ABSTRACT
This paper evaluates company law and regulation using Earth system science (ESS) as an analytical lens. ESS draws attention to the disconnection of companies from the Earth system and the way that law, as a process of the anthroposphere, is impacted and evolving in response to Earth system disruption. It argues that, although there has been some reform that is consistent with regulating companies to address their climate and other environmental impacts, the reactive and piecemeal approach to legislative reform so far adopted is unable to change commercial behaviour sufficiently in practice. Additionally, although the courts have been asked to adjudicate, the core principles of company law create barriers to such interventions. The paper concludes with four suggested areas of reform: to directors’ duties; substantive obligations of due diligence; training, education and expertise; and accountability and enforcement. It is argued that these reforms are necessary to reduce the company’s environmental and social impacts, to aid the transition to a sustainable economy and to position them to operate in a future marked by planetary instability.
Emily Webster, Earth system disruption, legal development and the company: a UK perspective, Legal Studies, volume 45, issue 1, pp 1-21 (March 2025). Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 April 2025.
Thank you for the insightful article on the interplay between earth system disruption and legal development from a UK perspective. I particularly appreciated your exploration of how legal frameworks need to adapt in response to environmental challenges. Building on your discussion, it’s worth noting that the concept of “corporate personhood,” which grants companies certain legal rights akin to individuals, can significantly complicate efforts to hold corporations accountable for environmental harm. A unique case is that of the chemical company DuPont, which faced mounting pressures in the US due to its environmental legacy. This has led to civil suits and substantial settlements that not only address past damages but also require future-proofing corporate practices against environmental disruption. Moreover, transitioning to a circular economy could serve as a pragmatic approach for companies to align themselves better with sustainability goals. By emphasizing product life extension, resource recovery, and responsible production practices, businesses can play a pivotal role in mitigating earth system disruptions while also remaining within a constructive legal framework. With these considerations in mind, how do you envision the role of public policy evolving to ensure that companies not only comply with regulations but actively contribute to environmental remediation?