Rimbawatch, which conducts research and advocacy on climate-related issues in Southeast Asia, filed an application for a judicial review in the High Court of Malaya on 24 December to determine the responsibilities of the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost Of Living Affairs (KPDN) and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability (NRES) in responding to greenwashing complaints.
Greenwashing is the practice of misleading the public by presenting products, policies or companies as environmentally friendly when their real environmental impact is minimal or harmful.
The legal suit is based on a complaint that Rimbawatch made on 20 September 2025 to both ministries, alleging that the use of terms such as “carbon neutral” and “eco-friendly” by a fossil fuel firm was misleading and constituted greenwashing.
Court documents obtained by Eco-Business show that the firm in question was Shell Malaysia Ltd, the local arm of the Dutch-headquartered oil and gas producer.
Eco-Business has reached out to Shell Malaysia for comment.
In response to Rimbawatch’s complaint, both KPDN and NRES said on 30 September that investigating such a complaint was beyond their jurisdiction. In letters sent on the same day, which Rimbawatch shared with the press, KPDN and NRES redirected the complaint to the other ministry.
“We believe that the decision by both ministries suggesting that such complaints are out of their jurisdiction is incorrect,” said Rimbawatch in a statement on Tuesday. “The practical effect of these decisions is that there is seemingly no government agency empowered to investigate potentially misleading advertising or marketing claims related to climate protection.”
In bringing the case to court, the think tank said it would partially rely on the International Court of Justice’s opinion made in July, which holds nation states legally accountable for their greenhouse gas emissions.
The opinion, though not binding, established that governments should have a national system in place for regulating emissions-intensive activities, as well as exercise “adequate vigilance” in ensuring enforcement, given the seriousness of climate change threats.
“We believe a refusal to investigate credible allegations of greenwashing represents a failure to exercise the ‘adequate vigilance’ required under [the ICJ’s] standard,” said Rimbawatch.
In its filing, Rimbawatch said it was seeking a declaration that Malaysia’s federal government, KPDN and NRES have a statutory duty to investigate misleading claims related to the environment under the Environmental Quality Act 1974.
It also seeks an order to quash the reply from NRES’ Department of Environment declining to investigate the complaint. Rimbawatch argues that the department should have acted on the complaint under the same act, or other applicable laws.
Apart from that, the climate watchdog seeks an order from the court “directing the federal government and NRES to authorise, instruct, assist and/or compel the Department of Environment to consider, investigate and take appropriate action” on greenwashing complaints.
“Malaysia, unlike regional counterparts such as Singapore, has yet to develop regulatory guidance on greenwashing, nor have they acted proactively to address misleading claims currently being made,” said Rimbawatch, referring to the city-state’s guidance released in October requiring sustainability-related marketing to be accurate, substantiated and verifiable.
“We are hopeful that this suit will act as a wake-up call to the Malaysian authorities to address greenwashing, thus improving alignment between corporate actions and Malaysia’s national climate and developmental priorities.”
The case is scheduled to be heard in the High Court of Malaya on 21 January 2026.
It is believed to be the first legal challenge in Malaysia explicitly seeking to compel authorities to investigate greenwashing, marking a new frontier for climate litigation in the country.
Globally, however, such cases are becoming increasingly common. A report by Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School and the UN Environment Programme found that 3,099 climate-related lawsuits had been filed across 55 jurisdictions as of June 2025, up from 2,180 cases in 2022 and just 884 in 2017.
Courts in Europe and Australia have already ruled against companies for misleading environmental claims, while climate litigation is gaining momentum across Asia.
In Indonesia, for instance, residents affected by extreme flooding have filed lawsuits accusing authorities of failing to implement climate-resilient development, while in the Philippines, survivors of Super Typhoon Rai launched legal action against Shell, alleging the company’s emissions worsened the disaster.
