Environmental Risk Consulting

Most of the academic literature on climate litigation focuses on what claimants argue. Far less attention has been paid to how corporate defendants respond, and even less to how courts engage with those responses. Our new guide addresses both gaps. "Corporate defences in climate litigation: a comparative analysis of arguments and court responses" is the second in the Grantham Climate Litigation Guides series. The guide builds on my recent article in Transnational Environmental Law, which mapped corporate defence arguments across climate cases. This guide expands that analysis, covering a wider range of defence strategies and, crucially, examining how courts have responded to them. Drawing on 10 case studies from eight jurisdictions, we identified six recurring defence strategies. Three findings stand out for practitioners: → The "drop in the ocean" defence is losing ground. Courts in Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands have rejected the argument that a company's share of global emissions is too small to establish liability. In Lliuya v. RWE, the Hamm court confirmed that being "one of many" emitters does not preclude a claim in principle. → Some defences don't defeat claims but reshape remedies. In Milieudefensie v. Shell, arguments about scientific uncertainty didn't eliminate Shell's duty of care, but they did prevent the court from imposing a specific emissions reduction target. The market substitution argument played a similar role in narrowing the scope of the order. → The battleground is shifting toward science. As cases clear threshold questions of duty and justiciability, defendants are focusing more on technical challenges to attribution science and causation. That has direct implications for how evidence is prepared, presented and contested. The guide is designed as a practical resource for lawyers, judges, scholars and scientists engaging with corporate climate litigation. Co-authored with Jameela Joy Reyes (Joy), Nicholas Petkov and Julien O. Beaulieu. Read the full guide here: https://lnkd.in/eSFPfucJ

⚖️ This week I look at news in climate litigation in the USA - from a new case filing, through a trial to a judgment:   📍 In Oregon, a lawsuit was filed against several fossil fuel companies including Shell, Chevron and BP, seeking $50 million in actual damages and $1.5 billion in future damages for deaths and destruction caused by the 2021 Pacific Northwest Heat Dome 👉 this case adds to the plethora of US cases in which state governments and municipalities are seeking damages from big emitters for their role in extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change   📍 In Montana, a trial took place in a case in which 16 young people are asking the court to rule that the state’s policies, which are favourable to fossil fuel interests, violate their constitutional right to clean environment, including their health and prospects for future  👉 the lawsuit has been titled ‘historic’ given the implications of its judgments for other youth-led constitutional climate cases pending before courts in the USA   📍 In Alaska, a challenge to the regulatory authorisation of a liquefied natural gas project was dismissed on the grounds that the relevant regulator acted reasonably by refusing to use the social cost of carbon to measure the impacts of the project’s direct GHG emissions 👉 the judgment emphasises the issues with current calculations of social cost of carbon which often neglect environmental impacts   The links to more information about these cases are in the comments 👇   Photo credit: Robin Loznak/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock #climatechange #climaterisk #climatelitigation #environment

How Can Sustainability Reshape Supply Chains? When you think about supply chains, do you see them as a system of endless transactions or a powerful avenue to drive sustainable impact? 🤔 I recently came across an insightful conversation with Steve Bernard, a CU Denver sustainability program alum with a decade of experience in supply chain management. His journey shows how sustainability isn’t a checkbox it’s a continuous path of collaboration, innovation, and improvement. Here’s a roadmap to integrating sustainability into supply chains, based on Steve’s reflections and my own experience as a sustainability professional: 🛠 The Five-Year Roadmap to Sustainability in Supply Chains 1️⃣ Set Clear Principles: -Publish sustainability principles and codes of ethics. -Share them with suppliers to set expectations early. 2️⃣ Assess and Align: -Conduct sustainability assessments for suppliers. -Use tools like CDP or collaborate with third-party evaluators. -Ensure alignment with your company’s mission and goals. 3️⃣ Build Relationships: -Foster open communication with suppliers. -Collaborate on goals rather than enforcing compliance-only approaches. 4️⃣ Integrate Sustainability into Contracts: -Include sustainability requirements in supplier agreements. -Recognize this as a long-term process—3 to 5 years for full integration. 5️⃣ Track and Improve: -Establish baselines to measure progress. -Use benchmarks and continuous improvement practices to evolve. 🌟 What Should You Ask of Suppliers? Here are key areas companies can address when working with suppliers: 🔵 Environmental Impact 🔵 Health and Safety 🔵 Stakeholder Engagement 🔵 Circular Economy Practices 💡 Why It Matters Sustainability isn’t just good for the planet—it’s good for business. Studies show: 🌱 88% of consumers are more loyal to companies that support environmental issues. 📈 Companies with strong ESG programs see higher employee retention and satisfaction. 💰 Businesses practicing sustainability often realize long-term cost savings through efficiencies and innovations. 🏆 A Balanced Approach: Carrots, Not Sticks If you’re starting this path, remember: 🌟 Progress takes time. 🌟 Collaboration drives success. 🌟 Transparency builds trust. What do you think? Have you faced challenges aligning sustainability with supply chain practices? #Sustainability #SupplyChain

🚨 A brand new climate lawsuit in Germany, environmental/indigenous rights vs. climate in Norway, a top court ruling on ‘climate-neutral’ terminology, and more. Catch up on this week's climate litigation here: I have updates from Canada, Germany, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Canada: ▶ A group of environmental organisations, represented by Ecojustice Canada, were in court this week to support the Government’s efforts to mark plastic manufactured items as “toxic”, in a challenge brought by the plastics industry. ▶ The province of British Columbia filed a national class action against PFAS manufacturers. The lawsuit seeks to recover the costs of detecting and removing PFAS from drinking water, accusing the companies of negligently making defective products. Germany: ▶ Fridays For Future International and other groups have filed a new climate lawsuit against the German government over its failure to reach climate targets and its unconstitutional, unenforceable, and weak climate policy. ▶ In a greenwashing case against a candymaker, the German Bundesgerichtshof (top court) has mandated that companies must clarify the term “climate-neutral” in their advertisements to prevent misleading consumers. Norway: ▶ The Sámi Parliament is taking legal action against the Norwegian government over its decision to expand wind power generation in Finnmark, arguing it infringes on Sámi rights and culture due to land degradation in areas crucial for reindeer herding. United Kingdom: ▶ In an update on their class action lawsuit against BHP in the Mariana dam disaster case, Pogust Goodhead reported that the High Court rejected BHP’s attempt to strike out 33,000 claimants. Pogust also filed an injunction to stop attempts to derail the London-based case over claims that it threatens Brazil’s sovereignty. ▶ Chris Packham, represented by Leigh Day, was granted permission by the High Court for judicial review of the government’s decision to abandon its green policies. He already obtained permission before, but an extra ground for the review has now been added. The case will be heard in November 2024. United States: ▶ The Supreme Court granted a stay on the enforcement of the EPA’s downstream air quality standards rules, pending further review. Critics of the rule argued that the EPA’s plan did not sufficiently address the weaknesses of the rule if some states would not comply. The Court found the EPA’s responses insufficient. ▶ The Boulder County District Court rejected ExxonMobil’s argument that federal law pre-empted the state law claims in the case accusing ExxonMobil of contributing to climate change by concealing the risks of fossil fuel use. ▶ The City of Baltimore is suing PepsiCo, Coca Cola, Frito Lay and plastic manufacturing companies over their role in plastic pollution by knowingly creating products that lead to significant environmental damage. Art by db Waterman. #ClimateLitigaton #EnvironmentalLaw Sources below ⤵

I am delighted to share that the Carbon & Climate Law Review (CCLR) Special Issue on Corporate Climate Litigation has now been published and is available open access. Over the past decade, climate litigation has expanded beyond challenges to public authorities and increasingly turned towards the responsibilities, conduct and decision-making of corporate actors. This Special Issue explores how different legal systems are addressing emerging questions of corporate climate accountability, including standing, the evolving legal foundations of corporate responsibilities, developments in Brazil and India, litigation involving financial actors, and the effectiveness of judicial remedies. The issue brings together outstanding contributions from Justice Brian J. Preston, Annalisa Savaresi, Danielle de Andrade Moreira, Carolina de Figueiredo Garrido, Prof. (Dr.) Madhuri Parikh, Martina Menegat, Ying Xie, Michael Faure and Noah Walker-Crawford, offering comparative perspectives on some of the most significant developments in this rapidly evolving field. Developed as part of the BIICL (British Institute of International and Comparative Law)’s Global Toolbox on Corporate Climate Litigation (https://toolbox.biicl.org), this Special Issue highlights the importance of comparative research in understanding the diverse legal pathways through which corporate climate accountability is emerging across jurisdictions. My sincere thanks to all contributors for their excellent scholarship and insights, and to the entire CCLR editorial team, especially Dr. Kate McKenzie and Jakob McKernan, for their invaluable support and professionalism throughout the editorial process. The Special Issue is available open access here: https://lnkd.in/efc3ytQ3 #ClimateLitigation #CorporateClimateLitigation #CorporateAccountability #ClimateLaw #BusinessAndHumanRights #ComparativeLaw

An interesting ruling yesterday (6 June 2025) in the case of Doctors for the Environment (Aus) Inc v National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority before the Australian Federal Court. The civil society group, Doctors for the Environment (DEA) is suing the authority that issues approvals for environmental plans submitted by companies for offshore gas projects. DEA's case is a judicial review challenge, essentially arguing that the Authority should not have approved the Environmental Plan for Woodside's massive Scarborough gas project off the coast of West Australia because of deficiencies in the plan. The decision issued on Friday was a 'procedural' decision but one of potentially great strategic significance. On the application of DEA, the Court issued a 'maximum costs order' meaning the "maximum costs ... that may be recovered by the respondents (collectively) from the applicant in the proceeding [will] be no more than $80,000." As Woodside is a respondent in the proceeding, this caps the DEA's potential liability for costs in the event of a loss and provides some safeguard against the organisation being financially crippled as a result. That possibility is no idle threat given that the Environmental Defenders Office is facing a $9M court ordered costs penalty after an unsuccessful challenge to gas company Santos' Barossa offshore gas project. https://lnkd.in/gBxnRuRw. If companies are to be held to account for the climate impacts of their fossil fuel projects in litigation proceedings, addressing the risk of enormous cost orders sought by corporate defendants in the event a case does not succeed is an important interim step. The Federal Court in its decision in favour of DEA's maximum costs order request accepted the public interest nature of the litigation and the necessity of the order "to facilitate access to justice in a case which raises important questions about the lawful exercise of statutory power" [12]. Justice McElwaine rejected Woodside's submissions against award of the order noting: "the submission that if the Environmental Plan is held invalid, that will have very serious consequences for Woodside is clearly correct. Conversely, if Woodside is permitted to proceed in reliance upon an invalid environmental plan, that is likely to have very serious consequences for the environment – which is ultimately the point of this proceeding." [27] https://lnkd.in/gG5vXug6 For more information on Australian corporate climate litigation see the database maintained by Melbourne Climate Futures.

New open-access article about climate change and directors’ duties! I’m pleased to share a new article, ‘Climate Change on the Board: Navigating Directors’ Duties’, co-authored with Lionel Nichols (4 New Square Chambers) and just published in the Journal of Corporate Law Studies. In this article, we examine the recent ClientEarth v Shell case, analysing the legal grounds on which the English court dismissed the claim. We address critiques of the judgment and the procedural challenges future claimants may face, setting the case in the broader context of strategic public interest litigation. Our analysis suggests that, given the English courts’ traditional caution towards novel human rights and environmental claims, the outcome may not be entirely surprising. Nevertheless, we predict that the proactive stance of shareholders regarding environmental concerns, coupled with the burgeoning regulatory frameworks demanding stringent climate actions from companies, will likely mean that we have not seen the last of this type of litigation. Finally, we provide suggestions for the types of derivate claims that may have greater prospects of succeeding in the English courts. The first draft of the article was presented at the seminar convened by the Oxford Sustainable Law Programme in October 2023, and we are very grateful to all participants for the insightful discussion. Special thanks are due to Professor Paul Davies, Laurence Cranmer and anonymous peer-reviewers for their invaluable feedback on the latest draft of the article. https://lnkd.in/exhmtKAj #ClimateChange #CorporateLaw #DirectorsDuties #ClientEarth #SustainableBusiness #PublicInterestLitigation #ClimateLitigation #CorporateGovernance

The Supreme Court of Kenya has set a transformative precedent on 𝐞𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 in 𝐄𝐏𝐙𝐀 & 10 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐯. 𝐍𝐄𝐌𝐀 & 3 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬. This case not only reinforces the right to a clean and healthy environment but also provides important insights into how to effectively enforce environmental rights through litigation. In this publication, I break down 10 key principles from the judgment and what to take home. This decision provides a guidance on how to litigate environmental rights effectively. Read, share, and join the conversation on sustainability in Kenya and beyond. #EnvironmentalLaw #Sustainability #ClimateJustice #SupremeCourtKenya #HumanRights #EnvironmentalLitigation