Climate Accountability Is No Longer Optional: Legal and Financial Exposures Are Rising

The climate crisis is not just an environmental or reputational issue; it is now a material legal and financial risk. For executives and boards, the implications of inaction are no longer abstract. They are quantifiable, traceable, and increasingly enforceable.

In a landmark study published in Nature (Sept 2025), scientists systematically attributed 213 major heatwaves between 2000 and 2023 directly to human-induced climate change. Even more critically, the study quantified the role of 180 major emitters, including both state-owned and investor-owned companies, in contributing to those events. The analysis showed that emissions from these carbon majors accounted for roughly half the increase in heatwave intensity since pre-industrial times. This builds the case for climate attribution science which quantifies how much human-driven greenhouse gas emissions have influenced the frequency, intensity, or duration of extreme weather.

This marks a fundamental shift. Climate attribution science now supports legal claims against companies for their share of damages from extreme weather events.

The business risk is real and growing

For Australian and global companies with high emissions, exposed assets, or soft ESG governance, means elevated exposure across four critical domains:

• Litigation risk: The ability to link physical climate damages to specific emitters is enabling a new wave of climate lawsuits from governments, investors, and civil society.
• Capital market pressure: Financial institutions are now pricing climate risk into decisions on access to capital. Weak ESG performance or unreliable transition plans can materially affect your cost of capital.
• Insurance volatility: Cover is tightening for climate-exposed sectors. Asset-heavy industries in energy, agriculture, and logistics face rising premiums and exclusions.
• Reputational and regulatory scrutiny: Stakeholders expect accountability. Vague commitments, greenwashing, or inadequate disclosures are now seen as governance failures and may become regulatory breaches.

This is no longer about distant projections. It’s about near-term liability, operational disruption, and financial downside.

Key legal precedents executives should monitor

Recent global litigation demonstrates how climate science is being translated into legal and financial risk:

• Milieudefensie v. Shell (Netherlands): Shell was ordered to cut global emissions 45% by 2030 (from 2019 levels), citing human rights and its contribution to climate change. This was the first court decision in the world ordering a private company to align its policies with the goals of the Paris Agreement. The ruling signalled the courts’ willingness to assign corporate responsibility based on scientific evidence.
• ClientEarth v. Shell’s Board (UK): A shareholder attempted to hold directors personally liable for climate governance failures. Though dismissed, it highlights the evolving expectations on boards to manage transition risk.
• Torres Strait Islanders v. Australia (UN): Found that climate inaction violated human rights, a precedent that could influence future ESG and fiduciary obligations for corporates, especially in extractive sectors.
• State of California v. Big Oil (USA): Major oil companies are being sued for the costs of climate damage. These cases are explicitly using climate attribution data, like that in the Nature study to quantify causality and liability.
• Sharma v. Minister for the Environment (Australia): Though ultimately overturned, the case raised the concept of a “duty of care” regarding climate risk, a legal argument that may return, targeting corporate actors next time.

Taken together, these cases reveal a powerful trend….scientific attribution is becoming legally actionable. Courts, investors, and insurers are watching and acting.

Strategic imperatives for boards and executives

Given these developments, executive leadership must reassess how climate risk is governed and disclosed across the enterprise. Key priorities include:

• Review fiduciary duties in the context of climate change, especially for directors and executives in high-emitting sectors.
• Strengthen governance across Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, and ensure climate data used in disclosures is audit ready.
• Integrate legal exposure into enterprise risk registers, including potential class actions, liability for greenwashing, and regulatory enforcement.
• Upgrade scenario analysis and stress testing using attribution-based models, especially for infrastructure, insurance, and agriculture portfolios.
• Ensure transition plans are not just announced, but financed, resourced, and measurable. Investors are no longer accepting ambition without execution.
• Engage legal, ESG, and communications teams proactively to align disclosures, strategies, and stakeholder engagement in anticipation of scrutiny.

The message for executive leaders is clear: attribution science has eliminated plausible deniability. The courts are now equipped with evidence. Investors have growing legal backing, and insurers are pricing these risks in.

If you're rethinking your organisation’s exposure and response, now is the time to act. We welcome the opportunity to collaborate or share insights on how Boards and Executive Teams can lead through this transformation.

‍