Insights from the "Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2025 Snapshot" Report

Insights from the "Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2025 Snapshot" Report

On 25 June 2025, the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment published its seventh annual ‘Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2025 Snapshot’ Report (the “Report”). The Report focuses on developments in global climate change litigation over the calendar year 2024 through to May 2025.

Key takeaways 

• Climate litigation continues to evolve and mature with more cases reaching apex courts (i.e. supreme or constitutional courts). In 2024, claims were brought against a wider range of actors — including governments, companies, professional services firms and financial institutions — and concerned a diverse range of topics, including climate strategies, climate-washing, financed emissions and climate-related damage. 
• Courts are increasingly recognising that companies may have responsibilities in relation to the consequences of their emissions but remain cautious about imposing on companies binding emissions reduction targets or plans. 
• More strategic litigation is expected on the standard of care to which companies should be held, particularly in high emitting sectors in relation to their emissions, although these cases are likely to continue to face legal, procedural and evidentiary hurdles.
• Courts have continued to play a crucial role in clarifying legal boundaries in sustainability-related claims. 
• Climate litigation is increasingly being influenced by the wider political and regulatory shifts on ESG topics, with more cases being brought against governments and companies for the taking of ESG-related actions (non-climate-aligned cases).  
• As climate litigation continues to influence attitudes and actions across various stakeholder groups, it is increasingly important for businesses to understand and actively engage with the evolving and complex landscape of climate litigation.

A continued geographical expansion (and progression to apex courts)

At least 226 new climate cases were filed in 2024, which brings the total number of recorded cases to 2,967 cases (as per the databases cited in the Report), up from the 2,666 cases reported in the 2024 Grantham Institute Report (see our previous blog post). The total number of countries in which climate cases have been recorded has now risen to nearly 60, with the “Global South” in particular seeing a rise in climate-related claims. 

Despite a potential slowing in the growth rate of new cases, the United States (historically the country with the highest numbers of cases filed yearly) appears to maintain a stable rate of activity, with 164 cases recorded in the US in 2024. The US remains the country with the highest number of cases filed year on year, followed by Australia, the UK and Brazil. 

For the first time in the series, the Report provides a global analysis of climate litigation cases that have reached apex courts – such as supreme and constitutional courts. Just over 360 cases have been identified from 1995 to 2024 (180 in the US and 187 outside the US). This reflects the increasing maturity of climate law, as apex courts are being called upon to deliver authoritative interpretations of legal obligations (for both states and businesses) in the context of climate change. 

That said, the jurisdictional limits of countries’ national and states courts (particularly in countries with federal systems) can mean that climate-related litigation may not reach a country’s highest court even when issues are of national significance. For example, in Australia, generally federal courts can only hear cases involving “federal” matters (e.g., corporations) and state courts can only hear cases involving “state” matters (e.g., environment) where both federal and state matters are defined under the Australian Constitution. 

Notably South Asia (which includes India, Nepal and Pakistan) has had a high volume of apex court litigation relative to the overall number of climate cases (10 out of 20 cases from 2015 to 2024) with relatively few cases reaching apex courts in the UK and Australia (five and four respectively) where there is a much higher overall volume of climate litigation. 

Companies continue to be targeted, but claimants face significant hurdles 

Around 20% of climate cases filed in 2024 targeted companies, or their directors and officers. While this reflects a modest decline from 2023, the range of sectors and issues involved has expanded. In particular, more cases have been brought against professional services firms (for failure to manage or reduce the emissions resulting from the activities they help facilitate or advise on) and the animal agriculture sector and associated food and retail industries (in relation to contribution to emissions and potentially misleading environmental claims about the impacts of their products). 

Key decisions in cases like Milieudefensie v. Shell and Lliuya v. RWE (see our blog post here), while both unsuccessful, made clear that companies do have a duty to contribute to combatting climate change and in principle, can be liable for climate-related harm. However, there continue to be evidentiary hurdles for claimants to overcome and the courts appear reluctant to impose a specific numerical target on companies’ emissions reductions obligations. Both these cases have left the door open for further climate change litigation regarding the scope of companies’ obligations in this area. 

Looking ahead, more strategic litigation is expected on the standard of care to which companies should be held, particularly in high emitting sectors (and in relation to their emissions). While emerging research and academic and legal innovation are responding to the efforts to hold major emitters financially accountable for climate-related harm, these cases are likely to continue to face legal, procedural and evidentiary hurdles. To date, no cases of this kind have been filed in the US. 

Transparency on climate in project applications is key in the UK

Integrating climate considerations cases (e.g., cases targeting decisions to approve fossil fuel projects) continue to be the most commonly filed strategic cases, with 97 new cases filed in 2024. 

A wave of influential rulings in Europe, including the UK Supreme Court’s decision on Finch v. Surrey County Council, have advanced the judicial treatment of scope 3 emissions in particular. In Finch, the UK Supreme Court ruled that approval for an extension to an oil well in Surrey, England was unlawfully given because the environmental impact assessment failed to consider scope 3 emissions. Whilst this does not mean that projects will be rejected solely on the basis of their scope 3 emissions, it does mean that, at least in certain cases, such emissions should be transparently assessed and considered throughout the decision-making process for certain projects in the UK (see our blog post for further information). 

Climate-washing cases continue

Cases challenging inaccurate government or corporate narratives regarding the transition to a low-carbon future are continuing, albeit at a slightly reduced rate, likely in part because this area is increasingly regulated by new disclosure frameworks and greenwashing regulation. 

However, climate-washing remains the most commonly deployed strategy in corporate cases, and while cases are often brought against companies in high-emissions industries, other companies and financial services firms that market themselves as sustainability-conscious are also coming under scrutiny, particularly where they are relying on carbon credits without sufficient transparency and clarity. 

In 2024, Australia was a key jurisdiction for successful regulatory “climate-washing” enforcement, with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) bringing three separate successful claims against funds under consumer protection legislation and securing landmark penalties. 

Despite (or perhaps given) the success of these cases, questions are being asked about the broader implications of climate-washing cases for climate action and whether the threat of litigation does in fact function to hold companies to account, or whether it may give rise to “greenhushing”. 

Climate litigation is being influenced by the wider shifts on ESG policy

In the reporting period, approximately 27% of newly filed cases featured non-climate-aligned arguments (e.g., arguments which challenge steps taken to promote climate considerations or ESG factors). 

In the US in particular, cases have been made by the federal government and others against US states and other actors to challenge climate-aligned action. Further, more cases have emerged opposing private initiatives that appear to promote ESG. 

These legal actions often rest on claims that ESG strategies violate fiduciary duties, anti-trust laws or consumer protection standards. Several US states have passed or proposed anti-ESG laws that prohibit or penalise investment strategies that consider environmental or social factors. 

Also common in the US (but also appearing elsewhere) is the filing of both climate-aligned and non-aligned cases in relation to the same issue (for example, in Brazil, a government program to reduce fossil fuels and increase biofuels was challenged from both angles). 

With new ESG-related legislation emerging rapidly around the world, this complex and at times reactive landscape is likely to continue.

Financial institutions being held to account in relation to the UNGPs

There has been an increasing number of cases brought against financial institutions in relation to their responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). 

Increasingly, claimants argue that banks must not cause or contribute to human rights harm through their financing relationships, especially climate-related harm. These cases seek transparency, divestment from fossil fuels, and due diligence obligations tied to climate targets, drawing on international human rights and soft law frameworks. 

So far, these cases have not been successful; however, the mere filing of cases regarding financed emissions and environmental/climate harms can raise public awareness and pressure institutions into considering climate risk in financial decision-making. 

Rise of litigation in the Global South

Strong growth is evident in jurisdictions across the Global South, particularly in Brazil, South Africa and India. Recent years have also seen significant developments in China, with courts handling more than 500 cases dealing with carbon market regulation, contracts related to the energy transition, and the protection of carbon sinks. 

Although the majority of new climate cases globally continue to be filed by NGOs, individuals or the two acting together, government bodies, regulators and public prosecutors are playing vital roles in litigation in the Global South – in 2024, 56% of cases in the Global South were initiated by government bodies, compared with only 5% of cases in the Global North.

Conclusion

The impact of climate litigation is extending beyond the courtroom, to influence legislation and inform how the market thinks about climate risk. It is therefore crucial that businesses monitor the complex landscape of climate litigation (and ESG litigation more broadly) so they are in a position to properly consider and review how litigation risk can best be managed.

For further information, please see our ESG Litigation and Risk Management page. 

To sign up for our quarterly ESG Disputes Bulletin, click here.