Though limited, COP30 outcomes mean ‘companies should stick to climate plans’

The achievements of the summit were more muted than some hoped but the global trading environment is still shaped by climate policy and a recent advisory ruling by the International Court of Justice also underscores the need for companies to hold to existing climate action plans.

The COP30 conference concluded in Brazil at the weekend with some achievements: an agreement calling for efforts to triple the finance available to adapt to a low carbon economy by 2030; the Tropical Forests Forever Facility to provide blended finance to incentivise the preservation of tropical forests, and the creation of a taskforce to integrate ocean climate solutions into countries’ climate plans.

But there were failures too, most notably 80 countries failed to get COP30 to adopt a plan to phase out fossil fuels. It was blocked by countries including big producers of oil and gas. And there was no hiding from the fact that policy in major economies has turned against climate action, and this is having an effect on outcomes.

There was also a consensus that the Paris Agreement’s target to hold global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels would not be met in the short term. There would be ‘overshoot’ but the target might be met by the end of the century.

So while supporters of climate action may have left the conference downhearted, COP30 also crystallised how embedded climate action is in the economy, even in light of opposition from powerful countries.

This was the first COP summit to take place after the 2025 round of countries publishing their nationally determined contributions (NDCs), their climate action plans, and after a global stocktake evaluation exercise in 2023.

The summit also featured the launch of the latest Oxford Climate Policy Monitor 2025 Annual Review, a review of policies and regulations, which found that “new and stronger policies have emerged around the world, particularly in Asia and emerging markets. On balance, climate policies have become more robust over the last year, but they are still not enough to close the gap between targets and actions.”

So what does this mean for companies?

Bluntly, it means they should press ahead with climate action aligned to their business strategy for two reasons: compliance and litigation risk.

Even if the US, China and India reduce their commitment, the Oxford review and analysis of NDCs shows us that climate action is still driving policies all around the world. Governments are making changes and sticking to their NDCs to enough of an extent that it is shaping the environment in which businesses operate.

Any business that operates internationally will have to take the steps required by those countries which are backing climate action. So companies which have developed and committed to changing how they operate will have to continue to do so, and those steps will have to be more substantial over time as the crunch comes to meeting the Paris Agreement targets.

So in a sense those countries with more demanding climate policies and laws set a global standard that internationally active companies have to follow. Unilateral action can have multilateral effects.

The second reason is litigation risk, which is higher now than it was at COP29. In July the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that countries have legal and moral obligations to protect the environment and prevent significant harm from climate change.

This raises the prospect of legal action against countries if they don’t abide by their NDC commitments. The opinion is not binding but was used in COP30 negotiations.

We have seen an increase in the number of climate litigation actions taken against companies, and we have seen them reach higher courts than before. The ICJ ruling will provide context to cases against countries and companies, so companies should stick to the commitments they have already made to mitigate this risk.

The companies most affected by the outcomes of COP30 will be fossil fuel producers; agribusinesses and forestry-linked firms; financial institutions which will increasingly assess the viability of companies’ climate plans, and then companies involved in green tech and the transition.

COP30 reflected a shift in focus towards implementation and accountability, even in the context of the limits of consensus that we've seen in a divided world. It was a reminder that while finance, forests and social justice may have advanced, the world still lacks a binding plan to phase out fossil fuels.

Businesses should prepare for fragmented regulation, rising litigation risk and accelerating investor scrutiny.