Climate Change Litigation: Judicial Approaches to Corporate Accountability

Climate change litigation has expanded from a niche phenomenon into a global field of legal practice, with more than 2,500 cases recorded by early 2025 across more than 55 jurisdictions. Beyond state-directed claims, a growing proportion of cases target corporate actors, seeking to hold fossil-fuel producers, financial institutions, and high-emission industries accountable for climate harm. This paper examines the doctrinal strategies, landmark decisions, and systemic challenges in climate litigation against corporate defendants. It analyzes decisions including Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands (2019), Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell (2021), Lliuya v. RWE (ongoing), Luciano Lliuya (German proceedings), Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. ExxonMobil, and the Indian Supreme Court's M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India (2024). It identifies four doctrinal pathways: tort-based causation, duty-of-care expansion, human rights arguments, and securities-disclosure claims. The paper argues that corporate climate liability is consolidating along human-rights-informed duty-of-care lines but faces persistent challenges in causation attribution, transnational enforcement, and separation-of-powers objections. It proposes reforms in evidentiary standards, class-action mechanisms, and international coordination.