Company Directors Face Penalties For Igoring Climate Change

Spanish Inquisition
Share This Story!

Censorship, book burning and the Inquisition all come to mind with this draconian scheme to force corporate leaders to bow their knee to global warming science.  TN Editor

Australia’s fall from grace as a global leader in the fight against dangerous climate change was rapid and inglorious.

But any Australian business leaders who think they got away with sticking their heads in the sand should think again.

New legal advice by senior Sydney silk Noel Hutley being released on Monday, suggests it is almost certain that directors of an Australian company will one day face legal action for neglecting to properly account for the potential impact of climate change on their business.

“It is likely to be only a matter of time before we see litigation against a director who has failed to perceive, disclose or take steps in relation to a foreseeable climate-related risk that can be demonstrated to have caused harm to a company (including, perhaps, reputational harm),” the advice, commissioned by the Centre for Policy Development and the Future Business Council, titled “Climate Change and Directors Duties” concludes.

Politicians who fail in their endeavours to combat climate change can simply retire on a taxpayer-funded scheme.

For company directors who fail in their duties, the penalties are much more severe, including fines of up to $200,000 and disqualification from holding directorships.

Under the Corporations Act, directors have a duty to apply care and diligence in considering all the risks that might apply to their company.

They are required to take into account all “foreseeable” risks.

Given the weight of scientific evidence of climate change, Hutley’s advice is that it will not be sufficient for company directors to argue they could not reasonably have believed that climate change was real or human induced.

In considering the risks posed by climate change, directors are not required to become green-caped climate change crusaders.

But many are failing in their most basic duty to consider and disclose the potential risks or to form a business case about whether action is needed to protect their company.

There are two classes of risk posed to Australian companies by climate change.

First, there is physical risk. Rising sea levels, for example, make writing mortgages on coastal properties a riskier business for banks. Rising incidence of severe weather events makes writing insurance products riskier. In a more recent example, power outages resulting from severe weather may affect power supply to all sorts of businesses. Companies that fail to take into account these risks will suffer lower profits.

But the risks are even greater than that.

There is also “transition risk” that must be taken into account. As the world inevitably moves to a lower emissions footprint, governments are likely to make sudden rule changes that will adversely affect firms. Consumers will also dictate the pace of change. It depends what question you ask them, but citizens are demonstrating a greater preference for more sustainable “green” products.

Read full story here…

Join our mailing list!

1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
1 Comment authors
4TimesAYear Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

“Given the weight of scientific evidence of climate change, Hutley’s advice is that it will not be sufficient for company directors to argue they could not reasonably have believed that climate change was real or human induced.”
Given the lack of scientific evidence of man-made climate change, it would seem prudent to argue taking action will have virtually no effect whatsoever. Cost vs. benefit alone says it’s not worth it.