Failure to assist a planet in danger: the responsibility of businesses in times of crisis

Mar 25

8 min read

In criminal law, "failure to assist a person in danger" is an offense. But when it comes to the planet, inaction remains widespread. With Donald Trump and his regressive climate agenda back in the White House, increasing geopolitical tensions, the rise of far-right movements across Europe, and extreme climate disasters becoming more frequent... it seems the world is at a tipping point.

Scientific consensus and historical responsibility
Political and economic shocks are reshaping the landscape
The costs of inaction
What business should do now?

The concept of "non-assistance to a planet in danger" reflects our moral and strategic failure to act decisively in the face of the crisis. Still, scientific evidence leaves no doubt: historical emissions from industrialised nations and corporations have disproportionately contributed to global warming, leading to extreme weather events, biodiversity loss, and resource scarcity (1, 2). Now, we must acknowledge our responsibilities. And the corporate sector must recognise its historical responsibilities. In the end, we either remain passive in the face of the crisis, hoping the consequences will be manageable, or we take proactive, strategic action to turn these challenges into opportunities for sustainability and resilience.

Scientific consensus and historical responsibility

The scientific community agrees that climate change is primarly caused by human activities (yes, we talk about science here, Donald), particularly the burning of fossil fuels. Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirm that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from industrial activity have significantly warmed the planet, leading to more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and ecological disruptions.

The roots of today's environmental crisis trace back to the Industrial Revolution, when coal-powered industries transformed economies, accelerating carbon emissions. Over time, the discovery and mass exploitation of oil and gas further increased GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. The industrialised nations of Europe and North America were the first to burn fossil fuels at massive scales, setting the stage for the environmental challenges we now face (3).

Until today, emissions have continued to rise, with a handful of large corporations playing and ousized role. A 2024 study by the Climate Accountability Institute (CAI) found that just 57 fossil fuel and cement producers were responsible for 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions since the 2016 Paris Agreement (4). The analysis also highlights that they increased output of fossil fuels and related emissions in 7 years, despite the international commitment to curb emissions. Another 2025 report from the Carbon Majors project revealed that only 36 companies, including Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, and Shell, accounted for half of global emissions in 2023 (5).

The fact that the burden of climate change is not evenly shared is the basis of climate justice. While industrialised nations and large corporations have reaped economic benefits from fossil fuels, the most severe consequences (such as rising sea levels, droughts, and extreme weather events) disproportionally affect vulnerable populations in the South, who contributed the least to the problem. Furthermore, climate change is not a distant concern. It is already a threat worldwide: the images of the floods that hit Valencia, or the fires in California are still fresh in everyone's mind.

In addition to environmental damage, climate change also threatens basic human rights. We can see a growing trend where communities, individuals, and civil society organisations are using legal mechanisms to hold major polluters accountable:

In France, the Affaire du Siècle: in 2021, a French court rule that the government was guilty of failing to meet its commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In the Netherlands, the Shell Climate Case: in 2021, a Dutch court ordered Shell to reduce its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels.
In Belgium, the Farmer Case: a Belgian farmer initiated a legal action against TotalEnergies. This ongoing case underscores how climate change threatens food sovereignty and how it leads to mounting difficulties due to longer droughts, unpredicatble seasons, and soil degradation, all exacerbated by fossil-fuel driven companies.

These cases reflect the core principle of climate justice and are not just about one individual or community' struggle. They are about global legal challenges that could serve as inspiration for future legal decisions. And the climate crisis is not just an environmental issue, but also a question of fairness, responsibility, and action. The scientific consensus is clear: industrial emissions have driven global warming, and a small number of corporations and nations bear the greatest responsibility. Recognising this historical accountability is essential for shaping fair and effective climate policies moving forward.

Political and economic shocks are reshaping the landscape

To break away from the cycle of "non-assistance to a planet in danger", we urgently need to rethink our approach to sustainability and climate responsibility. This requires bold action from governments, businesses, and consumers to prioritise sustainability, enforce strict regulations, and move towards systemic changes in energy, production, and consumption patterns. Only through collaborative and immediate action can we mitigate the growing impacts of climate change and shift toward a more equitable, sustainable future.

However, Trump's return to power signals a significant rollback of climate policies in the US. His administration's actions include withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, promoting fossil fuel production, and reducing environmental regulations, thereby undermining global climate cooperation and creating an uneven playfield for industries worldwide.

In Europe, the war in Ukraine has exposed the EU's energy dependence and the fragility of supply chains. Simultaneously, far-right movements are gaining ground, threatening regulatory stability and climate commitments. This political pressure is reshaping the EU's climate agenda, challenging its position as a global leader in sustainability. Indeed, for years Europe has led the way in climate action, imposing ambitious sustainability regulations such as the Green Deal and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). But as political landscapes shift, so does regulatory certainty. The "Omnibus" law, currently under review, signals a slowdown of green policies under pressure from industry lobbies and rising populist movements.

You can find here a sum-up of key changes involved in the Omnibus proposals and our recommendations.

And so, the triangle of inaction continues. Companies that have relied solely on strict EU regulations to drive their sustainability transitions now face a shifting landscape. Those waiting for policymakers to impose ambitious changes risk falling behind. Still, the responsibility to act cannot be outsourced to governments alone. True transformation requires structured action with all stakeholders, a systemic approach, and long-term commitment. And without proactive industry leadership, climate progress will remain hostage of political shifts, economic uncertainties, and short-term interests.

The triangle of inaction describes a cycle where governments hesitate to implement bold regulations due to corporate lobbying, corporations delay action citing uncertain policy landscapes, and consumer feel powerless to drive significant change. This dynamic perpetuates the status quo, stalling the systemic transformation needed to address the climate crisis.

Yes, the global landscape is shifting, and the world is watching (we hope we coul say "is acting"). Businesses ignoring these changes will find themselves operating in an increasingly hostile and unpredictable environment, and future uncertainties will likely increase, making action more urgent than ever.

The costs of inaction

Despite clear evidence of their role in climate change, many major fossil-fuel companies are retreating from their climate commitments in favour of short-term profits (6). However, businesses play a critical role in shaping the trajectory of our planet's future, to mitigate environmental harm but, most of all, to safeguard their own economic stability in an increasingly uncertain world.

A report by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) warns of catastrophic economic consequences if global temperatures rise by 3°C or more by 2050, estimating potential losses of up to 50% of global GDP between 2070 and 2090 due to the cascading effects of climate change, such as extreme weather events, sea-level rise, and ecosystem collapse (7). These projections paint a stark picture of the future, where businesses could face devastating disruptions, with supply chains, infrastructure, and market demand all deeply affected by climate shocks. The economic model traditionally used to evaluate climate impacts has often underestimated the risks, failing to account for tipping points in the Earth' systems that could trigger irreversible damage. The concept of planetary insolvency is a chilling reminder that if the planet's ecosystems degrade to the point of collapse, the foundation of human society and the global economy will crumble along with it.

The IFoA defines planetary solvency as managing human activiy to minimise risk of societal disruption from the loss of critical support services from nature. Planetary insolvency refers to the point where Earth's ecosystems are so degraded that they can no longer support human societies or economies, threatening survival and stability.

In addition, the lack of corporate accountability in tackling climate change underscores the need for a pradadigm shift in how industries measure success and resilience. They must recognise that their long-term profitability is is closely tied to the health of the planet. Financial returns can no longer solely be dependent on traditional economic metrics like GDP growth. This is reflected by the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, Norway's Government Pension Fund Global, which has recently shifted 96% of its portfolio to a natural capital risk assessment, already illustrating a shift in how financial markets are viewing long-term value (8). Businesses that fail to account for environmental risks are likely to face financial losses, while those that embrace sustainability and integrate it into their decision-making will likely be better positioned for the future.

What business should do now?

The degradation of natural systems continues to intensify, and businesses must act now to safeguard their long-term viability while contributing to the restoration and protection of the planet. Immediate and concrete actions are required to reduce vulnerabilities and ensure resilience.

While investing efforts in climate change mitigation and setting science-based targets to reduce emissions remain essential, it is becoming increasingly clear that mitigation alone will not be enough. The pace and severity of climate impacts demand a stronger focus on climate change adaptation and the integration of environmental risk management, resilience strategies, and systemic transformation into business operations.

So, what should companies do now?

Align their sustainability efforts with science: businesses must drastically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by transitioning to low-carbon technologies, renewable energy, and energy efficiency improvements across their operations, and supply chains. This should be done in line with science-based frameworks, not only for climate but also for biodiversity and resource conservation. These targets, grounded in the latest scientific data, will guide them in their efforts to limit their environmental impact and track their progress in real-time, ensuring they meet global sustainability goals while reinforcing trust among stakeholders.
Integrate environmental risk management into their business strategy: businesses must recognise the financial and operational risks posed by environmental challenges such as resources scarcity, ecosystem degradation, and pollution. This requires integrating these factors into risk management frameworks to anticipate disruptions, safeguard supply chains, and ensure long-term resilience. A proactive approach to environmental risk is essential for business continuity in a rapidly changing world.
Redesign their business models for long-term sustainability: beyond managing risks, companies must fundamentally rethink their business models to align with planetary boundaries. This means moving away from extractive and linear models toward regenerative and circular economy principles. Businesses should reassess their value propositions, revenue streams, and operational structures to reduce reliance on depleting resources, extend product lifecycles, and prioritise sustainable and restorative practices over short-term profit maximisation.
Foster collaboration for global solutions: climate and environmental challenges are global issues requiring coordinated, cross-sector collaboration. Businesses should engage with their peers, governments, and NGOs to share knowledge, align on best practices, and create scalable solutions. By being part of broader initiatives, businesses can drive positive change and help shape collective action. (Note: at Slo, we do believe in the power of partnerships. If you are looking to join forces for a more sustainable future, don't hesitate to contact us!)

It's been said several times: inaction is no longer an option. Companies that fail to act will not only face financial, regulatory, reputational and viability risks, but also find themselves on the wrong side of history. The question is no longer "(Why) Should we act?" but "How can we act effectively and immediately?".

The window for meaningful action is rapidly closing. Embracing historic responsibility and fostering collaborative action are essential for businesses to become catalysts for systemic change. From legal frameworks and scientific transparency to consumer-driven action demand, the shift toward sustainability is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic opportunity. Now is the time to move from non-assitance to proactive stewardship of our planet.

At Slo, we guide businesses through these transformations, helping them move from reactive compliance to proactive leadership in sustainability. We provide strategic insights and hands-on implementation to make sustainability an integrated part of business resilience.

Written by Géraldine Wirtz, Co-founder Edited by Flore Andersen, Co-founder and Kim-Ty Lauch, Sustainability Consultant