Andreas Hösli

Biography

Andreas is a Swiss qualified attorney with several years of experience as a lawyer specializing in ESG, climate law, as well as civil and criminal litigation. After graduating from the University of Zurich in 2011, he completed an LL.M. at the University of New South Wales, Australia (2018). From 2019-2025, Andreas completed a PhD project on directors' duties and climate change from an international and comparative perspective. This research project was supported by the Swiss National Science Fund and included Research Visits to the University of Copenhagen, the University of Oslo and the University of Bergen. In addition, Andreas co-founded the climate law portal klimarecht.ch in 2021.

Interview with Andreas

What’s a climate litigation case or trend that has caught your attention recently, and why?

As part of my recent research on climate litigation, I have taken a close look at climate change-related complaints filed with the National Contact Points (NCPs) established under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (OECD Guidelines). These complaints, formally called "specific cases", are different from traditional litigation in the courts. The main difference is that Specific Instances are technically non-adversarial, meaning that they focus on dialogue rather than adjudication. This means, among other things, that participation in NCP proceedings is voluntary for the company concerned. Nevertheless, companies typically participate in these proceedings, at least to some degree. The fact that any outcome of these proceedings is not technically binding in the sense that a court order would be, alleviates the burden on both sides of the table. Think of costs and res iudicata. Over the past 20 years, about two dozen climate change-related special instances have been filed, most of them after the adoption of the Paris Agreement. In my view, these cases can serve as a kind of "test bed" for possible future climate claims. The number of cases may continue to increase, especially as the 2023 revision of the OECD Guidelines has introduced climate-specific recommendations. I would expect future Specific Instances to focus on these new, specific recommendations.

What’s one project or aspect of your work in climate litigation that you're particularly excited about in the next six months?

I am currently very focused on greenwashing cases in the broader sense. Across Europe, several new laws have just come into force that focus on sustainability reporting, transition planning and unfair competition. In Switzerland, for example, we have just enacted legislation that explicitly requires climate change claims in commercial communications to be substantiated by evidence. This means that if you advertise your product, service or business as “climate friendly”, or similar, you need to be able to provide solid evidence, or you risk unfair competition claims by consumers, competitors, and enforcement authorities. I expect the number of such cases to further increase, unless market actors adapt their advertising practices. Also, I expect that these cases will increasingly be dealt with by the courts rather than by advertising standards boards. This goes back to the first question. It is an interesting pattern that “novel" claims are initially explored in an out-of-court setting, but over time tend to move into the court forum.

Is there any specific place in the world that inspires you to continue your line of work in advancing climate justice/action?

There are many inspiring places in the world. For me, the Swiss Alps are a very special place. They are extremely beautiful and important to biodiversity, but they are suffering tremendously from climate change. The average temperature has risen dramatically, glaciers are melting, and the rocks are becoming increasingly unstable due to the melting of permafrost, which increases many nature-related risks up here.