Ecopostureo court: Repsol defends its commitment to sustainable development, while Iberdrola considers it incompatible with oil | Companies

The confrontation between Iberdrola and Repsol lasted almost eight hours. “greenwashing”. This Thursday, the Commercial Court No. 2 of Santander heard the final arguments of the two major Spanish energy companies before rendering a decision on the claim that the largest Spanish electricity company Iberdrola filed in February last year against the country’s largest oil company Repsol. both the parent company and two sales subsidiaries – for ecological bleaching. Fifteen messages posted on the corporate website and three advertising campaigns that Repsol launched in 2023 to demonstrate its commitment to sustainability are those that Iberdrola sued and called “misleading.”

An oil company led by Antonio Brufau, defended by Dentons, is positioning itself in the market as a “leader in the energy transition”, while an electricity company led by Ignacio Sanchez Galan, advised by Ontje’s lawyers, wonders if that is the case. Iberdrola is not seeking penalties for damages, but rather the retraction of certain advertising messages and an injunction against returning to the alleged conduct. He greenwashing, An anglicism used when a company positions itself as environmentally friendly when in fact it is not. This is a practice prohibited by European regulations.

The oral hearing began promptly at nine in the morning and began with expert testimony presented by Iberdrola and Repsol to question or defend Repsol’s actions. A key conflict resolution procedure lasting more than six hours, during which the defense made every effort to convince the judge of their position and counter the opponent’s thesis. In both cases two reports were presented: one from a communication point of view, the other from an economic point of view. Consulting firms Roman Reputation Matters and Nera Economic Consulting acted on behalf of the electric utility company; For the oil company, economist and energy sector expert Fernando Barrera and consulting firm LLYC were responsible for verifying its reports.

Be or be committed to sustainability

Much of the debate has focused on whether sustainable development is the same as a commitment to sustainable development. According to Iberdrola, it is incompatible for a rival company to position itself as sustainable if the vast majority of its revenue comes from oil. “Neither Repsol’s reason for existence nor its DNA can be the fight against climate change or the pursuit of sustainable development, since 99.6% are highly polluting activities (…) such as oil or the traditional fossil fuel industry,” said lawyer Pedro Rodero.

“This is not true, it cannot be declared a leader in the energy transition,” he added, while noting that Repsol “is the largest CO2 emitter in Spain.” “It’s as if the tobacco company said its mission or DNA is to protect public health,” he quips.

For its part, the representative of Repsol said that the company is committed to the principles of sustainable development, which is a goal that must be gradually developed. At the same time, he emphasized that the claim and the expert opinions on which they are based contain “many errors.” Among them, lawyer José Antonio Caintzos stressed that Iberdrola has avoided the “energy trilemma”, that is, in addition to taking into account the environmental aspect, companies must “ensure supplies and that the economy and life do not come to a standstill.” citizens.”

To demonstrate their points, the lawyers were sharp in their questioning of the other side’s experts, while at the same time they tried to firmly defend their conclusions. An example of this is when the electricity company presented the Repsol Global Plan, which states: “We are committed to sustainable development throughout our value chain,” and economist Fernando Barrera, who was forced to take out a calculator to confirm his calculations for the plans Repsol. reducing carbon dioxide emissions – replied that we are talking about a “circular economy.”

The same thing happened when Repsol asked Nera’s expert about the need to consider the “financial taxonomy” as a basis for sustainable commitments. “If gasoline stopped being sold tomorrow, would the country still function when the vast majority of cars run on fuel?” – his lawyer asked. The consultant said no, but in his opinion, “that doesn’t make it sustainable.”

Opposing Visions

Throughout the day, experts explained the basic ideas on which the claim in the Iberdrola case and the response in the Respol case were based, and which became known during the oral hearings. First to appear was public relations expert Romana (proposed by the Basque multinational), who stressed that Repsol’s sustainability messaging was “patently misleading” despite being supported by “images of water, forests and leaves.” In this sense, he argued that the content of the website and numerous statements by Brufau and Repsol CEO Josue John Imaz could also confuse the consumer as they present themselves as an electricity company committed to renewable energy sources as they are “contrary to European policy.”

That line was reinforced by Nera, whose expert assured the judge that Repsol was “not sustainable” because it was not meeting its 2025 sustainability commitments and questioned its intended path to reach net zero emissions in 2050. , in line with what is established by the Paris Agreement, as it continues to invest “billions in oil.” “They are committed to doing as little as possible without following the rules,” he insisted.

For their part, Repsol experts expressed completely opposite opinions. Economist Barrera began his presentation by refuting Nera’s report: “(The consultant) made a mistake. Repsol does not claim to be sustainable, but is committed to sustainable development and is a leader in the energy transition.” “Commitment to sustainability is an attempt to reach this 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 explained. At the same time, the expert claims that although “more than 90% of Repsol’s income” comes from hydrocarbons, this does not prevent it from being a “multi-energy company.” Moreover, he emphasized that in recent years the company has made “efforts” to be present in the electricity sector.

Finally, consulting firm LLYC noted that, on the one hand, Repsol does not hide from the consumer that its “traditional activity” is the hydrocarbons sector, and on the other hand, that the communication analysis hired by Iberdrola focused on “some sections of the corporate website and some campaign.”