Net-Zero Litigation: Procedural Law Aspects
ネットゼロ訴訟：手続法の側面 (AI 翻訳)
Colombo, Esmeralda
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、ネットゼロ目標の高まりに伴う気候訴訟の新局面を分析する。イタリアのEni Diesel+事件を皮切りに、欧州4セクター（航空、ESG、エネルギー、製品）におけるグリーンウォッシング訴訟の手続法的な進化を比較検討。企業の立証責任の強化、透明性要件と実体的義務の統合、そして「任意性」概念の批判的再構築を提示する。
English
This paper analyzes the procedural evolution of climate litigation in the net-zero era, starting with the Italian Eni Diesel+ case and comparing greenwashing cases across four European sectors (aviation, ESG, energy, products). It highlights the shift in burden of proof onto companies, the integration of transparency with substantive obligations, and a critical deconstruction of 'voluntariness' in corporate codes.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本でもグリーンウォッシング規制が強化される中、本論文の手続法分析は、企業のネットゼロ主張に対する法的リスク評価に示唆を与える。特に、消費者庁や証券取引所の開示ガイドライン改正を踏まえた実務対応に有用。
In the global GX context
Globally, this paper contributes to the growing scholarship on climate litigation and greenwashing enforcement. It offers a comparative procedural perspective that informs TCFD/ISSB implementation, EU CSRD enforcement, and SEC climate disclosure rules, especially on the burden of proof and remedy effectiveness.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Comparative procedural analysis of greenwashing litigation across sectors and jurisdictions provides a framework for further legal scholarship.
🏢実務担当者:Corporate legal and sustainability teams must prepare for increased scrutiny of net-zero claims, with burden of proof shifting to the company.
🏛政策担当者:Insights on remedy effectiveness and the need for procedural clarity in environmental claims regulation.
📄 Abstract（原文）
The global rise of the "net-zero" target has ushered in a new phase of climate litigation, where greenwashing and climate-washing are increasingly framed not merely as ethical or communicative issues, but as matters of legal inquiry. Starting from a landmark Italian case (AGCM v. Eni Diesel+), this paper explores the procedural evolution of how misleading commercial practices in the climate context are qualified and adjudicated. It reconstructs the stages of the Eni Diesel+ Italian administrative proceedings up to the 2024 Council of State decision, highlighting the interpretative divergence between the Antitrust Authority, the Lazio Regional Administrative Court (TAR), and the highest administrative court, particularly regarding the application of the "average consumer" test. From a comparative perspective, the article analyzes recent European climate-washing litigation across four sectors: the aviation sector, including the KLM and TUI cases, and the coordinated actions of the European Commission against 20 airlines for misleading climate-related advertising; the ESG sector, through the cases against Vanguard and Mercer Superannuation; the energy sector, through the cases against MSC and EnergyAustralia; and in the ambit of products, through the case against Katjes and Clorox Australia. This contribution reflects on the implications of these case-law developments, in particular on (i) the burden of proof now borne by companies, accompanied by an enhanced role for administrative bodies and civil society actors; (ii) the integration of transparency requirements with substantive obligations, although remedies vary widely and at times fail to be effective; and (iii) the need for an evolving procedural interpretation of unfair environmental practices. Finally, the notion of "voluntariness" in corporate codes of ethics is deconstructed through the lens of constitutional theories of transnational power systems, offering a critical reading of the shift from soft law to enforceable obligations in the realm of private climate law.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- Zenodo https://zenodo.org/records/21371835first seen 2026-07-16 04:12:43
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。