When greenwashing claims fail: what ACCR v Santos means (and does not mean) for UK businesses

On 26 February 2026, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its first substantive greenwashing decision in Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsisiblity v Santos [2026] FCA 96. The judgment, in which the Court rejected ACCR's claims, has attracted significant attention internationally, due in part to the more conservative approach taken by the Court. However, UK businesses in particular should be cautious before using the judgment as a reason to relax their approach towards the risk of environmental claims.

The case

ACCR's claim concerned certain climate-related statements by Santos, a major producer and supplier of Australian oil and gas, in investor-facing materials between 2020 and 2021. The statements contained certain claims concerning Santos' production of “clean energy” and its plans for transitioning to “net zero” Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions by 2040.  Those claims related to, among other things, the production of blue hydrogen and Santos' use of CCS technology. 

ACCR brought its claims under s.1041H of the Corporations Act 2001 and ss.13 and 33 of the Australian Consumer Law, alleging that Santos “engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead.”  The organisation asserted that the statements in question were misleading, focusing on the emphatic and absolute language used by Santos and the energy company's lack of substantiation and disclosure in respect of its climate claims. 

The judgment

The Federal Court of Australia rejected each of ACCR's claims.  It did not agree that the statements were misleading or likely to mislead. In summary, the Court found that:

1. Santos' statements were essentially forward-looking, and were made on reasonable grounds.
2. A reasonable investor would have understood Santos' claims in the relevant context, with an appreciation of the uncertainty inherent in any environmental planning.

Notably, the Court did not appear to agree that using terminology like “clean” and “zero emissions” should necessarily be taken as an absolute claim.  This type of language should be interpreted by reference to the assumed knowledge of the target audience, the wider context of the representations, and (in this case) statements made elsewhere by the company.

Why UK business should be cautious

It may be tempting for businesses to see the Court's decision as heralding a relaxing of the rules applicable to environmental claims but such a conclusion is likely to be premature. ACCR has appealed the judgment and, as with all appeals, there is a chance either that the entire decision or significant parts of it will be overruled in due course. Each greenwashing case is also, of course, highly fact-specific, and this case is no different, with the knowledge of the target audience (i.e., investors with a certain level of understanding of climate change issues) being a key factor in the Court's reasoning.

Most importantly for UK businesses, the regulatory and enforcement landscape in the UK is stricter in certain key aspects. While neither Australia nor the UK yet possesses dedicated “greenwashing” legislation, the UK's regime has been significantly reinforced by the implementation of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2025 and by the increased powers now available to the Competition and Markets Authority (the “CMA”). The guidance given in its Green Claims Code clearly illustrates the CMA's expectations in respect of businesses and its willingness to take enforcement action if those expectations are not met.

Key takeaways

The judgment is nevertheless interesting and serves as a timely reminder that a determination of greenwashing should never be taken as a foregone conclusion, particularly in the context of investor communications. However, in the UK at least, the direction of travel remains firmly toward increased scrutiny on businesses and more assertive regulatory enforcement.  Businesses would therefore be well-advised to continue taking a very careful approach towards any environmental claims, regardless of whether they are directed at consumers or investors.

For assistance with greenwashing risk, please contact Victoria Barnes, Patrick Bettle or Christopher Wenn, or your usual contact in the Burges Salmon ESG team.