Business Insight

Climate-related litigation risk management

windmills in water

    What you need to know

    • Climate-related litigation is an emerging risk, with litigation continuing to increase within Australia and internationally.
    • The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) recently published two reports highlighting recent trends and developments in climate-related litigation and micro-prudential supervision considerations for climate-related risks.
    • The NGFS defines climate-related litigation as "cases before judicial and quasi-judicial bodies that involve material issues of climate change science, policy, or law" and climate-related litigation risk (CLR) as "any financial risks that impact an institution either directly or indirectly, arising from climate-related litigation".
    • Awareness, understanding, response to, and supervision of CLR is at an early stage of development.
    • Greenwashing is a particular type of climate-related litigation, which continues to be a focus of regulators both in Australia and internationally.

    What you need to do

    Businesses should prepare for and implement a risk-based approach, identifying their highest climate-related compliance risks, and prioritising the development of controls, policies, and procedures to mitigate the risks of climate-related litigation.

    Risk landscape

    Climate-related litigation is increasing globally and growing rapidly, not only in terms of the volume of cases initiated, but also the legal arguments used, and the diversity of parties. The significance of this risk is expected to continue to increase in coming years, not only with respect to climate change related matters, but also broader environmental and nature-related considerations including biodiversity and human rights. For example, Amazon indigenous communities and international NGOs have sued supermarket giant Casino over alleged deforestation and human rights violations under French law.

    CLR is a complex risk that warrants special consideration by businesses, and a heightened awareness and nuanced understanding of the key risk drivers and implications of an inappropriate response:

    • CLR is a "transverse risk" that potentially intersects and impacts several risk categories across businesses, including strategic, financial, and reputational risk;
    • On this basis, CLR is best considered as a sub-category of "physical" (ie physical effects of climate change) and "transition" (ie transition to a low carbon economy) risks, rather than as a standalone risk category. This sub-category is also referred to as "liability risk";
    • CLR is distinct from "general litigation risk" in that the latter is typically captured within operational or compliance risk management frameworks.

    Although the overwhelming majority of CLR takes the form of climate-aligned litigation, there is also an emerging trend in the growth of the "anti-ESG movement", the rise of non-climate-aligned litigation, and concerns that, for example, climate collaboration amongst the financial sector could be treated as an anti-trust violation.

    Potential consequences

    The financial and reputational implications of climate-related litigation can be substantial, and unpredictable. Climate-related litigation cases have the potential to impact many different business types, including financial institutions. Notably, climate-related litigation does not have to be successful for costs to materialise; a credible threat of litigation or even unsuccessful litigation can have serious reputational and financial consequences for businesses, and impact future business practices, while "green-hushing" (choosing not to actively promote environmental achievements or credentials due to a concern about "greenwashing" allegations or other potential legal challenges) risks depriving customers of information about more attractive options and choices.

    Climate-related litigation can lead to direct or indirect consequences for businesses, although data and methodology challenges can make it difficult to quantify litigation losses or assign the probability of occurrence:

    • Direct exposure could include businesses appearing as defendants in climate-related litigation or in regulatory investigations or enforcement proceedings, while direct costs could include damages, fines, legal and administrative fees, or insurance premium costs.
    • Indirect exposure could include exposure to defendants, broader assets classes, sectors, or geographies, while indirect costs could include insurance pay-outs covering legal fees or settlements, credit losses, deterioration of creditworthiness, reputational costs, or changes to the valuations of loans and investments.

    "Greenwashing", the term used to describe situations where disclosures, statements or commitments are made to give the impression that the company or certain procedures, policies or products are environmentally friendly or sustainable when this impression may be misleading or untrue, is a specific type of climate-related litigation risk. Greenwashing is an emerging focus for enforcement action across many jurisdictions, and the potential penalties for greenwashing have increased substantially in recent years. Regulators have identified that they are targeting conduct such as (i) net zero statements and targets; (ii) use of terms such as "carbon neutral", "clean" or "green" (or images, colours and "trust marks" that give that impression), and (iii) the scope and application of investment fund exclusions and screens.

    Allegations may also be made against directors that they should be found personally liable for greenwashing or for failing to discharge their duties with care and diligence.

    Important business considerations

    Overall, CLR is an emerging risk and awareness, understanding, response to, and regulatory supervision of this risk is at an early stage of development. However, it is certain that businesses should be considering CLR as a distinct risk category, separate from general litigation risk. This is supported by supervisory bodies' (eg the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Australian Securities and Investments Commission) close monitoring of CLR with the expectation that the businesses they supervise will understand, assess, and act on CLR by taking a risk-based approach.

    Applying a risk-based approach should support regulated businesses to meet or exceed the expectations of supervisory entities who, depending on the context, may respond to businesses' management of CLR with a range of low to high intensity supervisory options, drawing from a "toolbox" that could include: exercises raising thematic awareness of CLR, risk mitigation and transfer considerations, establishing governance and risk management expectations to be assessed in prudential reviews, climate-related litigation disclosures, and testing resilience through scenario analysis and regulatory capital considerations.

    How to take a risk-based approach

    Businesses should immediately start taking a more proactive, risk-based approach in order to anticipate and reduce CLR to as low as reasonably practicable.

    This risk-based approach should include:

    • Identification of climate-related risks and business activities where these risks could materialise;
    • Assessing the likelihood and severity of CLR, and the current level of vulnerability and exposure of the business to CLR;
    • Prioritising possible response options to CLR on the basis of the risk identification and assessment;
    • Managing the response to these risks, including through the enhancement of existing CLR controls, policies and procedures, and the design and execution of further CLR controls, policies and procedures; and
    • Conducting ongoing monitoring and evaluation activities to support continuous improvement of the CLR risk management framework, to ensure that solutions remain robust, fit-for-purpose, and future-proof in responding to the ever-changing landscape of climate-related litigation risk.


    The NGFS reports expose climate-related litigation as an emerging risk, with evidence of litigation continuing to increase globally. The focus on this issue continues from various stakeholders, including supervisory bodies. There should be continued focus on this as a significant risk to business activities, and to proactively seek assistance in developing processes, systems and frameworks to manage this emerging risk as a priority.

    This publication is a joint publication from Ashurst Australia and Ashurst Risk Advisory Pty Ltd, which are part of the Ashurst Group.

    The Ashurst Group comprises Ashurst LLP, Ashurst Australia and their respective affiliates (including independent local partnerships, companies or other entities) which are authorised to use the name "Ashurst" or describe themselves as being affiliated with Ashurst. Some members of the Ashurst Group are limited liability entities.

    Ashurst Australia (ABN 75 304 286 095) is a general partnership constituted under the laws of the Australian Capital Territory.

    Ashurst Risk Advisory Pty Ltd is a proprietary company registered in Australia and trading under ABN 74 996 309 133.

    The services provided by Ashurst Risk Advisory Pty Ltd do not constitute legal services or legal advice, and are not provided by Australian legal practitioners in that capacity. The laws and regulations which govern the provision of legal services in the relevant jurisdiction do not apply to the provision of non-legal services.

    For more information about the Ashurst Group, which Ashurst Group entity operates in a particular country and the services offered, please visit

    This material is current as at 18 October 2023 but does not take into account any developments to the law after that date. It is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all developments in the law and in practice, or to cover all aspects of those referred to, and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided is general in nature, and does not take into account and is not intended to apply to any specific issues or circumstances. Readers should take independent legal advice. No part of this publication may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from Ashurst. While we use reasonable skill and care in the preparation of this material, we accept no liability for use of and reliance upon it by any person.

    The information provided is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all developments in the law and practice, or to cover all aspects of those referred to.
    Readers should take legal advice before applying it to specific issues or transactions.


    Stay ahead with our business insights, updates and podcasts

    Sign-up to select your areas of interest