Tiffanie Chan and Joana Setzer explain why the next phase of corporate climate litigation and regulation depends on closer links between science and law in this introduction to a new commentary series written by legal scholars, economists, other social scientists and practising lawyers.
The rise of climate litigation against companies: backward-looking and forward-looking cases
The past five years have seen a rapid expansion of climate litigation cases against companies, particularly large emitters of greenhouse gases – the so-called carbon majors. This trend has coincided with a growth in the number of policies, regulations, standards and guidelines that encourage or mandate firms’ transition to net zero.
The prevailing form of corporate climate litigation has also evolved. Early cases were backward-looking, seeking redress for harms caused by past emissions. More recent cases are forward-looking, demanding that companies align their current and future operations with science-based emissions reduction pathways.
Climate-washing and disclosure claims often sit at the intersection of these approaches. Backward-looking cases focus on companies’ involvement in historical misinformation campaigns that aimed to discredit climate science, which arguably prevented or delayed the introduction of national and international measures designed to reduce the production and consumption of fossil fuels. Forward-looking cases address misinformation such as unsubstantiated net-zero targets or carbon-neutrality claims that could hamper future climate action. In other instances, climate-washing and disclosure claims centre on consumer protection or efforts to counter fraud.
A lack of progress in forward-looking corporate climate litigation
While several climate-washing cases have succeeded, backward- and forward-looking cases have proven to be challenging. Milieudefensie v. Shell remains the only forward-looking litigation case to have resulted in a substantive court judgment on the merits, before being overturned on appeal in 2024. The court cited a lack of scientific consensus on company-level emissions reduction pathways and, therefore, an inability to impose a legal standard on the emissions reductions required of an individual company. Nonetheless, it is questionable whether the court’s conclusion on this fairly reflects the current state of scientific knowledge on sectoral and corporate transition pathways.
In December 2025, a Swiss court ruled that another high-profile case, Asmania v. Holcim, was admissible – allowing it to proceed to substantive hearings. In this case, four Indonesian islanders are suing Holcim, a multinational supplier of construction materials, to reduce its emissions by at least 43% by 2030 and 69% by 2040, and to provide compensation for past and future damages.
As more forward-looking cases against companies make their way through the courts and as more countries consider introducing binding requirements for corporate transition plans, the importance of interdisciplinary research into these issues only grows. In particular, there is an urgent need to clarify how to translate political commitments, scientific findings and legally binding goals – such as the 1.5°C target under the Paris Agreement – into concrete, enforceable obligations for individual companies.
Science’s role in defining legal duties
Scientific models and emissions reduction pathways underpin climate policy and set out potential versions of our future. But these models do not automatically determine legal standards. In functioning democracies, the law reflects societal values – including a shared understanding of what constitutes harm and how to attribute responsibility for it. Effective climate action requires sustained interaction between science and the law rather than the unidirectional translation of scientific outputs into legal rules.
In forward-looking cases brought against companies, the courts continue to be presented with integrated assessment models that outline pathways companies would need to follow to meet various temperature thresholds (at different levels of confidence). Judges need to determine what these projections demand of firms under the applicable laws. Similarly, legislators and regulators translate climate science into legal boundaries by defining what companies must do in the context of climate change.
The need for interdisciplinary approaches to corporate climate accountability
To date, much of the cross-fertilisation between science and climate litigation has centred on climate attribution science, particularly through collaboration between lawyers and climate scientists. This work has been critical in advancing claims related to losses, damage and causal responsibility.
By contrast, there has been far less systematic engagement with social sciences such as environmental economics and political science, despite their central relevance to questions of corporate responsibility, the feasibility of transition pathways, distributional impacts and the political economy of climate regulation. There is a significant risk that this imbalance will limit courts’ and regulators’ understanding of both the evidence base and the policy context in which to assess corporate climate obligations.
About this commentary series
This series will be coordinated by the climate law and governance team at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. It was inspired by an interdisciplinary workshop we hosted in October 2025 to explore issues and evidence in forward-looking corporate climate litigation, focusing on the boundaries and interactions between science, the law and policy. The workshop brought together legal scholars, practising climate lawyers, economists, political scientists and climate scientists. Like other important efforts it builds on – such as the Climate Research Forum and the Union of Concerned Scientists – the workshop provided a space for climate scientists and legal experts to collaborate on strengthening evidence-based climate governance.
To support this dialogue and interdisciplinary collaboration between research and practice on these vital issues, we will publish contributions from legal scholars, economists and other social scientists, reviewed by practising lawyers. The commentaries will address pressing questions, highlight areas for future research and explore potential ways forward, providing timely and practical insights. Stakeholders ranging from lawyers to regulators, investors and others seeking clarity in the rapidly evolving landscape of corporate climate responsibility should find the series relevant.
The series will be co-hosted with the Global School of Sustainability at LSE.