The rise of climate litigation against companies

Climate litigation has increased dramatically in recent years. According to a study by the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science, approximately 230 climate-related lawsuits have been filed worldwide since 2015 against companies and business associations, with more than two-thirds of these filed since 2020. This shows a major shift in how climate protection is being pursued through legal means.  

Whereas in previous years legal action was primarily directed at states for failing to uphold climate principles, there has now been a marked increase in lawsuits against individual companies. This indicates that climate litigation is no longer confined to governments; businesses whose emissions are deemed to contribute to climate harm must now also reckon with the possibility of legal proceedings. 

In this article, EHS and Sustainability Regulatory Consultant, Ipeksu Isiklioglu, explores the evolving landscape of climate litigation against companies, beginning with global legal trends across constitutional, regulatory and civil law frameworks.  The article then turns to the DACH-region, where recent civil law cases are shaping corporate risk in distinct ways. 

What is climate litigation?

Generally, climate litigation refers to legal proceedings in which state or non-state actors — in particular governments, companies or organizations — are held accountable to enforce measures to combat climate change, enforce existing commitments, or prevent climate-damaging behavior.  

While the general aim of climate lawsuits is to strengthen climate protection through legal means, the nature of the proceedings differs significantly depending on the defendant. 

This specific increase in climate lawsuits shows how the approach to environmental responsibility has changed drastically. Nowadays, progress isn’t only being made through the aim of changing policies, but also through the power of the courts.  

But what does this mean for companies?  

Companies must invest in strong climate governance to mitigate the risk of facing climate litigation and its potentially severe legal and reputational consequences. 

Global trends in climate litigation against companies

Climate lawsuits have become a global sensation. Courts worldwide have been showing a surprising open-mindedness towards claims that connect greenhouse gas emissions to violations of fundamental rights.  

However, the legal contours of such lawsuits differ immensely across jurisdictions. Differences in legal systems influence not only the types of claims brought against companies, but also the legal strategies and their chances of success.  

United States: Tort-based and disclosure-focused 

In the United States, legal disputes are often based on tort law, a branch of civil law that deals with civil wrongs — acts that cause harm or loss to another individual or entity.  

Plaintiffs seek damages for alleged contributions to climate-related damage by arguing that companies’ emissions interfere with their public rights or private enjoyment of property. More than before, lawsuits also target corporate disclosures, alleging misleading statements or omissions in relation to climate risks.  

Asia-Pacific: Regulatory nature  

In the Asia-Pacific region, legal disputes tend to be regulatory in nature, with NGO‘s and citizens challenging companies’ compliance with environmental laws.  

Although fewer cases are brought to court compared to Western legal systems, there has been an increase in strategic legal mobilization in the region, particularly in countries with growing civil society engagement and increasing judicial independence, such as Indonesia. 

Global South: Barriers to justice and transnational enforcement 

Many countries in the Global South face structural issues that also impact climate litigation. Limited access to justice, under-resourced courts and political constraints make it difficult for people and organizations to enforce environmental accountability.  

Despite these barriers, there is a strategy that allows individuals and groups to seek justice: filings in foreign jurisdictions and international human rights bodies are increasingly used to hold companies accountable for environmental harm affecting vulnerable communities. 

European Union: Human rights, due diligence, and civil law 

In Europe, climate lawsuits are often based on constitutional protections and the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly the right to life, health, and property.  

Courts in countries such as the Netherlands and Norway have begun compelling companies and governments to reduce their emissions. EU Directives, such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), now require companies to assess and address environmental risks throughout their value chains, helping to drive forward corporate environmental accountability.  

Civil Codes are also playing an increasingly important role. In Germany, for instance, civil law has been used to establish climate liability, thereby opening up new legal avenues for environmental lawsuits. 

Challenges in climate litigation

One of the main challenges in climate litigation against companies is the difficulty of establishing civil liability for global emissions. Unlike local environmental damage, climate change is diffuse, cumulative, and has its roots in centuries of industrial activity, making it difficult to attribute specific damage to individual actors. Legal systems based on the principle of direct causality often struggle to take into account the complex science of climate attribution, where damages arise not from a single source, but from a web of factors.  

Expanding role of courts 

However, the legal landscape is changing. Courts in various legal jurisdictions are increasingly willing to engage with these complexities — not only through civil law, but also via constitutional and human rights frameworks.  

In Germany, for example, the Federal Constitutional Court decided in 2021 that weak climate targets unfairly shifted the burden of reducing emissions onto future generations. Although these cases involve state obligations, they have influenced strategies in civil proceedings by legitimizing the view that insufficient climate protection measures can violate fundamental rights. This change is increasingly reflected in private lawsuits against companies, in which plaintiffs argue that corporate emissions and inaction could violate personal rights and endanger environmental integrity.  

Simultaneously, the science of attribution — a field of research that investigates the extent to which human-caused climate change contributes to specific extreme weather events and environmental impacts — is gaining significance in courtrooms. This type of evidence is changing the way liability is assessed, particularly in cross-border cases. These broader changes are now influencing civil law strategies in the DACH-region, where courts are beginning to reinterpret traditional legal instruments in light of climatic realities. 

Civil law’s growing role in climate accountability in the DACH-region  

As climate processes gain increasing significance, the DACH-region stands out for its use of civil law to enforce corporate responsibility. Courts in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland are beginning to reinterpret traditional legal principles in order to address global emissions and transboundary damages. 

Germany 

Section 1004 of the German Civil Code (§ 1004 BGB) could offer a promising legal approach to establish such liability for global emissions. This provision, which traditionally serves to protect property rights, allows property owners to demand the removal of unlawful interferences, and to file injunction lawsuits against future disturbances. 

Recently, a German higher regional court recognized that Section 1004 of the German Civil Code could, in principle, apply to climate-related harm. The case explored whether a company contributing to global emissions could bear responsibility for climate-related threats to property, despite having no direct connection to the individual impacted.  

While the specific case didn’t succeed due to low probability of damage, the court’s interpretation was remarkable: if a certain climate-related threat to a property is foreseeable, CO₂ emitters may be obliged to take preventive measures. If they refuse, they could be required to contribute to the costs in proportion to their share of the emissions — even before actual costs have arisen.  

It’s important that the geographical distance between plaintiffs and defendants doesn’t negate this obligation, which means that, in principle, plaintiffs from other continents can also bring lawsuits against large emitters in German courts. This could not only lead to plaintiffs increasingly using Section 1004 of the German Civil Code (BGB) for their climate lawsuits, especially in cross-border cases, but could also inspire similar legal strategies in other jurisdictions. 

In Austria and Switzerland, civil law is gradually being tested as a tool to hold companies accountable for their contribution to global emissions.  

Austria 

In Austria, legal activists are examining tort law approaches to argue that large emitters may be infringing on personal rights and environmental integrity. Although courts haven’t yet issued final judgments in such cases and success remains unclear, the legal framework is evolving, with increasing attention being paid to how private law could account for climate-related damages.  

Switzerland 

Switzerland, like Germany, has gone one step further. Recently, foreign plaintiffs filed a civil lawsuit in a Swiss court, claiming that the emissions of a large industrial company have contributed to climate-related damages in their home region.  

The case is based on Swiss tort law and the protection of personality rights, specifically avoiding public law or constitutional channels. While it remains unclear whether foreign plaintiffs will be granted access to Swiss courts, if successful, the case could set a precedent for cross-border climate liability under private law — potentially encouraging similar lawsuits in other civil law systems, much like Germany’s Section 1004 BGB case. 

These legal approaches have one thing in common: In the DACH-region, but also globally, courts are beginning to reinterpret classic legal principles in the context of global warming. Climate lawsuits are increasingly seen not as exceptions, but as an evolution of existing legal principles. Judges make it clear that a perfect scientific attribution isn’t a prerequisite for legal consideration, demonstrating a more pragmatic view of the law — one that takes scientific complexity seriously, yet doesn’t let it get in the way of the hunt for accountability.  

With the further development of climate litigation, civil law could become one of the most effective tools for enforcing cross-border accountability. 

Key takeaways: The future of corporate climate accountability

As the landscape of climate litigation is changing globally and courts are expanding the legal framework for environmental responsibility, companies must realign their risk strategies, leadership structures, and disclosure practices to account for a new era of climate liability. 

Climate lawsuits are no longer limited to governments 

This change demands attention, especially from companies with significant emissions, ESG disclosures, or risks in the supply chain.  

The legal risk is becoming global 

From German Section 1004 BGB to tort claims in the US and human rights arguments in the Global South, legal systems are evolving to address climate accountability. Multinational corporations must monitor the specific liability trends in each jurisdiction. 

Greenwashing isn’t just a reputational risk, but also a legal risk 

Regulatory authorities and courts are scrutinizing ESG claims more closely than ever. Companies must ensure that their sustainability communications are well-founded, verifiable, and aligned with actual performance.  

Causality is evolving 

Scientific attribution and probabilistic models are gaining importance in courtrooms and lowering the threshold for establishing corporate responsibility for climate damages.  

Compliance is becoming strategic 

ESG frameworks are tools for resilience, not just for regulation. Companies that integrate climate forecasts into their business operations are better equipped to deal with fluctuations and market volatility.  

Disclosure and due diligence are essential 

Given the tightened EU and global standards, robust data systems and proactive compliance are necessary — not only to meet legal limits but also to prevent legal disputes. As climate processes evolve across different legal jurisdictions, companies must go beyond reactive compliance and strive for strategic resilience.  

The legal landscape is no longer static, and neither can corporate climate responsibility be. For companies in the DACH region, where a legal precedent was set with Germany’s Section 1004 BGB and EU directives are tightening ESG obligations, it’s particularly urgent to invest in jurisdiction-specific legal forecasts and cross-border compliance strategies. 

Stay ahead of climate risks

Concerns surrounding climate change are instigating global regulatory pressure to enhance sustainability and safer environmental practices. As these pressures increase, so do the demands of industry. And with more compliance demands comes more risks. 

Anticipate these risks ahead of time to mitigate financial, legal, and reputational damages from non-compliance.