About two years ago, I did a blog entry predicting that climate change would become a big corporate governance issue. Directors can get into all sorts of trouble for failing in their duty of care to shareholders.

That's what makes a court case in Australia so fascinating. The result will have implications for company directors around the world.

The case involves the Australian Conservation Foundation approaching the regulator, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and asking it investigate whether six companies - Rio Tinto, Woodside, Xstrata, Boral, Caltex and BlueScope Steel - had misled investors with their claims about the negative impact of the Australian Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme which paves the way for an emissions trading regime. While the ACCC's findings would not have any direct impact on directors, it potentially opens the way for litigation and prosecution down the track.

All this coincides with moves by the World Business Summit in Copenhagen developing a draft framework that will require companies to put climate change information in their annual reports. The report will require companies to detail a strategic analysis, regulatory risks from potential and upcoming climate change legislation, physical risks and greenhouse gas emissions.

The draft framework is open to public consultation and an update will be released in time for the Copenhagen negotiations in December. Now of course, this framework is just that...it won't force companies to put the information in their annual reports. But what it does do is provide a framework for governments later on to bring in laws that will force companies, whether they like it or not.

It also coincides with a report that 98% of supposedly natural and environmentally friendly products on US supermarket shelves are making potentially false or misleading claims.

Once more, it's something that has potentially enormous implications for company directors if governments crack down and investors start hitting them with lawsuits.