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

Abstract

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.