Ecopostureo trial: Repsol defends its dedication to sustainability and Iberdrola sees it as incompatible with oil | Companies | EUROtoday

The confrontation between Iberdrola and Repsol lasted nearly eight hours over greenwashing. This Thursday, the Commercial Court quantity 2 of Santander heard the ultimate arguments of the 2 giant Spanish power firms earlier than submitting for sentencing the lawsuit that the most important Spanish electrical energy firm, Iberdrola, filed in February in opposition to the nation’s largest oil firm, Repsol — each the guardian firm and two advertising subsidiaries—, for ecological bleaching. Fifteen messages unfold on the company web site and three promoting campaigns that Repsol launched in 2023 to point out its dedication to sustainability are those who Iberdrola has taken to courtroom and described as “misleading.”

The oil firm chaired by Antonio Brufau, defended by the Dentons agency, presents itself out there as a “leader in the energy transition”, one thing that the electrical energy firm led by Ignacio Sánchez Galán, suggested by Ontier legal professionals, calls into query. “It is not true (…) Repsol is the largest CO2 emitter in Spain. It is as if a tobacco company says that its mission or DNA is the protection of people’s health,” mentioned the lawyer who represented Iberdrola on this process, Pedro Rodero, throughout his report of conclusions.

For its half, Repsol has defended that it doesn’t declare to be sustainable, however somewhat that it has a dedication to it and that it’s an goal to be developed progressively. In this sense, the lawyer José Antonio Caínzos has criticized Iberdrola for having filed a lawsuit with “a multitude of errors.” Among them, he has highlighted the avoidance of the “energy trilemma”, which suggests that, along with considering the environmental facet, firms should “ensure supply and that the economy and the lives of citizens do not come to a standstill.”

Iberdrola just isn’t asking for a sentence for damages, however somewhat for the withdrawal of sure promoting messages and a prohibition in opposition to falling again into the reported conduct. He greenwashing, Anglicism used when an organization presents itself as environmentally pleasant when the truth is it’s not, it’s a apply prohibited by European laws. However, the directive that restricts the sort of promoting approach is pending transposition into the Spanish authorized system. Even so, the electrical energy firm has defended that the Unfair Competition Law comprises provisions devoted to stopping this conduct.

The oral listening to started at 9 within the morning sharp and commenced with the professional opinions that each Iberdrola and Repsol have offered to query or defend Repsol’s actions. A key process for the decision of the battle, which has lasted greater than six hours, wherein the defenses have put all their efforts to persuade the choose of their positions and counteract the opponent’s thesis. In each circumstances, two stories have been offered: one from the communication perspective and the opposite from the financial perspective. On behalf of the electrical energy firm, the consulting companies Roman and Nera Economic Consulting have appeared; whereas on the a part of the oil firm these accountable for inspecting its messages have been the economist and professional within the power sector Fernando Barrera and the consulting agency LLYC.

Be or be dedicated to sustainability

Much of the talk has centered on whether or not being sustainable is identical as being dedicated to sustainability. For Iberdrola, it’s incompatible for a competing firm to current itself as sustainable if the overwhelming majority of its earnings comes from oil. “Neither Repsol’s reason for being nor its DNA can be the fight against climate change or the commitment to sustainability because 99.6% are highly polluting activities (…) such as oil or the traditional fuel industry fossils,” his lawyer has argued.

In response, Repsol’s protection has assured that the intention is to not “deceive anyone, even if they wanted to.” “Practically all citizens know what Repsol is,” Caínzos mentioned throughout his report, whereas stating that the corporate may be described as “multi-energy” as a result of customers additionally know that, along with the hydrocarbon sector, spend money on renewable power.

To show their thesis, the defenses have incisively questioned the opposite get together’s consultants, whereas they’ve tried to face agency to defend their opposite conclusions. An instance of this was when the electrical energy firm’s lawyer exhibited Repsol’s Global Plan, wherein he acknowledged: “We are sustainable throughout our value chain.” However, the economist Fernando Barrera – who has been compelled to take out the calculator to verify his calculations on Repsol’s carbon emissions discount – has replied that this refers back to the “circular economy”.

The similar factor occurred when Repsol requested Nera’s professional about the necessity to have in mind the “financial taxonomy” as a foundation for sustainable commitments. “If gasoline were to stop being sold tomorrow, would the country function when the vast majority of vehicles are fuel-powered?” requested his lawyer. The advisor has responded “no”, however, in his opinion, “that does not make it sustainable.”

Opposite visions

Throughout the day, the consultants have been explaining the principle concepts on which the lawsuit has been based mostly, within the case of Iberdrola, and the response, within the case of Respol. The first to look was Roman’s communications professional (proposed by a Basque multinational), who emphasised that Repsol’s sustainability messages are “clearly misleading”, regardless of being bolstered with “images of water, forests and leaves”. In this sense, he has argued that the content material of the web site and the quite a few statements by Brufau and the CEO of Repsol, Josu Jon Imaz, may also be complicated for the patron by presenting itself as an electrical energy firm dedicated to renewable energies, when, According to their evaluation, their actions are “contrary to European policies.”

This line has later been bolstered by Nera, whose professional has assured earlier than the choose that Repsol “is not sustainable”, since it’s not fulfilling its dedication to sustainability by the 12 months 2025. Likewise, he has questioned the trail marked for obtain zero web emissions in 2050, in step with what’s established within the Paris Agreement, as a result of it continues to speculate “billions in oil.” “They are committing to do as little as possible without complying with the regulations,” he insisted.

For their half, Repsol’s consultants have offered fully reverse reflections. Economist Barrera started his intervention by refuting Nera’s report: “He committed [la consultora] a mistake. Repsol does not say that it is sustainable, but that it is committed to sustainability and is a leader in the energy transition.” “Committing to being sustainable is trying to reach that stage. The countries of the world are not sustainable, the companies of the world are not sustainable. “We are meeting the needs of the present but we are concerned about climate change,” he defined. Thus, the professional has maintained that, though “more than 90% of Repsol’s income” comes from hydrocarbons, this doesn’t forestall it from being a “multi-energy company.” In reality, he highlighted that lately the corporate has made “efforts” to be within the electrical energy sector.

Finally, the consulting agency LLYC has identified, on the one hand, that Repsol has not hidden from the patron what its “traditional activity” is, in reference to fuel stations. And then again, he has questioned the communication evaluation employed by Iberdrola, stating that it was restricted to inspecting “some sections of the corporate website and some campaigns.”