Climate litigation enters a new phase as corporate liability claims gain momentum

The research body’s latest analysis of climate litigation trends (78 pages/ 12.3 MB PDF), which is published annually, paints a picture of a rapidly evolving field. While the growth in climate cases remains significant, the more notable development is the increasing sophistication of the claims being brought, the wider range of organisations being targeted, and the growing complexity of the legal and political questions businesses are having to navigate.

Climate litigation continues to expand globally

In 2025, 249 new climate related cases were filed worldwide according to the report, bringing the total number of recorded cases since 1986 to approximately 3,600. More than three quarters of those cases have been brought since the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, underlining how climate litigation has accelerated alongside international climate policy.

The geographic spread of climate litigation also continues to broaden. Climate cases have now been filed in 62 countries, with Grenada, Guatemala, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Singapore and Zambia all recording their first known climate claims in 2025.

The US remains by far the most active, with 151 new cases filed last year and a cumulative total of 2,078 cases. Other particularly active countries include Brazil, Australia, the UK and Germany.

The figures reinforce that climate litigation is no longer concentrated in a handful of developed economies. It is becoming a genuinely global phenomenon, creating legal risks across a growing number of jurisdictions and legal systems.

More than 50 strategic climate-aligned cases were filed against corporates in 2025, targeting organisations across sectors including energy, finance, transport, real estate and consumer goods. This reflects the widening perception that responsibility for climate change extends beyond governments alone.

For businesses, the message is that climate litigation risk is no longer confined to those sectors more traditionally targeted in these claims, such as the oil and gas industry.

Greenwashing claims

Climate-washing or ‘greenwashing’ claims remain the most common category of climate litigation against corporates.

The report records 31 new cases in 2025 challenging allegedly misleading claims about environmental performance, emissions reductions or transition commitments. Importantly, such claims continue to deliver relatively strong outcomes for claimants, with more than 65% of decided greenwashing cases reportedly having been resolved in favour of the claimants.

However, the number of new filings in this area appears to be declining. New greenwashing cases fell from 58 in 2023 to 36 in 2024 and 31 in 2025.

The report suggests several possible explanations. Growing political backlash may be making some more cautious about pursuing claims that could discourage companies from making climate commitments. Equally, the decline may reflect improved corporate practices, with businesses becoming more aware of the legal risks associated with unsubstantiated environmental claims and implementing more rigorous disclosure and governance processes.

The report also serves as a reminder that so-called ‘green-hushing’ is not necessarily a solution. Companies that simply stop talking about sustainability initiatives may still face scrutiny.

‘Polluter pays’ claims

The report identified the growing traction of so-called ‘systemic polluter pays’ and ‘corporate framework’ cases.

These claims seek either damages for corporate contributions to climate change or judicial intervention aimed at preventing companies from continuing high-emitting activities. Historically, many of these claims failed at preliminary stages, often on issues such as standing or admissibility.

The report suggests courts are increasingly willing to engage with the substantive merits of such cases rather than dismissing them at the outset. Grantham researchers go so far as to argue that corporate climate liability has now crossed a “critical threshold”, with the question increasingly becoming not whether liability is arguable but under what circumstances it may ultimately succeed.

That is not to say the legal barriers have disappeared. The report acknowledges that no climate liability claim of this type has yet resulted in a final order requiring behavioural change or an award of damages. Courts in some countries continue to reject claims on constitutional or separation of powers grounds, while legislative proposals in places such as the US, New Zealand and Germany could restrict certain forms of climate liability litigation.

Nonetheless, the direction of travel is significant. As climate attribution science continues to advance and establish stronger links between emissions and climate impacts, claims are likely to involve increasingly sophisticated evidence to support causation arguments.

For businesses with substantial scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions footprints, this is an area that warrants close attention.

The energy transition is creating new legal tensions

Another striking theme is the growing complexity of climate litigation itself.

As governments and businesses move from setting climate targets to implementing them, courts are increasingly being asked to adjudicate competing environmental and social interests. The report identifies growing numbers of both ‘just transition’ and ‘green v green’ disputes.

These cases frequently involve challenges to renewable energy developments, critical mineral extraction projects or other infrastructure viewed as necessary for decarbonisation. It may be argued that such projects harm local communities, threaten biodiversity or damage sensitive ecosystems.

The result is a more nuanced litigation landscape. Climate litigation is no longer solely about whether climate action should occur, but increasingly about how it should occur and who should bear the costs and consequences.

For developers, investors and policymakers, these disputes highlight the importance of considering broader environmental, social and community considerations alongside decarbonisation objectives.

Internationalisation of climate law

The report also identifies an emerging internationalisation of climate law.

According to the Grantham Institute, climate litigation is now operating through a "self-reinforcing cycle" across domestic, regional and international courts. Decisions from one jurisdiction are increasingly cited and relied upon elsewhere, while international developments are shaping domestic litigation strategies.

This growing cross-border exchange means legal developments in one jurisdiction can rapidly influence claims in another. Courts and litigants are increasingly turning to foreign judgments and international legal instruments when grappling with novel climate issues.

As the landscape continues to mature, businesses are likely to find that litigation trends originating overseas can quickly become relevant closer to home

What comes next?

The report points to three areas that could generate the next major wave of climate litigation.

The first is carbon dioxide removal and storage infrastructure, where disputes may arise over property rights, permitting requirements and reliance on carbon removal to meet emissions targets.

The second concerns emissions associated with rapidly expanding data centre infrastructure, particularly as demand for artificial intelligence and cloud computing continues to grow.

The third is the increasing convergence between climate change and other environmental concerns, including plastic pollution and wider ecosystem impacts.

While the pace and direction of different categories of claims continue to evolve, litigation risk is spreading across sectors, jurisdictions and legal theories. The apparent slowing of greenwashing claims may reflect greater corporate maturity in climate governance and disclosures, but it is being accompanied by more ambitious attempts to establish substantive corporate responsibility for climate harms.

For businesses, the challenge is no longer simply avoiding making overstated climate claims. Increasingly, organisations will need to demonstrate that their climate strategies, transition plans and emissions reduction pathways can withstand scrutiny from regulators, investors and, ultimately, the courts.