The previous post focussed on Europe but this post includes analysis of climate litigation trends in other regions. Courts worldwide are increasingly receptive to comparative arguments and to integrating climate science into their reasoning. This applies both when defining the scope of due diligence duties and when determining whether those duties have been breached. Since the underlying science is common to all courts, a broad, cross-jurisdictional view is particularly valuable.
From a financial standpoint, litigation and transition risks now influence investor behaviour more than the physical risks of climate change. Companies must therefore monitor legal developments internationally to manage climate-related risks effectively.
This post is divided into three parts:
- Vertical claims – cases involving governments
- Horizontal claims – disputes between companies and/or individuals and NGOs
- A horizon scan of what’s next
The analysis draws on recent case law, legislative changes, and reports such as those from the Grantham Research Institute.
1. Vertical claims involving governments
International court decisions discussed previously offer new grounds for holding governments accountable for insufficient climate action. These decisions may also spur claims by governments and regulators, who now face international legal duties to regulate emissions and prevent significant climate harm.
Interestingly, regulators in less developed countries are far more active in pursuing climate-related cases against corporations than those in developed countries—56% versus 5% of cases in 2024. For example, China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate has prioritized litigation concerning climate disclosures and investments in high-emissions projects.
Africa may soon see major developments. In May 2025, civil society groups filed the first climate petition before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The petition asks the Court to clarify states’ human rights responsibilities in relation to climate change and, significantly, to address states’ obligations to regulate the conduct of international corporations. The Court is expected to admit the request, and its eventual decision is unlikely to set a lower standard than the ICJ. It may, in fact, align with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which in July 2025 issued an advisory opinion emphasising that states must regulate private activities that pose environmental or climate risks in order to protect human rights.
2. Horizontal claims by or against companies
Around 20% of climate cases filed in 2024 targeted companies or their directors and officers. The range of industries is widening: new cases have been brought not only against energy producers but also in sectors such as animal agriculture, food retail, and professional services linked to high-emission projects. Even if regulatory momentum slows, litigation is expected to play a growing “gap-filling” role.
“Polluter pays” litigation is expanding. In May 2025, Germany’s Higher Regional Court of Hamm confirmed in Lliuya v. RWE that companies can, in principle, be held legally liable for harm caused by their contribution to climate change—even where the harm occurs in another country. RWE ultimately avoided liability for lack of a sufficiently imminent threat to the claimant’s property in Peru, but the ruling established an important precedent. Brazil has seen courts award damages for climate harm caused by illegal deforestation. In four cases, individuals were ordered to pay compensation based on GHG emissions from land clearing, using a novel protocol for assessing climate damage. These cases may inspire similar claims in the EU and elsewhere.
As emissions regulation evolves, breaches are increasingly used in competition law disputes over misleading sustainability claims. In Spain, Iberdrola challenged Repsol’s advertising for allegedly false sustainability claims. In Italy, Alcantara sued Miko to stop the use of allegedly vague and unverifiable green claims like “100% recyclable” and “eco-friendly microfiber.”
Climate-washing litigation remains the most common—and often successful—form of corporate climate litigation. In 2024, 25 new cases were filed, bringing the total to over 160. Notably, more than a third involved carbon credits. The drop from 53 cases in 2023 may reflect shifts in corporate disclosure practices, such as delays in the EU’s CSRD and the paused Green Claims Directive. However, the Empowering Consumers Directive (EmpCo Directive), which tightens rules on green advertising, will take effect on 27 September 2026.
There’s also a rise in litigation opposing climate action. In 2024, 27% of new cases featured non-climate-aligned arguments, mostly in the U.S. These include anti-regulatory or ESG backlash claims challenging disclosure requirements, voluntary climate commitments, and sustainability certifications—often citing antitrust or fiduciary duty concerns. Other cases attempt to reshape climate goals based on just transition or environmental trade-offs. So far, such claims have generally been unsuccessful, and in some instances courts have seen lawsuits defending ESG-oriented policies against attempts to roll them back. Nonetheless, companies should watch this trend closely.
3. What to expect in the short to medium term?
Looking ahead, measurable climate targets and “fair share” contributions will feature prominently. In many jurisdictions, interim reduction targets are being introduced via climate laws or court orders. Do Hyun Kim v. South Korea is a prime example, requiring additional interim targets. These targets provide claimants with a more proximate basis for arguing breach of climate action commitments. Already, a Belgian farmer has brought a claim in such terms against TotalEnergies for contributing to climate change, while in Japan, litigation has been initiated against ten thermal power companies on similar grounds.
Developing regions like Latin America and Africa may well see an uptick in damages claims based on emissions, on the back of regional court rulings.
Some “green v. green” litigation will continue, where climate action itself leads to disputes over environmental trade-offs. For example, a hydropower project in Romania has been challenged because it would be built within a Natura 2000 protected site, illustrating tensions between renewable energy development and biodiversity protection.
Companies—and perhaps courts—may increasingly rely on Integrated Assessment Models to plot emissions trajectories and assess the operational and financial implications of meeting climate commitments. IAMs are already employed by initiatives like the Science Based Targets initiative and could become influential in litigation settings.
By contrast, adaptation litigation will remain limited in the near term. Unlike mitigation, adaptation lacks well-established legal benchmarks against which to measure compliance, though efforts are being made to develop them.