11 Aug 2025 Climate Litigation: How Courts Are Enforcing Climate Action

Posted at 17:24h in Climate change, Corporate Governance, ESG by

Climate change is no longer just a policy issue for governments and conferences; it has become a legal battleground. Around the world, citizens, activists, and even communities have increasingly turned to courts to demand stronger climate action and accountability. The number of climate change lawsuits has surged dramatically in the past decade, spreading to new countries and targeting both governments and corporations. The evidence is for cumulative number of climate change litigation cases globally (across 65 jurisdictions) with more than a doubling of climate litigation since 2017, when there were about 884 recorded cases, to 2,180 cases in 2022, according to the UNEP 2023 Climate Litigation Report. Climate litigation has accelerated, with nearly three-quarters of all cases filed since 2015, after the Paris Agreement. In the 2023 UNEP Report it is stated that“we’re entering… a golden moment for climate litigation,”driven by public concern and the limits of political action. Indeed, over half of these cases have outcomes favorable to climate action, and they are influencing climate decision-making far beyond the courtroom. Courts are fast becoming pivotal players in the quest to meet climate goals.

Fig. 1 – Growth rate of Climate Litigations (2017-2022)

 

However, more recently the growth rate of climate litigations has been slowing with respectively 230 and 226 new cases filed in 2023 and 2024, according to Earth.org, particularly in the cases filed under the USA jurisdiction (about 70% of all cases in 2022) with at the same time an increase of anti-climate lawsuits (about 23% of all cases in 2024). See table below where climate litigation trends are broken down by types of climate lawsuits, the majority being against the approval procedures of big infrastructural projects and vs corporates for not complying with the goals of the Paris agreement or for misleading and false reporting on climate emissions which represent ‘greenwashing’.

Fig. 2 – Climate Litigations trends by types of Lawsuits (2015-2024)- Source: SVI Research on Climate Change Litigations database

 

Rights-Based Climate Lawsuits against Governments

One major category of climate litigation uses human rights and constitutional law to force governments into taking stronger climate action. Pioneering this trend was the landmark Urgenda case in the Netherlands. The Urgenda Foundation (an environmental NGO) together with 900 Dutch citizens sued the Dutch government for failing to adequately protect them from climate change. The courts found that the government’s inaction breached its duty of care to citizens under Dutch law and human rights treaties, notably the right to life (Article 2) and right to private and family life (Article 8) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This was the first time any court had compelled a state to reduce emissions based on a legal duty to prevent climate harm. The Dutch Supreme Court’s final ruling in December 2019 confirmed that protecting citizens from climate change is a human rights obligation, setting a powerful example. Though not formally binding outside the Netherlands, Urgenda’s success immediately “added significantly to the global legal and political pressure” on governments. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called it a “clear path forward” for people “to undertake climate litigation in order to protect human rights”. Urgenda has since inspired a wave of similar lawsuits in other countries, as concerned citizens seek to hold their states accountable for climate promises.

Another early breakthrough came from the Global South. In 2015, farmer Asghar Leghari sued the government of Pakistan, arguing that officials’ failure to implement the country’s climate policy violated fundamental rights. The Lahore High Court agreed that “delay and lethargy” in carrying out Pakistan’s Climate Policy “offended the fundamental rights of the citizens”, in particular the constitutional rights to life and human dignity which include the right to a healthy environment. In a judgment hailed as climate justice, the court recognized climate change as a “defining challenge of our time” and found that the government’s inaction infringed citizens’ right to life. The court did not just admonish the officials, it took an active supervisory role. The Leghari case demonstrated how courts in developing countries can leverage rights-based law to spur policymakers into action on climate threats. It also introduced the concept of “climate justice” in jurisprudence – the idea that climate change responses must safeguard the rights of vulnerable people and equitably share the burdens of climate impacts.

Since Urgenda and Leghari, rights-based climate lawsuits have proliferated. Courts in more than 20 countries have been asked to decide whether governments are doing enough to protect people from climate harm. For example, in Germany, youths sued over insufficient climate targets, leading the Constitutional Court in 2021 to order the government to strengthen its climate law for the sake of future generations’ rights. In France, national courts in the Affaire du Siècle case found the state liable for failing to meet its emissions goals, violating citizens’ rights     . In Ireland, an environmental NGO won a Supreme Court case striking down the government’s weak climate plan as unlawful     . This string of court victories is raising hope among climate advocates that judiciaries will compel climate action where politics has stalled. As the UN Environment Programme noted, these cases illustrate that citizens and communities increasingly see courts as essential to protecting their rights in the face of the climate crisis.

A notable aspect of many of these cases is the invocation of constitutional environmental rights – sometimes called “green amendments” when they exist in a state’s constitution. For instance, the recent Held v. Montana case in the United States hinged on Montana’s constitutional guarantee of a clean and healthful environment. Sixteen youth plaintiffs sued the state of Montana, arguing that the state’s promotion of fossil fuels and a law barring consideration of climate impacts in environmental reviews violated their inalienable right to a clean and healthful environment under the Montana Constitution (a state-level green amendment). In August 2023, after a first-of-its-kind trial, a Montana court agreed with the youths, becoming the first U.S. court to declare a government in violation of a constitutional climate right. The Montana case clarified that the state’s green amendment, referring to Montana’s constitutional environmental rights clause, squarely encompasses climate protection. In late 2023, the Montana Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that the youth plaintiffs had standing and that the state must consider climate impacts to fulfill its constitutional duty. This victory may inspire similar youth-led constitutional climate lawsuits in other U.S. states and jurisdictions. Overall, the growing body of rights-based cases, from Urgenda to Leghari, from Europe to the Americas, has established an important principle: governments have a legal obligation to protect people from the foreseeable harms of climate change, and courts are willing to enforce that obligation when it is breached.

Fig. 3 – Major Climate Change Litigation Cases presented – SVI Research

 

Holding Polluters to Account: Climate Litigation against Companies

Early climate lawsuits mostly targeted governments, but in recent years, there has been a shift toward holding private companies accountable for their role in the climate crisis. Claimants are testing novel legal strategies to sue fossil fuel producers, energy utilities, and even corporate boards for climate-related harms and risks. This trend includes efforts to demand compensation for climate damages, to force companies to cut emissions, and to challenge misleading “green” claims. As the financial stakes and urgency rise, litigation is becoming a tool to change corporate behavior on climate change.

One closely watched case is a “polluter pays” lawsuit against German energy giant RWE by a Peruvian farmer, Saúl Luciano Lliuya. In 2015, he sued RWE in a German court, arguing that RWE’s enormous historical greenhouse gas emissions, as one of the world’s top emitters, have contributed to the glacial melting endangering his community. It is a trailblazing lawsuit      to attempt to make a private company pay for climate damage in another country. On May 28, 2025, the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht, OLG) of Hamm dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal. While the case was initially allowed to proceed to evidentiary stage, it was ultimately dismissed by the court, which found no concrete danger to the plaintiff’s property.      Although unsuccessful, the court’s reasoning marked the first time a major emitter’s potential legal responsibility for climate harm was recognized under German tort law.

RWE is not the only company in the crosshairs. A parallel case has been filed by islanders from Tuvalu and other Pacific nations against Holcim, one of the world’s biggest cement makers, in a Swiss court, likewise seeking damages for sea-level rise and climate impacts caused by the company’s emissions. While in the Netherlands, environmental groups won a historic judgment against Royal Dutch Shell in 2021 (Milieudefensie et al. v. Shell), where the court ordered Shell to cut its global carbon emissions by 45% by 2030. That verdict, now under appeal     , was based on human rights and tort law, holding that Shell’s emissions endanger citizens and violate a duty of care. It was the first time a private corporation was legally mandated to align its business with the Paris Agreement goals, and it sent shockwaves through boardrooms around the world .

Increasingly, activists and shareholders are also targeting the governance and strategies of corporations in light of climate risks. A novel example was the 2023 case by the NGO ClientEarth, a Shell shareholder, against Shell’s own Board of Directors. ClientEarth argued that Shell’s 11 directors breached their fiduciary duties under company law by failing to adopt a transition plan consistent with the Paris Agreement and the earlier Dutch court order, the Milieudefensie case. This was the first-ever lawsuit aiming to hold corporate directors personally liable for mismanaging climate change risk. The claims fell under the U.K. Companies Act, alleging that Shell’s board violated duties of care and acted irrationally in pursuing an insufficient climate strategy. On 12 May 2023, ClientEarth’s bid to sue Shell plc’s board of directors was dismissed by the English High Court. The case      signaled      to corporate leaders that investors are willing to litigate over climate negligence, and it has spurred discussion about directors’ legal accountability for climate governance. In fact, the latest global trends report identifies a new category of “transition risk” lawsuits, cases against company directors and officers for failing to properly manage climate-related risks and align their businesses with climate goals1. The Shell case was a preview of this emerging legal frontier; while it failed, other similar efforts may follow; for example, shareholders of a Polish utility successfully brought a case against directors for approving a new coal plant, marking a small victory in this area .

Another recent example of lawsuit targeting the governance of a corporation aiming to hold the relevant shareholders accountable is the lawsuit filed in May 2023 by two NGOs, Greenpeace and ReCommon, against the Italian energy group ENI for contributing to climate change with its fossil fuel businesses. The Italian Economy Ministry and Italian state lender Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (CDP), which jointly control the company with a stake of 31.8%, were also named as co-defendants. As of July 21, 2025, the Italian top appeals court has ruled that Italian courts have jurisdiction to hear climate litigation cases, including those involving emissions from ENI’s foreign subsidiaries.

Corporate defendants are responding to this pressure. In some instances, companies have opted to settle major environmental lawsuits; for example, on 19/03/2021 the Federal Court of Australia held that PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd breached its duty of care towards thousands of seaweed farmers in Indonesia by causing, or materially contributing to, the death and loss of seaweed crops via a large oil spill in 2009 in the Montara oil rig in Timor Sea. Late in 2022 the company agreed to pay AUD 129 million to 15,000 Indonesian seaweed farmers in a class-action settlement. Such outcomes demonstrate that litigation can at least secure redress for victims of environmental harm.

Overall, climate litigation against companies has rapidly evolved from a nascent idea to a sophisticated front. Companies are now under legal scrutiny not just for historic emissions, but also for their future climate plans, risk disclosures, and public statements. In the words of one lawyer, this area has reached a “turning point,” as creative legal theories are tested to hold corporations accountable for contributing to global warming. While not all cases succeed, and courts remain cautious about overstepping into business judgments, the threat of litigation is pushing companies to reckon with climate risks more seriously.

Global Trends and the New Legal Landscape

From the above developments, it is clear that climate litigation has entered a more mature and complex phase globally. Its usage has expanded across continents and legal arenas, no longer confined to a few countries or legal theories. In the past year alone, first-ever climate cases were recorded in nations like China, Russia, Turkey, Thailand, and Bulgaria, among others. This reflects the diffusion of legal strategies and the universal nature of climate concerns. Significantly, climate litigation is not only growing in number but also diversifying in purpose.

At the same time, we are recently assisting to an increasing numbers of      cases aiming to slow down or overturn climate policies. For example, some litigants, often industry groups or political actors, have sued governments to challenge regulations phasing out fossil fuels or to object to consideration of climate impacts in decision-making. In the United States and elsewhere, this “ESG backlash” has led to cases arguing that climate initiatives overstep legal authority or harm economic interests. In 2023, about 50 out of 230 new cases were not aligned with climate goals, including lawsuits against governments’ climate plans and even Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP ) suits aimed at harassing climate activists and scientists. This underscores that climate litigation is now a “two-way street”, a tool employed both by those demanding climate accountability and by those resisting climate regulations. Courts thus find themselves arbitrating the pace and shape of climate policy on multiple fronts.

Despite the pushback, the overall trend favors those seeking stronger climate protections. Increasingly, these cases are achieving meaningful outcomes. More than half of decided climate cases worldwide have outcomes that can be considered “favorable to climate action”. Even where lawsuits do not fully succeed, they often prompt indirect impacts, such as policy changes, public awareness, and shifts in corporate behavior. Climate cases are also reaching higher courts and setting important legal precedents. Many supreme courts and constitutional courts have now weighed in on climate issues, from the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in Urgenda, to the Constitutional Court of Germany, to the highest courts of Ireland, France, Colombia, Australia, and others in their respective landmark rulings. This shows that climate change is being integrated into the normal functioning of the law. As UNEP 2023 Climate Litigation Reportobserves, environmental law has been bolstered by developments like the recognition of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment in 159 countries, and the establishment of specialized environmental courts in dozens of jurisdictions.

International Courts and Future Outlook

Perhaps the most striking development in recent times is that climate litigation has moved onto the stage of international law. What was once the domain of domestic courts has now prompted action in international courts and tribunals, heralding a new legal frontier for climate accountability. In 2023, for the first time, multiple international judicial bodies were asked to address climate change directly. Most notably, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is set to weigh in. In March 2023, the United Nations General Assembly, acting on an initiative led by Vanuatu and a coalition of nations vulnerable to climate impacts, unanimously passed a resolution requesting an Advisory Opinion from the ICJ on climate change. The ICJ has been asked to clarify countries’ obligations under international law to protect the climate system and human rights of present and future generations. While an ICJ advisory opinion is not binding, it could carry significant moral and legal weight, guiding future litigation and diplomatic negotiations. As one of the lawyers involved stated, “no state alone can solve climate change” and thus international legal principles are needed to hold all states to their responsibilities. The International Court of Justice issued its long-awaited advisory opinion on July 22, 2025, declaring that states have binding obligations to prevent climate harm under international law.

© Greenpeace/Piero Good

Fig. 4 – Celebrating the winning of a Litigation case in Switzerland © Greenpeace/Piero Good

 

Looking ahead, these developments hint at a future where climate litigation becomes an even more prominent force in driving change. The momentum behind climate lawsuits is expected to continue, despite the present deceleration in the USA under Trump’s second mandate. Experts note that as the physical impacts of climate change become ever more pronounced and attributable, courts will be confronted with more compelling evidence of harm, strengthening plaintiffs’ cases. On the corporate side, a “wave of big corporate climate cases” is thought to be only a matter of time, according to legal analysts.

In sum, climate litigation has grown from a fledgling idea into a dynamic, multi-faceted legal movement. These cases are redefining what environmental accountability means in the 21st century, translating abstract climate targets into concrete legal duties. As a UN Special Rapporteur on climate justice noted, such lawsuits are “absolutely necessary to hold people to account for not taking enough action on climate change”     . Of course, litigation alone cannot solve climate change – courts are reactive institutions and cannot design policy wholesale. Yet, the surge of legal action has already achieved notable victories and injected a sense of urgency into climate governance. It has also given a voice to those most affected by the climate crisis in a forum where facts and evidence matter.

With international law now entering the fray and new precedents being set each year, the legacy of climate litigation is likely to be a fundamental strengthening of the rule of law in the era of climate change, ensuring that promises made to protect the planet are promises kept, and that inaction has a price.

As we head into the next critical decade for climate action, the message from courtrooms around the world is resounding: inaction is no longer an option, it is a liability.

 

For further information, see the following links:

Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Print page