Rabobank has taken legal action against Greenpeace, alleging that the environmental organisation’s campaign portraying its CEO, Stefaan Decraene, as a ‘deforestation cowboy’ in Brazil constitutes a dangerous and defamatory smear. Greenpeace’s visual campaign, prominently displayed in Amsterdam’s financial district, aimed to highlight the bank’s alleged financial ties to companies contributing to large-scale deforestation.
The dispute centres on Greenpeace’s installation last month of two towering posters on the Viñoly office building in Amsterdam’s Zuidas, where Decraene’s face appeared with the word “Wanted” and a cowboy hat. The posters, which spanned six floors and were visible from major points including the A10 motorway and Amsterdam Zuid station, accused Decraene of responsibility for €10 billion in deforestation damages. The imagery, styled after Western ‘Wanted’ posters, extended beyond Zuidas to Rabobank’s other office locations, with similar posters appearing near stations in Utrecht, Amsterdam Amstel, and The Hague. Additionally, doctored images of Decraene holding a chainsaw in a deforested area circulated on social media.
Rabobank’s legal team argues that this campaign constitutes a “massive and personal slander campaign,” and has filed an injunction to remove all images of Decraene from public spaces and online. They are also requesting a daily penalty of €10,000 if Greenpeace fails to comply, with the fine to be donated to a charity of Greenpeace’s choosing. According to Rabobank, the imagery misappropriates Decraene’s likeness in an “unnecessarily offensive and demonising manner,” and raises concerns over his personal safety. The bank cited recent incidents, such as a protest targeting Dutch Minister Sigrid Kaag in 2022, to support its claim that public demonisation can have serious security implications.
A spokesperson for Rabobank commented, “It’s acceptable for Greenpeace to hold us accountable, but this particular portrayal crosses a line that could endanger our CEO’s safety.” Rabobank’s legal action also claims that the campaign disregards portrait rights, given that Decraene’s likeness is used without permission in a manner the bank considers harmful.
In response, Greenpeace defended its right to freedom of expression and the use of imagery to hold powerful figures accountable for corporate actions. Meike Rijksen, a campaigner for Greenpeace, dismissed the lawsuit as “a bit childish,” arguing that Decraene, as the public face of a major financial institution, should be open to such scrutiny. “It is essential that we can continue to call out individuals in these high positions who make decisions that impact us all,” she told Het Parool. She added that the portrayal of Decraene as a ‘Western cowboy’ was intended to be humorous and symbolic, noting that Decraene’s name was deliberately left off the posters.
Rijksen emphasised that Greenpeace’s campaign was a response to Rabobank’s longstanding financial support of companies linked to deforestation and human rights abuses, adding that this lack of corporate accountability has real-world implications. “Rabobank’s investments that contribute to deforestation pose a far greater risk to millions than this campaign does to its CEO,” she stated. Greenpeace’s position reflects its broader concern over unregulated financial flows that, it claims, perpetuate environmental degradation and biodiversity loss in vulnerable regions.
The case was presented to the court on 12 November, with Rabobank seeking an urgent ruling to prevent what it sees as a reputational and security risk to Decraene. Greenpeace, however, argues that its campaign, while provocative, was within legal bounds and aimed to draw attention to the bank’s practices, not to incite harm. The ruling on the case is expected on 26 November, and its outcome may set a significant precedent regarding the balance between freedom of expression and personal rights in public advocacy campaigns.
Image: Marten van Dijl / Greenpeace, greenpieace.org
Read also:
Shell Not Obliged to Halve Emissions by 2030, Appeals Court Rules
