Climate change is a persisting issue, heavily impacted by businesses and corporations. The Gladstein Family Human Rights Institute held a virtual meeting on Thursday, Feb. 13 with the University of Connecticut to discuss the power of the courts in relation to business and climate concerns, with an expert sharing his findings.
Hassan M. Ahmad, an assistant professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, was the main speaker of the event, presenting his research on the topic. Ahmad recently wrote a paper, called “Litigating Corporate Purpose: Climate Change and the Courts,” which expresses Ahmad’s ideal steps towards achieving a more just corporate world.
“Courts still remain as fairly dynamic, reactive, independent institutions,” Ahmad said. “Courts act as a check on powerful actors in society.”
Ahmad explained that although the separation of powers is important, relying on legislation to solve issues surrounding the environment is not enough. He holds a more functional view of the separation of powers, seeing the need for a more goal-oriented approach to politics.
“Courts push back against power dynamics,” Ahmad said.
To back up his argument, Ahmad shared historical events in which the judiciary was the only branch of government to serve the people properly. He explained that the courts allowed for the progression of helping the more helpless party over time.
“I really appreciate the urgency and call to action in your paper,” Aaron Dhir, UConn Law professor and guest speaker of the event, said. “Corporate purpose is a key part to this overall puzzle you are trying to solve.”
Ahmad’s main goal is to utilize the power of the courts to shift corporate purpose to a more stakeholder-friendly stance. Rather than only thinking about how to benefit wealthy shareholders of a company, businesses need to be more conscious of stakeholders and everyday consumers, to also be more conscious of the environment.
Hassan studied the United States, Canada and other English-speaking countries to come to such conclusions. He pointed out that the topics in which social movements are lacking are where the courts must step in. Throughout history, organized social movements have placed pressure on legislators, but climate change lacks such a specific movement.
“I remain skeptical but do not rule out the impact and benefit of legislation. But will it happen?” Ahmad asked.
Ahmad explained that the mindset must be changed. Climate change needs to be viewed “in light of the existential crises that faces us,” Ahmad said.
Dhir pointed out the doctrinal issues of government that stand in the way of change. However, Ahmad shared that the courts must go after easier litigation in order to create new doctrine and therefore change the trickier areas of law. The key, according to Ahmad, is to align the outcomes of small, strategic cases with doctrinal issues.
Other than the courts, Ahmad claims he does not “see any other potential successful avenue” to creating more environmentally friendly policies.
This workshop was one of many in a series co-sponsored by the Business & Human Rights Initiative (BHRI), a partnership founded by Dodd Human Rights Impact Programs, the UConn School of Business and the Gladstein Family Human Rights Institute. The informal structure of the meeting allowed for group discussion and suggestions after Ahmad presented his initial ideas.