there and other circumstances point to the Netherlands, or because the events took place there (Article 3:305a(3)(b)). Before suing, the organisation must have tried to reach its goal through consultation; two weeks after a request for consultation is in any case sufficient (Article 3:305a(3)(c)). Collective claims are recorded in a central register (Article 3:305a(7)).

In practice, this means a request for consultation from a foundation is often the first sign of a claim. Treat it as a pre-litigation step: answer substantively, keep a record, and check the organisation’s admissibility early.

Can sustainability reporting lead to litigation?

Yes. Any interested party, the Advocate General and, for issuers of securities covered by the Financial Reporting Supervision Act, the AFM can ask the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal to order a company to restate its annual accounts, management report or other required information (Article 2:447 and Article 2:448 Dutch Civil Code).

Sustainability information is increasingly part of these reports. Directive (EU) 2022/2464 (CSRD) adds sustainability reporting requirements to the EU accounting rules, and reported targets and transition plans can be used as evidence in other cases. Whether and from which year these requirements apply to your group depends on its size and on the Dutch implementing legislation, which you should check for each entity. Read more about the Enterprise Chamber in Amsterdam.

How can a company reduce the risk of ESG claims?

By making sure that what it says matches what it can prove, and that board decisions on climate and supply chain risks are documented. Most claims start with a public statement: an advertisement, a target in the annual report, or a commitment in a supplier code.

Inventory your public claims. List sustainability claims in advertising, on packaging, on websites and in reports, and link each to the evidence behind it.
Check future-looking claims. A “net zero by” claim needs a concrete, verifiable plan with milestones, regularly checked by an independent verifier (Article 6:193c(2)(d) Dutch Civil Code). Claiming that a product is climate neutral because of offsetting, or making a generic environmental claim without recognised excellent environmental performance, is prohibited outright in consumer advertising (Article 6:193g(ac) and (ae)).
Document board decisions. Record how climate and human rights risks were assessed and why the chosen course is reasonable.
Review supply chain contracts. Make sure supplier commitments are realistic and that you can monitor them.
Prepare for consultation requests. Agree in advance who answers a letter from an interest group and within what period.

Suppose a Danish producer of household products sells in the Netherlands with the claim “climate neutral by 2030”. A Dutch foundation sends a request for consultation, asking for the plan behind the claim. The producer has an internal plan but no independent verification. It decides to replace the claim on Dutch packaging with a factual description of current measures until an external check has been done, and answers the foundation within two weeks. The example is illustrative and not based on a specific case.

When should you involve a Dutch lawyer for ESG litigation?

When you plan a public sustainability claim or target, when you receive a request for consultation from a foundation, a letter from a competitor or questions from the ACM, and immediately when you are summoned.

MAAK Advocaten in Amsterdam advises foreign and Dutch companies on ESG-related disputes, from reviewing claims and answering interest groups to conducting summary proceedings, collective action defence and Enterprise Chamber proceedings in first instance and on appeal. Read more about our litigation practice or about types of litigation in the Netherlands.

Frequently asked questions about ESG litigation in the Netherlands

Who can bring an ESG claim against a company in the Netherlands?

Foundations and associations acting for others (Article 3:305a Dutch Civil Code), competitors for misleading advertising (Article 6:194), investors and other interested parties, and authorities such as the ACM. For annual reports, any interested party, the Advocate General and the AFM can go to the Enterprise Chamber.

Did Shell have to cut its emissions by 45%?

The District Court of The Hague ordered this in 2021, but the Court of Appeal overturned that order on 12 November 2024. It did hold that Shell has an obligation to counter dangerous climate change (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2024:2099). Milieudefensie and others have taken the case to the Supreme Court; as at October 2026, no final judgment had been published.

Was KLM’s advertising found to be greenwashing?

Yes, in part. The District Court of Amsterdam held in March 2024 that several KLM advertisements about sustainable flying and “compensation” products were misleading and unlawful under the rules on unfair commercial practices (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:1512).

Must a foundation contact the company before suing?

Yes. A collective action is only admissible if the organisation first tried to reach its goal through consultation; two weeks after a request for consultation is in any case enough (Article 3:305a(3)(c) Dutch Civil Code).

Who must prove a sustainability claim is true?

The company making it. In consumer cases the trader bears the burden of proof where appropriate (Article 6:193j Dutch Civil Code); between businesses the advertiser must prove its factual claims (Article 6:195).