To stabilise climate change, fossil fuel businesses must accept responsibility for their part in the deterioration of environmental circumstances. Unfortunately, the regulatory structure is inadequate, making it challenging to hold fossil fuel businesses accountable. There is a significant increase in lawsuits against fossil fuel companies to make them accountable for their pollution. This study analyses litigations to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for climate change. We illustrate the present disadvantages, which can only be altered by crafting considerable modifications to business conduct's legal and ethical framework. The Social Contract Theory of Thomas Hobbes could be used to describe how businesses may be held accountable in the contemporary global economic system by re-engaging the social contract between citizens and government. This study contributes to the literature on climate change by stressing the convergence between fossil fuel firms' legal and ethical responsibilities to achieve genuine emission reduction through negotiating a new social contract. •Our study demonstrates the inadequacy of climate change litigations with the following arguments.•Current market economy system fails to extend adequate agency to corporations to address climate change as their problem.•Companies employ shortcuts to navigate stringent legal systems by transferring rather than reducing polluting actions.•Litigations do not contribute substantially towards mitigating climate change as successful litigations are rare.•Most climate change cases are pending due to inadequate legislation and legal framework across jurisdictions.