04 July 2019

Climate change and directors’ duties

This article was written by Liam Hennessy, Rhys Casey and Tamara Akl.

Background

In February 2019, the World Economic Forum identified that the top 3 risks facing the world in terms of likelihood related to the environment; extreme weather events, failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation, and natural disasters.[1]  In Australia, companies are under increasing pressure to address climate change risks.  The Australian Institute of Company Directors has said that climate change risk management is driving increasing shareholder engagement, which is self-evident from last year’s AGM season.  The intersection of directors’ duties with the issue of climate change is, therefore, front of mind.

Directors’ duties and climate change risk

Does Australian law require company directors to consider climate change in discharging their duties? 

To date there have been no Australian court decisions on point.[2]  Barristers Noel Hutley SC and Sebastian Hartford-Davis published an opinion in 2016 (which they restated with greater force in 2019[3]), in which they opined that many climate change risks would be regarded by a court as foreseeable and that directors who fail to consider climate change risks could be found liable for breaching their duty of care and diligence.  It is a position ASIC has endorsed:

“…in our view, the opinion appears legally sound and is reflective of our understanding of the position under the prevailing case law in Australia in so far as directors’ duties are concerned.”[4]

In our view, climate change risks are no different to any other risk (emerging or otherwise) that directors need to contend with to the extent it affects their company’s business (in the same way as, for example, cyber security).  The scope of a director’s duty of care and diligence is predicated on the materiality and likelihood of the particular risk.  Once the duty is engaged by virtue of the risk being foreseeable, in considering issues of breach and whether the director can take the benefit of the business judgment rule, the question then becomes one of whether proportionate steps were taken to mitigate the particular risk.  So yes - depending on the company’s circumstances, a director may need to consider climate change issues, and respond accordingly. 

The factual matrix is critical, given the duty is assessed on an objective basis (what a reasonable person would do) with subjective elements (the specific circumstances).  The actions a general insurer may need to take to appropriately mitigate foreseeable climate change risks (e.g. coastal erosion), will necessarily be different to those to be considered (and weighted) by a services group.  It remains to be seen how widely a court may interpret what manifestation(s) of climate change risk are foreseeable; this is the defining predicate upon which the duty is engaged.  

Recommendation 7.4 of the ASX’s Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations (4th edition, 2019) (ASX Recommendations) sets out a number of risks for companies’ consideration, including risks of transition to a low-carbon economy.

Other considerations

In recent years ASIC and APRA have repeatedly emphasised the need for companies to address climate change risk as part of their governance and risk management frameworks and to make public disclosures where appropriate.[5]  ASIC expects companies to include in their annual directors’ reports a discussion of climate risk when it could affect the company’s achievement of its financial performance or disclosed outcomes (underpinned by sophisticated scenario analysis).  Plus any relevant comments as to how risk factors that are within the control of management will be managed.[6]  In addition, Recommendation 7.4 of the ASX Recommendations provides:

“A listed entity should disclose whether it has any material exposure to environmental or social risks and, if it does, how it manages or intends to manage those risks.”

Companies which are especially vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change are at an increased risk of regulatory, investor and activist scrutiny.  Class actions firms are monitoring the disclosure approach closely and at least one large litigation funder is watching this space with interest.[7]

These settings create both direct and (as is increasingly common) derivative risks for directors and are playing out against an uncertain policy outlook, including in relation to government approvals of projects with high carbon emissions.  Irrespective, directors should take steps to inform themselves of short and long-term climate related risks to their business to the extent appropriate.


[1] World Economic Forum, Global Risks Report 2019 (14th Ed).

[2] There is at least one case on foot regarding a company’s failure to adequately disclosure climate change risk: Mark McVeigh v Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd ACN 001 987 739, Federal Court Proceeding No. NSD1333/2018.

[3] Hutley, Noel and Hartford Davis, Sebastian “Climate Change and Directors’ Duties Supplementary Memorandum of Opinion” (26 March 2019), published by The Centre for   Policy Development.

[4] Keynote address by John Price, Commissioner, Australian Securities and Investments Commission, Centre for Policy Development: Financing a Sustainable Economy, Sydney, Australia, 18 June 2018.

[5] ASIC has endorsed the 29 June 2017 Final Report from the G20 Financial Stability Board's Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, which includes guidance on the information that companies should be publicly releasing.

[6] ASIC Report 593, Climate risk disclosure by Australia’s listed companies (September 2018), page 12.

[7] IMF Bentham Newsroom, Directors duties and climate change risk (24 October 2017).


Share on LinkedIn Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
    You might also be interested in

    As a consequence of the COVID-19 crisis, the Victorian Government has delayed the implementation of The Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018 (the new Act). The EPA reform unit has announced that...

    24 June 2020

    Australian companies are under increasing pressure to recognise, manage and disclose climate risks as major natural disasters are seeing public and shareholder expectations grow fast.

    24 June 2020

    Alignment on penalties hides major differences between laws states and territories are passing. Industrial manslaughter offences are outcome-based offences, triggered by an event – a workplace death.

    24 June 2020

    Amendments to the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) introduced into the NSW parliament last year makes it an offence for a person to enter into, provide, or benefit from insurance or indemnity...

    24 June 2020

    This site uses cookies to enhance your experience and to help us improve the site. Please see our Privacy Policy for further information. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive these cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

    For more information on which cookies we use then please refer to our Cookie Policy.