Horizon – News and Trends in Sustainability Law

Disclosures and voluntary reporting

CARB’s latest SB 253 rulemaking workshop: First-year deadline remains August 10; an early look at 2027 reporting. On March 23, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) held a public workshop on the next phase of rulemaking related to SB 253, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, focusing on reporting and assurance requirements for 2027 and beyond. The first-year reporting deadline remains August 10 for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions only – no assurance is required, no specific template is mandated, and CARB will accept reports in whatever format companies were already using to collect their emissions data. CARB acknowledged concerns about meeting the August 10 deadline and indicated it will issue guidance on limited extension requests. Looking ahead, CARB staff presented early-stage proposals for 2027 reporting, including mandatory Scope 3 emissions disclosure, limited assurance for Scope 1 and 2, and flexible approaches for organizational boundaries and accounting methods (spend-based, activity-based, supplier-specific, or hybrid). CARB estimated average annual compliance costs of approximately USD135,000 to USD152,000 per entity, though several public commenters cautioned that these figures may be understated, particularly for first-time reporters. The public comment docket on these proposals is open until April 13, and additional reporting guidance for the 2026 filing – including intake procedures and portal access – is expected in the coming weeks. On the litigation front, the constitutional challenge to SB 253 and SB 261 remains pending before the Ninth Circuit following oral arguments on January 9; SB 253 remains in full effect, while enforcement of SB 261 is paused under injunction.

Early SB 261 compliance trends: Practical insights from the first round of voluntary disclosures. California’s Climate-Related Financial Risk Act, SB 261, requires companies doing business in California with annual revenues exceeding USD500 million to prepare and publicly disclose a biennial climate-related financial risk report on their websites. Enforcement of SB 261 is currently paused in response to an injunction from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In the meantime, however, more than 130 companies have chosen to publish climate-related financial risk disclosures voluntarily, providing a snapshot of how the market is interpreting SB 261 requirements in practice. Our alert summarizes several trends emerging from these early disclosures.

Manager of Norway’s sovereign wealth fund issues “Nature Expectations” guidance. Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), which manages Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, has issued “Nature Expectations” – guidance for portfolio companies as they assess, disclose, and manage risks arising from impacts on land, freshwater, and ocean ecosystems. “Nature Expectations” consolidates earlier guidances that individually addressed such factors as ocean sustainability, water management, and biodiversity. “The degradation of land, freshwater systems, and marine environments all affect the long-term value of companies in our portfolio,” NBIM stated. “Companies face risks when natural resources they depend on become scarce or degraded, and when their environmental impacts lead to regulatory action, legal liability, operational restrictions or reputational risks. Evolving trends in consumer demands and availability of natural resources will also present opportunities as new markets are created.” Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, often nicknamed the oil fund, is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. It was created in 1990 to reduce Norway’s economic dependence on oil price fluctuations by transitioning oil revenue to long-term wealth and currently owns about 1.5 percent of all shares in the world’s listed companies.

Singapore: Final guidelines on climate-risk transition planning for financial institutions. On March 5, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) issued three sets of final “Guidelines on Environmental Risk Management – Transition Planning,” explaining how banks, insurance companies, and asset managers operating in Singapore should identify, manage, and report physical and transition climate risks. The guidelines – part of MAS’s overarching work to incorporate climate risk management into Singapore’s financial system – refine and strengthen the environmental risk management requirements for financial institutions that MAS introduced in 2020. They also exemplify a broader global movement away from voluntary disclosure to actionable, data-driven transition planning. While each of MAS’s three sets is tailored to the specific needs of the type of financial institution, they share a specific focus on transitional climate-risk planning as a core discipline of enterprise management. The guidance requires financial institutions to incorporate forward-looking risk analyses into their assessments, examining the ways that climate-related risks could affect clients and/or portfolios under a range of plausible scenarios, which could include addressing sudden regulatory or policy changes. The guidance also stresses the importance of client engagement, underscoring the stewardship roles financial institutions may play in the energy transition. It discourages financial institutions from simply divesting high-climate risk customers and portfolios. Banks, for instance, are guided to “not indiscriminately withdraw credit from customers with higher climate-related risks. This could increase the risk of stranded assets and contribute to a disorderly transition that would be detrimental for the system as a whole – and potentially the bank itself as well.” Financial institutions are instead guided to engage proactively with such clients, taking a “risk-proportionate,” “multi-year view” to best understand and steer their climate strategies. Finally, the guidelines also require financial institutions to build their climate data capabilities – for example, by collecting data from customers and portfolio companies – and to stay abreast of emerging scientific developments in assessing and managing climate-related risks. For financial entities operating in Singapore, the guidelines take effect in September 2027. See the MAS bank, asset manager, and insurer guidelines.

Study: In the wake of Omnibus I, most European companies will continue sustainability reporting. Ninety percent of European Union companies that are no longer in scope of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) are nonetheless planning to maintain and potentially expand their sustainability reporting activities, according to a survey from compliance software provider osapiens. The study, Beyond Compliance: Sustainability Reporting After the Omnibus, states, “Reporting is no longer merely a compliance exercise for many companies, but part of how they understand risk, allocate capital, and manage relationships with stakeholders.” The study surveyed 403 senior decision makers in such roles as Head of Sustainability, Head of Compliance, and Head of Supply Chain at European companies with more than 1,000 employees. Of the respondents who said the Omnibus reforms had excluded their firms from reporting requirements, 90 percent stated that their firms plan to maintain or expand their sustainability reporting – indicating “a strong near-term commitment to sustainability reporting while demonstrating sustainability reporting as a valued strategic discipline.” But the report goes on to note a “sustainability paradox” – of that 90 percent, 84.5 percent “expect that the reduced scrutiny will lead to fewer internal resources allocated to these efforts.” That is, the study notes, even for committed companies that have embedded sustainability reporting in their decision infrastructure, the long-term durability of this commitment to reporting “should not be assumed.”

Extended producer responsibility

Consortium sues California to halt enforcement of SB 343. On March 17, a consortium of industry groups, led by the California League of Food Producers, filed suit in the US District Court for the Southern District of California seeking to block enforcement of California SB 343, the state law establishing criteria for recyclability claims on products and packaging.

To address widespread inconsistencies around recyclability claims, SB 343 imposes strict requirements on what qualifies as recyclable, prohibiting claims that do not satisfy that definition. Beginning in October of this year, the law would prohibit marketing consumer goods as recyclable in any way, including by displaying the chasing-arrows symbol, unless the product and packaging meet certain statewide recycling criteria. SB 343 also imposes new recordkeeping and disclosure obligations.

The lawsuit, California League of Food Producers v. Rob Bonta, alleges that SB 343 unduly burdens businesses, illegally restricts commercial speech, and is so vague that it violates the US Constitution’s Due Process Clause. The plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctions that would prohibit the state from enforcing, or threatening to enforce, SB 343’s prohibition on communicating the recyclability of a product or packaging.

This case is in its earliest stages. See the plaintiffs’ complaint for declarative and injunctive relief here, and read our alert that takes a closer look at this development.

Industry groups seek to join Oregon EPR litigation; DEQ stands firm on enforcement. Several industry groups, including the American Forest & Paper Association and the Northwest Grocery Retail Association, have asked to join litigation seeking to halt implementation of Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) and invalidate its implementing regulations. The RMA is one of the first extended producer responsibility (EPR) packaging laws implemented in the US. On February 6, the US District Court for the District of Oregon granted a preliminary injunction preventing the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) from enforcing the RMA against the plaintiff in that suit, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), and its members. In seeking to join the suit, the trade associations are asking the court to grant their members the same temporary pause.

Meanwhile, DEQ has made clear that it will continue its broader enforcement and regulatory activities under the RMA. During a hearing before the US House Committee on Climate, Energy, and Environment on February 10, multiple companies called for DEQ to pause the recycling system for all producers, not just NAW members. On February 13, DEQ declined that call, stating that it will continue enforcing the RMA for any producers outside NAW’s membership and that it will not voluntarily issue any refunds. On its website, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) stated that it has been asked to provide a list of non-reporting producers to the Oregon DEQ so that DEQ can follow up with producers about their obligations under the RMA, including the requirement to submit reports and pay fees starting on July 1, 2025.The bench trial in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, which may determine the fate of the RMA, is slated for July 13, but the court could delay the trial if it allows additional plaintiffs to intervene.

EPR and recycling legislation in the Tennessee statehouse. The Tennessee Waste to Jobs Act, SB 0269, which would establish a statewide EPR program and require businesses to participate in a producer responsibility organization (PRO) to manage and fund recycling programs, has for a second year been put on hold by the state legislature for so-called summer study. The latest version of the bill would have allowed businesses with less than USD10 million in annual revenue and counties with fewer than 200,000 residents to opt out of the EPR program.

However, on March 16, the Tennessee Senate passed SB 1793, which had been introduced only five days before, with the goal of strengthening the state’s recycling marketplace and enhancing the state’s role in linking recycling programs with the recycling marketplace. The bill would bolster the powers of the Office of Cooperative Marketing for Recyclables, an agency of the state’s Department of Environment and Conservation that connects Tennessee public and private recycling programs with regional buyers. If passed, SB 1793 would also create a 17-member Recycling Market Development and Diversion Advisory Council tasked with recommending ways to improve connections between the supply of recyclable waste in Tennessee and the companies that want to purchase it. SB 1793 prescribes requirements for the council’s composition – to include, for instance, five representatives of private industry, one municipal solid waste director, and two representatives of recycling-focused trade associations – and would sunset in 2030. At this writing, the House version of the bill, HB 2518, is slated for a hearing before the Tennessee House’s Agriculture & Natural Resources committee.

CalRecycle chooses PRO to implement textile EPR law; producers to join by July 1. California’s Responsible Textile Recovery Act, SB 707, will fundamentally restructure how textiles are designed, financed, and circulated in California’s market. On February 27, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) announced that it has chosen Landbell USA, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit based in California, as the PRO that will implement SB 707. The role involves designing and implementing California’s textile circularity infrastructure and shaping collection networks, repair and re-use pathways, fee structures, and eco-modulated incentives for the next decade. DLA Piper's February alert, which reviewed the three contenders for the role, offers insights into Landbell’s approach to SB 707 governance and financial responsibility requirements. All producers of covered products on the California marketplace must join the PRO by July 1. Landbell USA itself already faces its first key deadline: By March 1, 2027, it must finalize a statewide needs assessment that sets out the process and costs of achieving SB 707’s goals.

A manufacturing association charges that implementation of Colorado recycling law is unlawful. On March 12, the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA) sued the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), alleging that CDPHE’s implementation of the state’s Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act (PRP Act) “unlawfully and unconstitutionally shifts regulatory power to unaccountable private actors” that are “controlled by [ILMA’s] larger competitors with no meaningful government oversight and no avenue for judicial review.” The “private actors” named (but not sued) in the state court suit are 1) CAA, which is the PRO that oversees the state’s non-lubricants packaging recycling program, and 2) the Lubricants Packaging Management Association (LPMA), the administrator of an individual producer plan and automotive-fluid packaging plan. ILMA’s complaint further alleges that both entities “charge ILMA members exorbitant fees that have no connection to the actual cost of recycling in Colorado.” The case, Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association v. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, is in its earliest stages. Read the complaint here.

European Commission issues guidance on Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation. On March 30, the European Commission released guidelines for the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR). As we reported last month, the PPWR, which enters into force on August 12, requires all manufacturers, importers, and distributors to ensure that all packaging offered on the EU market is recyclable, designed for re-use, and contains minimum recycled content. The regulation covers packaging of any type and applies through the entire product life cycle, from production to disposal. The Commission issued the guidance document to clarify certain aspects of the rules that had created concerns for manufacturers. Among these clarifications, the Commission said, are explanations of “when a company is considered manufacturer or producer, as well as which items are considered packaging under the PPWR.” The guidance further explains the restrictions on single-use packaging; how the perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) restriction in food contact packaging will be enforced; how re-use targets will be applied; and how to apply extended producer responsibility for packaging and set up deposit and return systems. See the guidance here, and see the Commission’s accompanying FAQs here.

South Africa strengthens EPR scheme. South Africa is tightening its EPR scheme, Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Willie Aucamp stated on February 20, and is concentrating more closely on performance metrics. Minister Aucamp also indicated that the draft National Waste Management Strategy 2026, currently in development, signals the government’s intent to introduce deposit-refund systems to address underperforming recycling streams. The minister’s remarks were part of his keynote speech at POLYCO 2026 Strategic Overview, a symposium focused on practical aspects of the country’s transition to a circular economy. Under South Africa’s National Environmental Management: Waste Act, producers, importers, and brand owners in certain sectors (such as electronics, plastics, and packaging) are responsible for managing their products’ lifecycles and meeting targets for the collection, re-use, and recycling of defined packaging and plastics streams. South Africa’s EPR strategy, with regulations promulgated over the past five years, prioritizes building a circular economy that is, as Deputy Minister of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities Mmapaseka Steve Letsike stated during POLYCO, an “engine of inclusion,” creating opportunities for women, youth, and persons with disabilities.

Find out more about EPR. Visit our Extended Producer Responsibility Hub to learn more about our work assisting businesses on their EPR obligations up and down the supply chain.

Sustainability: Regulatory

Florida legislature approves bill prohibiting net-zero policies. The Florida legislature has approved CS/HB 1217, a sweeping measure that forbids all government entities in the state from implementing any policies that support a net-zero goal. Under the bill, any government entity in Florida – such as a state agency, local government, or school district – is prohibited from adopting net-zero policies, using public funds (including taxes, fees, or assessments) “in any manner that supports, implements, or advances certain net zero policies,” and “imposing any charge to advance certain net zero policies.” The bill also specifically requires every governmental entity in Florida to annually submit to the Department of Revenue an affidavit attesting to its compliance with the latter requirement. It also bars government entities from participating in emissions trading programs. In 2024, Governor Ron DeSantis signed HB 1645, a precursor to this measure, which deleted the phrase “climate change” from several state statutes, restructured state energy policy to stop addressing “the potential of global climate change,” barred local governments from enacting certain energy policy restrictions, and prohibited construction or expansion of offshore wind facilities in Florida waters or within a mile of the Florida coast. If Governor DeSantis signs CS/HB 1217, it will go into effect on July 1.

Hawaii SB 3000 fails. Hawaii SB 3000, which would have sought to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for rising property insurance costs linked to climate harms, has died in committee, failing to advance out of the state Senate’s Ways and Means Committee on a 4–9 vote. The bill would have authorized the State Attorney General (in the name of the people of the state), the Hawaii Property Insurance Association, the Hawaii Hurricane Relief Fund, or any private insurer licensed in the state “to bring a civil cause of action against a responsible party to recover its costs and losses resulting from climate attributable harm.” Unusually, two of the bill’s sponsors were among those voting against the measure.

Canada delays Federal Plastics Registry Phase 2 and 3 reporting dates. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) has published a Notice that officially delays the reporting due dates for Phases 2 and 3 of the Federal Plastics Registry. The Notice also reminds stakeholders that “producers of packaging, electronics and electrical equipment and single-use and disposable plastics destined for the residential waste stream must continue to report for calendar years 2025 and 2026.” The Notice further states that Minister of the Environment Julie Dabrusin intends to issue a further notice “to continue information-gathering activities for the Federal Plastics Registry for the 2027, 2028, and 2029 calendar years” and will be soliciting comments on that notice in future. See some of our earlier reporting on the Registry here.

European Commission rolls out the proposed Industrial Accelerator Act. On March 4, the European Commission released the proposed Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA). As we reported last month, the IAA aims to support the EU’s goals around decarbonization and the electrification of energy-intensive industries while stimulating European manufacturing and economic autonomy. In the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the proposed act, the Commission notes that the EU industrial sector’s share of gross domestic product (GDP) has declined from 17.4 percent in 2000 to its current level of 14.3 percent. It states, “The Industrial Accelerator Act aims to ensure that by 2035, this trend is reversed and that manufacturing represents 20% of the EU GDP.” To achieve this, the IAA will introduce “Made in Europe” and low-carbon requirements for manufacturers across a broad swath of strategic industries, including renewable energy, nuclear energy, and automaking. Among the expansive elements in the current text is a requirement that Member States each establish a single digital process to simplify and accelerate industrial permitting processes. The IAA also lays the groundwork for the development of industrial manufacturing acceleration areas – regional clusters that would promote area-wide permitting and facilitate investment in large-scale essential energy infrastructure. The IAA’s “Made in EU” requirements are based on a fairly broad definition that sweeps in products from non-EU countries that have already entered into free trade agreements with the EU. The release of the proposed IAA is the first step in the lawmaking process – next, the proposed measure will be submitted to the European Council and European Parliament for legislative negotiations.

Sustainability: Litigation

Shareholder advocates sue SEC over Rule 14a-8 “no action” policy change. Rule 14a-8 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 sets out a framework for public company shareholders to request that a proposal be included in the company’s proxy statement in order to be voted on at a shareholder meeting. Past shareholder proposals that went to a shareholder vote have enabled investors to weigh in on topics like sustainability, climate risk, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets, child labor investigations, and civil rights audits. Exchange Act Rule 14a-8 provides companies the ability to submit a no-action request to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to confirm that the agency will not recommend enforcement action if the company omits a shareholder proposal from its proxy materials, citing as reasons for exclusion one or more of the bases cited in Rule 14a-8. In November 2025, the SEC announced that, for the 2026 proxy season, it would no longer review most Rule 14a-8 no-action requests.

On March 19, two shareholder advocacy nonprofits brought suit against the SEC in the US District Court of the District of Columbia, alleging that the policy change violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in numerous ways. Asserting that “the right to present and vote on shareholder proposals is essential for investors,” the complaint states, “SEC staff now categorically issues ‘no-objection’ letters—or effectively blesses exclusions—when companies invoke certain formulaic assertions in their submissions. This approach replaces meaningful regulatory oversight with a new, de facto rubber-stamp process that allows companies to exclude proposals without any analysis by the staff.” The policy, the plaintiffs continue, was implemented without the notice-and-comment rulemaking that is required by the APA when an agency adopts or effectively alters binding regulatory standards and further violates the APA in other ways. You may also be interested in our recent alert about preparing for the 2026 proxy season.

This case, Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and As You Sow v. Securities and Exchange Commission, is in the earliest stages. See the complaint here.

Federal case against Michigan seeking to stop future litigation is dismissed. The US District Court for the Western District of Michigan has dismissed a suit the federal government brought to block the state of Michigan from suing fossil fuel companies on climate harm grounds. As we reported last year, at the time, the Michigan suit had not yet been filed. In its ruling, the court stated that the injuries the government alleged are “too speculative and attenuated to establish an injury fairly traceable to the Michigan Defendants” and that “the federal government has failed to carry its burden on subject-matter jurisdiction.” The court also cited an earlier ruling against the Trump Administration to observe that, in this case too, any injuries the government may have experienced are “conjectural or hypothetical.” At this writing, similar cases remain pending against Hawaii, New York, and Vermont, with the Hawaii case most closely mirroring the Michigan suit. Read the Michigan district court’s opinion and order here.

DOJ, DOT sue California to invalidate tailpipe standards, ZEV mandate. On March 12, the US Departments of Justice and Transportation filed suit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California, asking the court to determine that California’s regulations related to CO₂ tailpipe emissions for passenger and light-duty vehicles and the state’s zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales mandate are pre-empted by the Constitution and federal law and therefore “unlawful and unenforceable.” The complaint also asks the court to permanently bar California from adopting or enforcing new regulations in these areas. This litigation is in the earliest stages. See the complaint in USA v. California Air Resources Board.

EU General Court asked to review addition of maritime, aviation fossil fuel activities to the EU Taxonomy. A coalition of legal and environmental nonprofits has asked the EU’s General Court to order the European Commission to review its inclusion of certain maritime and aviation activities in the EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities. The Taxonomy Regulation is one of the foundational laws of the EU’s Green Deal, created to identify environmentally sustainable activities. Its Technical Screening Criteria serve as a mechanism to help companies and investors make sustainable investment choices. In 2023, the Commission added certain maritime shipping and aviation fossil fuel activities to the Taxonomy – for example, the Taxonomy allows the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in shipping, deeming it a “transitional fuel.” In 2024, the coalition formally requested that the Commission conduct an internal review of those criteria. The Commission refused. In August that year, the coalition filed its lawsuit in the EU’s General Court. Oral arguments were heard in the case in late February this year in Luxembourg. Should the NGOs prevail, the Commission would not be required to change any of the technical standards, but simply to review them, which the NGOs hope will lead to the Commission adopting a new decision that complies with the Court's findings. Of note: This is but one of several lawsuits currently advancing in the EU over activities listed in, or omitted from, the Taxonomy. Another suit, for instance, is challenging the Commission’s exclusion of business aviation from the Taxonomy.

Washington district court stays a climate case. The US District Court for the Western District of Washington has paused a putative class action that seeks to hold several major fossil fuel companies accountable for “a multi-billion dollar increase in the premiums ordinary homeowners are being forced to pay.” The plaintiffs, two Washington state homeowners, are alleging violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act as well as Washington state fraud, civil conspiracy, and consumer protection laws. “The massive fossil fuel sales driven by the Defendants’ deceptive and unlawful conduct have now resulted in the very same extreme weather events defendants foresaw,” the complaint alleges, “and, in turn, have precipitated a home-owners insurance crisis.” The district court’s March 5 order approving the parties’ stipulation stays the proceedings pending the US Supreme Court’s ruling in the Boulder climate litigation, which similarly alleges that fossil fuel companies “intentionally misled the public” about the environmental impact of their products. The parties’ stipulation noted that the outcome of the Boulder case “could resolve or provide guidance on many of the issues” in the Washington case. Read the original complaint in this case here, and read the court’s order staying the litigation here.

Greenwashing

Australia: Appeal filed in greenwashing case against energy provider. The Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) has announced that it will appeal the Federal Court dismissal of its suit against energy provider Santos. As we reported last month, ACCR challenged the accuracy of the company’s 2040 Net Zero Roadmap, its description of natural gas as a clean fuel, and certain statements it made in investor documents, deeming them deceptive and in violation of Australia’s Corporations Act. The case, according to the ACCR, was the first in the world to contest the veracity of a company’s statements about its pathway to net zero. In February, the Federal Court dismissed the case, concluding that none of the “alleged positive misrepresentations” made by Santos about its present and future emissions would mislead or deceive investors. On March 17, the ACCR filed an appeal. In a press release, ACCR Co-CEO Brynn O’Brien stated, “This case concerns fundamental legal standards that apply to all businesses in Australia responding to climate change, and which are central to the integrity of market disclosures. The legal issues raised in the judgment warrant clarification by an appellate court.”

Supply chain integrity and human rights

America’s Maritime Action Plan. The White House has released America’s Maritime Action Plan (MAP), which implements Executive Order (EO) 14269, “Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance,” and sets out one of the most comprehensive federal initiatives affecting the maritime sector in decades. The MAP’s goal is to revitalize US shipbuilding capacity, enhance national security, and foster economic growth. Among the MAP’s stimulant mechanisms, it aims to create more than 100 innovative Maritime Prosperity Zones, which would incentivize investment in waterfront communities through regulatory relief and tax incentives, extend Capital Construction Fund tax-deferred investment tools to shipyards, encourage public-private partnerships, and provide significant funding for workforce training. The MAP opens by quoting President Donald Trump’s statement that “We will soon revitalize our once-great shipyards with hundreds of billions of dollars in new investments and people coming from all around the world…to build ships in America,” and which goes on to note, “To date, President Trump has secured at least $150 billion of dedicated investment for America’s shipbuilding industry.” For businesses, the MAP has significant implications across multiple areas, such as foreign direct investment and joint ventures for allied shipbuilders entering the US market to develop ports and shipyards; tax planning around the newly established Maritime Prosperity Zones; expanded government contracting activity tied to multi-year procurements, Federal Acquisition Regulation reform and vessel construction management; and international trade considerations involving Section 301, bilateral maritime agreements, and reciprocal trade frameworks.

The MAP highlights new opportunities and potential risks for companies that may support the extensive and complex supply chains for increased shipbuilding and port development activities. The MAP expresses a clear objective to diversify maritime supply chains and increase supply chain resilience, while providing opportunities for new suppliers and encouraging existing suppliers to expand their own supplier bases. With the stated objective to increase American economic and national security, the MAP also may increase scrutiny of relevant supply chain partners and material sources in areas with perceived national and economic security risk.

Also of note is the MAP’s emphasis on deregulation, in particular of environmental restrictions. The deregulatory actions the MAP recommends would, among other actions, roll back the “outdated prescriptive requirements" for LNG bunkering safety and security, eliminate inspection of unmanned non-tank barges on the Great Lakes, and “adjust the EPA’s Engine International Air Pollution Prevention (EIAPP) Certificate requirements.” The MAP also calls for an Arctic Waterways Security Strategy focusing on increased commercial activity in the Arctic waterways and seabed. Read the MAP here.

USTR investigation of 60 countries could lead to levying of tariffs. The Office of the US Trade Representative has announced that it is investigating “the acts, policies, and practices of certain economies” to determine if they have failed to curb imports of goods manufactured with forced labor. Among the 60 economies included in the suite of investigations are Brazil, Canada, China, the EU, Japan, India, Mexico, South Korea, and Turkey. The investigations, announced on March 11, are being conducted under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974. “These investigations will determine whether foreign governments have taken sufficient steps to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor and how the failure to eradicate these abhorrent practices impacts U.S. workers and businesses,” stated US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Section 301 allows the US to levy tariffs on unfair trade practices without further congressional authorization.

Energy and natural resources

DOE announces USD500 million funding opportunity for domestic critical minerals processing, battery manufacturing, and recycling. On March 13, the US Department of Energy (DOE)’s Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation announced a Notice of Funding Opportunity making available up to USD500 million to expand domestic critical minerals and materials processing, battery manufacturing, and recycling. According to DOE, the program is intended to increase US supply chain resilience and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains by up to 15 percent by 2030 for certain critical materials and advanced battery components. Find out more.

Environmental groups challenge OSM’s approval of Bull Mountains coal mine expansion. On March 3, three environmental NGOs brought suit in the US District Court for the District of Montana seeking to overturn the federal government’s 2025 approval of a major expansion of the Bull Mountains coal mine. The mine, also called Signal Peak after its current owner, is already one of the nation’s largest coal mines. The expansion would extend its operational life by up to nine years. The lawsuit alleges that the mine has already “devastated the ecology and ranching community of the Bull Mountain”; that it would “dewater” the area’s already fragile ecosystem; and that the approval, issued by the US Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), was “rushed and reckless,” illegally bypassing the required environmental oversight and public comment period. The approvals were issued pursuant to EO 14156, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” of January 2025. The plaintiffs are also challenging the nature of the energy emergency itself, describing it as “spurious” and having “no basis in reality.” Among the defendants in the suit are Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the OSM, and the Department of the Interior. The three plaintiffs are the Montana Environmental Information Center, Center for Biological Diversity, and WildEarth Guardians, represented by Earthjustice and the Western Environmental Law Center (WCEL). Signal Peak has been the subject of multiple regulatory actions and legal challenges in recent years, including in November 2025 when two other environmental groups, also represented by WCEL, sued the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, alleging that its frequent modifications to plans for the mine, without any public notice, input, or scrutiny, violated the state Constitution. Almost all the coal produced at Signal Peak is exported, primarily to Japan and the Republic of Korea. Read the complaint in Montana Environmental Information Center, Center for Biological Diversity, and WildEarth Guardians v. Burgum here.

US and Chile sign a joint declaration on critical minerals and rare earth elements. On March 12, the US and Chile signed the “Joint Declaration for the Establishment of Consultations on Critical Minerals and Rare Earth Elements,” establishing a framework for bilateral consultations and cooperation on critical minerals and rare earth elements. The Declaration is intended to support efforts to secure reliable supply chains for critical minerals while attracting foreign investment to Chile’s critical minerals sector. Our alert explores this development.

Greece introduces new legislation on carbon capture and storage. Greece has established its first comprehensive legal framework for carbon capture and storage, transposing into law the EU’s 2025 Directive on the geological storage of carbon dioxide. Find out more in our alert.

Sustainability in financial services

CFTC withdraws RFI about climate-related financial risk. On March 18, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a Withdrawal Notice affecting its 2022 Request for Information (RFI) about climate-related financial risk as pertinent to the derivatives markets and underlying commodities markets. According to the Withdrawal Notice, EO 14156, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” revoked an older EO that had authorized the RFI. Speaking to the withdrawal, CFTC Chair Michael S. Selig, the Commission’s sole seated member, stated, "I'm future-proofing the agency by redirecting it towards its core mandate and away from rabbit holes like climate.”

NZAOA issues the fifth edition of the Target-Setting Protocol. The Net-Zero Asset Owners Alliance (NZAOA) has updated its Target-Setting Protocol. The fifth edition of the protocol, issued on March 6, introduces regional flexibility that helps signatories adapt global net-zero targets to local markets. Among the changes in the latest edition is a new category, “transition target,” created to support high emitters that have credible net-zero plans, a quantitative investment target that focuses on funding green transition technologies, and updated key performance indicators to enhance target-setting and stewardship practices. NZAOA states that the update also clarifies methodologies for private assets like infrastructure and real estate, ensuring a consistent approach to sustainable investment across portfolios. Convened by the United Nations Environment Programme’s Finance Initiative, the NZAOA is a signatory-led group of institutional investors committed to individually transitioning their investment portfolios to net-zero GHG emissions by 2050. Its 86 global signatories collectively have USD9.2 trillion in assets under management. Among those signatories are the New York City Employees’ Retirement System and the California Public Employees Retirement System, the largest pension fund in the US. See the NZAOA’s background document on the updated protocol here.

EU ESGR will be in effect soon. As investors increasingly incorporate sustainability considerations into investment decisions, they often look to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings as a source of information about companies’ sustainability practices. The ESG ratings market has grown rapidly and, until recently, has operated largely without comprehensive regulation, resulting in a variety of methodologies and levels of transparency across providers. As writer Sarah Walkley recently observed in ESG News, “There are so many methodological reasons for a low score that a poor rating does not automatically equate to poor performance.” Addressing those concerns, the EU’s Regulation on the Transparency and Integrity of Environmental, Social and Governance Rating Activities (ESGR), which formally regulates ESG ratings providers, goes into effect this summer. The ESGR will require ESG ratings providers that operate in the EU to obtain authorization from the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in order to publish ratings. The regime for obtaining authorization varies, depending on whether the provider is based in or outside of the EU. Such providers will be required to comply with governance and organizational principles that ensure their rating methodologies are rigorous, systematic, independent, continuous, and capable of justification; they will also be required to review and publicly disclose their methodologies, ratings assumptions, and models at least annually. Among other requirements, ratings providers will need to set out separate E, S, and G ratings, rather than a single aggregate metric. (A provider issuing an aggregate ESG rating will be required to disclose how it weights the three ESG factors.) When financial institutions disclose their ESG ratings in their marketing, they must also release information about the methodologies used in those ratings on their public-facing website. There are further consequences for non-compliance: Chiefly, ESMA can impose fines on ESG rating providers or their legal representatives for intentional or negligent breaches, with fines potentially rising to as much as 10 percent of total annual net turnover. The ESGR goes into effect on July 2. See the Regulation here.

UK FCA publishes webpages guiding funds’ use of sustainability labels. The United Kingdom’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) and investment label regime was finalized in November 2023, and asset managers have been able to use labels under the regime since July 31, 2024. In March this year, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published two webpages to help guide firms in the use of sustainability labels under the SDR regime. That regime requires firms to substantiate their sustainability claims, aiming, FCA states, “to reduce greenwashing, help consumers navigate the market and give them information to decide which funds (labelled or non-labelled) meet their needs and preferences.” The page entitled “How to use sustainability labels” sets out the basic criteria for funds with environmental or social goals that seek to use labels or make sustainability claims about their products. This page offers links to downloadable labels for use by in-scope entities. “Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) labels: good and poor practice” speaks to firms in scope of SDR that wish to adopt labels for authorized and unauthorized funds. It examines the use of four types of labels: Sustainability Focus, Sustainability Improvers, Sustainability Impact, and Sustainability Mixed Goals, offering examples of both “good” and “poor” practices for each type of label. For example, a well‑designed Sustainability Focus label would clearly explain the fund’s objectives with specific detail, whereas a poorly worded label would rely on vague, unsubstantiated claims, such as “create value for society.” The webpage also reminds its audience that, “under the anti-greenwashing rule, firms must make sure that any references to sustainability characteristics in disclosures are consistent with the sustainability characteristics of the product.”

Calendar

Key global reporting deadlines

^{This calendar highlights coming reporting deadlines in key jurisdictions and is not a comprehensive summary of global sustainability regulations. Our Sustainability team’s interactive Global Sustainability Regulatory Dashboard provides our clients with an in-depth, comprehensive analysis of global sustainability regulations pertinent to their business. For more information about the Global Sustainability Regulatory Dashboard, please contact us via DLAPiperCorporateDataAnalytics@us.dlapiper.com.}

Coming events

• SF Climate Week takes place from April 18 to 26, 2026 in San Francisco.
• DC Climate Week takes place from April 20-26, 2026 in Washington, DC.
• London Climate Action Week takes place June 20 to 28, 2026 in London.
• Climate Week NYC takes place September 20 to 27, 2026 in New York City.
• The 2026 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP31) will be held in November 2026 in Antalya, hosted by Turkey, with Australia serving as President of Negotiations.
• The 2026 United Nations Water Conference will take place December 2 to 4, 2026 in the United Arab Emirates.

For professional responsibility reasons, these summaries may not include discussions of developments relating to certain matters.