On 26 May 2021, the District Court of The Hague (The Netherlands) passed an innovative judgment in Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell. The Court interpreted Shell's duty of care towards the inhabitants of the Netherlands as requiring it to mitigate climate change by reducing the carbon dioxide emissions resulting from its global operations by at least 45% by 2030, compared with 2019. This case comment salutes the identification of a corporate duty of care for climate change mitigation but expresses scepticism regarding the Court's interpretation of this duty. The Court's reading of global climate mitigation objectives and climate science, which form the basis of its determination of Shell's requisite level of mitigation action, is plagued with inconsistencies. It is argued here that, in order to determine the standard of care applicable to Shell, the Court should have relied not only on a ‘descending’ reasoning as to what ought to be done, but also on an ‘ascending’ reasoning accounting for industry practices.

2021 年 5 月 26 日，海牙地区法院（荷兰）通过了Milieudefensie诉荷兰皇家壳牌案的创新判决. 法院将壳牌公司对荷兰居民的照顾义务解释为要求其通过到 2030 年将其全球业务产生的二氧化碳排放量比 2019 年减少至少 45% 来缓解气候变化。本案评论向确定减轻气候变化的公司注意义务，但对法院对该义务的解释表示怀疑。法院对全球气候减缓目标和气候科学的解读是其确定壳牌公司必要的减缓行动水平的基础，但存在不一致之处。这里有人争辩说，为了确定适用于壳牌的谨慎标准，法院不仅应该依靠“降序”推理来确定应该做什么，