Global trends in climate litigation: the changing shape of corporate litigation risk

In June, the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment published its 2025 annual snapshot report on global trends in climate change litigation. The report highlights how the field has matured and diversified, and continues to change the shape of climate-related litigation risk for corporates and financial institutions.

Rate of new case filings slows

The report highlights that climate change litigation remains a global phenomenon, with 2,967 cases filed across 60 countries since 1986. The US remains the jurisdiction with the highest number of cases filed year on year, followed by Australia, the UK and Brazil. However, the report observes that the pace of new filings slowed in 2024, apart from in the US. 226 cases were recorded globally in 2024, compared with 230 filed in 2023, 222 in 2022, and 266 in 2021.

Corporate actors face growing scrutiny in an expanding number of sectors

Approximately 20% of climate cases filed in 2024 targeted companies or their directors and senior officers. While this is a smaller proportion than the previous year (in 2023, 40% of non-US cases targeted corporates), the report notes that the range of sectors affected is broadening. Corporate climate litigation is expanding to new areas such as professional services firms, which have been targeted for alleged failures to manage or reduce facilitated or advised emissions. Animal agriculture and associated food and retail are among the other industries receiving greater attention from climate groups.

Escalation to supreme and constitutional courts

In the last decade, 276 climate-related cases have reached the highest national courts (e.g. supreme and constitutional courts), referred to as “apex courts” in the report, globally. The report suggests that the growing number of climate cases reaching apex courts reflects the increasing maturity of climate law, as apex courts are being asked to deliver authoritative interpretations of public and private sectors’ climate obligations. While corporate defendants are in the minority (14% of cases to the end of 2024), cases against companies tend to have a higher overall success rate than those against governments. The report suggests this reflects courts' growing willingness to scrutinise the private sector for specific environmental harm and misleading practices. 

Strategic litigation takes new shapes

“Strategic litigation”, where claimants seek both to win their individual case and influence the public debate or change the behaviour of targeted actors in relation to climate action, continues to evolve.  The report highlights the following developments in strategic cases relevant to corporates:

• Cases seeking to integrate climate considerations, standards or principles into decisions or policies make up the largest category of cases historically, with 97 new cases filed in 2024. Recent examples include the UK Supreme Court’s decision in R(Finch) v. Surrey County Council and an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court which confirm that Scope 3 emissions constitute ‘effects’ that must be included in environmental impact assessments for fossil fuel projects.
   
• The number of ‘polluter pays’ cases continues to grow with 11 cases filed in 2024 (up from five in 2023). ‘Corporate framework’ cases, which seek to disincentivise high-emitting activities by influencing corporate strategies, also remain prominent. The closely watched decisions from appellate courts in Germany and the Netherlands in Lliuya v. RWE and Milieudefensie v Shell respectively found that companies have a duty to contribute to combatting climate change and, in principle, may be found liable for climate-related harm. Even so, both cases were unsuccessful, highlighting the evidentiary challenges such claims face.   
   
• ‘Turning-off-the-taps’ cases continue to challenge financial institutions’ approaches to climate change, in particular the financing of non-aligned projects and activities. Recent examples include the cases of ClientEarth v. BlackRock filed in France in October 2024 and Milieudefensie v. ING filed in the Netherlands earlier this year. Claimants are increasingly drawing on financial institutions’ responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, arguing that banks must not cause or contribute to human rights harm through their financing relationships, including climate-related harm.
   
• The numbers of cases challenging failures to take climate risks into account (‘failure-to-adapt’ cases), mismanagement of risks associated with transitioning to a lower-carbon economy (‘transition risk’ cases), and ‘climate-washing’ cases also continue to grow.

More generally, the report forecasts that as courts become receptive to climate science and principles of due diligence and transparency, we may see further expansion of litigation against non-state actors.

Strategies opposing climate action

The report highlights that the shifting political landscape is driving arguments that aim to prevent or delay climate action, referred to as “non-climate-aligned” strategies in the report (60 such cases were filed in 2024 (27%)). The trend towards ‘ESG backlash’ cases, which seek to challenge the legitimacy of ESG policies and practices, continues to grow alongside traditional anti-regulatory challenges. Corporates face growing scrutiny both from actors urging for stronger commitments and disclosure, and anti-ESG proponents who challenge the same policies on the grounds they are unlawful. While this is a predominantly US trend, the report notes that this dynamic legal risk environment may call into question even routine corporate governance and investment decisions.

The report also identifies new examples of: ‘strategic litigation against public participation’ (SLAPP) suits, which aim to deter public participation and climate activism; ‘just transition’ cases, which are focused on obtaining justice and challenging the fairness of climate-related laws, projects or policies which negatively affect individuals and communities; and ‘green v. green’ cases, in which different environmental objectives come into legal conflict (for example, climate mitigation and community rights in the context of renewable energy projects).

International law and upcoming advisory opinions

International climate cases remain in the spotlight. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued its opinion in May 2024, confirming states must reduce marine pollution from greenhouse gases. The report notes the potential ripple effect of international law opinions on wider climate litigation. The ITLOS opinion, for example, has already been cited in at least one domestic case which challenged the grant of gas and oil licences in the UK (Oceana UK v. Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, North Sea Transition Authority and others). 

The trend looks set to continue through 2025. Since the report was published, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights published its advisory opinion in July 2025 finding that there is a human right to a stable and safe climate. The UN International Court of Justice (ICJ), the world’s highest court, published its highly anticipated advisory opinion last week, which found that states are obliged to protect against anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and have duties of mitigation, adaptation and cooperation. States which breach their obligations may be required to compensate injured states. 

Similar developments are also being seen in Africa where, in May 2025, a coalition of civil society groups submitted the first climate-related petition to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, seeking an advisory opinion on African states’ human rights obligations in the context of climate change.

Whilst the opinions concern the international law obligations of states, they could have important ramifications for companies by influencing future climate litigation and the development of climate legislative and regulatory frameworks. The ICJ, for example, has said that states are required to regulate the activities of private actors to limit their emissions as part of states’ climate due diligence obligations.