UN court climate change ruling: Packaging insiders assess industry impacts

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands, has ruled that states must protect the environment from GHG emissions, making climate change mitigation an obligation — not a choice — for the packaging industry.

The UN’s principal judicial body decided that countries must act with due diligence and cooperation to fulfill this obligation. If states breach these obligations, they could incur legal responsibility and be required to cease the wrongful conduct, offer guarantees of non-repetition, and pay reparations. 

The ICJ’s ruling includes the responsibility under the Paris Agreement on climate change to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. 

We speak to industry insiders Edward Kosior, founder and CEO at Nextek, and Sian Sutherland, co-founder at A Plastic Planet, about what the ruling means for packaging businesses and why it marks a strategic turning point in climate policy.

Kosior says that the extent to which the ICJ ruling will affect the packaging industry will depend on regional regulation, political will, and industry readiness. 

“For countries and companies already committed to climate goals, the ruling adds further momentum. It reinforces that sustainability is no longer optional, but a legal and moral imperative.”

He expects that for the packaging sector, the ruling could accelerate innovation in low-carbon materials, expanded recycling infrastructure, and circular product design. 

Kosior says the ICJ ruling could accelerate innovation in low-carbon materials, expanded recycling infrastructure, and circular product design. “Businesses already leading in these areas will likely step up efforts.”

“Take Australia, for instance: once seen as a climate laggard, it is now introducing policies aimed at meaningful change. The ICJ ruling adds weight to that momentum.”

Juridical responses might vary

Sutherland says the ICJ ruling affirms that governments have a legal duty to prevent environmental harm and protect human rights. 

“That includes scrutinizing high-emission industries like packaging. In the medium to long term, this could lead to much stricter regulation of packaging materials, mandatory transparency on emissions, and legal liability for companies whose products contribute to climate and environmental harm.”

“Businesses that fail to transition away from fossil-fuel-derived packaging will find themselves on the wrong side of history — and increasingly, on the wrong side of the law.”

But Kosior stresses that not all jurisdictions will respond equally. “Some governments may endorse the ruling rhetorically but lack the mechanisms or commitment to enforce it. And enforcement itself remains a question — if penalties are introduced, will they be applied fairly? And what of countries unable to comply?”

“Despite these uncertainties, the signal to the industry is clear: emissions and waste must be taken seriously. Sustainability is now central to compliance, reputation, and long-term competitiveness.”

Reframed environmental narrative

Kosior notes that the ruling draws a moral line. “Climate responsibility is no longer just a matter of policy — it’s a legal and ethical obligation.”

“While implementation may be slow, it marks a strategic turning point in global climate governance. For business, it reinforces the reality that sustainability is no longer optional — it’s an expectation.”

Sian Sutherland says that although the ruling is merely advisory, it reframes the environmental narrative entirely. Sutherland says the ICJ ruling pressures governments to embed real accountability into national climate policies. 

“Climate inaction carries legal consequences — governments, industry, and individuals no longer get to choose how much the climate crisis matters on their agenda. It is now recognized as both a legal and moral obligation.”

“This marks a critical shift that will shape how environmental law is interpreted and potentially applied to guide policy going forward.”

Sutherland says the ruling adds “legal weight to what climate science and justice movements have been saying for a long time: polluters cannot operate above the law.”

“The moral debt of the plastics industry is rising to the surface and demanding action. Continued use of polluting materials is no longer defensible in a world where climate harm carries consequences.”

Political framework vs. enforcement 

Sutherland says frontline communities and activists have called for accountability for years.

“Now, the world’s highest court has given long-overdue legal weight to the voices that have led this fight for decades.”

She adds that the ruling gives new momentum to climate litigation, empowers vulnerable nations, and pressures governments to embed real accountability into national climate policies, “not just vague targets and pledges.”

“Over time, it will be impossible for countries to ignore this legal precedent without risking formal legal challenges, diplomatic isolation, or both.”

Kosior says the ruling will bolster existing efforts for countries already taking climate action.

“At the same time, it underscores a key global challenge: not all countries have the same capacity to act. Less developed nations may lack the infrastructure or resources to meet emissions targets, even with strong intent. That’s why a global justice approach is essential, where wealthier nations support those with fewer means.”

He names Poland as an example. Poland is an EU member state still reliant on coal, which he says illustrates the gap between policy frameworks and actual enforcement. 

“This raises critical questions: ‘Will the ICJ’s decision lead to real-world penalties?’ If so, how will they be applied, and what happens when countries can’t or won’t comply? These uncertainties point to the need for global coordination, not just legal statements.”