ACCR诉桑托斯案：天然气是不是清洁能源？

Australia – March 2026 In the Federal Court proceedings, ACCR alleged that statementsmade in Santos’ investor day presentation, annual report andclimate change report were misleading or deceptive. Theseclaims were brought under section 1041H of theCorporations Act2001(Cth) and sections 18 and 33 of theAustralian Consumer Introduction Amid concerns about climate change andAustralia’s shift toward renewable energy,the role of natural gas in the nation’s energy ACCR’s allegations included that Santos had made misleadingstatements about its 2030 and 2040 emissions reduction targets.This article does not address these issues, instead exploring thealleged representations around natural gas as “clean energy” and The Labor government announced the Future Gas Strategy on 9May 2024, where “gas will remain an important source of energythrough to 2050 and beyond.” While the gas industry has beensupportive, environmental activist groups have criticised the In summary, ACCR’s allegations covered: •Clean energy claims– Santos was alleged to have made anumber of statements in its 2020 annual report, representingitself to be a “leading clean fuels company”3and provider of“clean energy”,4while (on ACCR’s case) omitting informationabout the release of significant quantities of greenhouse gases As a result of the ongoing debate, the industry and activist groupshave been keenly awaiting the Federal Court decision in theproceedings launched by the AustralasianCentre for Corporate The Federal Court handed down its decision on 17 February2026 and, as is now well publicised, the ACCR was wholly •Blue hydrogen claims– ACCR also argued that Santosmade statements in several documents representing thatit would be able to deliver “zero-emissions” or “clean” Among other things, the court found statements by Santosabout it being a “clean energy” company and “blue hydrogen”being clean energy were not (in the context the statements weremade) misleading or deceptive. So, does this mean the debate Santos rejected ACCR’s allegations, saying its statementswere neither misleading nor deceptive. It argued that itsclean energy claims did not suggest natural gas produced noemissions but simply that natural gas was cleaner than coal anddiesel.8It also maintained that its blue hydrogen claims were What Were the Key Issues in the Case? ACCR is an incorporated not-for-profit organisation, andaccording to their website, a “shareholder advocacy andresearch organisation”, which uses “shareholder strategy toenable investors to escalate engagements with heavy-emitting However, this does not mean that in all contexts, describingnatural gas as clean energy will not be misleading, and certainly, ifthe context (including the audience) supported the understandingthat ACCR alleged, such statements might well be misleadingand deceptive. As a result, significant care should still be takenwhen describing any energy produced using gas as “clean The Federal Court’s Judgment In any argument about misleading or deceptive conduct underthe ACL, it is necessary to identity the audience who is reading orhearing the statements to assess whether that person would havebeen misled. The parties held significantly different views on how todefine the target audience for Santos’ disclosures and sustainability •Clean energy claims– Having reviewed the publications,Markovic J found that the 2020 annual report employedthe term “clean” to convey that natural gas was a cleanerenergy than coal and diesel rather than to suggest that theconsumption of natural gas produced no GHG.11While HerHonour did reject the argument that the target audience would The case is also important in relation to statements about bluehydrogen as clean energy. Santos’ references to clean fuel andzero emission hydrogen were found not to be misleading ordeceptive, as they were presented within the company’s broadernarrative of transitioning toward a lower-carbon future and be familiar with all of Santos’ relevant publications, it was The broader message is clear: the validity of calling natural gas“clean” is still not a fixed truth but centres around a contextualjudgment – one shaped by disclosure, audience and a business’s •Blue hydrogen claims– Markovic J considered expert evidencepresented by both sides and opined that there was no settledmeaning of the terms “clean hydrogen” and “zero emissionshydrogen” within the Australian energy industry at the relevanttime.14Further, Her Honour held that these terms wereused interchangeably to refer to “blue hydrogen” by various Contacts Graeme SlatteryPartner, SydneyT +61 2 8248 7876E graeme.slattery@squirepb.com Edna NgAssociate, SydneyT +61 2 8248 7824E edna.ng@squirepb.com Accordingly, the Federal Court found that, when viewed from thestandpoint of the relevant target audience, the representationsmade by Santos in the context of its “transition to a lower-carbon Navanitha GajendranLaw Graduate, Sydney Key Takeaways TheACCR v Santosdecision