Horizon – News and Trends in Sustainability Law

Deadline alert

US: Oregon. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) pause on enforcement of the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) for producers who are not members of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) expired on August 31.

US: California. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has postponed the deadline for reporting Scope 1 and Scope 2 disclosures under SB 253, the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions-disclosure law, from August 10 to November 10.

Disclosures and voluntary reporting

CARB issues new guidance, voluntary intake platform for SB 253 reporting in 2026. To help businesses that they prepare to submit their 2026 Scope 1 and Scope2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reports, on September 1 the California Air Resource Board (CARB) opened its new voluntary report intake platform, along with new guidance for reporting under SB 253 in the 2026 cycle. As noted in our Deadline Alert section, CARB recently postponed the deadline for reporting Scope 1 and Scope 2 disclosures under SB 253 to November 10 while the agency considers revisions to the implementing regulations. CARB developed the intake platform “to help streamline fee implementation and first-year reporting in 2026,” but its use this year is strictly voluntary. Other key points from the guidance include:

• Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions reporting for the prior fiscal year (2025) may be based on information reporting entities already possessed or were collecting as of December 5, 2024. Entities that were not collecting or planning to collect such information at that time may instead submit a statement to that effect on company letterhead.
  
  
• Reports may be submitted to either the voluntary report intake platform or emailed to climatedisclosure@arb.ca.gov, although CARB encourages use of the platform as “an efficient way to submit reports, and to provide billing information for fee invoicing.”
  
  
• Like the intake platform, use of the CARB’s Draft Scope 1 & 2 GHG Reporting Template for 2026 reporting is voluntary, and reporting entities may choose from among several acceptable formats, including an existing annual report.
  
  
• As had been previously announced, CARB will not enforce the requirement to obtain limited assurance for the 2026 reporting cycle.

Meanwhile, CARB continues to engage in rulemaking to clarify requirements for the 2026 reporting cycle and to establish requirements for 2027 and subsequent cycles.

In letter to EU, US government says it will take any actions necessary to shield US businesses from CSDDD and CSRD. The United States federal government is calling on the European Union to address its concerns about the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). The concerns are outlined in a comment letter sent this month by the US Mission to the EU. That letter states that recent reforms to the two directives “failed to fully address U.S. concerns” and that “the directives’ extraterritorial reach and costly and onerous supply chain due diligence obligations will adversely impact the ability of U.S. businesses to compete on a level playing field in the EU market.” The letter particularly points to the directives’ use of impact-based materiality reporting and a “double materiality” standard, which, it states, “would significantly expand the reporting burden for non-EU companies with minimal links to the EU market.” Among other things, the US government is asking the EU and its member states to “significantly limit CSDDD and CSRD reporting and due diligence requirements on U.S. businesses, and limit enforcement actions against U.S. businesses”; “prohibit the levying of any penalty on a U.S. business, or an EU subsidiary of a U.S. business, that is based on revenue derived from activities outside the EU”; and “prohibit private rights of action that are not premised on an official sector supervisory enforcement finding” to stave off what the letter describes as a coming “wave of civil litigation in Member State courts when the CSDDD comes into effect.” Should the EU not comply, the comment letter states, “The United States will take any actions necessary to address unreasonable burdens on U.S. commerce absent a solution that addresses these concerns.” The letter concludes with a statement that it has been “provided without prejudice to any additional comments the United States may submit to the EU regarding CSDDD, CSRD, or any future revisions to the directive or other measures.” See the text of the letter here, and also see our coverage in this issue of a recently proposed bill regarding the “burdensome mandatory obligations” of EU sustainability regimes.

NAIC conducts TCFD-aligned Climate Disclosure Risk Survey; Illinois Department of Insurance requires disclosures from large Illinois-licensed insurers for first time. As in prior years, August 31 was the deadline for insurers to submit responses to the 2025 Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD)-aligned National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Climate Disclosure Risk Survey. Pursuant to a new Illinois law enacted June 26, insurance companies licensed in the state of Illinois and that collected direct written premium amounts of more than USD100 million nationwide in 2025 were required to submit responses. In 2024, companies representing more than 86 percent of the US insurance market responded to the survey, which is conducted by a coalition of 30 jurisdictions. As in past years, responses for the current and prior years are available to the public and can be found on the California Department of Insurance’s website. More information about the survey, including instructions on responding, can be found in this June 29, 2026 Company Bulletin from the Illinois Department of Insurance and in this July 7, 2026 Notice to Insurers from the California Department of Insurance.

Australia proposes easing corporate climate reporting requirements. On August 23, Australia’s Treasury department launched a consultation on new proposed rules to “improve the efficiency of climate-related financial disclosures.” Primarily, the proposed rules seek to 1) adjust rules related to assurance standards to reduce compliance costs, 2) provide clearer guidance to companies, and 3) set clearer boundaries on value-chain information requests. As we reported in May, Australia’s 2026 federal budget proposed amendments scaling back the mandatory sustainability reporting regime by, among other proposals, reducing the number of entities required to report in Group 3 by increasing the revenue threshold to be considered a large proprietary company from AUD50 million to AUD100 million, and gross assets from AUD25 million to AUD50 million. These amendments are subject to consultation, legislative drafting, and parliamentary approval, and the most recent consultation does not address the proposed revenue threshold change. The consultation period closes October 2, 2026. Learn more in our alert.

New Zealand: External Reporting Board releases staff guidance on anticipated financial impacts of climate risks. New Zealand’s External Reporting Board (XRB) has released draft staff guidance on quantifying the anticipated financial impacts of climate-related risks and opportunities. The XRB is seeking feedback from stakeholders on the draft guidance’s usefulness, clarity, and practical application. A final version is expected to be published before the end of 2026. The draft guidance can be accessed here.

ISO and GHGP to combine carbon accounting standards. Two key reporting organizations, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP), are combining their corporate carbon accounting standards into a single, co-branded global standard. The move, arising from the strategic partnership between the two entities announced in September 2025, will consolidate ISO’s 14064-1 standard and GHGP’s Scope 1, Scope 2, Scope 3, and Actions and Market Instruments (AMI) standards – reportedly the most widely used carbon accounting standards in the world – to promote efficient reporting and private investment that accelerates global decarbonization. In addition, GHGP reports that it will soon release the results of its public consultation on the Scope 2 standard, as well as early feedback arising from its request for information on the development of the Actions and Market Instruments standard.

Extended producer responsibility

Court finds for Oregon in NAW v. Feldon. On August 27, the US District Court for the District of Oregon (DCDO) issued its highly anticipated ruling in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) v. Feldon, finding that the state’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) does not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs in this case sought to halt implementation of the RMA and invalidate its implementing regulations. The decision is likely to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit. That said, it is the first merits decision on a packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) law in the US, and regulators will likely cite the decision with approval as they defend similar laws in other pending lawsuits, such as Lollicup v. Feldon, also in the DCDO, NAW v. Ryan in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, and Nebraska et al. v. Heller in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California. Be on the lookout for our coming alert exploring the regulatory implications of NAW v. Feldon.

Court blocks enforcement of CA SB 343, Truth in Recycling law. The US District Court for the Southern District of California has issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of California SB 343, the Truth in Recycling Act. SB 343 establishes criteria for recyclability claims, including the “chasing arrows” symbol, on products and packaging. To address widespread inconsistencies around recyclability claims, it imposes strict requirements on what qualifies as recyclable, prohibiting claims that do not satisfy that definition. The plaintiffs in California League of Food Producers, et al. v. Rob Bonta allege that SB 343 unduly burdens businesses and illegally restricts commercial speech, and that it is impermissibly vague in violation of the US Constitution’s Due Process Clause. The court found that those constitutionality arguments are likely to succeed, finding that certain of the recyclability criteria are likely unconstitutionally vague and exceed the permissible scope of constitutional restrictions on speech. The court also concluded that these provisions may be severable from the remainder of the statute, meaning that, even if the plaintiffs ultimately succeed in their claims, the larger statute could survive. At present, the law’s October 4 compliance deadline is on hold pending the outcome of the litigation.

Washington State Department of Ecology: Updates on implementation of recycling reform. On August 5, the Washington State Department of Ecology held the second of five rulemaking committee meetings for WAC 173-950, the rule implementing the Recycling Reform Act (RCW 70A.208). Ecology presented draft language on producer responsibility organization (PRO) duties, coordinating body requirements, and the Reuse Financial Assistance Program, as well as revisited redrafted content on producer duties and individual producer plans. The presentation drew extensive stakeholder feedback on records retention periods, document-production timelines, reporting metrics, and equitable cost allocation. Industry representatives broadly urged harmonization with requirements already adopted in Oregon, Colorado, and other EPR states. Public comments are due September 2, via Ecology’s online portal. The next committee meeting is planned for December, with a target rule proposal date of April 2028.

No bids submitted for Maine EPR RFP. Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has received no bids on its request for proposals for a Stewardship Organization (SO) to manage its EPR packaging program. The Circular Action Alliance, which manages six of the seven existing US state-level EPR programs, chose not to participate, issuing a public statement that the RFP as scoped does not align with its “operational practices, systems and data stewardship standards or the delivery of the consistent producer experience that is central to [CAA’s] strategic operating principles.” Maine was the first US state to enact a broad EPR law for packaging, and that law differs structurally from subsequent ones. For instance, fees from producers directly reimburse municipalities for taxpayers’ waste management and recycling costs, the program is restricted to consumer-facing packaging, and the program does not include an advisory council or advisory board. DEP’s deadline for submissions was August 18. At this writing, the agency is reportedly working to determine its next steps. See some of our earlier coverage of the Maine program here.

Truth in Labeling Act would address recycling terms on packaging. HR 10048/S 5302, the Truth in Labeling Act of 2026, introduced in both houses of Congress on August 7, would create national standards for labeling of covered materials as recyclable, compostable, reusable, and refillable. The bill’s sponsors, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Representative Lou Correa (D-CA), state that the purpose of the bill is to address the “increasing confusion about the ‘chasing arrows’ on consumer products and outdated federal guidance on environmental marketing claims.” To achieve this, the measure would establish definitions for the terms “recyclable,” “compostable,” “reusable,” and “refillable,” and would ask manufacturers to add a voluntary label to goods that are in scope of the bill – food-service products, packaging, and beverage containers. That label, the bill states, would give both producers and consumers “clarity in how to recycle, compost, reuse, or refill labeled products.” The bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Trade Commission to jointly establish an advisory committee that would assist in developing technical guidelines and standardized on-package labels and that would help to update the standards as technologies evolve. The legislation explicitly would not pre-empt state laws.

New Jersey’s Skip the Stuff Act is in effect. New Jersey S 3195, the Skip the Stuff Act, came into effect on August 1. Under S 3195, restaurants in the state are barred from automatically including plastic utensils and straws, as well as napkins and condiment packets, in takeout orders. Those items may still be provided if customers request them. Food-delivery apps may offer a check-the-box option for customers to request these items with their orders. In addition, full-service restaurants with ten or more seats must now provide dine-in customers with reusable, washable utensils. Restaurants classified as casual dining establishments may provide single-use utensils or condiments only to customers who expressly ask for them. Exempt from S 3195’s rules are K-12 schools, food-court vendors, licensed healthcare facilities, and prisons. For businesses that fail to comply, a first violation would result in a simple warning; a second violation could mean a USD1,000 fine; and third and subsequent violations would incur USD2,500 fines.

European Commission consults on producer registration rules under the PPWR. On August 6, the European Commission launched a consultation on draft implementing rules for national producer registers under the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR). The initiative aims to harmonize producer registration requirements and information collection across member states for EPR obligations under the PPWR. Such harmonization is intended to reduce administrative burdens for businesses operating in multiple member states by introducing common registration data fields and reporting data requirements for producers under the PPWR. The Commission is accepting feedback on the draft rules through September 10. On August 14, the Commission published a separate consultation on methodological rules to ensure plastics collected or recycled outside the EU are assessed, verified, and certified to standards equivalent to the EU's system for recycled packaging materials. The Commission plans to introduce two implementing acts and one delegated act on the calculation and verification of plastic recycled content, on sustainability criteria for recycling technologies, and to establish the conditions for importing plastic recyclates or articles with incorporated plastic recycled content from third (i.e., non-EU) countries. The PPWR sets out minimum recycled-content targets for plastic packaging to support circularity, reduce the use of primary raw materials, and create demand for high-quality recycled plastics. However, without harmonized rules, operators and authorities could apply different calculation methods, evidence requirements, and verification practices for recycled content. By creating harmonized rules and certification requirements, the Commission aims to support a level playing field for businesses, increase confidence in recycled-content claims, promote high-quality recycling, and ensure that imported recycled plastics meet environmental, health, and resource-efficiency standards comparable to those applied within the EU. The Commission is accepting feedback on the initiative through September 16 and is expected to adopt the rules in Q4 2026.

Philippines opens test phase of National EPR Portal. Furthering implementation of RA 11898, the Extended Producer Responsibility Act, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources of the Philippines, in partnership with the UN Development Programme, has launched a test of its updated National EPR Portal. The portal will assist in monitoring companies’ plastic recovery and diversion performance, aiming to streamline registration, tracking, and other requirements for obliged enterprises (i.e., those with total assets above P100 million). The pilot portal will remain open through September 30. During that initial phase, obliged enterprises are invited to test the current version of the portal and provide their feedback. The Philippines enacted RA 11898 in 2022, setting timelines for obliged enterprises to divert affected plastics from the environment. In June this year, the World Bank issued a report, Plastic Policy Development in the Philippines: Insights from Key Stakeholders Across the Plastic Value Chain, which urged Filipino policymakers to focus first on operational practicalities, such as expanding the waste-management infrastructure, before enacting more stringent regulations on single-use plastic products.

Transportation compliance across the battery lifecycle: Key considerations. As high-voltage batteries move through increasingly complex lifecycle stages, including use, replacement, return, recall, and end-of-life management, determining whether and how batteries can be transported safely and lawfully becomes a central operational question. Battery transportation imposes both regulatory obligations and practical constraints. This alert summarizes key transportation compliance considerations for companies throughout the battery lifecycle, examining how transportation requirements can shape product design, distribution, returns, recalls, recycling, and other lifecycle activities long before a shipment occurs.

Find out more about EPR. Visit DLA Piper’s Extended Producer Responsibility Hub to learn more about the firm’s work assisting businesses with their EPR obligations up and down the supply chain.

Sustainability: Regulatory

Bill would require USTR to investigate “burdensome mandatory obligations” of EU sustainability regimes. A bill introduced in the US House of Representatives would require the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) to open a Section 301 review of certain EU sustainability legislation to determine whether they constitute unreasonable or discriminatory trade practices that burden US commerce. HR 9892, the Stop EU Overreach Act, was introduced by Representatives Jodey Arrington (R-TX), Greg Steube (R-FL), and Craig Goldman (R-TX) on July 24. The bill would require the USTR, within 30 days of the bill’s enactment, to begin investigating the impact of CSDDD, CSRD, the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) on US commerce. Those regimes, the bill states, “impose burdensome mandatory obligations on large companies operating in or deriving significant revenue from the European Union.” Their extraterritorial reach “conflicts with core principles of United States law, including limited liability doctrines, State corporate fiduciary duties, Federal securities requirements, and domestic energy and environmental policy frameworks.” Following the Section 301 review, the USTR would be required to identify appropriate remedies to any identified burdens, such as customs duties or the suspension of trade agreement benefits, and to report its findings to committees in the House and Senate. Carried out by the USTR under the Trade Act of 1974, a Section 301 investigation seeks to determine whether a foreign government's acts, policies, or practices are unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory, or violate a trade agreement. HR 9892 is a companion bill to another measure, SB 985, the Protect USA Act, which, its text states, would “prohibit entities integral to the national interests of the United States from participating in any foreign sustainability due diligence regulation, including the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive of the European Union.” Both bills are in their earliest legislative stages.

EU: Amended CO2 biocidal products rules are now in effect. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/447, amending the EU Biocidal Products Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 in relation to the active substance CO2, is now in effect. The Regulation replaces the previous restriction, which limited CO2 to use in ready-to-use gas canisters functioning with trapping devices, instead introducing exposure-based conditions for product authorization. Under the revised framework, biocidal products containing CO2 may be authorized provided specified exposure limits for professional users, the public, and bystanders are met. According to the Commission, the change is intended to enable broader authorization of CO2 -based biocidal products while maintaining appropriate safeguards through the product authorization process. The regulation applies directly in all EU member states.

Third reading passed: New Zealand to bar climate change tort liability claims. New Zealand's Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill passed its third reading on August 18 by a vote of 67 to 53. Once the bill receives Royal Assent, New Zealand will have a statutory bar preventing courts from imposing tort liability for "emissions-related climate change effects." The changes will apply to both future and existing proceedings, including Smith v. Fonterra, the landmark climate change tort litigation alleging negligence, public nuisance, and breach of a novel climate change duty against the six largest emitters in New Zealand. A separate case, Smith v. Attorney-General, which argues that successive governments have failed to take adequate action on climate change and therefore breached their duty of care to protect New Zealand citizens, is unaffected by the statutory bar. See our earlier coverage of this legislation and Smith v. Fonterra here.

Australia: NSW government issues Pillar 2 of Data Centre Policy Framework. On August 17, the New South Wales (NSW) government announced the second pillar of its NSW Data Centre Policy Framework, a new, mandatory framework addressing the energy, water, and environmental impacts of data center projects. The state’s Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water released a consultation paper, Reforming electricity network connection and cost recovery arrangements for data centres in NSW, proposing sweeping reforms as to how data centers connect to the electricity grid and how the costs of network infrastructure are allocated. Alongside the consultation paper, the NSW government introduced the Electricity Infrastructure Investment Amendment Bill 2026 as the mechanism for these reforms. The stated aim of the Pillar 2 reforms is to ensure equitable cost recovery for energy infrastructure. The reforms include the introduction of new financial obligations for data center proponents to fund network upgrades and the infrastructure needed to support them. These Pillar 2 reforms follow the earlier release of the NSW Data Centre Guidelines, the Pillar 1 component of the framework. Those guidelines set out the principles which now inform all planning applications for data center projects in NSW, including the application of environmental and efficiency standards, requirements that proponents fund all additional water and energy supply costs, and a principle of no net cost to consumers or communities. Submissions on the Pillar 2 consultation paper close on September 14.

Regulatory compliance and environmental risk after a wildfire. When a wildfire affects a company’s US facilities, operations, or properties, regulatory obligations could arise before the smoke clears. Companies affected by wildfire in the US often face overlapping obligations under several key federal laws, frequently on compressed timelines and under heightened agency scrutiny. Wildfire impacts may also create broader business continuity, operational, governance, and litigation considerations that develop alongside environmental compliance obligations, calling for coordinated response planning across functions. We outline key exposure points for companies operating in the US as they navigate the post-wildfire landscape in this alert.

Sustainability: Litigation

District court strikes down New York Climate Change Superfund Act. On August 31, the US District Court for the Northern District of New York issued its decision in West Virginia et al v. Letitia James, finding that the law violates the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) as well as the Constitution’s Federal Affairs Doctrine. The central question the court answered was whether federal law preempts state-level laws that address the effects of climate change. Calling the New York law an “unusual and sweeping statute,” the court found that the CAA does not authorize states to adopt their own emissions compensation programs: “It is precisely because the Climate Act operates within an area of law ‘in which the federal interest is so dominant’ that it cannot be enforced,” the decision states. The plaintiffs in the case are a coalition of Republican-led states and business groups. At this writing, it is uncertain whether the state will appeal the decision. The ruling may have significant implications for United States of America et al. v. Vermont et al., a similar challenge pending against Vermont’s climate superfund law. You can read some of our earlier coverage of this case here and read the decision in this case here.

Supreme Court schedules oral arguments in Boulder litigation. The US Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County for October 5 – the first case it will hear in its 2026 term. As we previously reported, this case was originally brought under Colorado consumer protection and environmental statutes by the county commissioners of Boulder County and the City of Boulder. They charge that two energy companies intentionally misled the public for years about the environmental impact of their products. In May last year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the case, originally filed in 2018, is not pre-empted by federal law and may proceed in state court. In August 2025, the defendants asked the US Supreme Court to review that decision; in February 2026, the Court granted certiorari. When doing so, it instructed the litigants to address the plaintiffs’ contention that the Court does not have the power under federal law to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling because the overall case has not yet been decided.

In one of the latest developments in this case, the municipal plaintiffs filed a brief on July 27 expanding on their argument. The brief states that the petitioner energy companies’ federal pre-emption argument “invites a standardless judicial invasion of states’ traditional authority to protect their citizens from in-state harms.” Among the historical cases cited by the plaintiffs is the Court’s 1945 ruling in Radio Station WOW, in which the Court explained how to resolve “any doubts” about whether petitioners have satisfied their burden of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction. “Here,” the municipal plaintiffs stated, “there are nothing but doubts and no reason to think federal intervention is required at this early stage.”

A decision in the Boulder litigation is expected by January 2027.

SEC tells court it is advancing its proposal to rescind the climate rules. In a status report filed on August 31 with the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) stated that it is proceeding with a proposal to rescind the climate-related disclosure rules. Those rules, originally proposed in 2022, were challenged in 2024; those challenges were ultimately consolidated into Iowa v. SEC. Last year, as part of that litigation, the SEC stated it would end its defense of the rules and asked the court to rule on their legality. The court declined, instead suspending the litigation until the SEC decided whether to resume its defense or withdraw, repeal, or amend the rules. On May 8 this year, the SEC told the court that it did not intend to defend the original rules and that it was planning to reconsider them through the notice-and-comment process. That notice-and-comment period has closed, and SEC staff are currently reviewing the nearly 19,100 comments. Notable among them is a letter from a coalition of 21 State Attorneys General arguing the proposed rescission is arbitrary, capricious, and illegal. See the SEC’s status report here.

District court issues preliminary injunction ordering Pentagon to lift freeze on wind project reviews. On August 6, the US District Court for the District of Oregon issued a preliminary injunction ordering the US Department of Defense (DOD) to lift its freeze on reviews of new wind power projects in the US. In Renewable Northwest v. Hegseth, the plaintiffs, a coalition of renewable energy trade groups and environmental nonprofits, are arguing that the Trump Administration has unlawfully halted formerly routine military reviews of new US wind projects. The litigation concerns a key part of the review and approval process for new wind power projects, in which developers apply for clearance from the Federal Aviation Administration, the regulator of the national airspace. As part of that process, FAA then refers each application to the Department of Defense, which determines whether a project could interfere with military operations, such as air bases or military radar. Congress established the timelines and statutory deadlines for this process in 2011. In August 2025, DOD review activity began declining, and by May 2026 no new determinations were being issued. The coalition’s lawsuit was filed on May 31. On August 6, the court found that the freeze, which began in April, violated congressionally determined deadlines and that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits of their arguments. The court ordered DOD to immediately restart reviews of a broad range of wind power projects nationwide. The court also ordered DOD to follow congressionally mandated deadlines and to file status reports with the court every 30 days to ensure DOD complies. The injunction applies to all pending wind energy applications. Reportedly, more than 125 wind power projects in 21 states, representing about USD47 billion in investments, have been affected by the freeze.

Appeals court revives Colorado environmental groups’ suit against Suncor. Reversing a ruling by a lower court, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has ruled that environmental groups may sue Suncor Energy Inc. for repeated, ongoing violations of a 2006 consent decree under the Clean Air Act. The US District Court for the District of Colorado had found that the decree and settlement between the EPA and Suncor qualified as government enforcement and that the three plaintiffs – GreenLatinos, 350 Colorado, and the Sierra Club – therefore did not have standing to sue. The appeals court, however, concluded that the district court had erred. It rejected Suncor’s arguments in the case, saying of them that “none persuade.” The decision further contains advice for the parties to the suit to more finely hone their arguments. It states, “We suspect that on remand, the district court will benefit from the parties more precisely identifying the exact standard or limitation – by regulatory text, if possible – that is at issue in the environmental organizations’ suit.” The decision concludes, “On remand, the district court should hold the appropriate party to the burden of identifying, with precision, those claims in the citizen suit that are the same as the standards and limitations in the consent decree.” GreenLatinos v. Suncor now returns to the district court.

EPA cannot lawfully reclaim green bank climate grants, appeals court rules. Upholding a lower court injunction, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the EPA’s 2025 decision to terminate USD20 billion in Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants was improper. It further found that the intended recipients, three green banks, should be given immediate access to the funds. Those funds were initially frozen by EPA in March 2025. In April 2025, noting that the EPA had never provided any proof for its repeated claims that the green banks – Climate United Fund, the Coalition for Green Capital, and Power Forward Communities – had engaged in fraud, the US District Court for the District of Columbia (DCDC) issued a preliminary injunction barring the EPA from “unlawfully suspending or terminating” the grants and ordering that the funds be disbursed. In September 2025, however, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit allowed the funds to remain frozen. The plaintiffs then petitioned the court for a rehearing. The August 4 ruling reversed the appeals court’s own decision and restored the order issued last year by the DCDC. Thereafter, the three green banks and EPA agreed to maintain the funding freeze while the issue is appealed to the US Supreme Court. In July, the same appeals court remanded a similar case, Appalachian Voices et al v. EPA, to a lower court – this one a challenge to EPA’s attempt to claw back USD3 billion in block grants to environmental nonprofits. In sending that case back to the lower court, the panel found that EPA had likely contravened a mandatory funding provision in the Inflation Reduction Act.

Greenwashing

EU Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive to apply from September 27. The EU's Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT) Directive will apply across member states starting September 27. Directive (EU) 2024/825 amends the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and Consumer Rights Directive to strengthen consumer protection against greenwashing, misleading sustainability claims, and practices linked to premature product obsolescence. The directive seeks to improve the quality and reliability of sustainability information provided to consumers by addressing greenwashing, misleading sustainability labels, and practices linked to premature product obsolescence. It aims to ensure consumers receive clear, relevant, and reliable information on the environmental performance, durability, and reparability of products. Key compliance changes include a ban on generic environmental claims, such as "green" or "eco-friendly," unless they can be substantiated. Recognized excellent environmental performance can be demonstrated by compliance with Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 or with officially recognized EN ISO 14024 ecolabeling schemes in the member states. The directive also prohibits environmental claims that rely solely on carbon offsetting to suggest a product has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact on the environment in terms of GHG emissions. Businesses will need to review sustainability marketing, product labels, and consumer-facing communications to ensure environmental claims are specific, evidence-based, and compliant with the new rules. Manufacturers and retailers may also need to update how they communicate product durability, repairability, and guarantee rights to consumers. The European Commission has published updated Q&As to support application of the new rules. While the directive establishes harmonized EU-wide requirements, transposition and implementation remain uneven across member states. In May 2026, the European Commission opened infringement proceedings against 20 member states for failing to communicate complete transposition measures. Eleven of the 20 member states named in the May 2026 infringement proceedings now have one or more national transposition measures recorded on EUR-Lex.

Berry grower faces greenwashing charges in DC Superior Court. A putative class action filed this month against Driscolls Inc., the world’s largest producer of berries, alleges that the company’s marketing claims about its agricultural practices violate Washington, DC consumer protection laws. The complaint, filed on August 14 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, states that the company markets its fruits as “grown in a dynamic biological environment in harmony with the environment” and that “it is committed to sustainability.” However, the complaint says, “Driscoll’s berries are grown using environmentally harmful methods involving unsustainable water use and enormous amounts of plastic, little of which is recycled.” In addition, the complaint reports, a recent independent study found the presence of persistent synthetic chemicals on Driscoll’s strawberries. The complaint continues, “Driscoll’s environmental stewardship and sustainability representations and misleading partial disclosures are material to consumers’ purchasing decisions and contribute to the premium reputation and value associated with the Driscoll’s brand.” The plaintiffs, three environmental nonprofits led by the Washington, DC-based Beyond Pesticides, allege violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CCPA). They are calling for a declaration from the court that Driscoll’s marketing violates the CPPA and an order enjoining Driscoll’s violative conduct. This case is in the earliest stages. Driscoll’s is already facing two other lawsuits in California related to environmental issues, one a putative class action brought in July in the US District Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations of California’s false advertising and unfair competition laws as well as the state’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and another a whistleblower action brought by a former Driscoll’s employee in Ventura County Superior Court that alleges the company forced him to resign after he disclosed to his superiors that the company was selling produce in violation of state and federal pesticide laws as well as Canadian food safety regulations.

Rural lifestyle retailer enters into settlement with State of California over charges including greenwashing and illegal pesticide sales. Tractor Supply West LLC has entered into a settlement agreement with the state of California over charges brought by the district attorneys of five California counties that the rural lifestyle retailer 1) sold products labeled as “biodegradable” in violation of state greenwashing laws, 2) illegally sold unlicensed pesticides, and 3) unlawfully charged prices higher than the lowest advertised price. Claims of biodegradability are generally prohibited under California law, with certain narrow exceptions. Under the settlement agreement in Sonoma County Superior Court, the company will pay more than USD5.1 million in civil penalties, restitution, and costs, split among the five California counties that brought the suit; will pay another USD500,000 to local quantity control regulators; and will reimburse consumer costs totaling USD73,283. The company is also required to put in place a “greenwashing program, including quarterly review to determine whether products sold on its website which can be shipped to California comply with Public Resources Code S 42357(b),” and to initiate and maintain a pesticide licensing verification program. Those programs affect every Tractor Supply store in California, including every future store, and must remain in place for five years from the date of the judgment’s entry.

Australia: New South Wales court fines investment firm for misleading statements about an ESG fund’s credentials. The Supreme Court of New South Wales has ruled that Fiducian Investment Management Services Limited (FIMS) breached its duty to act with care and diligence in the management of its Diversified Social Aspirations Fund and that it made misleading statements about the fund’s environmental, social, and governance (ESG) credentials. The Court imposed an AUD7.3 million fine on the firm. During trial, the Court heard evidence that, despite disclosure documents stating that the fund would avoid harmful activities and invest in companies with positive social and environmental outcomes, between 2019 and 2024 the fund held investments in companies generating revenue from fossil fuels. The Court found that FIMS lacked reasonable grounds for its ESG claims about the fund and failed to adequately monitor the fund's underlying investments. This is the fourth civil penalty outcome in a greenwashing case brought by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) and the first it has brought against a managed fund operator for failures in governance, compliance, and oversight of ESG claims. It is also the first greenwashing-related civil penalty involving a responsible entity's duty of care and diligence under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Study: What do sustainability disclosures disclose? A study of thousands of sustainability disclosure documents issued by more than 2,100 Russell 3000 firms concludes that, in the absence of settled benchmarks, corporate sustainability disclosures have largely become vaguer and, in the study’s words, “fluffier” over time. What Sustainability Disclosures Disclose, written by researchers at the University of Chicago Law School, used large language models to evaluate disclosure parameters in more than 15,000 corporate sustainability documents filed between 1998 and 2023. Among the researchers’ findings: Firms often adopt and continue to use multiple voluntary reporting frameworks, a practice the researchers found is associated with less specific, less quantitative, and less verifiable reporting. By contrast, firms with the longest reporting histories tend to “produce more concrete reports (more specific and quantitative, with more tables and less fluff).” Finally, the report states, “The results underscore the potential importance of the rules vs. standards dichotomy in sustainability reporting” – that is, it advises policymakers to advance mandatory disclosures that are uniform and substantive.

Supply chain integrity and human rights

Lawsuit alleges chocolate maker knowingly allows child labor in the cocoa supply chain. A lawsuit filed against chocolate maker Lindt & Sprüngli alleges that, despite its public sustainability commitments, the chocolate maker knowingly allows the widespread use of child labor in its cocoa-growing operations in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. In June, Lindt announced the latest of its environmental and social commitments, which it describes as “a major milestone on its sustainability journey: from this year onwards, 100% of its cocoa is sourced as Rainforest Alliance Certified.” In International Rights Advocates v. Lindt & Sprungli, International Rights Advocates alleges that Lindt’s marketing statements about its environmental and human rights commitments are false. “In reality,” the complaint states, “Lindt continues to profit from child labor while doing little to prevent it.” International Rights Advocates is not seeking monetary compensation; rather, it is asking the court to assess conditions within the company’s supply chains, assess whether the company is accurately communicating the effectiveness of its sustainability programs, and end the company’s “unlawful conduct directed at D.C. consumers.” In late July, the case was removed to the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Reporting on the litigation, Africa Sustainability Matters observed, “For Africa, the case highlights the continuing tension between sustainability commitments made by global consumer brands and the structural economic realities confronting millions of smallholder cocoa farmers whose livelihoods depend on one of the continent’s most valuable agricultural exports.” Of note: While the Rainforest Alliance prohibits child labor on the farms it certifies, it does not decertify those that may violate this ban. Instead, it requires certified entities to assess, mitigate, and remediate violations. Cocoa is one of West Africa’s most significant exports – Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana produce about 60 percent of the world’s cocoa crop. See the original complaint in the case here.

Forty-three Chinese entities added to UFLPA Entity List. The US Department of Homeland Security, acting on behalf of the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF), has added 43 Chinese companies to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List over allegations of human rights abuses in China's Xinjiang region. New to the list are manufacturers whose products – aluminum, apparel, copper, cotton, lithium, snack foods, pharmaceuticals, potash, and transmission equipment – include components sourced from Xinjiang. The UFLPA, enacted in 2021 and coming into effect in 2022, creates a rebuttable presumption that goods manufactured wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Region of China, or by certain designated entities, were made with forced labor and are therefore prohibited from entering the US. The action increases the size of the Entity List by 30 percent, bringing the total number of its sanctioned companies to 187.

China sanctions RBA, Verité, and other US entities involved in supply chain compliance activities. On August 5, China's Ministry of Commerce issued Order No. 2 of 2026, placing six US entities, including Responsible Business Alliance (RBA) and Verité Group, Inc., on China's countermeasures list pursuant to the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law. The measures prohibit organizations and individuals within China from engaging in transactions, cooperation, and other related activities with the listed entities. According to the Ministry of Commerce, the entities were designated for assisting or supporting US sanctions measures relating to Xinjiang. See the order here.

Lawsuit states that latest tariffs were unlawfully imposed under guise of combatting forced labor. A lawsuit filed by 25 US states on August 3 in the US Court of International Trade alleges that the latest round of tariffs announced by the Trump Administration has been unlawfully imposed “under the guise of combatting forced labor in global trade.” In February, the US Supreme Court invalidated earlier tariffs that President Donald Trump had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ruling that IEEPA did not give the President authority to impose tariffs. The latest tariffs affect approximately 99.4 percent of US imports from 59 countries and the EU. They were imposed earlier this summer under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits the President to sanction countries found to engage in unfair trade practices. The complaint in Oregon v. Trump states that the newly imposed tariffs do not meet Section 301 requirements. The plaintiffs are asking the court to, among other things, declare that the tariff action and actions to effectuate it are unlawful and award them refunds for any tariffs paid. See the complaint here.

Australia: NSW parliamentary report finds extensive modern slavery across the state. A report issued this month by the Parliament of New South Wales’s Modern Slavery Committee concluded that “too many temporary migrant workers have experienced or are at a serious risk of experiencing modern slavery in New South Wales.” The long-awaited report describes the “harrowing” mistreatment of temporary migrant workers across the state – “exploitation, personal violation and modern slavery at the hands of unscrupulous employers” – stating that the restrictive nature of visa requirements, coupled with inadequate monitoring and a lack of consequences, has served as the foundation for widespread unsafe, exploitative working environments across regional and rural areas. The report sets out 31 recommendations for systemic reforms. Among those recommendations: The committee urges the state government to reform the visa process by implementing a NSW labor hire licensing scheme, strengthen the enforcement powers of the police and SafeWork NSW (the state’s workplace health and safety regulator), and address migrant workers’ significant barriers to accessing healthcare. The Australian publication The Point notes that the phrase “that the NSW Government advocate to the Australian Government” appears 13 times in the report, which, the publication states, “makes it clear that it is the Commonwealth Government that really has the responsibility, and the power, to ensure all workers are treated with respect and dignity.” The state government is reportedly working on a statewide Labour Hire Code of Practice. It has until November 6 to table its formal response to the report, along with its position on the 31 recommendations. NSW is Australia’s largest state economy, employing an estimated 30 percent of Australia’s temporary migrants. See the report, Modern slavery risks faced by temporary migrant workers in rural and regional New South Wales.

Energy and natural resources

New York tightens GHG emission targets for power plants within the RGGI. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) have published updated regulations that finalize tighter restrictions on GHG emissions from power plants within the 11-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Under the RGGI, participating states set a cap on their CO2 emissions, which declines over time. The updates, according to NYSERDA, aim to reduce power plant emission budgets annually through 2037, eliminate carbon offsets, and adjust cost-containment reserves to balance grid reliability with environmental goals. Starting January 1, 2027, the updates set an emissions limit of 69.8 million tons of CO2 collectively affecting all large electricity generation facilities (with a capacity of at least 325 megawatts) within the RGGI. In the following five years, that cap will drop ten percent each year, before dropping an additional three percent each year from 2034 to 2037, thus shrinking those plants’ CO2 emissions 89 percent compared to 2027 levels. The RGGI is the first cap-and-invest regional initiative implemented in the US. Under the program, companies that generate electricity are required to purchase a permit for every ton of CO2 they release. The participating states sell these permits at regional auctions and invest the revenue in programs focusing on renewable energy, energy efficiency, direct energy bill assistance, consumer rebates, and other GHG reduction programs.

California enacts MyFirstEV rebate program. California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed SB 168, creating the MyFirstEV program and setting aside a one-time appropriation of USD135.5 million to fund it. Automakers participating in the program will match those funds, bringing the total funding for the program to USD270 million. Under MyFirstEV, first-time buyers or leasees of certain new zero-emission vehicles – either battery-electric-powered or hydrogen fuel cell-powered – may receive an instant rebate, at the dealership, that would reduce the buyer’s cost for a qualifying vehicle by USD3,500. Trucks are included in the program, provided they have a curb weight or gross vehicle weight under 8,500 pounds. Qualifying vehicles must be made by manufacturers taking part in the program and must have a retail price of less than USD50,000, although that price cap is waived for manufacturers headquartered in California, such as Rivian. The program also assists first-time buyers of used EVs, who may be eligible for a rebate of USD1,750 on used vehicles selling for less than USD25,000. MyFirstEV will be administered by CARB. At the point of sale, Qualified California EV purchasers seeking to claim the rebate must 1) sign an affidavit attesting that they have not previously purchased an EV and 2) determine that funds remain available within the MyFirstEV allocation for the vehicle brand they wish to purchase. At this writing, 13 major automakers are participating in the program. The state has not yet announced a start date. SB 168 as enacted also includes funding to support a number of other clean transportation programs.

Meanwhile, this month, Colorado re-opened its income-qualified statewide e-bike voucher program. The lottery-type program offers residents with low to moderate incomes USD1,000 vouchers toward the purchase of an electric bike; an additional USD300 is available for adaptive and cargo e-bikes. The current lottery window is open and will close at the end of this month, awarding up to 2,800 vouchers. The next windows for the e-bike vouchers will open in October 2026, January 2027, and March 2027. A separate USD225 point-of-sale tax rebate is also available for purchases of new UL-certified e-bikes with motors under 750 watts.

EU: European Commission launches guidance documents supporting implementation of the CBAM. On August 14, the European Commission published ten guidance documents aimed at helping a range of stakeholders involved in the compliance cycle of the CBAM, which started at the beginning of the year. The guidance primarily addresses non-EU producers of CBAM goods as well as EU importers and verifiers, covering the full compliance cycle, including emissions monitoring, reporting obligations, calculation of embedded emissions, application of free allocation adjustments, and sector-specific requirements for cement, hydrogen, fertilizers, iron and steel, aluminum, and electricity. While the guidance does not change CBAM's legal framework, it provides the most detailed indication to date of how the compliance cycle will be implemented and enforced in practice. Non-EU producers may expect EU customers to seek more granular information about the emissions embedded in imported goods, including evidence showing how it was calculated, which production processes and inputs were included, and whether the information can be traced back to appropriate source records. This information is also likely to impact supplier selection, pricing, contract negotiations, and the competitiveness of carbon-intensive products entering the EU market.

EU issues methane compliance guidance for energy imports. The European Commission recently adopted Recommendation (EU) 2026/1834, setting out optional model contractual clauses and compliance guidance to support implementation of the EU Methane Regulation's import requirements for crude oil, natural gas, and coal. The recommendation provides practical guidance on how importers can demonstrate compliance with forthcoming methane-related obligations. It endorses the use of contractual provisions and recognized compliance mechanisms, such as trace-and-claim systems, which track the transactions of crude oil, natural gas or coal down the supply chain from the production level to the importer, including through the various exchanges and trading hubs where the energy is bought and sold, and certification schemes, under which independent compliance solution providers issue certificates demonstrating compliance with the Regulation's requirements. From January 1, 2027, importers must demonstrate and report that supply contracts for crude oil, natural gas, and coal cover only crude oil, natural gas or coal produced under monitoring, reporting and verification measures equivalent to those set out in the EU Methane Regulation.. Importers will also be required to report methane emissions data and related information, with further methane intensity reporting obligations applying from August 5, 2028.

UK updates Capacity Market carbon emissions reporting and verification guidance. On August 10, the UK government updated its Carbon Emissions Limits in the Capacity Market guidance. The update revises the reporting and verification process to reflect changes introduced by the Capacity Market (Amendment) (No. 3) Rules 2026 and Capacity Market (Amendment) (No. 4) Rules 2026. The update aligns the carbon emissions reporting framework with recent changes to the Capacity Market Rules. The Capacity Market (Amendment) (No. 3) Rules 2026 introduced a series of amendments relating to Independent Technical Expert reporting requirements, including the replacement of various certificate requirements with standardized report templates and updates to reporting processes across the Capacity Market regime. The Capacity Market (Amendment) (No. 4) Rules 2026 introduced further changes, including new provisions relating to biomass generating technology classes and associated sustainability criteria, declarations, and reporting requirements for certain Capacity Market units. The amendments also include changes designed to support more efficient Capacity Market auction processes. Capacity Market participants are encouraged to review the updated guidance and assess whether their internal reporting, verification, and documentation processes require amendment to reflect the latest Capacity Market Rules. The revised guidance should be read alongside the Capacity Market Rules and Regulations when assessing compliance obligations.

UK: Government updates guidance on requirements for biodiversity net gain plans as part of nationally significant infrastructure projects. On August 18, the UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) updated guidance for developers when submitting information on irreplaceable habitat as part of biodiversity net gain (BNG) for national significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs). BNG, introduced under the Environment Act 2021, requires development projects to achieve at least a ten-percent uplift in biodiversity value against pre-development habitat. For NSIPs, BNG will, by virtue of the coming into force of the relevant parts of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, become mandatory for applications made on or after November 2. The government defines irreplaceable habitats as habitat that cannot be created, or that would take a significant amount time to restore its normal ecological function if impacted. Development that results in the loss of irreplaceable habitat will only receive planning permission in exceptional circumstances. The ten-percent BNG objective also applies differently where there is irreplaceable habitat on site. Instead, developers must minimize adverse impacts and agree a bespoke compensation strategy with the local planning authority (LPA), or with the relevant decision maker for NSIPs.

UK: Ofgem updates guidance on carbon dioxide transport and storage financial instruments. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem), the regulator for the electricity and downstream natural gas markets in Great Britain, has published a decision modifying the CO₂ transport and storage (T&S) Price Control Financial Model, Handbook and Guidance. The changes are intended to update the financial framework underpinning the regulation of carbon dioxide transport and storage infrastructure in the UK. The amendments are primarily technical in nature and are designed to improve the operation of the existing regulatory framework. Ofgem stated that the changes address model functionality issues, correct identified errors, remove legacy elements that are no longer supported by license provisions, and update associated guidance documents. Key changes include updates to the treatment of the Early Development Activities "use-it-or-lose-it" allowance, the allocation of Shadow Regulated Asset Value (SRAV) costs between regulatory phases, the correction of calculation errors, and the removal of redundant remediation work line items. While the changes do not introduce new sustainability obligations, they form part of the UK's developing regulatory framework for carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) infrastructure. The updated financial model, handbook, and guidance have now been published and will apply within Ofgem's regulatory framework for carbon dioxide transport and storage activities.

China revises penalties for carbon allowance surrender non-compliance. On August 8, China’s State Council amended the penalty framework under the Interim Regulations on the Administration of Carbon Emissions Trading. Previously, an emitting entity that failed to surrender sufficient carbon allowances would be ordered to rectify the violation and would be immediately subject to a penalty calculated at five to ten times the market value of the shortfall. Under the revised rules, the entity will first be ordered to rectify the violation within a specified period and fined between RMB1 million and RMB5 million. The market-based penalty of five to ten times the market value of the allowance shortfall, together with a possible production suspension order, will apply only if the entity fails to rectify within that period. China has historically taken a strict approach to enforcing carbon allowance surrender obligations. In February 2026, a company was fined approximately RMB400 million for failing to surrender sufficient carbon allowances. See the amendments here and the case here. (All links are in Mandarin.)

China issues ecological protection plan for the 15th Five-Year Plan period. On August 13, China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment issued the Ecological Protection Plan for the 15th Five-Year Plan Period. The plan, in line with the objectives of the 15th Five-Year Plan, identifies seven priority areas, such as ecosystem conservation and restoration, biodiversity protection, ecological monitoring and assessment, enforcement, and demonstration projects for ecological civilization. It aims to achieve substantial progress across these priority areas by 2030 in order to improve the overall ecological quality and enhance ecological governance. See the plan summary here. (All links are in Mandarin.)

Industry reports highlight China's progress in developing hydrogen energy and green fuels. Two industry reports released by China’s National Energy Administration in August review China’s progress in the development of hydrogen energy and green fuels. The China Hydrogen Energy Development Report (2026) highlights China’s expanding hydrogen industry, including record hydrogen production and consumption, rapid growth in renewable hydrogen capacity, continued infrastructure development, and declining hydrogen prices. As China enters the 15th Five-Year Plan period, the report envisions the sector's transition from policy-driven development to market-oriented growth, supported by stronger strategic planning and coordination. The China Green Fuel Development Report (2026) assesses the development of green methanol, sustainable aviation fuel, green ammonia, and biomass-based fuels. It notes increasing project activity and demand from shipping, aviation, chemicals, and other sectors, while identifying challenges relating to production costs, market uncertainty, and technology development. The report calls for stronger policy support, greater coordination across industrial chains, improved carbon accounting and certification systems, and accelerated commercialization of low-carbon fuel technologies. See the China Hydrogen Energy Development Report (2026) here and the China Green Fuel Development Report (2026) here. (All links are in Mandarin.)

Sustainability in financial services

UK: FCA highlights climate adaptation and resilience risks for financial services firms. On August 4, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published guidance on climate adaptation and resilience, setting out how physical climate risks such as flooding, heat waves, and extreme weather may affect financial services firms, consumers, and markets. The FCA also outlined areas of focus for insurers, mortgage lenders, and other regulated firms. The FCA identifies five key physical climate risks: reduced access to insurance, less effective insurance markets, difficulties obtaining mortgages, higher costs and reduced choice for homeowners, and challenges in accurately pricing climate-related risks. The regulator notes that these risks could affect consumer outcomes, market integrity, and competition as environmental impacts become more frequent and severe. The guidance emphasizes the growing importance of correctly identifying, assessing, and managing physical climate risks, particularly in the insurance and mortgage sectors, while also highlighting the importance of climate adaptation planning as part of broader risk management frameworks. The FCA will continue engaging with firms, government, and other regulators on climate adaptation and resilience. The Climate Financial Risk Forum is expected to publish further guidance on adaptation, risk management, and climate-related property risk data.

China sees increased issuance of green financial bonds by commercial banks. According to observations reported by the China Securities Journal, commercial banks in China have stepped up issuance of green financial bonds since mid-2026, while issuance costs have largely fallen to historic lows. Several banks disclosed that proceeds will be used to support green projects included in the Green Finance Supported Projects Catalogue (2025 Edition), including projects with significant carbon emission reduction benefits or that support resource recycling, the green and low-carbon energy transition, and green infrastructure upgrades. The trend is expected to further promote growth in China’s green lending market, which reached RMB48.63 trillion at the end of Q2 2026. See the article here. (All links are in Mandarin.)

Report: For the first time since 2021, US sustainable fund flows became positive in Q2 2026. While the EU continues to lead the world in sustainable investment funds, during Q2 2026, US sustainable investment fund net flows became positive for the first time since 2021. A report issued this month by investment data provider Morningstar also found that, by the end of Q2 this year, US sustainable fund assets had climbed to a record USD398 billion, a growth of 13 percent above Q1 2026. Furthermore, Q2 2026 was the second consecutive quarter of positive inflows for sustainable funds globally (excluding China), with those assets climbing to USD3.7 trillion. In Europe, sustainable investment funds currently manage around USD3.1 trillion in assets, representing about 84 percent of global assets under management.

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

• 14th International Conference on Sustainable Development will be held September 9 and 10, 2026 in Rome.
• United Nations Climate Week 4 will be held September 7 to 11, 2026 in Baku, Azerbaijan.
• DLA Piper is hosting an array of events in support of Climate Week NYC, which takes place September 20 to 27, 2026 in New York City. To learn more and register your interest, please visit this page.
• The 2026 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP31) will be held November 9 to 26, 2026 in Antalya, Turkey, with Australia presiding over negotiations.
• The 2026 United Nations Water Conference will take place December 2 to 4, 2026 in Abu Dhabi.

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