Scholarlink

<p>This article takes the appeal decision in <i>Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc</i>. as an opportunity to critically examine the evolution of responsibility for reducing Scope 3 emissions in corporate climate change litigation. To this end, the article first provides an overview of the scientific, accounting, and regulatory contexts pertaining to corporate Scope 3 emissions, followed by an assessment of a set of twelve ‘corporate framework’ cases brought before courts and quasi-judicial bodies across a variety of jurisdictions. The analysis examines the key arguments advanced by plaintiffs for Scope 3 emissions reductions as well as the counterarguments raised by defendant companies. It further explores how judicial and quasi-judicial bodies have engaged with three overarching questions: first, whether companies have a general legal obligation to reduce their Scope 3 emissions; second, whether such an obligation can be translated into a specific reduction requirement; and third, whether such an emissions reduction order would be effective in practice.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Integrating Scope 3 Emissions into Corporate Climate Change Litigation: Evolution, Challenges, and Responses

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月1日

查看全文
  • Isabela Keuschnigg,
  • Clemens Kaupa,
  • Joana Setzer,
  • L. Delta Merner,
  • Kaia Turowski,
  • Paul Lachapelle,
  • Allison Shyrock,
  • Aradhna Tandon

摘要

This article takes the appeal decision in Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc. as an opportunity to critically examine the evolution of responsibility for reducing Scope 3 emissions in corporate climate change litigation. To this end, the article first provides an overview of the scientific, accounting, and regulatory contexts pertaining to corporate Scope 3 emissions, followed by an assessment of a set of twelve ‘corporate framework’ cases brought before courts and quasi-judicial bodies across a variety of jurisdictions. The analysis examines the key arguments advanced by plaintiffs for Scope 3 emissions reductions as well as the counterarguments raised by defendant companies. It further explores how judicial and quasi-judicial bodies have engaged with three overarching questions: first, whether companies have a general legal obligation to reduce their Scope 3 emissions; second, whether such an obligation can be translated into a specific reduction requirement; and third, whether such an emissions reduction order would be effective in practice.