A string of corporate litigation cases in the United Kingdom highlights the role of corporate group structures in complicating efforts to impose liability on parent companies for the activities of their subsidiaries, particularly where those subsidiaries are located in the Global South. Corporate group structures serve to insulate parent companies against liability for actions of their subsidiaries. This is the case even where economic benefits accrue to parent companies, which are often incorporated in the Global North. These group structures cabin liability for environmental and climate harms within subsidiary companies through reliance on company law principles such as limited liability and separate legal personality. These company law principles allow parent companies to enjoy corporate profits from the activities of their subsidiaries but disavow liability for any environmental damage resulting from such activities. This dichotomy has obvious equity implications, which are exacerbated in the extractive industries and in the context of climate change. Negative climate impacts are and will be felt predominantly in the Global South. In addition, environmental damage removes avenues of climate adaptation for vulnerable populations. But company law principles are not impervious to these equity challenges. These principles have never been absolute and courts have consistently found exceptions to them, although those exceptions have fluctuated in effectiveness and frequency over the years. Recent decisions by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in the United Kingdom imposed duties on parent companies for environmental damage caused by their subsidiaries. Cases following the decision in Chandler v Cape Industries illustrate tension between company law as interpreted in the Global North, and climate and environmental justice as experienced in the Global South. Climate change forces a reconceptualization of company law, including transnational corporate liability. This paper argues that these reconsiderations are not only appropriate, but given the contested histories of many of these companies in the Global South, long overdue.

中文翻译：

---

集团公司和气候正义

英国的一系列公司诉讼案件突出了公司集团结构在使母公司对其子公司的活动承担责任的努力中的作用，特别是在这些子公司位于全球南方的情况下。公司集团结构的作用是使母公司免于对其子公司的行为承担责任。即使在经济利益累积到母公司的情况下，情况也是如此，这些母公司通常在全球北部成立。这些集团通过依赖有限责任和独立法人资格等公司法原则，在子公司内部构建环境和气候危害的客舱责任。这些公司法原则允许母公司从其子公司的活动中获得公司利润，但不对此类活动造成的任何环境损害承担责任。这种二分法具有明显的公平影响，在采掘业和气候变化的背景下更加严重。负面气候影响正在并将主要在全球南方地区感受到。此外，环境破坏消除了弱势群体适应气候的途径。但公司法原则并非不受这些股权挑战的影响。这些原则从来都不是绝对的，法院一直在发现它们的例外情况，尽管这些例外的有效性和频率多年来一直在波动。英国上诉法院和最高法院最近的裁决对母公司对其子公司造成的环境损害征收责任。Chandler v Cape Industries 案判决后的案例说明了在全球北方地区解释的公司法与在全球南方地区经历的气候和环境正义之间的紧张关系。气候变化迫使公司法重新概念化，包括跨国公司责任。本文认为，这些重新考虑不仅是适当的，而且考虑到全球南方许多此类公司的有争议的历史，早就应该进行。Chandler v Cape Industries 案判决后的案例说明了在全球北方地区解释的公司法与在全球南方地区经历的气候和环境正义之间的紧张关系。气候变化迫使公司法重新概念化，包括跨国公司责任。本文认为，这些重新考虑不仅是适当的，而且考虑到全球南方许多此类公司的有争议的历史，早就应该进行。Chandler v Cape Industries 案判决后的案例说明了在全球北方地区解释的公司法与在全球南方地区经历的气候和环境正义之间的紧张关系。气候变化迫使公司法重新概念化，包括跨国公司责任。本文认为，这些重新考虑不仅是适当的，而且考虑到全球南方许多此类公司的有争议的历史，早就应该进行。