Lawrence contributed expert insights during an important panel discussion on ‘Reviewing Reputation Management and PR Issues in ESG’ – a session that captured the overarching theme of the day: the critical importance of preparedness in navigating the intersection of litigation, regulatory and reputational ESG challenges.

Leveraging the legal system to strike at reputation

The summit opened with The Hon. Mr Justice Knowles, Judge of the High Court of England and Wales,, delivering a clear message: “there will be and should be more” ESG litigation, indicating an expected growth trajectory for ESG claims in English courts. While the potential for the UK to lead in this area is significant, Mr Justice Knowles acknowledged that these complex cases demand courage, creativity, and careful strategic navigation, particularly as ESG litigation increasingly expands beyond NGOs and strategic claims into broader business affairs and commercial law.

Experts reflected on the increasing prevalence of collective action as a potent ESG tool across multiple jurisdictions. Recent high-profile cases, such as Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc, underscored how claimants often view reputational damage as equally – if not more – valuable than traditional legal victories. Businesses should be aware that NGOs and activists frequently bypass alternative dispute resolution solutions as they seek more impactful and reputationally damaging routes. Companies were advised to proactively build robust strategic communications plans, enabling them to effectively defend their reputation in the critical arena of public opinion.

Throughout the day, various sessions examined the rapidly evolving and fragmented regulatory environment. Navigating supply chain reporting was cited as a growing headache for clients, with the increasingly divergent regulatory standards between jurisdictions creating further challenges to maintaining trusted partnerships with international parties, particularly as reporting expectations now extend beyond direct counterparties.

At the same time, activists and NGOs argue that regulation is not going far enough and are therefore seeking out litigious solutions to fill these gaps. New requirements such as the European Commission’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) will be a significant shift for any business with a substantial presence in the EU, requiring extensive due diligence processes and putting far more detail of a company’s impact into the public domain. Panellists concluded that as regulatory pressures intensify, so too will the risk of ESG-related litigation.

This increasingly complex intersection of regulatory pressures, legal risks, and reputational challenges was reiterated throughout the day. The message from the experts? “Nail your communications.” With the regulatory stakes higher than ever before, there may be a growing shift among businesses choosing to adopt a ‘quieter’ approach to ESG, tightening their compliance behind the scenes and pulling back on public communications to avoid added scrutiny or backlash.

While the consensus among panellists was that any ESG activity should be publicised with caution, clients should also resist the temptation to ‘greenhush’ or refrain entirely from broadcasting their efforts in this sphere. Being proactive with due diligence processes and co-ordinated communications strategies is essential for safeguarding businesses’ reputation in the long-term.

Getting ahead of risks with proactive management

The role of communications in managing ESG litigation risks was underlined by a panel discussion on reputation management and public relations issues in ESG – termed by Summit chair Heather Gagen as ‘the scary stuff’, featuring Sarah Ellington of Watson Farley & Williams, Gaetan de Robillard of Signature Litigation and Anthea Bowater of Freshfields, alongside DRD’s own Lawrence Dore. Opening the discussion, Lawrence emphasised how reputation is defined and shaped by diverse stakeholder groups – including employees, shareholders, media, civil society – each posing unique risks and expectations for businesses which need careful consideration.

In relation to ESG claims, having worked on both claimant and defendant side, Lawrence spoke to the proactive strategies that can be adopted by claimants, such as building relationships with selective media and aligning with political and industry stakeholders. In response to this proactive approach, fellow panellist Sarah Ellington, advised that defendants must embrace transparency and, where possible, be meticulous with their documentation. Maintaining an up-to-date and transparent audit trail was cited as an important activity for businesses aiming to mitigate litigation risk.

Looking ahead, the consensus among panellists was clear: scrutiny around ESG practices will continue to intensify. Managing reputational and legal risks will only become more challenging, and successful navigation of these risks will require a proactive integration of ESG risk management into business strategies at the highest level. As Lawrence and other panellists highlighted, the ESG landscape poses significant risks – but also a myriad of opportunities for businesses that are well-prepared, adaptable, and guided by expert advisors.