Court rejects ACCR’s greenwashing claims over Santos climate targets
On 17 February 2026, the Federal Court rejected ACCR's greenwashing claims against Santos over "clean energy", net‑zero targets, and hydrogen promises.
Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility v Santos Limited was a corporations matter concerning "greenwashing."
ACCR, an incorporated not‑for‑profit "shareholder advocacy and research organisation", held shares in Santos Limited, a producer and supplier of natural gas in Australia and a publicly listed company on the ASX. ACCR said it used "shareholder strategy to enable investors to escalate engagements with heavy‑emitting companies in their portfolios" and stated that its mission sought "to influence changes to the strategies of [its] portfolio companies to decrease absolute, real world emissions."
ACCR alleged that Santos engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of s 1041H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and ss 18 and 33 of the Australian Consumer Law, Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). The impugned conduct arose in an Investor Day presentation on 1 December 2020, the 2020 Annual Report published on 18 February 2021, and the 2021 Climate Change Report published on the same date.
ACCR said Santos represented in the 2020 Annual Report that it produced "clean energy" and that natural gas provided "clean energy", even though gas is not "clean" and Santos is "a heavy emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG)." ACCR also said Santos represented in the Investor Day presentation and the 2021 Climate Change Report that it had "a credible and clear plan, based upon reasonable assumptions, to reduce Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by 26–30% by 2030" from a 2019–20 baseline and to achieve "net zero" Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2040, but failed to disclose key qualifications and assumptions.
According to ACCR, the 2030 Target and Net Zero Roadmap did not account for additional Scope 1 and 2 emissions linked to "expected hydrocarbon growth and exploration opportunities beyond 2025" and Santos' proposed CCS and blue hydrogen plans. ACCR further said the targets depended on undisclosed and unreasonable qualifications and assumptions, including reductions or offsets that it described as "nominal", "notional", and "speculative."
ACCR also challenged statements that Santos could deliver "zero‑emissions" or "clean" hydrogen and hydrogen with "no emissions in its production ('Scope 1 and 2')", while it proposed to produce blue hydrogen that generated "material additional emissions."
Santos denied that it misled or deceived anyone. It said the "clean energy" representation did not convey that natural gas produced no emissions and that no reasonable member of the target audience could reach that conclusion. Santos said the phrase "zero‑emissions hydrogen" did not claim literally no emissions and instead aligned with usage that treated the term as synonymous with "clean" and "carbon neutral", involving CCS and offsets.
Santos also described its targets and Net Zero Roadmap as part of long‑term strategic planning in an industry that faced rapid changes in markets, technology, economics, and regulation.
Justice Markovic considered the legal principles on reasonable grounds for future matters and the characteristics of the target audience before turning to alleged representations about "Clean Energy", "Clean" and "zero emissions" hydrogen, and the Net Zero Roadmap. She was satisfied that the representations were not misleading or deceptive in the manner alleged.
The Court dismissed the further amended originating process and the further amended concise statement that ACCR filed on 26 August 2023. Justice Markovic ordered ACCR to pay Santos' costs.
