Corporate Climate Litigation: Global Trends and Lessons for the Asia-Pacific Region

On 17 February 2025, the EW Barker Centre for Law & Business hosted Dr Ekaterina Aristova, a Research Fellow at the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights (Faculty of Law, University of Oxford). The talk was moderated by Justin Lim, Sheridan Fellow at NUS Law.

Titled ‘Corporate Climate Litigation: Global Trends and Lessons for the Asia-Pacific Region’, Dr Aristova’s talk covered the recent trends in climate litigation against corporations in Europe, with a particular emphasis on public-interest litigation. The talk discussed how these developments might be relevant for the Asia-Pacific region.

Public-interest climate litigation has gained much attention from corporations across the world, as new strategies have emerged to hold corporations accountable for their greenhouse gas emissions, transition strategies, and representations of how environmentally conscious they are. Dr. Aristova provided a comprehensive breakdown of the various strategic considerations litigants have when preparing their claim. Amongst these considerations, the impact of the claim was an important theme that was deeply discussed during the talk. In particular, there must be caution when delineating between the strategic impact of a suit in terms of the extent to which it can be replicated in other jurisdictions successfully, and that of the actual change communities adversely affected by climate change might enjoy upon the success of the suit. It has been the former understanding of ‘impact’ that has played a central role in recent litigation against corporations.

But to what extent can the impact of climate litigation against corporations be felt in Asia? Dr. Aristova observed that much of the strategic impact of cases like Milieudefensie v Shell in the Netherlands is limited outside of the Dutch context as the principle of shared responsibility between states and businesses is unique to the jurisdiction. Separately, the strategic impact of derivative claims might be facing a setback in the aftermath of ClientEarth v Shell in the UK as the costs award against the litigants could set a difficult precedent for future litigants. Clearly, the litigation strategies employed in other regions are not easily transplanted into Asia.

However, one of the more significant challenges to understanding the state of climate litigation against corporations in Asia is the definition of ‘climate litigation’. Dr Aristova recognized that claims where climate change may play an incidental role, and court proceedings that have yet been discovered or translated into English, are often not available in public databases on climate litigation. This likely contributes to the impression that climate litigation against corporations has yet to take root in Asia, when in reality it merely has emerged in a different form. The matter was discussed during the Q&A, where participants across industry and academia commented on the extent to which Asia will see climate litigation against corporations in the future.

Dr Ekaterina (Katya) Aristova (University of Oxford) presenting

Assistant Professor Marcus Teo (NUS Law) posing a question

(From left) Dr Ekaterina (Katya) Aristova (University of Oxford) and Justin Lim (NUS Law)