Deep dive: Climate litigation & legal action — what's working, what's not, and what's next

Climate litigation has evolved from a fringe legal strategy into one of the most consequential forces shaping corporate behavior and government policy on emissions reduction. The Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics documented over 2,600 climate-related court cases filed globally as of mid-2025, with the number of new filings accelerating each year. Crucially, plaintiffs are increasingly winning. A 2025 analysis found that approximately 55 percent of cases with judicial outcomes delivered results favorable to climate action, up from roughly 45 percent a decade earlier. This shift from symbolic protest litigation to a viable enforcement mechanism has profound implications for corporate leaders, investors, and policymakers across every sector exposed to climate risk.

Why It Matters

Climate litigation now functions as a de facto regulatory mechanism in jurisdictions where legislation has stalled or enforcement remains weak. The economic exposure is substantial. In the United States alone, pending climate cases seek damages potentially exceeding $100 billion, according to estimates compiled by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. European cases increasingly target corporate directors personally, raising the prospect that fiduciary duty frameworks will compel climate action even in the absence of prescriptive regulation.

The European Union has created a particularly active litigation environment. The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), adopted in 2024, establishes a statutory basis for civil liability claims against companies that fail to prevent adverse climate impacts through their value chains. This directive gives plaintiffs a legislative hook that did not previously exist, potentially transforming the scale and success rate of climate lawsuits filed in EU member state courts.

For founders and corporate leaders, the practical implications are immediate. Insurance underwriters are increasingly pricing climate litigation risk into directors and officers (D&O) policies, with premiums for companies in high-exposure sectors rising 15 to 30 percent annually since 2023. Companies with weak transition plans or inconsistent climate disclosures face elevated legal risk, while those with credible, science-aligned strategies can demonstrate the standard of care that courts and regulators increasingly expect.

The intersection of climate science and legal proceedings has also become more sophisticated. Attribution science, which quantifies the contribution of specific entities or activities to climate impacts, is now regularly introduced as evidence. Studies published in journals including Nature and Science have attributed specific fractions of global temperature increase, sea level rise, and extreme weather event intensity to emissions from identifiable corporate actors. This scientific foundation provides the evidentiary basis that early climate cases lacked, making future litigation both more targeted and more likely to succeed.

Key Concepts

Attribution Science in Litigation involves using climate modeling and statistical techniques to establish causal links between greenhouse gas emissions from specific sources and measurable climate impacts such as temperature increases, sea level rise, or the changed probability of extreme weather events. The Carbon Majors dataset, originally compiled by Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute, attributes approximately 71 percent of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions since 1988 to just 100 fossil fuel producers. Courts in multiple jurisdictions have accepted attribution evidence, including in the landmark Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell ruling.

Strategic Litigation refers to cases filed with the primary objective of establishing legal precedent, compelling policy changes, or altering corporate behavior rather than merely seeking damages for individual plaintiffs. Organizations such as ClientEarth, Urgenda Foundation, and the Center for Climate Integrity pursue strategic cases designed to create cascading effects across entire industries or regulatory frameworks. These cases often target high-profile defendants to maximize public attention and precedent-setting potential.

Climate Washing Claims represent a growing category of litigation targeting companies whose public climate commitments, marketing materials, or sustainability reports contain statements that plaintiffs allege are misleading. These cases draw on consumer protection law, securities regulation, and advertising standards rather than traditional environmental law, opening additional legal avenues and potentially reaching companies not subject to sector-specific environmental requirements. The Australian Federal Court's 2022 ruling against Santos for misleading clean energy marketing exemplifies this trend.

Human Rights-Based Climate Claims frame climate change as a violation of fundamental rights including the rights to life, health, a clean environment, and an adequate standard of living. Constitutional courts in Germany, the Netherlands, and Colombia have recognized that insufficient government climate action can violate constitutional rights protections. The European Court of Human Rights' 2024 ruling in KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland confirmed that inadequate government climate action can violate the European Convention on Human Rights, establishing binding precedent across 46 Council of Europe member states.

What's Working

Landmark Government Accountability Cases

The Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands, concluded at the Supreme Court level in 2019, remains the foundational case demonstrating that courts can compel governments to strengthen emissions reduction targets. The Dutch Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings ordering the Netherlands to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 percent below 1990 levels by the end of 2020, based on the government's duty of care under Dutch tort law and the European Convention on Human Rights. This case triggered similar filings in over 30 countries and established the legal framework that subsequent cases have built upon.

Germany's Federal Constitutional Court delivered another watershed ruling in 2021, finding that Germany's Federal Climate Protection Act was insufficient because it failed to specify adequate reduction pathways beyond 2030, thereby imposing disproportionate burdens on younger generations' fundamental freedoms. The court ordered the government to revise its climate legislation within 18 months, resulting in an accelerated 2030 reduction target of 65 percent below 1990 levels (up from 55 percent) and a net zero target of 2045 rather than 2050.

The European Court of Human Rights' 2024 decision in KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland found that Switzerland's failure to meet its climate targets violated Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This ruling created binding precedent across all 46 Council of Europe member states and established that individuals can challenge government climate inaction through the European human rights framework.

Corporate Accountability Through Tort Law

Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell, decided by The Hague District Court in 2021, ordered Shell to reduce its absolute CO2 emissions by 45 percent by 2030 relative to 2019 levels across the company's entire value chain, including Scope 3 emissions from the end use of sold products. While Shell appealed (with the appeals court ruling expected in 2026), the case established that courts can impose specific emissions reduction obligations on private companies based on the unwritten standard of care in Dutch tort law, interpreted through the lens of the Paris Agreement and climate science.

This precedent has catalyzed a wave of corporate-targeted litigation. ClientEarth filed claims against the board of directors of Shell in the United Kingdom, arguing that directors' failure to manage climate risk constituted a breach of fiduciary duties under Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006. While the initial claim was dismissed, the court's reasoning acknowledged that climate risk management falls within directors' statutory duties, providing a foundation for future filings with stronger factual records.

Greenwashing Enforcement Actions

Regulatory authorities and private litigants have increasingly targeted misleading environmental claims. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) filed proceedings against Mercer Superannuation for greenwashing its sustainable investment options, resulting in a settlement requiring corrective disclosures and compliance enhancements. The Dutch Advertising Standards Authority ruled that Shell's claims of carbon-neutral driving through offset programs were misleading, ordering the company to cease the advertising campaign. In the United States, the SEC has brought enforcement actions against investment advisers for ESG-related misstatements in fund marketing materials.

These cases collectively signal that climate-related communications are subject to the same legal standards of accuracy and substantiation as other commercial claims, creating meaningful deterrence against exaggerated environmental marketing.

What's Not Working

Jurisdictional Fragmentation and Forum Shopping

The absence of a unified international framework for climate litigation creates opportunities for defendants to exploit jurisdictional differences. Multinational corporations can argue that liability should be assessed under the laws of countries with weaker environmental standards, or that complex global value chains make attributing responsibility to any single jurisdiction inappropriate. The Shell case, for example, involved extensive procedural disputes about whether Dutch courts could appropriately impose emissions obligations on a company's global operations. This fragmentation increases litigation costs, extends timelines, and creates inconsistent precedents across jurisdictions.

Enforcement Challenges

Even where plaintiffs secure favorable court rulings, enforcement remains problematic. The Urgenda decision required the Dutch government to achieve 25 percent emissions reductions by end of 2020, but the government initially failed to meet this target and faced no effective sanctions for noncompliance. Similarly, court orders directing governments to revise climate legislation typically lack specific enforcement mechanisms if the resulting policy changes prove inadequate. The gap between judicial declarations and measurable emissions outcomes represents the most significant limitation of litigation as a climate action tool.

Standing and Causation Barriers in Common Law Jurisdictions

Climate litigants in common law jurisdictions, particularly the United States, continue to face significant procedural hurdles. Federal courts have generally held that climate change involves political questions best addressed by the legislative and executive branches, or that diffuse global emissions prevent plaintiffs from establishing the particularized injury required for standing. While several US state court cases have survived motions to dismiss (notably cases filed by cities and counties in California, New York, and Hawaii), progress through the courts has been slow, with cases typically spending years in procedural disputes before reaching substantive consideration.

Resource Asymmetry

Climate litigation is extraordinarily expensive. Major fossil fuel companies and large corporations can deploy extensive legal teams and pursue procedural strategies designed to extend timelines and exhaust plaintiff resources. Strategic litigation organizations such as ClientEarth, the Sabin Center, and Urgenda operate with significantly smaller budgets, relying on foundation funding and pro bono legal support. This asymmetry means that case selection must be highly strategic, as organizations cannot afford to pursue the full range of potentially meritorious claims.

What's Next

EU CSDDD Civil Liability Provisions

The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which EU member states must transpose into national law by 2027, creates a statutory basis for civil liability claims against companies that fail to prevent, mitigate, or end adverse environmental impacts, including climate impacts, through their value chains. Unlike existing tort law claims that require courts to determine applicable standards of care, the CSDDD provides an explicit legislative standard, potentially lowering evidentiary burdens for plaintiffs and increasing the probability of successful claims against companies with inadequate climate transition plans.

Expansion of Attribution Science to Sector-Specific Claims

Attribution science is evolving from identifying the contribution of major fossil fuel producers to global emissions toward quantifying the climate impacts of specific industrial activities, agricultural practices, and financial decisions. Research published in Nature Climate Change has demonstrated methods for attributing extreme weather event costs to specific emission sources with increasing precision. This evolution could enable targeted litigation against companies in sectors including cement, steel, shipping, and industrial agriculture, expanding the scope of potential defendants beyond the traditional fossil fuel industry focus.

Financial Sector Litigation

Courts and regulators are beginning to scrutinize the climate-related decisions of financial institutions, including banks, insurers, and asset managers. Cases filed against major European banks argue that continued financing of fossil fuel expansion is inconsistent with Paris Agreement commitments and constitutes a failure of prudential risk management. As financial regulators integrate climate scenario analysis into supervisory frameworks, the legal standard of care for financial institutions' climate-related decisions will likely tighten, creating additional litigation exposure for institutions with misaligned portfolios.

Youth and Intergenerational Claims

Litigation brought on behalf of young people and future generations continues to gain traction. The Montana state court ruling in Held v. State of Montana (2023) found that the state's fossil fuel permitting violated the Montana Constitution's guarantee of a clean and healthful environment. Similar cases are pending in multiple US states and internationally. The intergenerational framing resonates with courts' equity considerations and provides a compelling narrative for establishing that current emissions impose concrete harms on identifiable populations.

Key Players

Leading Litigation Organizations

ClientEarth operates across Europe and beyond, filing cases against corporate boards, regulators, and governments. Their strategy targets systemic leverage points, including board-level fiduciary duties and financial regulatory frameworks.

Urgenda Foundation pioneered government accountability litigation with the landmark Netherlands case and continues to provide technical and strategic support to climate litigants worldwide.

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University maintains the most comprehensive global database of climate litigation, publishes analytical reports on case trends, and provides legal research support to practitioners.

Influential Court Systems

The Hague District Court has established itself as a venue for consequential climate cases, including the Shell ruling, benefiting from Dutch tort law's flexible duty of care standard and the Netherlands' strong rule of law traditions.

European Court of Human Rights created binding precedent across 46 countries through the KlimaSeniorinnen ruling, establishing climate inaction as a human rights violation within the European Convention framework.

German Federal Constitutional Court demonstrated that constitutional interpretation can compel accelerated climate action, with its 2021 ruling directly resulting in strengthened national emissions targets.

Corporate and Financial Defendants

Shell, TotalEnergies, and BP face the highest volume of pending climate litigation across multiple jurisdictions, with cases targeting corporate strategy, advertising claims, and board-level decision-making.

Major European banks including BNP Paribas and ING face growing legal challenges to continued fossil fuel financing, with cases arguing that lending decisions create climate-related liability under evolving duty of care standards.

Action Checklist

• Conduct a climate litigation risk assessment covering corporate operations, disclosures, marketing claims, and value chain emissions
• Review all public climate commitments and sustainability reports for consistency with actual emissions trajectories and investment decisions
• Ensure climate disclosures align with CSRD, ISSB, and applicable jurisdictional requirements to minimize greenwashing exposure
• Develop a credible, science-aligned transition plan with measurable interim targets and transparent progress reporting
• Brief board of directors on evolving fiduciary duty standards related to climate risk management
• Review D&O insurance coverage for adequacy of climate litigation protection and emerging exclusion clauses
• Engage legal counsel with climate litigation expertise to assess jurisdiction-specific exposure across operating markets
• Monitor pending cases in key jurisdictions (EU, UK, US, Australia) for precedent developments that may affect corporate obligations

FAQ

Q: Which companies are most exposed to climate litigation risk? A: Companies with the highest exposure include major fossil fuel producers, heavy industrial emitters (cement, steel, chemicals), financial institutions with large fossil fuel portfolios, and consumer-facing brands making environmental marketing claims. However, litigation is expanding to cover any company with material Scope 3 emissions, weak transition plans, or public climate commitments that diverge from operational reality.

Q: How should companies prepare for the EU CSDDD's civil liability provisions? A: Companies within scope should map their value chain climate impacts, establish due diligence processes that meet the directive's requirements, document risk identification and mitigation actions, and ensure alignment between transition plans and operational decisions. Legal counsel should assess potential liability exposure across EU member states with differing transposition approaches.

Q: Does climate litigation actually reduce emissions, or is it primarily symbolic? A: Evidence suggests material impact in specific cases. The German Constitutional Court ruling directly resulted in strengthened national emissions targets. The Urgenda ruling compelled measurable Dutch government action on emissions reduction. Corporate cases create behavioral effects beyond individual defendants, as companies across sectors adjust strategies to reduce litigation exposure. However, the aggregate emissions impact remains modest compared to legislative and regulatory action, and litigation functions best as a complement to, not substitute for, comprehensive climate policy.

Q: What role does attribution science play in strengthening climate cases? A: Attribution science provides the causal evidence that courts require to link specific defendants' emissions to identifiable climate harms. Early climate cases often failed because plaintiffs could not demonstrate that any single emitter's actions caused their specific injuries. Modern attribution studies can quantify the probability increase of extreme weather events attributable to anthropogenic emissions and, in some cases, trace contributions to individual corporate actors. Courts in the Netherlands, Germany, and Australia have accepted attribution evidence, and its admissibility is expanding.

Q: How does climate litigation risk affect company valuations and investor decisions? A: Institutional investors increasingly incorporate litigation risk into valuation models. A 2025 analysis by the Transition Pathway Initiative found that companies facing active climate litigation traded at a 3 to 7 percent discount relative to sector peers after controlling for other financial factors. Credit rating agencies including Moody's and S&P have identified climate litigation as a material credit risk factor for high-exposure sectors. Investors using the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative framework routinely assess portfolio companies' litigation exposure as part of climate risk due diligence.

Sources

• Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. (2025). Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2025 Snapshot. London: London School of Economics.
• Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. (2025). Climate Change Litigation Databases. New York: Columbia Law School.
• Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands. (2019). ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007, Supreme Court of the Netherlands.
• Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell. (2021). ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, The Hague District Court.
• KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland. (2024). Application no. 53600/20, European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber.
• Neubauer et al. v. Germany. (2021). BvR 2656/18, German Federal Constitutional Court.
• Transition Pathway Initiative. (2025). Climate Litigation and Corporate Valuation: An Empirical Assessment. London: TPI.