Santos’ recent greenwashing win in the Federal Court is being discussed as a turning point for climate disclosures. From a reputation perspective, it’s something slightly different: a signal about how companies can talk credibly about transition ambition without being punished for not having a 30-year roadmap carved in stone. 

The real reputational fault line isn’t “did they say net or not-net”, or whether a pathway document reads like a PhD thesis. It’s the widening gap between what many stakeholders want to hear, that is immediate, absolute certainty, and how long-horizon decarbonisation actually works in hard-to-abate sectors: imperfect options, evolving technology, and a mix of levers. If we create an environment where publishing a target invites a legal and reputational brawl over semantics, we’ll get less disclosure, less transparency, and more cautious corporate silence. 

That’s why this moment matters beyond Santos. 

Instead of the petty claims about semantics, we should be encouraging companies to put their transition logic on the table. Discuss and debate targets, assumptions, governance, and dependencies. This allows stakeholders to understand, pressure-test and compare progress over time. That scrutiny is healthy. It moves opponents of gas from battling the little things to seeking to drive a steeper trajectory. Not to “win” the moral debate by proving a word choice was too optimistic. 

The real risk in climate disclosure is silence, not semantics

None of this is a free pass. Ambition has to be grounded. If a company can go harder or faster, critics should focus their energy on the practical asks. Ask for tighter interim milestones, clearer investment choices, credible offset strategies, and transparent reporting that shows what’s working and what isn’t. 

Ultimately if the objective is fewer emissions, the highest-leverage move is getting inside the tent. Rather than opposing, how about pushing, challenging, and holding companies to account on outcomes, rather than treating language as the battleground? 

But then I grew up in the oil gas industry, I’m positively biased. 

Author: Chandran Vigneswaran