Search Climate Insights Directory

The document evaluates the legal implications of proposed UK government requirements for climate-related transition plan (CRTP) disclosures. It concludes that 'comply or explain' and mandatory disclosure regimes are unlikely to materially heighten liability risks for companies and directors, provided existing safe harbour provisions apply. While disclosing the extent of alignment with the Net Zero Objective introduces some risk, it is not considered materially heightened if clear metrics and authoritative standards are used. The authors state that a full legal analysis of requirements to produce an aligned plan or to implement a CRTP is currently impossible due to a lack of detail in the government's consultation regarding obligations, sanctions, and enforcement mechanisms.

The document concludes that mandatory CRTP disclosures, based on IFRS S2 and the TPT Disclosure Framework, are unlikely to materially increase liability risks for companies and directors due to existing legal protections and the high evidentiary hurdle of proving dishonesty. It argues that such disclosures may actually reduce overall legal risk by promoting better compliance with existing duties and mitigating greenwashing claims.

ClientEarth argues that the 'recklessness standard' in English law already protects companies from liability for honest but incorrect forward-looking statements in transition plans. It contends that detailed transition planning reduces risks related to greenwashing, breach of duty, and human rights harms, and opposes the introduction of 'safe-harbours' which would undermine market integrity.

ClientEarth brought a derivative action against Shell's Board of Directors in the High Court of England and Wales, arguing that the company's Energy Transition Strategy was inadequate and breached sections 172 and 174 of the Companies Act 2006. The claim alleged failures in setting Scope 3 targets, over-reliance on carbon capture and nature-based solutions, and non-compliance with a Dutch court order. Despite support from institutional investors managing over half a trillion USD in assets, the High Court refused permission to continue the claim, citing a lack of formal expert evidence and the wide discretion afforded to directors in management decisions. The Court of Appeal subsequently refused permission to appeal this decision.

ClientEarth is pursuing a 'world-first' derivative action in the High Court of England and Wales to hold Shell's Board of Directors personally liable for mismanaging climate risks. The claim argues that Shell's energy transition strategy is insufficient, as its net-zero targets are not reflected in budgets and its reduction targets focus on 'carbon intensity' rather than absolute emissions. ClientEarth asserts this mismanagement breaches the UK Companies Act, specifically Section 172, which requires directors to promote the company's long-term success. The action is supported by various institutional investors from the UK, Sweden, France, Belgium, and Denmark.

ClientEarth's submission to the UK government's judicial review reform consultation expresses strong opposition to proposals that would limit court discretion, introduce prospective-only remedies, or strengthen ouster clauses. The organization argues that such reforms could lead to non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. While supporting the removal of the 'promptitude requirement' and the introduction of a formal 'Reply step', ClientEarth cautions against a 'track' system for claims and the restriction of interveners. The document emphasizes that environmental litigation is a critical tool for public accountability and that any reform must be evidence-based and cumulative in its impact assessment.