Buttressed by scientific developments, law is catching up with corporate and state climate inaction and a new era of accountability may follow, write Dr Rupert Stuart-Smith and Dr Thom Wetzer in the BMJ. 

"The misalignment of state and corporate action with their legal obligations means that in the aggregate, companies and states are breaching their legal duties. It is unpredictable as to who will be held responsible, but recent court decisions suggest that such liability may be just around the corner." 

The European Union has slackened its sustainability reporting requirements in a bid to make the bloc more competitive. Dr Thom Wetzer, Director of the Oxford Sustainable Law Programme, warned that the move will de-stabilise and fragment policies that had previously anchored EU firms’ expectations. “There will likely be a wave of litigation against firms at the national level, with litigants seeking to impose transition obligations via domestic legal routes,” he said. 

In the FT's Sustainable Views section, Gaia Lisi and Rupert Stuart-Smith explore how medical evidence has proved invaluable in holding public authorities accountable for the impact of unlawful air pollution on people’s health is now exposing the health burdens of climate change. 

Coverage of Dr Rupert Stuart-Smith's latest research in Berner Zeitung, one of Switzerland's largest daily newspapers. According to the study, almost 1,700 peopled died from heat-related deaths caused by climate change in the Swiss canton of Zurich between 1969 and 2018.

Countries impacted most by the effects of climate change can claim compensation from other countries responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice. “This advisory opinion is in line with what has been a secular trend in climate litigation towards higher levels of state and corporate accountability,”  Dr Thom Wetzer told Pinsent Masons. “In this opinion, the International Court of Justice confirmed that 1.5C is the legally binding temperature target under the Paris Agreement and international law. This calls for urgent action, and the court explicitly noted that states are also responsible for the actions of the private sector. As a result, we should expect renewed legal pressure on states to regulate corporate activities that contribute to climate change. Recognising that trend and the implications for business models is a key part of prudent risk management.”