Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility v Santos Limited [2026] FCA 96

This proceeding was brought by the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility against Santos Limited. ACCR was not just an advocacy body commenting from the outside. It was also a Santos shareholder, and it used the case to challenge the accuracy of Santos' public climate and energy messaging.

The Court described greenwashing as the concept at the heart of the proceeding. In practical terms, the case asked whether Santos had made itself, its products or its plans appear more environmentally friendly than they really were.

The challenged conduct appeared across three important corporate publications: the Investor Day Presentation published on 1 December 2020, the 2020 Annual Report published on 18 February 2021, and the 2021 Climate Change Report published on 18 February 2021. That matters because the case was not about one isolated slogan. It was about how a set of investor-facing and governance documents worked together and what overall impression they conveyed.

ACCR alleged that Santos represented it was a producer of clean energy, that natural gas provides clean energy, that it had a credible and clear plan based on reasonable assumptions to meet its 2030 and 2040 emissions targets, and that it could in future deliver zero-emissions or clean hydrogen. Santos denied those allegations and said the statements did not convey the meanings ACCR attributed to them.

The extract summarises ACCR's case in two broad parts.

First, ACCR said the 2020 Annual Report represented that Santos was a producer of clean energy and that natural gas provides clean energy. ACCR's position was that gas is not clean and that Santos is a heavy emitter of greenhouse gases, so those statements were misleading.

Secondly, ACCR challenged Santos' emissions targets and roadmap. It said the Investor Day Presentation and 2021 Climate Change Report represented that Santos had a credible and clear plan, based on reasonable assumptions, to reduce Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 30 per cent by 2030 and to achieve net zero Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2040.

ACCR also alleged that important qualifications were missing. According to the extract, ACCR said the 2030 target and the net zero roadmap did not account for additional Scope 1 and 2 emissions associated with expected hydrocarbon growth and exploration opportunities beyond 2025, and with Santos' proposed carbon capture and storage and blue hydrogen plans. ACCR further alleged that the roadmap depended on undisclosed or unreasonable assumptions, including reductions or offsets that were nominal, notional and speculative.

There was also a hydrogen-specific challenge. ACCR alleged Santos represented that it could in future deliver zero-emissions or clean hydrogen, and hydrogen with no emissions in production, when in fact Santos proposed blue hydrogen produced from natural gas using carbon capture and storage.

Santos' response was not simply that its claims were true in a broad commercial sense. It argued more specifically that the statements did not convey the misleading impressions ACCR alleged.

On the clean energy issue, Santos said it did not represent that consuming natural gas produced no emissions, and that no reasonable member of the target audience would have understood the statements that way.

On hydrogen, Santos said the phrase zero-emissions was not being used literally to mean absolutely no emissions at all. The extract records Santos' argument that, at the relevant time, zero-emissions as a descriptor of hydrogen was synonymous with terms such as clean and carbon neutral, referring to hydrogen produced from natural gas with carbon capture and storage and with offsets for residual emissions.

On the 2030 target, the 2040 target and the net zero roadmap, Santos said these were long-term targets in a highly uncertain industry marked by rapid changes in markets, technology, economics and regulation. Santos argued that the reasonable member of the target audience would understand that these were forward-looking objectives based on judgments about future developments and opportunities, including the development of carbon capture and storage hubs and the emergence of a hydrogen market.

The extract also shows Santos relied on evidence from people involved in strategy, sustainability, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. The Court's table of contents indicates detailed factual sections on the development of the targets, board strategy work, the components of the roadmap, the emissions baseline, electrification and hydrogen fuel, hydrogen with carbon capture and storage, offsets and carbon capture and storage expansion. That level of detail is important because it shows the case was tested against the internal work behind the public statements, not just the final wording.

The Court dismissed the application. The orders made on 17 February 2026 dismissed ACCR's further amended originating process and further amended concise statement, and ordered ACCR to pay Santos' costs, subject to any application to vary the costs order.

The catchwords state that the Court was satisfied the representations were not misleading or deceptive in the manner alleged. That wording is important. It means the Court rejected the pleaded case as framed by ACCR. It should not be read as a broad judicial endorsement of all similar environmental claims by all businesses.

The extract shows the Court approached the matter in a structured way. It set out the facts, then the legal principles, then considered two preliminary questions: whether the targets were future matters and what the characteristics of the target audience were. It then dealt separately with alleged representations about Santos' products, including clean energy and clean or zero-emissions hydrogen, before turning to the 2030 target, the 2040 target and the net zero roadmap. It also separately considered alleged positive misrepresentations, including whether there was a sufficient series of steps to achieve the targets, whether the pathway involved reductions rather than offsets, and whether material sources of emissions or forecast production and emissions growth had been omitted.

The table of contents also shows the Court examined specific technical and commercial issues such as the emissions baseline, electrification and hydrogen fuel, hydrogen with carbon capture and storage, the role of carbon credits, Bayu-Undan carbon capture and storage, WA or Varanus Island carbon capture and storage, and third party carbon dioxide or direct air capture at Moomba. That tells businesses something useful: when a climate claim is challenged, a court may drill into the operational assumptions and project details behind it.

The Court also discussed the role of contemporaneous documents and oral evidence. It accepted that contemporaneous documents are of great importance, but said that did not mean oral evidence should be given little or no weight. The Court considered that oral evidence could fill gaps and provide context for how options were developed and included in the roadmap. For businesses, that reinforces the value of keeping a clear documentary trail while also ensuring the people involved in developing claims can explain the process coherently.

This case is useful because it shows how courts analyse environmental claims in a commercial setting. It is also easy to overread. The result was a win for Santos, but the judgment does not say that climate targets, clean energy language or hydrogen claims are generally safe. The Court's conclusion was tied to the specific representations alleged, the documents in which they appeared, the target audience and the evidence before the Court.

For business owners, directors and founders, the first lesson is to focus on the exact impression your words create. A phrase such as clean, zero-emissions or net zero may sound straightforward internally, but its legal meaning depends on context. A statement in an investor presentation may be read differently from the same words on consumer packaging or a website landing page.

The second lesson is that future-facing claims need a real internal foundation. The extract shows the Court examined the development of Santos' targets and roadmap in detail, including board strategy work, project studies, emissions baselines, carbon capture and storage options, hydrogen plans and offsets. If your business publishes a target for a future year, you should be able to identify the assumptions, dependencies and decision-makers behind it.

The third lesson is governance. Environmental claims should not sit only with marketing. They often involve legal, technical, finance, operations and board-level input. If a claim depends on future technology, offsets, project approvals, customer demand or regulation, the approval process should reflect that complexity.

The fourth lesson is to avoid treating this case as a shield. A court may accept one company's wording in one investor context and still find similar wording misleading in another case. Consumer-facing claims, shorter-form advertising and product labels may create very different impressions from detailed annual reports and investor materials.

One of the strongest practical themes in the extract is the importance of internal documents and process. The Court referred to contemporaneous documents as being of great importance, while also recognising that oral evidence can explain how those documents fit together.

That matters for any business making environmental claims. If a statement is challenged, the legal question may quickly move from the published words to the internal record. Who proposed the claim? What assumptions sat behind it? Was there technical input? Was the board or management told about key uncertainties? Were qualifications considered and, if so, why were they included or omitted?

The extract shows the Court considered evidence from Santos personnel involved in low carbon operations, strategy, sustainability, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. It also points to detailed internal work on the development of the targets and roadmap. Businesses should take that as a prompt to build a disciplined record-keeping process around sustainability claims.

If your business is preparing sustainability disclosures, investor materials or product claims, this case supports a practical review discipline.

Start by identifying the audience. Investor documents, tender responses, website copy and consumer advertising may each require different wording and different levels of explanation.

Then identify whether the statement is about a present fact, a future matter, or a mix of both. A statement that your business has a plan, pathway or roadmap may imply more than a simple aspiration. It may suggest there are reasonable grounds and a coherent basis for the claim.

Next, test the assumptions. If the claim depends on future projects, carbon capture and storage, offsets, electrification, hydrogen, supplier changes or market demand, ask whether those assumptions are documented and whether the wording should be qualified.

Finally, make sure the approval process matches the risk. Claims with legal, technical or investor significance should be reviewed by the right internal people before publication and revisited if circumstances change.