SDGs脈絡下的上市公司永續治理與法律責任：以氣候訴訟為核心

Sustainable Governance and Legal Responsibility of Listed Companies in the Context of SDGs: Focusing on Climate Litigation

基於「我們只有一個地球」之不爭事實，氣候變遷跨代際、跨國境乃至跨越科學與法制之特質，使其成為全球共同面對之治理課題。氣候危機已逐漸改變國際法秩序與企業治理結構，使永續治理由政策倡議躍升為具法律拘束力之規範框架。在此脈絡下，氣候訴訟於近十年呈現急遽成長之勢，其涵蓋範圍亦自國家義務審查逐步擴張至企業排放、供應鏈治理、投融資行為及資訊揭露等層面，企業遂成為全球氣候法治新秩序中重要之責任主體。上市公司面對資本市場、供應鏈治理、監理制度與投資人期待，其因應氣候變遷之能力與所承擔之法律風險，自然成為永續治理與企業法治研究之重心。本文旨在建構一套融合國際永續治理、國際氣候法治與比較法案例之企業氣候責任分析框架，以檢視氣候訴訟如何調整企業責任範圍，並提出上市公司面對氣候相關爭訟之法治因應策略及建議。
本文首先於第二章梳理國際永續發展脈絡，並以聯合國永續發展目標（SDGs）所確立之全球共同願景為基石，連結國際資訊揭露準則演進及歐盟永續法制三大軸線，勾勒永續治理法治化之完整脈絡；並提出臺灣在永續發展路徑圖、永續揭露藍圖及綠色金融系列政策推動下，逐步與國際趨勢接軌。此一進程，使企業之注意義務、揭露義務與風險管理義務顯著提升，並形成氣候訴訟得以獲致可訴性之規範基礎。
第三章分別探討UNFCCC、京都議定書與巴黎協定，並整理國際氣候法治基於科學證據、人權保障與跨世代正義所形塑之規範體系。近年國際司法機構之判決更加深國家與企業在減緩與調適義務上之法規範期待，使氣候責任不再停留於政策宣示，而是具有實質法律意涵。
第四章以荷蘭Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc案、德國LucianoLliuya v. RWE AG案、英國ClientEarth v. Shell plc案、澳洲McVeigh v. Retail
Employees Superannuation Trust案及臺灣用電大戶條款案為主要案例，呈現企業氣候責任司法化之具體面貌。比較法之發展顯示，法院普遍要求企業制定具科學基礎之減排目標、落實氣候風險盤查、確保揭露資訊之完整、一致且可驗證，並將範疇三排放與供應鏈行為納入侵權法與注意義務之審查範疇；顯示企業責任已逐漸由內部治理邁向全面之供應鏈治理，亦由自律義務轉為司法可審查之法律義務。臺灣雖尚未明文化氣候訴訟制度，惟在全球化與司法人權化之趨勢下，可預期企業與政府未來將可能面臨社會期待、立法發展與司法審查等壓力。
第五章統整前述國際法規與司法判決之脈絡，歸納出上市公司所面臨之氣候責任及其所帶來之潛在挑戰，即氣候義務逐漸由宣示、倡議性質轉變為具強制力之法律責任。本章提出企業面臨之三大風險：其一，減碳模式偏離科學標準可能構成注意義務之違反；其二，董事會對氣候風險之消極不作為恐違反受託義務；其三，資訊揭露不實與漂綠行為將引發證券詐欺責任。為建構具韌性之法律防禦體系，本章建議企業應從五大面向著手：確立科學基礎減量目標、深化供應鏈（範疇三）治理、將氣候風險納入內部控制體系、確保揭露資訊之具體性與可驗證性，並積極引入外部守門人機制（如ESG評鑑）。
本文認為氣候訴訟之興起加重企業於永續治理架構中之法律角色，使永續治理成為企業法治義務之重要一環。面對可預見之氣候議題司法化趨勢，臺灣上市公司若能及早建構符合國際標準且具前瞻性之治理體系，將能有效降低訴訟風險、加強市場信賴，並在全球淨零轉型之制度競逐中展現足以面對各方挑戰之治理韌性與長期競爭力。

Predicated on the indisputable reality that ’’we only have one Earth,’’ the intergenerational, transboundary, and transdisciplinary nature of climate change, spanning both science and legal systems, has rendered it a global governance imperative. The climate crisis is gradually reshaping the international legal order and corporate governance structures, elevating sustainable governance from policy advocacy to a normative framework with legal binding force. In this context, climate litigation has surged over the past decade, with its scope gradually expanding from the review of state obligations to corporate emissions, supply chain governance, investment and financing behaviors, and information disclosure. Consequently, corporations have emerged as crucial subjects of responsibility within the new global climate legal order. For listed companies facing capital markets, supply chain governance requirements, regulatory regimes, and investor expectations, their capacity to respond to climate change and the legal risks they bear have naturally become the focal point of research on sustainable governance and the corporate rule of law. This thesis aims to construct an analytical framework for corporate climate responsibility that integrates international sustainable governance, international climate law, and comparative case studies, in order to examine how climate litigation recalibrates the scope of corporate liability and to propose legal response strategies and recommendations for listed companies facing climate-related disputes.
Chapter II first traces the trajectory of international sustainable development. Anchored in the shared global vision established by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it connects the evolution of international disclosure standards with the three main axes of the EU’s sustainable legal framework to outline the complete legalization process of sustainable governance. It also posits that Taiwan, driven by the Sustainable Development Roadmap, the Sustainability Disclosure Action Plan, and a series of green finance policies, is progressively aligning with international trends. This institutionalization process significantly elevates corporate duties of care, disclosure obligations, and risk management responsibilities, thereby forming the normative foundation that renders climate litigation actionable.
Chapter III examines the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement, systematizing the normative framework of international climate law shaped by scientific evidence, human rights protection, and intergenerational justice. Recent rulings by international judicial bodies have further deepened the normative expectations regarding the mitigation and adaptation obligations of states and corporations, ensuring that climate responsibility no longer remains merely a policy declaration, but possesses substantive legal implications.
Chapter IV presents the concrete manifestations of the judicialization of corporate climate responsibility by analyzing major cases, including Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC (Netherlands), Luciano Lliuya v. RWE AG (Germany), ClientEarth v. Shell PLC (UK), McVeigh v. Retail Employees Superannuation Trust (Australia), and the ’’Major Electricity Consumers Clause’’ case in Taiwan. Developments in comparative law indicate that courts universally require corporations to establish science-based emission reduction targets, implement climate risk inventories, and ensure that disclosed information is complete, consistent, and verifiable. Furthermore, courts are incorporating Scope 3 emissions and supply chain behaviors into the judicial review of tort law and the duty of care. This demonstrates that corporate responsibility has gradually transitioned from internal governance to comprehensive supply chain governance, and from self-regulatory duties to judicially reviewable legal obligations. Although Taiwan has yet to codify a dedicated climate litigation system, under the trends of globalization and human-rights-oriented judicialization, it is foreseeable that both corporations and the government will likely face mounting pressures from societal expectations, legislative developments, and judicial review in the future.
Chapter V synthesizes the trajectory of international regulations and judicial rulings to summarize the climate responsibilities and potential challenges faced by listed companies, namely the transition of climate obligations from a declaratory and advocacy-based nature to enforceable legal liabilities. This chapter highlights three major risks facing corporations: first, deviating from scientific standards in carbon reduction models may constitute a breach of the duty of care; second, a board of directors’ passive inaction regarding climate risks may violate fiduciary duties; and third, false information disclosure and greenwashing practices will trigger securities fraud liabilities. To construct a resilient legal defense system, this chapter recommends that corporations take action across five key dimensions: establishing science-based reduction targets, deepening supply chain (Scope 3) governance, integrating climate risks into internal control systems, ensuring the specificity and verifiability of disclosed information, and actively introducing external gatekeeper mechanisms (such as ESG ratings).
This thesis concludes that the rise of climate litigation amplifies the legal role of corporations within the sustainable governance framework, rendering sustainable governance an integral component of corporate legal obligations. Facing the foreseeable trend of the judicialization of climate issues, if Taiwanese listed companies can proactively establish forward-looking governance systems aligned with international standards, they will be able to effectively mitigate litigation risks, bolster market trust, and demonstrate the governance resilience and long-term competitiveness necessary to withstand multifaceted challenges in the global institutional race toward a net-zero transition.