Fostering non-contentious legal work can drive systemic change, unlock hidden leverage points, and amplify climate action throughout the economy.

Recent developments in non-contentious climate legal work, from mapping the field to demonstrating its real-world impact, show the significant opportunity this area holds for accelerating the climate transition. Viewed individually, they can be seen as incremental, sometimes small, but positive steps. Viewed as a whole, they expose the scale of the opportunity presented to us.

This article begins a series where we explore this potential. We at TCLP are thrilled to see the field getting the attention it deserves and excited to take this work forward, together with the myriad of actors pursuing the same goal: to realise the full potential for non-contentious law in our efforts to address the climate crisis.

The opportunity revealed

We’re seeing significant interest in using non-contentious law to address climate and nature issues. This includes efforts to integrate climate into corporate governance, innovations in green financing, and work to restructure supply chains to make them climate-aligned. Against the challenges of rising geopolitical complexity, the threat of political backsliding and unprecedented disruption to the legal sector, climate law is making meaningful progress. That said, it is still relatively untapped – realising the full potential of non-contentious law requires the design and development of systems architecture.

Whether it’s academics exploring the potential of non-contentious law, philanthropic foundations commissioning research into the field, NGOs developing new workstreams, law firms building new practice areas or even new boutique law firms getting established: all the signs point to the vast potential of the non-litigious climate legal ecosystem.

The Chancery Lane Project (TCLP) has a strong grasp of the ecosystem and its actors, which is a prize hard-won from 6 years of pioneering in the field. The widening of the climate-legal narrative beyond litigation is welcomed and inspiring. However, we now collectively need to quickly shift from understanding the landscape into the realm of systems engineering.

Recent efforts at landscape mapping, undertaken by a range of organisations, reinforce the role law plays as the hidden infrastructure of the climate transition. TCLP is excited to collaborate to unlock the full potential of this infrastructure. Whether you are a philanthropist, an NGO, an academic or a practising lawyer, together we can rewrite the fundamental code of our economic and legal systems.

Engineering the way forward

The combined efforts of philanthropic colleagues and NGO actors in the field have enabled us to take a step back and understand what the field needs to flourish. Drawing on this work, we see 3 major development opportunities: building architecture, developing infrastructure, and launching a regranter.

1. From research to architecture

A strong body of research is available that exposes the landscape of the field, the opportunities for climate action it presents, and what is needed to strengthen it.

Building on this work, and moving into a phase of strategic design and legal system engineering, there are a range of opportunities to develop the architecture needed to realise the full potential of non-contentious law. For example:

• Leverage points: Identifying interventions with potential for disproportionate impact, and mapping the workflows, interactions and stakeholders across each.
• A power analysis: Analyse these identified interventions to understand who controls outcomes, where outcomes can cascade (for example, contractual clauses, legal tech), and the maturity and influence of different actors. This would create a “heat map” for resource allocation.
• Assess leverage points and sequencing: Prioritise interventions based on potential impact and sequencing to identify compounding effects and exponential returns (“flywheels”).
• Associate results with leverage points: Define “what good looks like” for each potential intervention by building a taxonomy of outcomes (for example, volume of corporate legal reforms, or cascade potential across supply chains).

In combination, this approach will clarify where and how to intervene, who is best placed to act, and what results to expect. Examples of intervention points we have already identified, and in some cases are working on, are in the section below.

TCLP will initiate work on this component, but we can only do a fraction of it, and only in areas where we have expertise. We welcome other organisations to contribute to this and constructively critique the results of the work as they emerge.

2. Developing the Climate and Law Infrastructure Facility (CLIF)

We already know some of these key intervention points. We propose the development of a Climate and Law Infrastructure Facility (CLIF) to focus on a small number that have the potential to rewrite the code governing all economic activity.

From our work, we know the following intervention points hold this potential:

• Professional obligations: As climate risk becomes increasingly foreseeable and material, its integration into the professional obligations of lawyers, engineers, accountants and financial professionals is within reach.
• Fiduciary duty: Interventions in securities law, trust law, accounting standards and corporate governance can establish that “profit without considering climate risk” constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty.
• Supply chains: Mandating business-wide emissions reductions that cascade through supply chains creates huge, yet often unseen, climate impacts at a staggering scale.
• Artificial intelligence: AI can restructure legal knowledge and its distribution, integrating and amplifying climate action across non-contentious law’s knowledge systems.
• Corporate governance: Corporate governance can act as a conduit for the full range of these “re-codings”, transforming corporate behaviour.

Each of these domains provides critical infrastructure within the broader legal and financial systems and can disproportionately affect wider systems and the behaviours of other actors. Each holds the potential to redirect trillions in capital through a single legal shift.

We are in the early stages of developing this component and invite you to join us in co-designing CLIF to secure the legal foundations for a decarbonised and equitable future.

3. The role of regranters

For the field to reach its potential, it requires not only more resources but also a coherent, coordinated strategy for deploying them. We know funding is already flowing and that there’s interest from a broad range of charitable foundations. Significant additional funding needs to be made available, and, importantly, it needs to be coordinated.

A regranter could serve the full spectrum of philanthropic capital: as a conduit for large charitable foundations working on climate, as a donor-advised fund for individual giving, and as an impact investment platform for funders seeking a blended return.

A thematically focused regranter with a global remit could facilitate this range of grant-making. Law is global and systemic, and any regranter would, ideally, be similarly focused. Add a dose of strategic analysis and the capabilities to convene and connect key actors, and we’d have a critical piece of the infrastructure needed to realise the full potential of the field. The team at TCLP has the requisite experience to build this piece of the infrastructure, and we have the organisational capabilities and understanding of the field. However, several existing regranters may be better suited and have more capacity than we do. So this is where we’ll start – engaging with and encouraging regranters to enter the field.

A unified call to action

The sheer scope of this systemic re-engineering requires a whole ecosystem approach. The challenge of rewriting the legal operating system for a decarbonised economy is simply too vast for singular entities.

For a truly transformative impact, funders and delivery organisations must collaborate to realise the potential of non-contentious law in tackling climate change.

By strategically engineering the legal sector, we can unlock its full potential contribution in avoiding catastrophic climate consequences.

Radical candour, deep collaboration, selfless action, imagination. Funders, NGOs, lawyers and academics – let’s work together to design and then engineer the legal infrastructure we need for a rapid transition to a green, fair and inclusive world.

To find out more, get involved, or be kept updated as this work progresses, please email Ben Metz, Executive Director of The Chancery Lane Project.

When regulation slows down, the climate emergency does not.

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has delayed the next round of measures to drive emissions reductions from ships under its 2023 strategy on the reduction of GHG emissions from ships. Some in the maritime sector may see this as a break or a chance for a pause. In reality, it is the opposite.

Delays and rollbacks do not reduce climate risks; they increase them. They widen gaps between jurisdictions and business practices and raise uncertainty. This slows investment and amplifies risk for shipowners, charterers, cargo interests and financiers alike. And under increasing scrutiny, these risks are also now a concern for professionals who advise, contract, finance, or insure maritime operations. As we explain in our article “Climate risk is professional risk,” lawyers and advisers who fail to address foreseeable climate-related risk may fall short of their duties of competence, diligence and care.

The need for climate action in shipping doesn’t vanish with a regulatory delay. It becomes more urgent. Transition risks increase and the opportunity for companies to create a competitive advantage from minimising disruption diminishes. The question is: how can the industry, which accounts for around 3% of global emissions, continue to make progress while regulation catches up?

The answer includes one of the oldest tools of commerce: contracts.

Contracts as tools for climate progress

At TCLP, we have shown that contracts are among the most practical ways to turn climate ambition into action. They’re a well-understood, familiar commercial practice and legal tool that are embedded into and underpin transactions globally in all sectors. They can be written up and put into practice faster than regulation, operate across borders and bind parties to real commitments.

In the next 12 months, contracts may be the most effective mechanism for keeping momentum alive in shipping’s journey to net zero. With the IMO’s delay, the industry has a window to act. Contractual tools are already available to help rewrite charterparties, fuel-supply agreements, and financing and logistical contracts so they embed climate objectives and prepare for transition risks. Contracts give the industry a practical way to manage transition risk. First movers can use them to innovate, set best-practice transition norms, and gain the commercial advantages of disruption and early adoption. Used thoughtfully, contracts can:

• Reduce uncertainty by setting clear obligations that align with anticipated future standards.
• Align incentives between owners, charterers, cargo owners, ports, fuel suppliers and financiers.
• Build readiness now, so when regulation arrives, the industry is prepared. Having systems, fuel chains, data flows and cost-sharing frameworks in place will create more resilient supply chains, less exposed to sudden shocks.

Contracts can help keep the transition moving even if regulation slows.

Three practical areas for contractual focus

The IMO strategy groups its measures into technical, operational and economic elements. For commercial practitioners, these boil down to 3 practical domains where contractual language could play a role:

1. Ship engines and onboard technology: improving efficiency, enabling fuel flexibility.
2. Bunker fuel sourcing: shifting to lower or zero-greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting fuels, and verifying emissions.
3. Supply-chain operations and logistics: coordinating ports, charterers and cargo flows to reduce wasted fuel.

Let’s explore each and consider how contracts might help.

1. Upgrading the fleet: contracts to encourage retrofit and efficiency

Improving vessel efficiency often means expensive upgrades or new technology. Contracts could help share those upfront risks and costs and ensure upgrades actually happen.

For example, a charterparty or finance agreement might include a retrofit cooperation clause. Under this clause, the owner agrees to upgrade propulsion or energy-saving systems within a set timeframe. The charterer contributes through adjusted hire once fuel savings are verified, and both parties share in the benefits. In addition, long-term contracts could benefit both parties by reducing risk and ensuring mutual benefits. Contracts might also require the vessel to maintain a minimum performance rating (such as under the IMO’s Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII)) or trigger remedial action if the rating drops.

These are not yet standard, but they could turn silent retrofit commitment into a visible part of commercial risk allocation. For lawyers and advisers, including such clauses is part of managing both commercial climate risk and professional risk – clients will expect the contract to reflect known transition challenges.

2. Changing the fuel and contracting for cleaner energy

The IMO plans a goal-based fuel standard to cut the GHG intensity of marine fuels. While that standard is not yet fully in force, the industry can prepare now, and contracts can help.

Fuel-supply agreements or charterparties might include a fuel specification clause requiring a maximum emissions-intensity (for instance, grams CO₂e per MJ) and certifications of lifecycle (“well-to-wake”) emissions. They might also include a premium-sharing mechanism for cleaner fuels. If the alternative fuel costs more than conventional bunkers by a set amount, the extra cost can be shared between the owner and charterer according to a pre-agreed formula. An alternative-fuel option clause might allow a charterer to request a cleaner fuel for certain voyages, subject to availability and agreed cost-sharing.

These kinds of contract language remain suggestions rather than standard practice today. But including them sends a signal: the market is preparing, and the supply chain is shifting. Advisers drafting or negotiating such contracts are helping their clients manage transition risk and avoid being caught off guard.

3. Greening the supply chain and turning collaboration into commitment

Decarbonisation in shipping isn’t just about engines and fuel. Operational behaviour and supply-chain coordination matter a great deal. Congested ports, inefficient routing, idle time, and lack of data all waste fuel and create emissions. Contracts could help turn cooperation into commitment.

Time and voyage charterparties might include voyage-planning and optimisation clauses. For example, requiring the parties to cooperate to reduce idle time, facilitate just-in-time arrivals, coordinate with port authorities, exchange voyage data, and monitor vessel performance metrics. Cargo-owner contracts could include a clause requiring the carrier vessel to meet a defined minimum CII score (or a specified emissions benchmark) and to provide verified data after each voyage. Across the chain, data-sharing clauses could require consistent fuel and emissions reporting in a format aligned with the IMO’s Data Collection System (DCS).

These suggestions do not impose new regulations, but they give legal form to operational improvements that reduce emissions and reduce risk. From a professional-risk perspective, advising clients to include this sort of clause helps them stay ahead of regulatory, investor and insurer pressure.

Managing risk and reward through contracts

One of the great strengths of contract‐based action is that it treats climate and transition risk the way shipping treats other commercial risk: by allocating it, pricing it, and tracking performance with corresponding rewards and disincentives.

With regulatory programs moving at different speeds around the world (for example, the EU Emissions Trading System now covering shipping, while other jurisdictions lag), industry is already exposed to regulatory divergence. Contracts can help bridge those gaps. For instance, a change-in-law clause might provide for cost pass-through if a carbon levy or new fuel standard is introduced during the charter term, so neither party is caught unprepared. Similarly, a just-transition provision might require parties to cooperate in training crews for new fuels. It could also prioritise upgrades on vessels operating in developing-country trades, reflecting the IMO’s ambition for a fair global transition.

For legal professionals, these are not just novel ideas – they are ways to co-opt existing legal tools and repurpose established contractual mechanisms and practices to help clients manage risk in a warming world. As our resources on climate risk explain, lawyers, advisers and in-house counsel who ignore foreseeable transition risks may fail to meet their professional obligations. Encouraging stakeholders in the maritime sector to consider retrofit, alternative fuel, data, and supply-chain clauses now helps them manage the commercial risks of transition. It also allows them to capitalise on opportunities by challenging norms and being early movers in adaptation. And supporting lawyers to identify and manage climate risks emerging from regulatory uncertainty enables them to fulfil their professional duty to advise competently.

A call to action for industry leaders

Contracts are not a substitute for regulation, but they can help lead the way and ensure you don’t get left behind. When the industry shows that higher ambition is workable, regulators gain confidence to act.

That means this coming year is more than just a pause. It is a chance to prove leadership and realise the climate and commercial gains of adapting early.

The world’s major shipping companies, and the large brands whose goods they carry, are in a position to make a meaningful difference. Every charter, freight agreement and contract signed this year can either reinforce the status quo or begin to shift expectations.

What you might consider:

• Shipowners and operators: consider including clauses that support fuel transition, retrofit and data reporting in your contracts. Thinking ahead helps share risk and unlock opportunity.
• Charterers and cargo owners: you might ask your carriers to meet specific fuel- or emissions-standards, and include cost-sharing or verification language.
• Financiers, insurers and port/terminal operators: you could tie your lending, underwriting or service agreements to climate-readiness criteria, data transparency and retrofit plans.

At TCLP, our open-source library of climate-aligned contract clauses is available now and could provide the base from which clauses covering data-sharing provisions, retrofit-cooperation clauses and alternative-fuel terms could be drafted and implemented.

We invite maritime professionals, on board[s], on shore and in the law firms, who are interested to get in touch. We can come alongside you to co-develop these tools, adapt them to your context, and start addressing these risks now. Together, we can turn contract language into operational change, and operational change into credible climate progress.

Regulation may have slowed. The need for climate leadership has not. Let’s use contracts to stay on course.

This article used ChatGPT for sourcing, Gemini for fact-checking, and was reviewed by 3 (human) subject matter experts.