In Chile, There is currently no general statutory duty in Chile requiring companies to adopt net zero business strategies.

Chile’s Climate Change Framework Law (Law No. 21,455) sets a national carbon neutrality goal for 2050 and creates sectoral and regulatory instruments to achieve it, but it does not impose a cross-cutting corporate obligation to adopt net zero strategies.

The use of carbon offsets is regulated in specific contexts, but not through a single comprehensive regime governing all voluntary net zero or carbon neutral claims. In particular, Chile’s Green Tax regime under Law No. 20,780, as amended by Law No. 21,210, and its implementing Regulation (Supreme Decree No. 4/2023), allows compensation of taxed emissions through certified reduction or absorption projects, subject to requirements such as additionality, measurability, verifiability and permanence.

In addition, Chile published further climate-market regulations in 2025, including the regulation for GHG and short-lived climate pollutant emission standards (Supreme Decree No. 12/2025) and the regulation on reduction or absorption certificates under the Climate Change Framework Law (Supreme Decree No. 32/2025).

Climate change is now expressly embedded in Chile’s environmental impact assessment framework. Since 1 February 2024, Supreme Decree No. 30/2023 has amended the SEIA Regulation to require EIAs and EIAs/DIAs, where relevant, to consider adverse climate change effects, adaptation and resilience measures, and—where applicable—GHG mitigation. The SEA then issued its methodological guide on climate change in the SEIA in November 2024, and a methodological guide on the estimation and reporting of GHG and short-lived climate pollutants, which entered into force in March 2026.

To date, no test cases have been brought against companies in Chile for undeliverable net zero strategies or their proportionate contribution of global levels of GHGs and there are no precedents for litigation holding companies accountable for their proportional contribution to global GHG emissions. However, as climate-related litigation continues to evolve globally, similar cases may arise in the future. Specially in the context of the implementation of the Climate Change Framework Law.

Investment projects with potential environmental impact must obtain an integrated environmental authorization, known as an Environmental Qualification Resolution (Resolución de Calificación Ambiental or “RCA”). This process is governed by General Bases of the Environment Law (Law No. 19,300) and is conducted through the Environmental Impact Assessment System (“SEIA”), administered by the Environmental Assessment Service (“SEA”). The SEIA aims to mitigate, reduce, or compensate for material environmental impacts, including biodiversity.

On this matter, the SEA has issued the Guidelines for Biodiversity Offsets (2022), and the Guidelines for Biodiversity Offsets in Terrestrial and Inland Aquatic Ecosystems (2023) which provide criteria for implementing appropriate biodiversity offsets in accordance with the existing regulatory framework. The ultimate objective is to achieve no net loss (zero net loss) or, where possible, a net gain in biodiversity.

Should be considered, Chile’s biodiversity framework is still being developed. This can be seen, for example, in the publication of the Organic Regulation of the Biodiversity and Protected Areas Service under Supreme Decree No. 27 (2024); in the progress of the Biodiversity Compensation Regulation under Article 38 of that law, which was approved for public consultation in March 2025 and later received a favourable opinion from the Council of Ministers for Sustainability and Climate Change in June 2025; and in the continued development of other implementing instruments.

Companies are required to report water usage through two major regulatory frameworks, each overseen by distinct administrative bodies: the Water Authority (Dirección General de Aguas or “DGA”) and the Water Services Regulation Authority (Superintendencia de Servicios Sanitarios or “SISS”).

The DGA, in accordance with the Water Code (1981) and its related regulations, require regulated entities to report overall water consumption, informing the actual volume of water withdrawn from their authorized extraction points.

Additionally, the Water Code establishes a continuous monitoring obligation for actual water extractions. This requirement is regulated through the Regulation on the Monitoring of Effective Surface Water Extractions (S.D. MOP 53/2020) for surface water rights and through DGA Exempt Resolution No. 1238/2019 for groundwater usage. Recent amendments have strengthened the DGA’s oversight and enforcement powers, but have not replaced this reporting and monitoring framework (Law No. 21,740).

For environmental purposes, the requirement for continuous monitoring or reporting on water usage may also be linked to an RCA. In such cases, reporting obligations may arise as part of a compensation measure, a voluntary environmental commitment, or a specific requirement imposed by the authority.

The SISS, under the General Law of Water Services (D.F.L. MOP 382/1988), and within the scope of its supervisory powers under Law No. 18,902 (1989),  requires concessionary companies providing public drinking water and sanitation services to report data on water collection, production, and supply. Additionally, these companies must disclose the volume of treated wastewater returned to the water system to ensure compliance with environmental permits.

Beyond these two main regulatory frameworks, other companies may be required to submit water usage data to additional public agencies that oversee compliance with specific sectoral indicators. In practice, these additional obligations arise on a case-by-case basis under environmental approvals, sectoral permits, or specific compliance requirements imposed by the competent authority.

Chile does not yet have specific regulations governing Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (“PFAS”).  However, certain PFAS-related restrictions and general chemical-control rules already apply, particularly through the Stockholm Convention (Decree No. 38/2005), the Regulation on the Storage of Hazardous Substances (Decree No. 43/2016), and the Regulation on the Classification, Labelling and Notification of Hazardous Chemicals and Mixtures (Decree No. 57/2021).

To date, no civil liability cases have been filed against companies in Chile for defective products or environmental contamination directly linked to PFAS.

In Chile, waste hierarchy regulation is primarily governed by the Framework Law for Waste Management, Extended Producer Responsibility, and Promotion of Recycling (Law No. 20,920, commonly referred to as the “REP Law”). This legislation establishes extended producer responsibility (“EPR”) obligations for specific priority products, including lubricating oils, electrical and electronic equipment, batteries, packaging, and tires, requiring producers to organize and finance waste collection and recovery systems. In June 2025, textiles were also declared a new priority product under the REP framework, although a decree establishing collection and recovery targets for textiles has not yet been enacted.

While the REP Law does not impose a general obligation on all producers, distributors, or retailers to meet specific recycling targets or incorporate recycled materials into manufacturing, it does establish collection and recovery goals for designated priority products. These targets are regulated through supreme decrees issued by the Ministry of the Environment. The following regulations have been enacted to date:

• 8/2021: Establishes collection and recovery targets and other obligations for tires.
• 12/2021: Establishes collection and recovery targets and other obligations for containers and packaging.
• 47/2024: Establishes collection and recovery targets and other obligations for lubricating oils.

Under these regulations, producers must assume responsibility for the waste generated by their products, either through individual or collective management systems.

Outside the REP framework, Law No. 21,368 on single-use plastics and plastic bottles, as amended by Law No. 21,691 and regulated by Supreme Decree No. 30/2026, requires disposable plastic beverage bottles to contain a minimum percentage of plastic collected and recycled in Chile (15% for 2025–2029, increasing over time), and requires beverage sellers to offer returnable bottles and receive them back from consumers.

Several Chilean laws seek to mitigate and penalize plastic pollution by imposing restrictions on plastic use, promoting producer responsibility, and encouraging recycling. Among the key regulations are Law No. 21,368 which governs the use of single-use plastic products and plastic bottles (as amended by Law No. 21,691 and regulated by Supreme Decree No. 30/2026); Law No. 20,920 (provides the legal framework for waste management and extended producer responsibility); and Law No. 21,100 (prohibits the delivery of plastic shopping bags).

• Law No. 21,368: regulates the provision of single-use plastic products in food establishments and the sale of plastic bottles for beverages, both returnable and disposable. Its primary objective is to reduce the consumption of single-use plastics and promote reuse. The law prohibits food service establishments, such as restaurants, casinos, cafeterias, and social clubs, from offering disposable products for on-site consumption. Instead, these establishments are required to provide reusable alternatives. Additionally, the law imposes restrictions on the use of disposable plastics for consumption outside these venues.

Currently, its regulatory framework was further developed by Supreme Decree No. 30/2026, which regulates the certification and implementation requirements applicable to certified plastics, disposable plastic bottles, and returnable bottles.

• Law No. 20,920: as addressed in question 5, manufacturers and importers of specific products –such as plastic containers and packaging– are obligated to organize and fund the collection and recovery of waste generated by their products at the end of their lifecycle.

As it was mentioned in question 5, at the regulatory level, Supreme Decree No. 12/2021 issued by the Ministry of the Environment establishes collection and recovery targets for plastic containers and packaging, creating a waste management system for these products.

• Law No. 21,100: banned the distribution of plastic shopping bags across Chile. The primary goal of this law was to reduce the circulation of polyethylene plastic bags, which were widely used but difficult to degrade, thereby addressing their environmental impact.

The Labour Code prohibits any form of discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, sex, gender, maternity, breastfeeding, age, marital status, union membership, religion, political opinion, nationality, ancestry, socioeconomic status, language, beliefs, participation in labour organizations, sexual orientation, gender identity, affiliation, personal appearance, illness, disability, social origin, or any other reason that seeks to undermine or alter equality of opportunity or treatment in employment and occupation.

In this context, Chile has several laws aimed at promoting the inclusion of specific groups, including Law No. 20,422 (2010), which establishes provisions for equal opportunities and social inclusion of persons with disabilities; Law No. 21,015 (2017), which encourages the labour inclusion of people with disabilities; and Law No. 21,275 (2020), which amends the Labour Code to require companies to adopt measures that facilitate the labour inclusion of workers with disabilities.

This framework was further strengthened by Law No. 21,690 (2024), which introduced additional obligations for employers subject to the disability inclusion quota, including adjustments to recruitment and selection procedures, internal inclusion policies, annual staff training, workplace protocols aligned with Law No. 20,422, and specific sanctions for non-compliance.

The Chilean Labour Code also establishes principles and obligations related to pay equity between men and women. Specifically, Article 62 bis mandates that employers ensure equal remuneration for employees performing the same work or work of equal value. However, wage disparities based on objective criteria such as skills, qualifications, suitability, responsibility, or productivity are considered legitimate.

The Labour Code establishes that an employer’s exercise of legally granted powers is restricted by workers’ constitutional rights, particularly when such actions may impact their privacy, private life, or honour. Additionally, the Code mandates that internal workplace regulations on order, hygiene, and safety must include provisions ensuring a respectful and dignified work environment.

In addition, the Labour Code now expressly provides that labour relations must always be based on treatment free from violence, compatible with human dignity and with a gender perspective, which includes measures aimed at promoting equality and eradicating gender-based discrimination.

Furthermore, various legal frameworks address labour and sexual harassment, outlining sanctions, protective measures for affected workers, and reinforcing prevention mechanisms. Notably, Law No. 20,607 (of 2012) introduced amendments to the Labour Code to penalize workplace harassment, while the more recent Law No. 21,643 (of 2024) –known as the “Ley Karin”– enhanced regulations on the prevention, investigation, and sanctioning of labour and sexual harassment, as well as workplace violence.

Chilean labour legislation does not mandate a salary sufficient to maintain a standard of living. However, it does establish a minimum monthly income for workers aged 18 to 65 years.

As of 1 January 2026, the Minimum Monthly Income (“IMM”) for workers aged 18 to 65 is CLP $539,000 (approximately USD $590), while for workers under the age of 18 and over the age of 65 it is CLP $402,082 (approximately USD $440). These amounts were established by Law No. 21,751 (2025), which replaced the adjustment previously made by decree in February 2025.

Unlike the EU, Chile does not yet have specific regulations governing corporate due diligence with respect to human rights. However, in 2025, bills were introduced in Congress to establish mandatory corporate due diligence obligations, including Boletín No. 17520-17 on human rights due diligence and Boletín No. 17446-17 on due diligence in relation to human rights, the environment and climate change. As of 7 April 2026, these initiatives are still under legislative consideration and no binding statutory due diligence regime is yet in force.

To date, we are not aware of any test case brought against companies in due diligence matters.

As mentioned in question 10, Chile does not yet have specific regulations in force mandating corporate due diligence on human rights, although this point now requires qualification. In 2025, bills were introduced in Congress to establish mandatory corporate due diligence obligations in relation to human rights, the environment and climate change (Bills No. 17446-17 (2025) and No. 17520-17 (2025)), but these initiatives remain under legislative consideration.

In addition, while there is still no general stand-alone corporate due diligence statute, Chilean environmental law does impose project-level legal duties relevant to host communities and indigenous peoples through the Environmental Impact Assessment System, including public participation mechanisms and, where directly affected indigenous groups are concerned, an indigenous consultation process.

However, in recent years, there has been a notable increase in litigation related to environmental issues, host communities, and indigenous populations, particularly in connection with investment projects that may impact them. Despite this trend, we are not aware of any test cases specifically addressing corporate due diligence failures.

In 2022, a bill was introduced to regulate, prevent, and sanction greenwashing. As of April 2026, it remains under legislative review in Congress, currently at second constitutional stage (Bill No. 15044-12).

Despite the absence of specific regulations on greenwashing, the Consumer Rights Protection Law (Law No. 19,496 or “LDPC”) includes provisions aimed at promoting sustainable consumption, either directly or indirectly. These regulations address aspects such as product durability and advertising, with the objective of discouraging misleading claims that may harm consumer trust or the environment.

In this context, Article 28, letter (f) of the LDPC establishes that it constitutes an infringement when an advertiser, knowingly or negligently, misleads consumers through advertising messages regarding a product’s environmental impact or sustainability attributes. While this provision provides a legal basis for action against greenwashing, its enforcement has been limited.

To date, the Authority of Consumer Protection (Servicio Nacional del Consumidor or “SERNAC”) has not issued specific decisions requiring a business to remove advertisements due to unsubstantiated sustainability claims. However, it has published a Circular on Sustainable Consumption (2024), which clarifies the informational duties that businesses owe to consumers under the principle of sustainable consumption. This Circular specifically addresses the issue of misleading environmental claims, commonly known to as “greenwashing.”

As indicated in Question 12, Chile has not witnessed significant legal cases specifically addressing unsubstantiated enterprise-wide sustainability commitments, commonly referred to as greenwashing.

Currently, there are no specific regulations governing the use of ESG labels or sustainability claims in Chile. However, companies are required to comply with the general provisions of the Consumer Rights Protection Law (Law No. 19,496 or “LDPC”) to prevent the dissemination of false or misleading information regarding the sustainability attributes of their products or services. Furthermore, to date the CMF opened a public consultation on proposed rules for investment funds using ASG/ESG terminology, with the stated aim of reducing greenwashing in the financial sector.

To date, Chile’s competition and financial authorities, including the Competition Court (“TDLC”) and the Chilean Financial Market Commission (Comisión para el Mercado Financiero or “CMF”) have not imposed sanctions, levied fines, or initiated legal proceedings against businesses for unsubstantiated sustainability claims related to their products or services.

As mentioned in questions 12 and 13, Chile does not have specific regulations governing corporate actions related to unproven company-wide sustainability commitments. For the same reason, to date, we have no information on test cases filed against companies for such claims.

There is no explicit statutory duty for company directors to oversee the environmental and social impacts of their activities. However, within the financial sector, the Chilean Financial Market Commission (Comisión para el Mercado Financiero or “CMF”) has issued General Rule No. 461 (2021), as amended by General Rule No. 519 (2024), requiring supervised companies to include sustainability information in their annual reports, including a description of how sustainability matters are reported to the board and whether those matters are considered when debating and adopting strategic decisions, business plans or budgets.

In addition, reporting in accordance with IFRS S1 and S2 will be required from fiscal year 2026 (reported in 2027), which further reinforces the expectation that boards oversee these issues in practice, even though this remains a regulatory disclosure duty rather than an express statutory duty of general application to all directors.

In August 2023, Chile enacted Law No. 21,595 on Economic Crimes, introducing, among other things, a comprehensive framework of corporate sanctions for environmental offenses. Specifically, this law introduces a new Article 37 bis in the Organic Law of the SMA (Law No. 20.417), establishing criminal liability for individuals who, with intent, engage in the following acts:

• Environmental Impact Assessment Manipulation: Providing misleading information in the environmental evaluation of a project that conceals, minimizes, alters, or distorts its potential environmental effects, leading to an improper approval of the RCA.
• Project Fragmentation: Artificially dividing projects or activities to evade the Environmental Impact Assessment System or modifying the manner of entry to circumvent regulatory scrutiny.
• Submission of False or Incomplete Information: Presenting inaccurate or incomplete data to the SMA to demonstrate compliance with obligations derived from RCAs, emission standards, remediation plans, compliance programs, or other environmental management instruments under its jurisdiction.

After a careful review of publicly available Chilean sources, we have not identified a publicly reported test case brought specifically against directors, as such, for presenting misleading information on environmental or social impact.

The closest precedent is the Nova Austral case, in which senior executives were prosecuted for conduct involving false information provided to authorities in connection with environmental compliance and production controls. In January 2026, however, the Court of Appeals of Punta Arenas annulled the convictions for water pollution, while maintaining a conviction against one executive for making a false statement under oath. Accordingly, Chile now has a relevant precedent concerning false environmental information, but not yet a publicly reported director-liability test case of the kind described above.

There is no specific statutory obligation requiring financial institutions or publicly listed companies to report against sustainable investment criteria. However, the Chilean Financial Market Commission (Comisión para el Mercado Financiero or “CMF”) has issued General Rule No. 461 (2021), as amended by General Rule No. 519 (2024), which sets reporting requirements for financial institutions and other regulated entities.

Section 8.2 of NCG No. 461 mandates the disclosure of sustainability indicators based on industry type, following the Sustainable Industry Classification System (“SICS”). Companies must report the indicators they consider most relevant, in accordance with the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (“SASB”) and its defined Sustainability Accounting Standards metrics. Additionally, SASB metrics FN-IB-410a.1, a.2, and a.3 specifically address investments and loans that integrate ESG factors by industry. It should also be taken into account that NCG No. 519 has incorporated reporting in accordance with IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 from fiscal year 2026, to be reported in 2027, thus updating the sustainability disclosure framework established under NCG No. 461.

Although there is no explicit legal obligation, Chilean companies —especially in the financial sector— are increasingly incorporating ESG criteria in their investment strategies, risk management frameworks and corporate governance structures, following the requirements established by the CMF in its NCG. For that reason, it is more precise today to describe this as a regulatory sustainability-disclosure framework for certain supervised entities, rather than a general statutory duty to report against sustainable investment criteria.

As mentioned in Question 17, there is no specific statutory obligation requiring companies to report on the management of financial risks related to climate change.

Under NCG 461, companies must detail how they integrate risk management into their operations, particularly in relation to climate change, within their overall risk management and internal control frameworks. This includes outlining the general guidelines set by their Board of Directors or governing body regarding risk management policies, which cover operational, financial, labour, social, and environmental aspects, including both physical and transition risks stemming from climate change.

Additionally, companies should disclose whether they rely on principles, guidelines or recommendations from national or international organizations, such as Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway (“COSO”), Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology (“COBIT”), International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) and Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (“TCFD”), among others. It should also be taken into account that NCG No. 519 has incorporated reporting in accordance with IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 from fiscal year 2026, to be reported in 2027, thus updating the sustainability disclosure framework established under NCG No. 461.

Companies must also assess and disclose risks and opportunities that could materially affect their performance and financial health. This evaluation should encompass both operational activities and long-term financial planning, particularly considering the impacts of physical and transition risks. The NCG also requires companies to evaluate how these risks might influence financing, operational costs, revenues, capital usage, and access to funding. If scenario analysis is used, companies must describe the impacts of scenarios, such as transitioning to a low greenhouse gas emissions economy, aligning with global climate goals to limit the temperature rise to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

Furthermore, companies must report on broader environmental and social risks related to their operations. They are required to clarify the role of their Board of Directors, senior management, and governing body in identifying, assessing, managing, and monitoring these risks, with a specific focus on environmental, social, and human rights risks. For climate-related risks, companies must explain their strategic responses, including whether they seek to mitigate, transfer, accept, avoid, or prioritize these risks.

Certain companies are legally obligated to report their energy consumption, as established by the 2021 Energy Efficiency Law (Law No. 21,305). This legislation aims to promote energy efficiency across various sectors and sets guidelines for the reporting of energy consumption by companies that meet specific criteria.

According to the Law, the Minister of Energy is required to determine, every four years, which companies must report their energy consumption annually. This report must include energy consumption data, broken down by energy use, and an assessment of energy intensity for the previous calendar year.

The Energy Efficiency Regulations (Supreme Decree No. 28/2021 of the Ministry of Energy, published in 2022) further define the reporting requirements. Under the current framework, companies covered by Exempt Decree No. 340/2025, as well as all companies that recorded total final energy consumption equal to or greater than 50 tera-calories in the previous calendar year, must submit an annual energy consumption report within the first 90 days of the year. This report must include detailed consumption data, disaggregated by energy use, and energy intensity for each facility, operation, or site.

Based on these reports, the Ministry of Energy will identify companies whose consumption exceeds the 50 tera-calories threshold and classify them as “Consumers with Energy Management Capacity.” These companies are required to implement and maintain an Energy Management System to improve their energy efficiency. Smaller companies, as defined by Law No. 20,416, are exempt from this classification.

Finally, within 60 days after the reporting period closes, the Ministry will publish a resolution in the Official Gazette listing the companies classified as Consumers with Energy Management Capacity, which must implement and maintain an Energy Management System to improve their energy efficiency.

As mentioned in Question 7, the Labour Code establishes principles and obligations related to pay equity between men and women. Specifically, Article 62 bis mandates that employers ensure equal remuneration for employees performing the same work or work of equal value. However, wage disparities based on objective criteria such as skills, qualifications, suitability, responsibility, or productivity are considered legitimate.

Additionally, the Labour Code requires companies with 200 or more employees to maintain a record of various positions within the company, detailing their essential technical characteristics. These companies are also obligated to include procedures in their internal regulations for addressing and resolving claims regarding violations of equal pay.

In the financial sector, the reporting framework is now more accurately grounded in General Rule No. 461 (2021), as amended by General Rule No. 519 (2024), rather than in NCG No. 386 alone. Under the current annual report regime, certain CMF-supervised entities must disclose diversity information and gender pay gap indicators, including the annual pay gap by sex for each job category or function. Accordingly, while Chile does not impose a general public-reporting duty on all employers to disclose EDI metrics or gender pay gaps, it does impose a regulatory disclosure duty on certain CMF-supervised entities.

There is no specific legal requirement for companies to report on modern slavery in their supply chains. However, Chile has demonstrated its commitment to combating forced labour through international agreements, including the ratification (in January 2021) of the 2014 Protocol to the 1930 International Labour Organization (“ILO”) Convention No. 29 on Forced Labour.

Domestically, the Chilean legal framework safeguards the right to free and protected labour while criminalizing certain forms of labour exploitation, such as human trafficking for forced labour. From a constitutional perspective, Article 19, No. 16 of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of labour and its protection, ensuring free employment choices and fair remuneration.

In addition, Article 2 of the Labour Code affirms individuals’ right to freely enter into employment agreements and perform lawful work voluntarily.

From a criminal law perspective, while Chile does not independently classify forced labour as a distinct criminal offense, it is penalized as a consequence of human trafficking, as defined under Law No. 20.507, enacted in 2011, that criminalizes migrant smuggling and human trafficking while establishing measures for prevention and prosecution.

Over the next 12 months, one of the most significant legal developments in ESG regulation in Chile will be the continued implementation of the Framework Law on Climate Change (2022). This law establishes binding commitments for public authorities and a broader institutional framework to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 and adapt to climate change.

Its implementation remains a major challenge, but the framework has advanced materially since the law entered into force. Chile already enacted the Regulation on procedures associated with climate change management instruments (Supreme Decree No. 16/2023), approved the 2025 update of its Nationally Determined Contribution through Supreme Decree No. 28/2025 confirms that further implementing regulations under Law No. 21,455 remain a regulatory priority.

Another significant development is the implementation of Law No. 21,600 (2023), which establishes and regulates the Biodiversity and Protected Areas Service (“SBAP”). That process is now in a more advanced operational phase, official implementation documents show several SBAP regulations at consultation, Council approval or signature stage during 2025–2026, and in February 2026 the Ministry of the Environment opened public consultation on the draft regulation of the SBAP. One of the main challenges in this reform involves the transfer of powers, personnel, assets and regulatory functions from other agencies and the completion of the secondary legislation needed for the new governance model to operate in practice.