top of page
Mohd. Fahad Ansari

From Pledges to Action: Assessing International Corporate Climate Initiatives and Legal Implications

Updated: Sep 17


Introduction

Climate commitments are increasingly being utilized to express dedication towards achieving a state of net zero carbon emissions between 2030 and 2040. While society and environmental stakeholders may applaud these commitments, there could be enduring repercussions for the companies making these pledges if they are not carefully considered or effectively put into action. This article provides a brief exploration of the potential outcomes.

National Climate Pledge

On December 12, 2015, 196 nations affixed their signatures to the Paris Agreement—a treaty of profound global significance, aimed at the amelioration of our planet's escalating global warming. The consequential activation of this agreement on November 4, 2016, heralded a new epoch, binding the undersigned nations to a harmonized framework. This framework necessitates the meticulous articulation and transmission of vital national climate endeavors to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, encapsulated within the nomenclature of 'Nationally Determined Contributions' (NDCs).

In 2015, the United Kingdom (UK) unveiled its inaugural NDC, envisioning a  53% reduction in carbon emissions, in alignment with European Union directives, albeit juxtaposed against an internal benchmark of 57%. Regrettably, these objectives failed to encapsulate the true potential of the UK, an estimation that leaned closer to an impressive 69%. Within the juridical realm defined by Section 1(1) of the Climate Change Act of 2008, a resolute and ambitious objective was codified: 'the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050,' denoting an extraordinary one-hundred percent surpassing of the 1990 baseline. As the annals of 2020 approached their closure, the UK revisited its NDC, boldly committing to a substantial 68% reduction by 2030, measured against the yardstick of 1990 emissions.

With these advancements in mind, the landscape of climate action has transitioned from activism primarily led by states and non-governmental organizations to robust involvement from corporate shareholders. They wield their influence to encourage corporate directors to prioritize climate action. As a result, the question arises: How has the approach to corporate climate commitments evolved in response to this global drive?

Corporate Climate Pledges

Inherent in the structure of national climate action lies the engagement of corporations across the economic spectrum. Corporations have independently undertaken efforts to address climate change by establishing voluntary objectives, goals, and commitments. However, there appears to be a scarcity of effective mechanisms to enforce accountability for these corporate pledges.

In consequence, we observe a pronounced upswing in environmental stakeholders seeking legal remedies to ensure the fidelity of entities towards these committed obligations. A prominent instance is discernible within the Dutch scenario, distinctly highlighted through the legal proceedings of Milieudefensie case. Within this legal context, the Hague District Court, drawing upon the codified principles of the Dutch Civil Code, enacted a directive mandating the directors of Royal Dutch Shell to effectuate a notable 45% reduction in their corporation's global emissions by 2030, relative to the established standards in 2010.

This legal undertaking stands as an eloquent paradigm amidst a burgeoning array of litigations converging upon climate-related concerns—a discernment corroborated by the meticulous chronicles of the Gratham database, encompassing insights up to 2022.

In the course of articulating this treatise, our attention gravitated towards three impediments obstructing the efficacious execution of these solemn engagements.

The foremost challenge resides in the dearth of a standardized methodology, affording corporations the ability to retrospectively gauge their historical emissions in a consistent manner across a myriad of sectors (Peel 2011). A plausible redress could encompass the creation of bespoke algorithms meticulously attuned to the unique attributes characterizing the socioeconomic endeavors undertaken by the corporation.

Additionally, a praiseworthy stride would involve incorporating what the government of Ireland has labeled as 'sectoral emissions ceilings,' granting enterprises the capacity to assess their targets and construct fitting methodologies congruous with the sector(s) they are affiliated with.

The secondary impediment revolves around the element of credibility and the prevailing skepticism directed towards those affording commitments, potentially miring the discourse with misleading portrayals of their environmental endeavors. This erosion of trust has engendered a heightened imperative—emphasizing transparency and enforcing accountability in countering the dissemination of inaccurate climate information, a phenomenon popularly known as greenwashing. Measures to combat this practice have been thorough and, on occasion, have necessitated substantive actions.

A notable case in point is the scenario involving Deutsche Gesellschaft für Wertpapiersparen, where law enforcement authorities undertook a search at its premises subsequent to allegations of misleading investors concerning the corporation's environmental performance and product claims.

The overarching strategy to counter greenwashing encompasses a call for the regulation of environmental marketing and the establishment of benchmarks to guide corporate pursuits towards net zero objectives, aligning with the strategic approach delineated by the Net Zero Tracker. However, the true extent of the impact stemming from these initiatives remains a subject of ongoing exploration and understanding.

With the exception of scenarios where climate commitments undergo substantiation, a tertiary concern manifests pertaining to the legally binding character of these affirmations. In legal domains such as England and Wales, the fulcrum for enforcing these climate affirmations predominantly pivots on the law of contracts, with potential subsequent recourse to tort law, contingent upon prospective climate litigations establishing a fiduciary responsibility between corporate directors and stakeholders. Presently, however, the viable prospects of ascertaining tortious accountability, exemplified by a duty of care, remain veiled in uncertainty, if not leaning towards improbability. 

Financial Dichotomy

A significant number of companies struggle to accurately place the current financial implications of climate action in a temporal context, contrasting the present with the future. This failure to contextualize the costs might lead corporations to underestimate the magnitude of the future costs of necessary corrections. Pursuing a prompt reduction in carbon emissions today might seem costly for the corporation, but it could actually represent a relatively minor expenditure in future terms. This dilemma of ‘invest now or spend as necessary later’ has caused a division among corporations, influencing the perspectives of both shareholders and directors.

Amidst the intricacies of this framework, shareholders shoulder an immensely pivotal role owing to their substantial financial investment in the corporation. The dividends arising from these investments are intricately entwined with the performance of the corporation, which, in a cyclic manner, is profoundly interlinked with a coherent strategy that meticulously considers factors such as climate risk. Within this symbiotic interaction, an escalating concern is manifesting among shareholders (as well as the broader spectrum of climate advocates)—a concern underscored by the discernible lack of emphasis on climate change considerations.

A pertinent exemplification of this concern is discernible in the legal case in Australia, encapsulated in Nature Conservation case. Conversely, the domains of corporate directors do not uniformly adopt a culture of personal or collective responsibility toward climate endeavors. This disjunction is vividly portrayed by the ongoing derivative action witnessed in the legal discourse of ClientEarth case—a legal pursuit perceived to be fraught with uncertainties regarding its eventual success. Thus, at the core of this intricate dynamics resides a fundamental inquiry: How can one definitively institute a framework of responsibility within this intricate interplay?

Role of Contractual Liability

Embedded at the core of global business operations is the indispensable aspect of a legally binding  contract. This juridical entity holds pivotal significance, especially for corporations meticulously attuned to the legal intricacies entailed in climate-related commitments. A prudent and inaugural measure for such entities involves a meticulous scrutiny and potential adaptation of extant contracts, meticulously refining any elements that could inadvertently steer toward outcomes entrenched in carbon intensity. This comprehensive endeavor encompasses a multifaceted evaluation, spanning the commercial essence of the contract to the modalities through which contractual obligations manifest.

For instance, within the sphere of a construction agreement, one might encounter reciprocal obligations necessitating on-premises manufacturing as opposed to off-site, alongside the imposition of a climate amelioration charge in the event of breaches.

A notable instance manifests in the recent inclusion of the 'NEC4, Option X29 Climate Change' clause within the New Engineering Contract. This obliges contractual stakeholders in the construction sphere to systematically grapple with 'climate change imperatives' by meticulously formulating a detailed Plan integrated within contractual 'Scope of Works.' The violation of this provision would be cast as a defect, compelling remedial action by the defaulting party, mirroring the consequences of any other Compensation Event within the established framework of the standard construction contract.

The secondary facet in consideration entails the tailoring of the corporate architecture to encompass and elucidate performance benchmarks and incentives ensuring strict adherence to climate imperatives. These environmentally-driven benchmarks would seamlessly interweave into both the internal dynamics and external contractual engagements of the corporation, constituting environmental responsibilities that ultimately culminate in meticulous assessments of energy efficiency.

Such mutually agreed-upon corporate benchmarks entrenched within contractual agreements function as the foundational underpinning for climate endeavors and concurrently establish a model for prospective entities seeking collaboration with the corporation. By effecting the integration of these provisions, whether through the appointment of specialized environmental compliance officers or through assiduous oversight during contractual execution, a rigorous norm is instated for forthcoming business engagements.

Furthermore, there exists a compelling prospect to incorporate an environmental premium into the contract. This multifaceted addition assumes a tripartite significance, manifesting as:

(i) an augmented fee attributed to an avowal of operations aligned with a reduced carbon footprint;

(ii) a financial provision symbolizing the corporation's unwavering dedication to climate action; and

(iii) an incentivizing perk that could be actualized by the contract parties and esteemed stakeholders, contingent upon the seamless execution of the transaction in adherence to the prescribed climate directives, devoid of any accompanying financial encumbrances tied to climate concerns.

Conclusion

Climate accords have transitioned from the global stage to encompass territorial and corporate landscapes. The upward trajectory of legal interventions in the climate sphere, directed at enforcing these commitments, constitutes an evolving trend with expansive contours. Corporations grapple with a fiscal dilemma, navigating the decision of immediate versus future action in addressing the climate issue. The actions of corporate stakeholders and directors wield considerable influence over the materialization of climate commitments and the resolution of this intricate financial quandary. However, the precise delineation of these roles remains dynamic and awaits a definitive elucidation. While delving into contractual obligations offers a preliminary insight into the execution of climate commitments, it is the trajectory of climate litigations that will author a decisive standpoint concerning the realization of these roles and commitments. The ongoing legal dispute in ClientEarth case offers an avenue for such clarity, contingent upon ClientEarth's successful substantiation of its position against Shell's directors. However, the realization of ClientEarth's derivative action remains uncertain, given the formidable threshold required to surpass the entrenched doctrine in Foss case. The true influence and practical effectiveness of climate pledges persist as a factual path awaiting careful examination.

Author:

Mohd. Fahad Ansari is a Law Student at NUSRL, Ranchi

Comments


bottom of page