Playbook: adopting Climate litigation & corporate accountability in 90 days

Climate litigation has transformed from a niche legal strategy into a material business risk reshaping corporate governance worldwide. As of late 2024, the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and LSE Grantham Research Institute tracked 2,967 climate cases globally, with 226 new cases filed in 2024 alone. Perhaps more consequential for corporate leaders: over 70% of climate-washing cases decided between 2016 and 2023 were won by claimants, and two-thirds of the 230+ strategic corporate cases filed since 2015 have emerged since 2020. This acceleration signals that climate accountability is no longer an abstract future concern—it's an operational imperative requiring systematic preparation within the next 90 days.

Why It Matters

The strategic landscape for corporate climate accountability has fundamentally shifted across three dimensions: legal exposure, regulatory convergence, and stakeholder expectations.

Legal exposure is expanding rapidly. Twenty percent of 2024 climate cases targeted corporations, directors, or officers directly—a dramatic increase from historical patterns where governments were the primary defendants. The Milieudefensie v. Shell ruling in the Netherlands established that companies have affirmative duties to combat climate change, while Lliuya v. RWE confirmed that corporations can, in principle, be held liable for climate harm regardless of where emissions occur. These precedents have opened pathways for plaintiffs worldwide.

Regulatory convergence creates compliance complexity. While the SEC's March 2024 climate disclosure rules remain suspended pending litigation, the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is active and expanding. California's SB 253 requires companies with over $1 billion in revenue to disclose Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions starting in 2026-2027. Companies operating across jurisdictions now face a patchwork of mandatory disclosure requirements with overlapping but non-identical standards.

Stakeholder expectations have hardened. Institutional investors increasingly view climate litigation as material financial risk. The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) has explicitly identified litigation exposure as a factor in investment decisions. Banks, insurers, and asset managers face their own accountability pressures—33 "turning off the taps" cases since 2015 have challenged financing flows to non-climate-aligned projects.

For organizations in Asia-Pacific specifically, the dynamics are particularly acute. Australia has become the second-most-active climate litigation jurisdiction with 164 cases, while 60% of Global South cases have been filed in just the last five years. The region's exposure to physical climate risks—including the severe weather events that often trigger liability claims—compounds legal exposure.

Key Concepts

Understanding climate litigation requires mastery of several interconnected frameworks that define how accountability is assessed, enforced, and defended.

Climate-Washing and Greenwashing Claims

Climate-washing cases challenge misleading environmental claims, false carbon offset marketing, or sustainability representations that lack substantive backing. This category has proven particularly successful for plaintiffs, with over 70% of decided cases resulting in claimant victories. The KLM greenwashing case in 2024, which ruled the airline's advertisements "misleading and unlawful," exemplifies the standard: claims must be specific, verifiable, and not create false impressions about environmental impact.

Polluter Pays Liability

Over 30 "polluter pays" cases worldwide seek damages for climate-related harm traced to corporate greenhouse gas emissions. These cases face significant evidentiary challenges—establishing causation between specific emissions and specific harms—but continue advancing through courts. In the United States, 25+ jurisdictions including 9 states have filed lawsuits against fossil fuel companies alleging consumer fraud, failure to warn, and public nuisance.

Scope 3 Emissions Scrutiny

Courts increasingly require assessment of downstream emissions in environmental evaluations. UK and Norwegian supreme courts have ruled that Scope 3 emissions must be considered in project approvals, creating precedent that extends corporate accountability beyond direct operational control. Approximately 100 cases in 2024 addressed Scope 3 emissions issues.

Director and Officer Liability

The ClientEarth v. Shell case attempted to hold Shell's board of directors personally accountable for inadequate climate risk management. While this specific case was dismissed, it established a template for targeting corporate governance directly. Transition risk cases—challenging directors for mismanagement of climate-related business risks—represent a growing category with significant implications for D&O insurance and board composition.

Climate Litigation KPIs by Sector

Organizations should track sector-specific metrics to assess litigation exposure and accountability readiness:

Sector	Primary Litigation Risk	Key Exposure Metric	Target Threshold
Energy/Utilities	Polluter pays, Scope 3	Emissions attribution litigation count	<2 active cases
Financial Services	Financed emissions, due diligence	Portfolio carbon intensity disclosure	>90% coverage
Manufacturing	Supply chain accountability	Supplier emissions verification rate	>75% verified
Consumer Goods	Greenwashing claims	Marketing claim substantiation rate	100% documented
Transportation	Scope 3 downstream	Customer emissions calculation accuracy	±10% variance
Real Estate	Climate risk disclosure	Physical risk assessment coverage	>95% of assets

What's Working

Proactive Disclosure Strategies

Companies that voluntarily disclose climate risks before regulatory mandates have demonstrated measurably lower litigation exposure. Organizations aligned with the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework show stronger defensibility when facing securities-related climate claims. The key is substantive disclosure—not marketing language—that accurately characterizes uncertainties and limitations.

Robust MRV Infrastructure

Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) systems that meet third-party assurance standards provide defensible evidence in litigation contexts. Companies with verified Scope 1 and 2 emissions data face significantly reduced exposure to accuracy-related claims. The investment in data infrastructure—typically 15-25% of sustainability program budgets—pays dividends in litigation defense costs avoided.

Board-Level Climate Governance

Organizations with explicit board oversight of climate risk, documented in governance structures and meeting minutes, demonstrate good faith efforts that can mitigate liability. The Climate Action 100+ engagement framework has pushed over 170 companies toward improved governance structures, and these improvements correlate with reduced litigation targeting.

Supply Chain Due Diligence

The EU's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), entering force in July 2024 with full application by 2028, requires human rights and environmental due diligence across value chains. Companies that implemented supply chain traceability systems before regulatory mandates report 40-60% lower compliance costs and stronger positions when facing supply chain-related claims.

What's Not Working

Vague Net-Zero Commitments

Aspirational climate commitments without credible transition plans have become litigation targets rather than shields. The Advertising Standards Authority in the UK and equivalent bodies elsewhere have repeatedly ruled against claims like "carbon neutral" or "net zero by 2050" that lack specific, verifiable pathways. Companies with vague commitments face higher litigation risk than those with no public commitments at all.

Carbon Offset Reliance

Offset-heavy decarbonization strategies have proven particularly vulnerable to challenge. Cases targeting offset quality, additionality claims, and verification standards have succeeded at high rates. The voluntary carbon market's credibility crisis—with multiple investigations revealing that 90%+ of certain offset categories may lack real climate benefit—has transformed offsets from risk mitigation into risk amplification.

Siloed Legal and Sustainability Functions

Organizations where legal, sustainability, and communications teams operate independently frequently produce inconsistent messaging that creates liability exposure. Marketing claims that outpace operational reality, or disclosure statements that contradict sustainability reports, provide plaintiff attorneys with straightforward evidentiary paths.

Defensive Non-Disclosure

Companies that refuse climate disclosure on grounds of competitive sensitivity or legal exposure often face worse outcomes than those that disclose imperfect data with appropriate caveats. Courts and regulators have increasingly viewed non-disclosure as evidence of awareness of material risks, shifting burden of proof dynamics unfavorably.

Key Players

Established Leaders

ClientEarth — The environmental law organization has pioneered strategic corporate litigation, including the landmark attempt to hold Shell directors personally liable for climate risk mismanagement. ClientEarth operates across Europe, Asia, and the United States with legal interventions targeting corporate governance.

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law — Columbia Law School's research center maintains the definitive global database of climate litigation with 3,000+ cases tracked. Their research shapes legal strategy for plaintiffs and defendants alike, providing authoritative case analysis.

LSE Grantham Research Institute — Produces the annual Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation reports that serve as the primary reference for policymakers, investors, and legal practitioners assessing the litigation landscape.

CDP (formerly Carbon Disclosure Project) — The global disclosure platform collecting climate data from over 23,000 companies provides the evidentiary foundation for accountability claims. CDP questionnaire responses frequently appear in litigation as admissions or baseline comparisons.

Emerging Startups

Persefoni — AI-powered carbon accounting platform enabling the granular emissions tracking that defensible disclosure requires. Their technology addresses the MRV infrastructure gap that exposes companies to accuracy-related claims.

Watershed — Enterprise climate platform providing Scope 1, 2, and 3 measurement with audit-grade documentation. Watershed's focus on defensible data quality directly addresses litigation risk.

Normative — Automated carbon accounting aligned with GHG Protocol standards, providing the verification infrastructure that regulatory compliance increasingly requires.

Plan A — European sustainability platform combining emissions calculation, target-setting, and reporting automation with emphasis on regulatory alignment.

Key Investors & Funders

Climate Action 100+ — Investor coalition representing over $68 trillion in assets under management engaging the world's largest corporate emitters on climate governance. Their engagement framework directly shapes the governance structures that determine litigation exposure.

Bezos Earth Fund — Major funder of climate accountability research and legal strategy development, including support for litigation-focused environmental law organizations.

Bloomberg Philanthropies — Funds climate litigation research and legal capacity building in Global South jurisdictions where case activity is accelerating most rapidly.

Examples

State of California v. ExxonMobil et al. — Filed in September 2023, California's lawsuit against major oil companies alleges decades of deception about climate science and seeks billions in damages for climate-related harms including wildfires, droughts, and extreme heat. The case represents the largest economy to bring polluter pays claims and has survived early dismissal attempts. Key lesson: historical conduct decades prior can create current liability when harm attribution becomes scientifically credible.

Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell — The 2021 Dutch court ruling ordered Shell to reduce its global CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030, including Scope 3 emissions from customer use of Shell products. Although currently under appeal, the ruling established that corporations have affirmative duties under Dutch law to combat climate change regardless of government action. Key lesson: even cases under appeal reshape corporate behavior through precedent signaling.

Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility v. Santos — This Australian Federal Court case challenged Santos's claim of "clean energy" for natural gas and its net-zero by 2040 commitment as misleading. The case settled in 2024 with Santos agreeing not to repeat the challenged claims. Key lesson: out-of-court settlements can establish de facto standards that constrain marketing across entire sectors.

Action Checklist

Days 1-30: Assessment and Foundation

• Conduct comprehensive audit of all public climate claims, marketing materials, and disclosure statements for consistency and substantiation
• Map regulatory exposure across all operating jurisdictions, identifying CSRD, SEC, California, and other applicable disclosure requirements
• Review board governance structures for documented climate risk oversight and establish committee responsibilities if absent
• Assess MRV infrastructure against third-party assurance standards and identify verification gaps
• Inventory carbon offset holdings and evaluate additionality documentation for each credit type
• Brief executive leadership and board on litigation landscape with sector-specific risk assessment

Days 31-60: Infrastructure and Process

• Implement or upgrade carbon accounting system capable of audit-grade Scope 1, 2, and 3 measurement
• Establish cross-functional coordination between legal, sustainability, communications, and investor relations teams
• Develop claim substantiation protocols requiring legal review before public environmental statements
• Create document retention policies that balance litigation hold requirements with routine data governance
• Initiate supply chain due diligence program targeting highest-risk suppliers for emissions verification
• Engage third-party assurance provider for emissions verification ahead of regulatory deadlines

Days 61-90: Disclosure and Monitoring

• Prepare voluntary climate disclosure aligned with TCFD/ISSB frameworks with appropriate uncertainty language
• Establish litigation monitoring system tracking cases in operating jurisdictions and against industry peers
• Develop rapid response protocols for potential litigation threats or regulatory inquiries
• Create scenario analysis for climate litigation exposure under different legal outcome scenarios
• Brief D&O insurers on climate risk management improvements to optimize coverage terms
• Document all accountability improvements for potential use in good-faith defense arguments

FAQ

Q: Our company has never been sued over climate issues. Why should we invest in preparation now?

A: The litigation trajectory is unambiguous: 226 new cases in 2024, with corporate cases showing the highest success rates for plaintiffs. More critically, the evidentiary record being created now—marketing claims, disclosure statements, internal documents—will determine defensibility in cases that may not be filed for years. Companies that implement accountability infrastructure before litigation materializes have substantially stronger defense positions than those scrambling reactively.

Q: How do we balance climate disclosure against creating ammunition for litigation?

A: Counterintuitively, substantive disclosure with appropriate caveats typically reduces rather than increases litigation risk. Courts and regulators view non-disclosure as evidence of risk awareness, while transparent disclosure with honest uncertainty characterization demonstrates good faith. The highest-risk position is inconsistency: aggressive marketing claims contradicted by cautious disclosure, or vice versa.

Q: What's the timeline for regulatory climate disclosure to become mandatory for our company?

A: This depends on jurisdiction and company characteristics. California's SB 253 applies to companies with over $1 billion revenue starting 2026 (Scope 1/2) and 2027 (Scope 3). EU CSRD applies to companies with over 1,000 employees and €450 million turnover, with first reports due 2025-2028 depending on company category. SEC rules remain suspended but could become enforceable with future administration changes. The safest assumption is mandatory disclosure within 24-36 months for most large companies.

Q: Should we reduce our public climate commitments to lower litigation risk?

A: Withdrawing commitments creates its own risks, including investor backlash, customer perception damage, and potential accusations of abandoning acknowledged responsibilities. The better approach is ensuring commitments are specific, have credible pathways, and are supported by measurable interim targets. Vague aspirational statements create risk; detailed transition plans with honest uncertainty characterization reduce it.

Q: How do we evaluate whether our carbon offsets are litigation-defensible?

A: Apply three tests: verification (is the offset certified by a recognized registry with third-party verification?), additionality (would the emission reduction have happened without offset funding?), and permanence (are the claimed reductions actually durable?). Offsets failing any test—particularly the widely-criticized nature-based offsets with additionality questions—should be phased out of any public claims about carbon neutrality or emissions reductions.

Sources

• LSE Grantham Research Institute, "Global trends in climate change litigation: 2024 snapshot," June 2024
• Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Climate Change Litigation Databases, Columbia Law School, accessed January 2025
• UNEP/Sabin Center, "Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review," October 2023
• Center for Climate Integrity, "2024: The Year in Climate Accountability," December 2024
• Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), "Climate Litigation Increases with the Impacts of Climate Change," 2024
• SEC, "The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors," March 2024
• European Commission, "Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) Overview," 2024
• California Legislature, SB 253 Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act and SB 261 Climate-Related Financial Risk Act, 2023-2024