Climate Litigation: The Trends That Should Be on Every Board Agenda

The numbers

According to the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, more than 2,300 climate-related cases have been filed globally, with filings more than doubling since 2017. The cases are increasingly diverse — in the claimants, the defendants, the legal theories, and the jurisdictions. This is no longer a niche area of public-interest litigation. It is a material risk for companies in energy, finance, agriculture, manufacturing, and infrastructure.

Trend 1: From governments to companies

Early climate cases were predominantly brought against governments, seeking to compel more aggressive emissions-reduction targets. The landmark Urgenda case in the Netherlands (2019) and similar cases in Germany, France, and elsewhere fit this pattern. In the last five years, however, the balance has shifted. An increasing share of new filings targets corporations directly — alleging misleading climate disclosures (greenwashing), failure to account for climate risk in investment decisions, and liability for climate-related harms.

Trend 2: The greenwashing wave

Regulators and private litigants are pursuing companies that make climate-related claims they cannot substantiate. The theories vary — securities fraud, consumer protection, unfair competition — but the underlying allegation is the same: the company said one thing about its climate impact and did another. The EU’s Green Claims Directive, once finalised, will add a regulatory enforcement mechanism in Europe. In the US, the SEC’s climate-disclosure rules and FTC enforcement are driving increased scrutiny.

Trend 3: The duty-of-care cases

A newer category of climate litigation alleges that corporate directors breached their duty of care by failing to adequately consider and disclose climate risk. These cases draw on the broader evolution of directors’-duties law — the idea that oversight of material risks, including environmental and climate risks, is part of the board’s fiduciary obligation. Most have not yet succeeded on the merits, but the trend line is toward more detailed judicial scrutiny of board-level climate governance.

Trend 4: The finance sector is in the frame

Banks, asset managers, and insurers are increasingly named as defendants in climate cases, on theories that their financing, underwriting, or investment decisions contribute to climate harms or that their climate-related disclosures are misleading. The finance sector’s exposure is structural: it touches every other sector, and its climate commitments are public and measurable.

What boards should do now

(1) Ensure climate-risk governance is documented at the board level, with clear committee responsibility. (2) Review public climate-related statements, disclosures, and marketing for accuracy and substantiation. (3) Assess the climate-litigation exposure of the company’s sector and jurisdictions of operation. (4) Ensure that D&O insurance coverage adequately addresses climate-related claims. (5) Monitor the evolving regulatory landscape — climate-disclosure rules are being adopted in multiple jurisdictions, and the obligations they create will form the baseline for future litigation.

This article is provided for general information only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.