Woodside, Greenpeace Reach Settlement in Greenwashing Case

The Federal Court of Australia on Wednesday ended proceedings in a case filed by Greenpeace Australia Pacific (GAP) accusing Woodside Energy Group Ltd of inaccurate climate reporting, after a settlement agreement, both parties said.

"The proceedings, in which GAP challenged certain representations made by Woodside in relation to its climate strategy and emissions reduction targets, were dismissed by consent of both parties, who will bear their own costs", the liquefied natural gas-focused producer said in a brief online statement.

GAP climate and energy head Joe Rafalowicz said in a statement issued by the advocacy group, “During the course of the case, Woodside changed how it was presenting its plans on carbon emissions from what they had said prior to us bringing this case. We take that as a win and have decided to continue the fight against fossil fuel corporations outside of the courts".

GAP, which filed the suit December 2023, questioned Woodside's presentation of its emission reduction targets for 2025, 2030 and 2050.

"Greenpeace alleged, among other things, that Woodside represented that its emissions reduction targets will achieve substantial reductions in its actual scope 1 and scope 2 emissions, when in fact Woodside will rely heavily on offsets to achieve a decrease in net emissions", the GAP statement said.

"Greenpeace also alleged that Woodside represented that its emissions reduction targets are consistent with what the most recent climate science sets out as necessary to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement when in fact Woodside’s emissions reduction targets do not include Woodside’s scope 3 emissions (which account for over 90 percent of Woodside's emissions) and Woodside has plans to significantly expand its oil and gas production and processing and thereby the sum of its actual scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions would not materially decrease by 2030 and may increase past 2030".

Before the same court last year, Woodside secured affirmation for the regulatory approval of the environmental plan (EP) for Scarborough Energy, in a challenge put up by Doctors for the Environment (Australia) Inc (DEA).

"This court is purely concerned to exercise its constitutional function to determine on the case as formulated by DEA whether NOPSEMA [National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority] erred in law or committed jurisdictional error in purporting to be reasonably satisfied that the EP met the environment plan acceptance criteria in the Regulations", the ruling said.

"It is not for this court to adjudicate on the existential threat posed by climate change caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere".

Earlier this year the Federal Court sided with another Australian energy company, Santos Ltd, in a similar greenwashing case initiated by the Australasian Center for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR).

In August 2021 the ACCR, which describes itself as a non-profit research and shareholder advocacy organization, sued Santos alleging the gas-focused producer had breached the Corporations Act and the Australian Consumer Law.

"This was a landmark case that paved the way for others around the world to challenge corporate net zero claims in court", ACCR co-chief executive Brynn O’Brien said in a statement February 17, 2026.

"While the court found that Santos' conduct was insufficient to breach the law, the case has shone a powerful spotlight on how Santos' plans were developed and used to secure market advantage", O'Brien added.

"The ruling puts the burden on investors to scrutinize every statement, every number and every assumption provided by companies in relation to climate commitments", O'Brien said.

"This court case was not about punishing climate ambition, it was about standing up for market integrity and ensuring that investors are given all the information necessary to confidently assess emissions targets and net zero plans", O'Brien said.

Santos responded to the ruling by saying it is "committed to transparent, accurate and compliant reporting".

Santos said that since the publication of its roadmap to net zero by 2040, one of its publications questioned by the ACCR, the company "developed a Climate Transition Action Plan that continues to evolve, as we have consistently said it would do with the progression of technology, markets and public policy over time".

To contact the author, email jov.onsat@rigzone.com