In the first climate lawsuit against a multinational company in France, on 25 June 2026, the Paris civil court (ruling in French) recognised the inclusion of climate risks under the scope of the Duty of vigilance law and ordered TotalEnergies, one of the world largest oil and gas producers, to complement its vigilance plan within 6 months to include as part of its risk mapping scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions (all indirect emissions arising in the company’s value chain, including emissions resulting from the use of the company’s oil and gas products) as well as appropriated measures to mitigate and prevent the company’s impact on the climate.
This important decision comes 8 months after TotalEnergies was found guilty of greenwashing by overstating its climate pledges.
The implicit inclusion of climate under the notion of “environment”
Under the 2017 Duty of vigilance law, French companies that employ at least 5 000 employees within their company and branches in France or at least 10 000 employees within their company and branches both in France and abroad must establish and implement an effective vigilance plan containing reasonable vigilance measures adequate to identify risks and to prevent severe impacts on human rights and fundamental freedoms, on the health and safety of individuals and on the environment.
As the climate is not addressed by the law, TotalEnergies considered that the term “environment” did not encompass climate risks, as they are “a global, multi-causal, and multifactorial phenomenon in time and space” (para. 43). The company argued that one company alone cannot fight climate change and that measures must be implemented by public actors in accordance with the Paris Agreement which is binding on States and not on private actors (para. 46). It is noteworthy that the company’s position was supported by the office of the public prosecutor.
In order to determine the scope of the law, the court referred to the parliamentarian preparatory work (para. 116). The court recalled that the law was proposed within the framework of non-binding international standards, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD Guidelines) (para. 117). In that regard, the court noted that under the OECD Guidelines’ General Principles, due diligence applies to human rights and the environment, the latter area encompassing greenhouse gas emissions and the development of strategies to reduce these emissions (para. 127). These General Principles were the basis of the Duty of vigilance bill (para. 128).
The court also underlined it was clearly established that the law was rooted in a broad conception of the protection of human rights and the environment, including the planet, by reference to the COP 21 conference which led to the adoption of the Paris Agreement, citing the rapporteur of the law (para. 131-132). This broad scope was later confirmed in the information report on the assessment of the law in 2022 (para. 134).
Lastly, a mischievous mind might suggest that the court felt it necessary to reassure the poor defendant, frightened by the scale of climate change, about what was expected from them. Indeed, the court clarified that the law was not intended to make companies responsible for the risks linked to climate change resulting “from all human activity on the planet since the Industrial Revolution” (para. 135) (one can note that the company did not miss to cite this quote in its press release). Instead, the law requires the defendant to act, according to their situation, preventively on the risks and serious harm to which they contribute through their activities by establishing a duty of vigilance coupled with an obligation of means (para. 136).
Therefore, the court concluded that the term “environment” must be interpreted broadly as encompassing climate change caused by the released of greenhouse gas emissions (para. 138). Moreover, given the serious, present and future threat to the enjoyment of human rights caused by climate change, climate risks must be taken into account by companies in their vigilance plans since their identification is part of preventing serious human rights abuses (para. 139).
The court’s response to the deletion of Article 22 of the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, a snub to TotalEnergies’ anti-climate lobbying
In addition to the arguments aforementioned contesting the inclusion of climate under the scope of the Duty of vigilance law, TotalEnergies claimed that climate change fell under a specific declaration regime, such as under the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D), which decoupled this subject (provided for in its Article 22 in the form of an obligation to establish a climate transition plan) from the risks of harm to the environment, while innocently recalling that the said article will soon no longer exist (para. 47).
It is essential here to recall the role TotalEnergies played to dilute and repeal the CS3D, (in clear contradiction of the company’s commitments to respect international standards, in particular the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines). SOMO’s investigation revealed how the company, together with other oil and gas companies lobbied against the Directive. TotalEnergies was among the top 10 corporate actors with the highest number of meetings with members of the EU Parliament on Omnibus competitiveness, and/or the CS3D between January 2024 and July 2025 (11 meetings, to which must be added 11 meetings between the Parliament and Cefic to which TotalEnergies is a member). Under the guise of a “Competitiveness Roundtable”, TotalEnergies targeted the French, Belgian, and Danish governments to get Article 22 in the CS3D deleted as part of a “divide and conquer” strategy developed to “take advantage of the ‘weak’ Council negotiating mandate” and disagreements between EU Member States on “contentious articles”. Such strategy paid off like, as mentioned by TotalEnergies in its argument, Article 22 has been removed entirely from the Directive. And for the cherry on the cake, the CEO of the French major, “a credible player in the energy transition” (to quote his words), together with one of his counterparts wrote last October a letter to French President and German Chancellor, on behalf of 46 European companies, to call for “the full abolishment of CS3D as a clear and symbolic signal to European and international companies that the governments and the Commission are really engaged to restore competitiveness in Europe.”
Nevertheless, the court’s response to the defendant’s argument is key for the future implementation of the Directive regarding climate due diligence obligation. The court noted that the fight against climate change was clearly one of the motivations that guided the drafting of the CS3D, as reaffirmed in its preamble by reference to the EU’s strategy to limit global warming to 1.5°C (para. 142). Furthermore, the court affirmed that adverse environmental impacts as defined under Article 3 of the Directive (and considering the list provided in its Annex) undeniably include anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (para. 143-144) and that “these provisions are not affected by the new legislative procedure known as the “omnibus directive” as the structure of the CS3D has not been modified and its objective, which is to ensure the transition of businesses to a sustainable economy by reconciling economic development and environmental protection, remains unchanged” (para. 145). Therefore “the planned deletion of Article 22 by this procedure […] concerns the climate transition plan and has no impact on the corporate due diligence obligations regime provided for in Articles 7 to 16 of the Directive.” (para. 146).
Scope 3 emissions: Accountability cannot be escaped by arguing clients’ responsibility
While TotalEnergies already includes in its vigilance plan as part of its risk mapping scopes 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions (emissions resulting from the company’s activities and from the production of energy purchased by the company), the defendant argued that scope 3 emissions fell outside the scope of the law since these emissions do not result from its activities but from the activities of its subsidiaries’ clients, over whom it has no control (para. 49).
In this case, the question raised concerned the scope of the negative impacts of the activities of TotalEnergies’ subsidiaries, even though it also includes scope 1 emissions from its customers (para. 172).
As the company contested the consequences of the energy production activity of its subsidiaries on the increase of greenhouse gases emissions (para. 173), the court restated the obvious and undisputed fact that the oil or gas extracted is intended to be sold and consumed (para. 174) and that the combustion of oil inevitably leads to the release of a determinable quantity of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere (para. 175). As put by the British Supreme Court cited by the Paris court “The combustion emissions are manifestly not out with the control of the site operators. They are entirely within their control. If no oil is extracted, no combustion emissions will occur. Conversely, any extraction of oil by the site operators will in due course result in greenhouse gases emissions upon its inevitable combustion.”(para. 177).
The court also pointed out that reducing its scope 3 emissions (342 Mt CO2), which are significantly higher than its operations footprint, was part of the defendant’s sustainable development strategy (para. 180) and that the company acknowledges having the means to influence the emissions of its end customers and to act on scope 3 emissions, particularly by deciding on its investments and the composition of its energy portfolio (para. 181). Therefore, scope 3 emissions are among the negative impacts resulting from the company’s own activities. As a result, the court concluded that scope 3 emissions from the defendant’s subsidiaries are part of the risks arising from their activities that the parent company must identify in its vigilance plan in accordance with the scope of the law (para. 182-183).
TotalEnergies is ordered to complement its vigilance plan within 6 months (para. 209). However, the court found it was not its role to set target for the defendant to achieve to prevent or mitigate the negative climate impacts resulting from its activities, as it would fall outside its power (para. 215-220). This can be put in parallel with the Hague Court of Appeal decision in the case against Shell, in which the court considered it was unable to set a specific percentage of greenhouse gas emissions reduction as existing climate laws did not impose concrete reduction rates for individual companies or sectors.
Conclusion
This ruling contributes greatly to the advancement of the protection of the climate: (1) it recognises the inclusion of climate risks under the scope of the Duty of vigilance law and rejects the company’s attempt to separate climate issues from general environmental issues, (2), it establishes that scope 3 emissions from a company’s subsidiaries can be part of the risks arising from their activities and must be included in the parent company’s vigilance plan, and (3) it affirms that under the CS3D, companies have a climate due diligence obligation, despite the deletion of Article 22 on climate transition plan.
It also demonstrates the importance of the UNGPs and the OECD Guidelines, despite their non-binding nature, in interpreting and implementing binding legislation.
This ruling will inform proceedings in a parallel case in Belgium brought by a farmer against the oil and gas company for its impact on climate change.
Lastly, this decision comes amid the renegotiations of the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation. French media outlet Mediapart’s investigation revealed how France’s stance within the Council seemed to be partly modeled on that of TotalEnergies. The new categories of financial products (sustainable, transition and ESG basics), and in particular, the transition one stirs up TotalEnergies’ covetousness. The company proposed amendment which would allow companies investing in new oil and gas projects to be included in this category, provided they dedicate at least 20% of their investment spending to low carbon, transition or taxonomy-eligible activities. A threshold that would allow the company which reports at least 27% of sustainable investments to qualify under the transition category. The day before the Paris court ruling was issued, the Council agreed its negotiating position which adopts the oil and gas major’s proposal: “investments in companies active in the fossil fuel sector which allocate 20% of their capital expenditure to economic activities aligned with EU taxonomy (green classification) rules, and with a clear, time-bound strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, may be considered for inclusion in the transition category”.
The path to a decarbonised world is a path full of lobbyists.