In a landmark judgment on 20 June 2025, the High Court in London ruled that Shell plc and its former Nigerian subsidiary can be held legally responsible for historic oil pollution in Nigeria. The ruling concerns the Bille and Ogale communities of the Niger Delta — around 50,000 people who have lived for decades with the fallout from chronic oil spills, including unsafe water, devastated farmland, toxic air, and loss of livelihoods. They were represented by Leigh Day, a UK-based law firm specialising in corporate accountability and environmental justice.
But this isn’t just another environmental headline. For sustainability professionals, compliance teams, and corporate leaders, the ruling sends a clear signal: legacy environmental harm is no longer a distant reputational risk. It’s a real, enforceable liability. And it’s reshaping the conversation around sustainable supply chains.
What the court decided, and why it matters
Shell had argued that any claims relating to oil spills more than five years old should be struck out. The court rejected this. In a significant move, the judge found that Shell’s failure to clean up past spills could be treated as a continuing breach of its legal obligations, with a fresh cause of action arising each day the pollution remains.
In effect, this means:
- Legacy pollution can give rise to ongoing liability if left unremedied.
- Oil on land, even from decades-old spills, may be treated as a daily trespass.
- The door is now open for similar environmental claims globally, even in cases that previously seemed time-barred.
Shell also failed in its attempts to shift blame to oil theft (“bunkering”) and local refining, with the judge holding that Shell could still be liable if it failed to secure its infrastructure or if its own employees were complicit — a key argument in this case.
Corporate responsibility without borders
This is the latest in a growing series of UK and EU court cases where parent companies are held liable for actions of foreign subsidiaries, especially in high-risk sectors like extractives, agriculture, and manufacturing. The High Court’s approach builds on precedent from Okpabi v Shell plc and Vedanta Resources v Lungowe, which expanded the concept of corporate duty of care in global supply chains.
The result is a greater legal and moral expectation that multinational corporations:
- Take active responsibility for the environmental and human rights impacts of overseas operations;
- Maintain robust oversight of subsidiaries, joint ventures, and contractors;
- Avoid using complex legal structures to shield parent companies from liability.
A wake-up call for supply chain risk management
For any company relying on global supply chains, whether in energy, fashion, food, or technology, this ruling reinforces three key risks:
- Legacy issues don’t fade: Historical pollution or human rights abuses can come back with financial and legal consequences. A past spill or labour abuse doesn’t disappear with a new policy on sustainability or responsible business.
- Third-party actions are your problem: Blaming contractors or local actors won’t hold if oversight was weak or employees were involved. Courts are increasingly looking at what the parent company did to prevent harm.
- Due diligence must be proactive and ongoing: Checking boxes once isn’t enough. This means:
- Mapping supply chains beyond tier 1
- Auditing risk exposure in high-risk geographies
- Ensuring remediation plans exist and are followed through
- Monitoring local grievances, even years after an incident
The UNEP’s 2011 report on the Ogoniland region found that proper clean-up would take up to 30 years and cost over $1 billion, and yet very little has happened since. That inaction has now turned into legal jeopardy.
Human rights and environmental harm: A converging legal frontier
Another important element of the case is the judge’s recognition that environmental harm can engage the right to life under the Nigerian Constitution and African human rights law, a view consistent with emerging jurisprudence worldwide, from India to Colombia.
This trend reflects a growing legal convergence between climate, environment, and human rights, with courts beginning to recognise that environmental degradation is not just a compliance failure; it’s a violation of fundamental rights.
For companies, this means:
- Sustainability is no longer a branding exercise; it’s a legal and operational obligation.
- Human rights due diligence must include environmental risk.
- Being proactive is cheaper, safer, and more ethical than litigating legacy harm in court.
From courtroom to boardroom: What businesses should do now
Shell’s trial may not conclude until 2027, but the message is clear today: Boards and compliance teams must prepare for long-tail environmental and human rights liability.
To do that:
- Reassess your environmental risk exposure, including old sites, assets, or inherited operations.
- Review supplier practices and contractual obligations, especially where your brand could be linked to harm.
- Implement rigorous due diligence and remediation processes, supported by auditable data.
- Educate your team, from procurement to C-suite, on evolving sustainability and supply chain compliance risks.
Here’s how VinciWorks can help you turn risk into action
VinciWorks offers compliance tools that help you stay ahead:
- Sustainability training
To educate your workforce and leadership on real-world environmental and business risks
- Supplier onboarding
To manage, monitor, and mitigate sustainability and compliance risks across your value chain
