1. Causes of Action

1. OVERVIEW

In the context of corporate climate litigation, plaintiffs often leverage company and financial laws as legal grounds for pursuing climate-related and environmental claims against companies, directors, and shareholders. These laws serve as frameworks that dictate companies' obligations to transparently disclose climate-related financial risks and establish accountability for directors' duties and liabilities. This section on company and financial laws discusses established legal avenues from past litigation, potential legal avenues for future litigation, and the hurdles and challenges associated with these pathways in 17 countries.

For instance, in countries like Australia and Brazil, such laws address inadequate disclosure of climate-related financial risks. Directors' duties and liabilities underpin climate-related accountability in countries such as Australia, Canada, Netherlands, and Germany, highlighting the broad application and understanding of fiduciary duties across various jurisdictions. Shareholder activism drives claims in France, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands, which are based on the Civil Codes in climate-related cases. The Philippines employs the Revised Corporation Code to establish corporate tort liabilities, while in the U.S., a variety of legal actions, including pension-fund claims and shareholder actions, contribute to a complex legal landscape.

Despite these applications, various hurdles and challenges exist. Enforcement challenges are observed in Australia, Brazil, Nigeria, Kenya, India, and Japan due to unclear mechanisms or direct applicability for directors' duties and obligations. Canada faces obstacles due to the lack of standardised regulations, and France, Netherlands, and Italy confront limitations in legal tools for addressing specific climate grievances. The U.S. encounters jurisdictional and admissibility challenges.

Looking forward, the potential for legal avenues in climate and environmental claims remains diverse. Countries such as Australia, Brazil, Norway, the Netherlands, India, the Philippines, Kenya, Nigeria, and the United Kingdom could witness increased case-based shareholder activism and accountability of directors, facilitated by established laws. Meanwhile, Canada and Kenya, with proposed regulations and integrated climate considerations, respectively, hold similar potential.

To summarise, the global climate litigation landscape is dynamic, reflecting ongoing developments in company and financial laws across the 17 focus countries. The subsequent sub-sections will further explore established legal avenues from past litigation, hurdles and challenges, and potential legal avenues for future litigation.