Florida is at the epicenter of the climate crisis. Rising sea levels, intensifying hurricanes, and frequent flooding have made the state’s vulnerability to climate change undeniable. In response, many Florida-based corporations have made bold climate pledges, committing themselves to ambitious goals. For instance, NextEra Energy—the parent company of Florida Power & Light—has promised to eliminate carbon emissions by 2045.[i] Carnival Corporation, one of the world’s largest cruise lines based in Miami, has committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.[ii] Even Publix Super Markets, a Florida-based grocery chain, has made strides toward sustainability, although it has yet to announce an official goal.[iii]

While these climate pledges and practices are commendable, they raise an important question: Are they legally binding or merely public relations tactics meant to appease consumers and investors? Given Florida’s increased vulnerability to natural disasters, such as the catastrophic effects of Hurricane Ian in 2022, it is important to consider the legal implications of these corporate climate pledges carefully. Unfortunately, Florida lacks strong regulatory mechanisms to enforce corporate climate pledges, making it easy for companies to backtrack without facing any consequences. Recent legislative actions, such as House Bill 1645 that Governor Ron DeSantis signed have reduced the emphasis on climate change in Florida policy.[iv] This successfully removed climate-related language and prioritized natural gas expansion over renewable energy.[v]

Florida’s position at the forefront of the climate crisis makes corporate climate pledges more than just a marketing tool; they are a matter of survival for businesses and the communities they serve. While many Florida-based companies have made bold climate commitments, voluntary pledges without legal enforcement mechanisms risk becoming hollow gestures. The state is currently deprioritizing climate change, creating an environment where businesses can make promises without consequences.[vi]

House Bill 1645 shows Florida’s shift away from reducing greenhouse gas emissions by limiting renewable energy development, including offshore wind.[vii] This legislative shift signals to companies that the state itself is not committed to addressing climate change. This could dissuade companies from making climate pledges altogether. When their own state governments demonstrate minimal interest in addressing climate change, businesses might feel less inclined to take proactive steps, knowing that there are no legal frameworks to enforce their promises. Florida’s current legislative stance ultimately undermines both corporate and state-led efforts to combat climate change.

This lack of regulatory oversight increases the risk of greenwashing, where companies exaggerate or falsely advertise their environmental efforts. Without proper legislation, there is little to prevent Florida-based companies from making ambitious climate promises without backing them up with real, measurable progress. At the national and international levels, companies have faced lawsuits over greenwashing.[viii] These lawsuits typically challenge the accuracy of corporate promises regarding carbon neutrality or sustainability. For example, cases against companies like Shell, BP, and financial institutions like Vanguard have centered around misleading claims about carbon offsets and net-zero emissions targets.[ix] Many of these lawsuits have been successful, with reports indicating that around 70% of climate-related cases have ruled in favor of claimants.[x]

Despite the absence of robust climate laws in Florida, market forces may still play a role in holding companies accountable. Investors are increasingly tying their financial decisions to Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) factors.[xi] If a Florida company fails to meet its climate pledges, investors who relied on these promises could have a cause of action under various areas of law.[xii] For instance, if Carnival Corporation falls short of its 2050 net-zero emissions target, investors may argue that the company’s failure to follow through on its commitments constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty or, worse, fraud.[xiii]

By allowing stakeholders to hold corporations accountable through contracts or shareholder agreements, Florida could create a legal framework where climate pledges have real financial consequences for companies that fail to deliver.[xiv] Such a framework would transform corporate pledges from voluntary statements into legally enforceable commitments. This would not only align corporate actions with environmental goals but also incentivize businesses to invest more in sustainable practices, knowing that failure to meet their climate pledges could lead to financial penalties, litigation, or shareholder disputes. With enforceable contracts in place, investors, customers, and environmental groups could play a more active role in ensuring that companies remain committed to their climate pledges. A more transparent and accountable system could foster greater trust between businesses and consumers, directly leading to increased revenue for these businesses.[xv]

Given the state’s increasing exposure to climate risks, it is critical to implement legislation that mandates regular, transparent reporting of climate progress. This could be modeled after existing financial reporting frameworks, requiring third-party verification of emissions reductions and progress toward stated goals. For example, NextEra Energy could be required to disclose its carbon reduction efforts annually, ensuring accountability in a standardized, verifiable format.

Environmental advocacy groups could leverage Florida’s unique climate challenges to hold companies accountable through public campaigns or even legal challenges. Without strong state-level laws in place, shareholders, environmental advocates, and consumers must push for change through public pressure and litigation. Industries like cruise lines and agriculture, which contribute significantly to the state’s carbon footprint, could also be subject to specific regulatory requirements regarding emissions and sustainability efforts.

Florida must establish stronger legal frameworks for transparency, accountability, and contractual enforcement to transform these pledges into meaningful action. By ensuring that companies like NextEra Energy, Carnival Corporation, and Publix follow through on their promises, the state can lead the way in corporate climate responsibility and set a standard for the rest of the country. With the right legal structures in place, corporate climate pledges in Florida can become a powerful force for environmental change and resilience against future climate disasters.

[i] See Nextera Energy, https://www.nexteraenergy.com/sustainability.html (last visited Nov. 8, 2024).

[ii] See Carnival, https://carnivalsustainability.com/decarbonization (last visited Nov. 8, 2024).

[iii] See Publix, https://csr.publix.com/planet/ (last visited Nov. 8, 2024).

[iv] See generally Jessica Meszaros, Advocate Says Big Energy is the ‘Only Winner’ of Florida Removing Climate Change from State Law, Wusf (May 17, 2024, 6:13 AM), https://www.wusf.org/environment/2024-05-17/florida-removing-climate-change-state-law-advocate-big-energy-only-winner; see generally H.B. 1645, 2024 Legis., 2024 Sess. (Fla. 2024).

[v] See Coral Davenport, DeSantis Signs Law Deleting Climate Change from Florida Policy, Wlrn (May 16, 2024, 10:50 AM),https://www.wlrn.org/government-politics/2024-05-16/desantis-law-deleting-climate-change-florida-policy.

[vi] See The Associated Press, A New Florida Law Rejects the Term ‘Climate Change’ in State Statues, Wfsu (May 16, 2024, 8:44 AM), https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2024-05-16/a-new-florida-law-rejects-the-term-climate-change-in-state-statues.

[vii] See id.

[viii] See Isabel Sutton, Company Climate Claims in Court: Pending Cases Will Shape Future of ‘Net Zero’ Pledges, Clean Energy Wire (Sept. 23, 2022, 10:55 AM), https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/company-climate-claims-court-pending-cases-will-shape-future-net-zero-pledges.

[ix] See Lindsey Rogerson, Majority of Climate-Washing Litigation Succeeds in Producing Positive Outcomes But Prompts Companies to Proceed Cautiously, Thomson Reuters (July 19, 2024), https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/esg/climate-washing-litigation/.

[x] See id.

[xi] See James Woolery & Tim Martin, ESG and Fiduciaries: A New Age Dawns, Harv. (June 15, 2023), https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2023/06/15/esg-and-fiduciaries-a-new-age-dawns/ (“[I]nvestors increasingly want to understand the climate risks and workforces of the companies in which they invest.”).

[xii] See Jeffery Weirens et al., Building Credible Climate Commitments a Road Map to Earning Stakeholder Trust, Deloitte Insights (June 14, 2021), https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/strategy/trust-in-corporate-climate-change-commitments.html.

[xiii] See generally id.

[xiv] See Climate Change and Sustainability Disputes: Securities Litigation, Norton Rose Fulbright, https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/4bbe125a/climate-change-and-sustainability-disputes-securities-and-regulation-perspective (last visited Oct. 03, 2024).

[xv] See Kai Lakhdar & Fredrik Lindblad, Translating Trust Into Business Reality, Pwc (Sept. 23, 2022), https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/trust/translating-trust-into-business-reality.html.