Original article written by Yusuf Khan, The Wall Street Journal

Yusuf Khan, The Wall Street Journal

This article explores the stark contrast between how climate-related legal action is playing out in Europe versus the United States. In the Netherlands, Dutch bank ING is being sued by environmental group Milieudefensie for not taking sufficient action to address its climate impact, particularly in how it finances fossil fuel projects. This follows a growing trend in Europe where corporations are increasingly being held legally accountable for falling short of climate responsibilities, highlighted by previous litigation against oil giant Shell.

In the U.S., however, the legal landscape is effectively reversed. Companies and organisations are more likely to face lawsuits for being too proactive in their climate commitments. Asset managers, nonprofits like Greenpeace, and sustainability-focused businesses have all been targeted—accused of neglecting fiduciary duties or engaging in politically motivated investment strategies. Regulatory initiatives like the SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rules have also faced legal resistance, resulting in delays and uncertainty.

The article underscores the complex bind faced by global corporations operating in both jurisdictions. While European companies risk litigation for not doing enough, their U.S. counterparts face legal threats for doing too much. This legal and political polarisation is pushing many businesses to proceed cautiously with public climate commitments, even as pressure from stakeholders and regulators continues to mount. Ultimately, the piece highlights the growing role of the courts in shaping the future of corporate climate responsibility—often in contradictory ways, depending on the region.

Find out more below: