Suchergebnisse

Theorising the company in the context of climate change -- English company law and climate change -- International and transnational climate change law and policies -- Domestic climate and energy regulation -- Companies, human rights, and climate litigation -- Fiscal barriers and incentives to corporate climate action.

Companies lie at the heart of the climate crisis and are both culpable for, and vulnerable to, its impacts. Rising social and investor concern about the escalating risks of climate change are changing public and investor expectations of businesses and, as a result, corporate approaches to climate change. Dominant corporate norms that put shareholders (and their wealth maximization) at the heart of company law are viewed by many as outdated and in need of reform. Companies and Climate Change analyzes these developments by assessing the regulation and pressures that impact energy companies in the UK, with lessons that apply worldwide. In this work, Lisa Benjamin shows how the Paris Agreement, climate and energy law in the EU and the UK, and transnational human rights and climate litigation, are regulatory and normative developments that illustrate how company law can and should act as a bridge to progressive corporate climate action.

Hi, Dan. Hi, Gabriela. I also wanted to thank the organizers for facilitating a hybrid format so I could be here with you today. I think in terms of that question, Dan, you and I have both been at negotiations where the plenary starts with all the countries there and a minute of silence for some victims of some typhoon in one of the countries that is there, or victims of a hurricane of a country that is there, and then the minute of silence ends. Then we swiftly move on to the business of negotiating. I think that it is not as much of a motivational factor in the outcomes of the negotiations. I think it does motivate some of the countries that are there, and of course, they are the more vulnerable countries, and they are the ones that have less influence in terms of crafting the outcomes of the negotiations.

The time has never been better for the Securities and Exchange Commision (SEC) to regulate climate change disclosures; however, the agency has a poor track record in mandating climate and other specialized disclosures from public corporations. Its 2010 guidance on climate-related disclosures was sparsely enforced. Its 2012 conflict materials rule was partially invalidated by the courts, and in 2019 and 2020, the agency failed to include climate disclosures when modernizing rules and guidelines on corporate disclosures. These past failures were due to agency intertia, which was facilitated by a combination of a lack of political feasibility, strong business resistance to specialized disclosures (despite investor enthusiasm), and rising judicial hostility to the SEC. These past failures should not dictate agency approaches to climate disclosures moving forward. Regulating climate change is high on the agenda of the Biden Administration. Investors are demanding that public corporations be more transparent about climate-related risks. The SEC is starting to act, issuing a call for public input on climate-related disclosures and enhancing its focus on climate-related disclosure in public company filings.These political, investor, and agency shifts are primarily due to the rising awareness of the potential systemic nature of the risks of climate change to financial systems, both in the U.S. and internationally. This article assesses the policy feasibility of climate-related disclosure rules. It argues that past SEC failures can and should inform SEC rulemaking on climate change disclosures moving forward. Regulating climate disclosures benefits not only investors and capital markets, but also companies, due to the systemic nature of climate risk. This article argues that robust cost-benefit analysts and industry-specific, flexible but firm regulatory approaches will improve policy feasibility.

Freedom of Information Acts (FOIAs) can provide countries with a platform to enshrine transparency, deepen democracy and combat corruption. A number of FOIAs or Right to Information Acts have been passed in the last 20 years, particularly in developing countries and including in the Caribbean region. These initiatives have encountered similar problems, including lack of implementation and enforcement, potentially due to weak institutional systems. The lack of implementation may also be due to contradictory domestic incentives; FOIAs are designed to induce transparency and the provision of information, but also impose constraints and administrative burdens on governments. This article looks at the international context of FOIAs and analyses some of the recent problems of implementation, particularly in developing countries and specifically in the Caribbean region. The article then takes a detailed look at the amendment process and passage of the FOIA 2017 Act in The Bahamas, which is illustrative of these conflicting incentives.