Case Study

RimbaWatch’s judicial review suit is not about “deceptive ads” but about structural silence of our regulators when faced with climate crisis issue. Malaysia’s first climate litigation brought by RimbaWatch flagged a fossil fuel company for marketing products as “carbon neutral.” They alleged that these claims lacked scientific backing and were deceptive to a public increasingly concerned about the climate crisis.

When questioned, KPDN (Trade) stated that the science of “carbon neutral” claims was an environmental issue. NRES (Environment) on the other hand stated that adverstising falls under consumer protection and trade, and not within their jurisdiction. By passing the buck, a regulatory dead zone was created where no one is responsible for policing the biggest environmental claims of our decade.

The ICJ’s July 2025 Climate Change Advisory Opinion

The lawsuit leans heavily on the ICJ’s July 2025 Climate Change Advisory Opinion. This landmark ruling shifted the goalposts for states globally. This ICJ 2025 Opinion mandates:

• Systemic Accountability: States must have an operational national system (laws + enforcement) to regulate emissions-intensive activities.
• Adequate Vigilance: It is not enough to have a law on the books; the State must exercise “due diligence” to ensure those laws are enforced against private actors.
• Human Rights Link: Climate inaction is now formally linked to the breach of fundamental human rights, meaning “regulatory gaps” are no longer just bureaucratic errors. They are potential legal violations.

Following the 2025 ICJ Opinion

The UK & France have reaffirmed their commitment to the ICJ standard, integrating “climate due diligence” into corporate reporting requirements.

Singapore has already released specific Green Claims Guidance to prevent exactly the kind of jurisdictional confusion we see here.

Vanuatu & Small Island States are using the ICJ opinion to push for a UN General Assembly resolution on national enforcement accountability.

Malaysia is in a Quandry

Malaysia on the otherhand is at a crossroads. This case flags a classic systematic governace failure but not necessarily one of intent. It is one of infrastructure.

Our ministries are operating in silos while the climate crisis is cross-cutting. When a regulator says “it’s not my job” to investigate a credible threat to the public interest, the governance system has failed its primary purpose: Protection. Under the 2025 ICJ standard, silence is a choice, and inaction is a breach.

The “Three Pillars” of Malaysian Green Accountability (to consider)

Drawing from Singapore’s CCCS Guidelines (2025) and global best practices, here is a blueprint for what a Malaysian Green Claims Guidance should look like.

• Pillar 1: Specificity. No “vague” buzzwords. Avoid “Eco-friendly” or “Green” without cotext. Define why it is green (e.g., “90% recycled plastic”).
• Pillar 2: Substantiation. Evidence before advertisement. All “Carbon Neutral” claims must be backed by public, third-party verified MRV (Measurement, Reporting, and Verification)
• Pillar 3: Lifecycle Thinking. No “cherry-picking” data. A product is not “sustainable” if the manufacturing process is carbon-heavy but the packaging is paper.

Specific Suggested Strategies for Malaysia

The “Carbon Neutral” Protocal

The most contentious area and the heart of the RimbaWatch suit is carbon offsets. Malaysia should mandate:

• Separation of Real vs Offset: Companies must clearly state how much of a “net-zero” claim is actual reduction vs. purchased credits.
• Standardised Disclosures: If you claim a product is “carbon neutral,” a QR code on the packaging should link directly to the audit report of those offsets.

Creating a Joint Task Force (JTF)

To solve the governance failure, Malaysia does not need a new minsitry. It needs a Joint Task Force on Environmental Claims.

• KPDN handles the “consumer deception” aspects.
• NRES provides the “scientific validation.”
• Bursa Malaysia ensures these standards match the mandatory ESG reporting for PLCS (which becomes more stringent between 2024 and 2026).

The “ICJ Vigilance” Audit

Following the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion, the Goverment must move from a reactive model (waiting for a complaint) to a proactive one. This means random spot-checks on high-impact sectors like Oil & Gas and Aviation.

Our View: The “First-Mover” Advantage

By implementing this guidance, Malaysia can stop being a defensive player in climate litigation and start being an offensive player in the Green Market. In 2026, transparency is no longer a “nice to have”. It is a license to operate. If Malaysia provides clear rules, we attract a higher-quality foreign direct investment (FDI) from investors who are terrified of greenwashing risks in their supply chains.

Whether RimbaWatch wins or losses, they have already won the “narrative war.” They have exposed that our current system is unequipped for the climate era. A Green Claims Guidance is the only way to close the gap and protect both the consumer and the integrity of the Malaysian market.

Mapping Change to MADANI Principles

Addressing the current “governance failure” through clear greenwashing regulation would breathe life into every single one of the MADANI principles.

1. Sustainability (Kemampanan). Moves beyond “green talk” to ensure that environmental protection is backed by verifiable data, not just marketing.
2. Trust (Keyakinan). Restore faith in public institutions by ensuring ministries take ownership of complaints instead of passing the buck.
3. Respect (Hormat). Demosntrates respect for international standards (like the ICJ 2025 Opinion) and the rights of future generations to an honest marketplace.
4. Innovation (Daya Cipta). Drives the creation of new, cross-ministry enforcement tools (like a Joint Task Force) to handle 21st-century climate complexities.
5. Prosperity (Kesejahteraan). Protects the “green economy” by ensuring capital flows to truly sustainable businessess, not those just pretending.
6. Compassion (Ihsan). Protects everyday consumers (especially the vulnerable) from being misled into spending more on “eco-products” that provide no benefit.

Under the ICJ 2025 Advisory Opinion, states have a duty of “Adequate Vigilance.” In MADANI terms, this means the government must be an active steward, not a passive observer. The word Madani is rooted in the concept of being “civilised.” A civilised society is one where the powerful (corporations) are held to the same standard of truth as the individual.

Our Conclusion:

This lawsuit is a gift to the government. It provides the legal “nudge” needed to move Malaysia toward a Whole-of-Government approach. By adopting a Green Claims Guidance, we are not just stopping misleading ads. We are building a more Trustworthy and Sustainable Malaysia.

The article was first published by Liza Khan Chambers.

Photo by Brian Yurasits on Unsplash.