Businesses have long been acutely aware of the implications of breaking laws or having adverse impacts on others: punishment normally ensues. Recently the latter category has moved up the agenda with tobacco companies being held responsible for the health of non-smokes affected by smoke, for example.
The last 2 years have seen less debate and more agreement on the human rights impacts of environmental destruction on local communities. Where there is a proven link businesses have been required to make compensation and their reputation has suffered, although most businesses fight such legal claims and such claims can take several years to be resolved.
Now governments are establishing climate change policies with an acceptance of the impacts of climate change, and such policies are impacting businesses directly (and legally). It is safe to assume that there is now agreement that hgih emitting countries and companies are responsible for the impacts of their emissioins, so it is only a matter of time until those affected by climate change seek legal recourse. Though such legal actions might take years to be resolved, the defendents must recognize such claims as liabilities and prepare accordingly.
Will such liabilities, risks and, ultimately, financial costs, lead to both companies and governments reassessing the negative impacts of their business and accounting for these as real costs in their business strategies, in addition to their current Kyoto and future Copenhagen commitments with financial implications (from Emissions Trading)?
Will we see massive lawsuits against highly polluting companies/countries, particularly by groups in developing countries? Will companies consider the costs of these in their strategies and will that make any material difference to their strategies? Could entire businesses or countries be forced to change by those in developing countries, who rarely have a voice?
