Escalating Its Legal Strategy, Greenpeace Netherlands Petitions Dutch Court for Information on Meat Producer JBS’ Climate Impacts to Build Future Case

On July 22, 2026, Greenpeace Netherlands (Greenpeace) filed a petition in a Dutch court seeking to compel global beef and poultry producer JBS to disclose information about the company’s greenhouse gas emissions, supply chain practices, and expansion plans. The petition seeks judicial enforcement of an April 30, 2026 pre-litigation demand letter and marks a significant escalation in Greenpeace’s campaign to hold JBS liable for alleged climate harms.

As previously reported, Greenpeace’s April 30 demand letter asserted that JBS owes a duty of care under Dutch law to refrain from conduct that “violates human rights, in particular the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment” and to take measures to combat climate change. The letter highlighted JBS’ proposed $2.5 billion expansion of its beef operations in Nigeria — which it said “ensures additional impacts will be locked in for decades to come” — and threatened legal action “to prevent JBS from causing further harm” and for climate impacts associated with past operations.

The letter demanded sweeping information including: (1) detailed greenhouse gas emissions data going back to 2019; (2) supplier compliance records identifying non-compliance with JBS’ environmental, social, and legal policies; (3) projected future impacts of planned expansions in Nigeria, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the United States; and (4) internal board materials relating to expansion decisions.

JBS responded to that demand on May 21, arguing the requests were improper because they were untethered from any obligations owed by, or viable legal claims against, JBS. JBS argued that a non-governmental organization does not have authority, through the European courts, to “interfere in policy decisions of sovereign states” like Nigeria, and that JBS does not owe a “general duty of care” under Dutch law as Greenpeace suggested. JBS also defended its expansion efforts, pointing to the “pressing need for food security” and complex “geopolitical dynamics at play.” JBS asserted that Greenpeace was engaging in a fishing expedition — “an obvious attempt to obtain a significant amount of JBS-data to trawl through, in the hope of finding something that might be used against the company.”

Greenpeace characterizes its July petition as “lay[ing] the ground for a first major climate and nature lawsuit against the dangerous expansion of the global meat industry.” Greenpeace argues that JBS’ response to the demand letter is inadequate and non-transparent. According to Greenpeace, Dutch law “allows access to certain corporate data for the purpose of building litigation against a company.” It is not clear yet whether the petition seeks all information requested in the demand letter or a subset of that information.

If the petition is granted, it could establish a precedent for using Dutch evidence-gathering procedures to build climate cases against other companies that purportedly generate high greenhouse gas emissions, including against meat and large agricultural producers that to date have largely avoided widespread climate-related litigation. For more than eight years, the oil and gas industry has been a target of climate change-related litigation on tort and greenwashing theories in dozens of U.S. jurisdictions and elsewhere in the world. More recently, JBS and fellow meat producer Tyson Foods have been sued in a handful of cases in the United States for purported greenwashing, with states and environmental advocacy groups claiming the companies’ representations about emissions and sustainability do not align with their operations’ climate impacts. Greenpeace’s efforts reflect a broader trend of environmental organizations seeking to use international legal frameworks to compel what they characterize as greater corporate transparency about climate contributions and to amass troves of information to help develop legal claims in jurisdictions worldwide. For example, over the past few years, activist groups have brought cases in European courts seeking information from oil and gas companies about their climate contributions or alleged knowledge of climate risks. Traction in these efforts could give rise to a series of new — and highly detailed — complaints in the U.S. and elsewhere against companies in sectors viewed as major contributors to climate change.

As activist groups look for creative new ways to hold companies they view as major climate change contributors liable, companies would be well-advised to assess their business practices and expansion plans with an eye toward potential information requests and litigation challenging the climate impacts of those practices and plans. Given the prevalence of greenwashing claims linked to climate impacts, review of sustainability commitments and climate-related disclosures for accuracy and substantiation would also be prudent. Proactive engagement to manage these risks could help mitigate litigation exposure that may be on the horizon. For questions or concerns regarding claims your company may face, please reach out to the authors or your Arnold & Porter contact.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 All Rights Reserved. This Blog post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.