The Case Against TotalEnergies: How Vigilant Must Companies Be in Tracking Their Own and Others’ Carbon Footprint

This article was prepared by Anzhela Shmakova, Associate Researcher in Public International Law at Climate and Environment at the ICLRC, for the Climate Bulletin (Issue 44) (in Russian).

The Climate Bulletin is a collection of analytical articles on sustainable development. It is prepared by the team of Gazprombank’s Center for the Implementation of Sustainable Development Principles with contributions from authors of the International and Comparative Law Research Center and invited experts.

After international courts and tribunals clarified the States’ obligations in respect of climate change, litigation has once again turned towards the private sector: civil society organizations have begun to invoke the latest findings of international judiciary in disputes before national courts.

On 25 June 2026, the Paris Judicial Court delivered its decision in the case against TotalEnergies, a transnational company that produces and markets energy. The decision was significantly influenced both by the opinions of international courts and by recent national case law in major climate proceedings.

Factual and Regulatory Background

In 2017, France adopted the Duty of Vigilance Law (known as the Loi relative au devoir de vigilance)¹, which amended the French Commercial Code. The law introduced a new Article L. 225-102-4 into the Code (Article L. 225-102-1 in the current version), which requires companies² to draw up and effectively implement “vigilance plans” (plans de vigilance, also referred to as due diligence plans). These plans must include due diligence measures aimed at identifying risks of and preventing serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, harm to the health and safety of people, and damage to the environment. The law covers risks arising from the activities of the company itself and of the entities it directly or indirectly controls, as well as from those of its counterparties in the value chain (subcontractors and suppliers) with which the company maintains an established commercial relationship, where such activities are linked to that relationship.

Vigilance plans must include the following elements: mapping that identifies, analyses and ranks risks; procedures to regularly assess, in accordance with the risk mapping, the situation of subsidiaries, subcontractors or suppliers; appropriate action to mitigate risks and prevent serious violations; an alert and reporting mechanism concerning existing or potential risks; and a monitoring scheme to follow up on the measures implemented and assess their efficiency.

The law also provides for civil liability (under the rules of the Civil Code) for failure to publish a plan or for incomplete information reflected in it, together with an obligation to compensate for harm (this provision was likewise introduced into the Commercial Code as a new Article L. 225-102-5 (now L. 225-102-2)). If a company fails to comply with its obligations within three months after receiving a formal notice, any person with a legitimate interest in bringing proceedings may ask the court to order the company to comply with the law. It was on the basis of this provision that the case discussed below was brought.

In addition to French legislation, the regulatory context of this case includes the European Union directives on corporate sustainability reporting and corporate sustainability due diligence³ (read more on these directives in Climate Bulletin No. 32 and No. 34). They impose obligations on European companies to disclose information, draw up due diligence plans and report on identifying risks and taking measures to prevent human rights violations and environmental harm, as well as obligations to prevent such situations and mitigate risks. Some sources report that the French law of 2017 inspired the creation of the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.⁴

The Case Against TotalEnergies⁵

In 2019, TotalEnergies published, as part of its reporting obligation, a vigilance plan that included a risk map covering Scope 1 and 2 emissions (i.e., direct emissions from the company’s own operations, and indirect emissions associated with the company’s activities but occurring at facilities it does not own or control),⁶ but excluding Scope 3 emissions, i.e., indirect emissions from the activities of counterparties along the value chain. Considering such a plan insufficient and non-compliant with the 2017 Law, a number of civil society organizations, including Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, Zéa and France Nature Environnement, issued a formal notice requiring the company to revise the plan and present a new one within three months. Ultimately, the case was referred to the Paris Judicial Court.

The claimants sought quite specific measures. The main ones were as follows:

1.     To order TotalEnergies to publish, within six months, a new vigilance plan including the following elements:

a.      A comprehensive mapping of the risks associated with global warming exceeding the 1.5°C threshold, drawing on the most recent findings of the IPCC⁷ and the objectives set out in the Paris Agreement, specifying the risks of serious harm to human rights and fundamental freedoms, the health and safety of individuals, and the environment;

b.     Its contribution, through its activities, to global greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2 and 3) and to the risks posed by climate change, including through asset disposals in light of the risk of carbon lock-in;

c.      The company’s contribution to the depletion of the remaining global carbon budget for limiting global warming to 1.5°C and to the exacerbation of risks arising from the continuation of hydrocarbon extraction projects for new oil and gas fields intended for exploitation, including through the divestment of carbon lock-in risk;

d.     A comprehensive mapping of the risks arising from its activities, in particular the direct and indirect emissions (Scope 1, 2 and 3) of the various types of greenhouse gases emitted by each sector of activity (namely, in particular, risks linked to the oil and gas production and distribution chain and risks linked to the combustion of fossil fuels);

e.      An analysis and prioritization of each of these risks according to their severity, so as to highlight the significance of climate-related risks.

2.     To order TotalEnergies to include in this plan a section setting out appropriate action to mitigate risks or prevent serious harm;

3.     To order TotalEnergies to implement, as a part of its obligation to prevent environmental damage, appropriate measures to reduce its direct and indirect emissions, in line with the Paris Agreement, in order to help limit global warming to 1.5°C.

When examining the claims, the Court considered it necessary to establish the factual and regulatory context, noting the role of the IPCC in providing up-to-date scientific data on the state of the climate system and global warming, and drawing attention to recent developments in international and national regulation of climate change mitigation. The Court also took into account recent advisory opinions and judgments of the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the European Court of Human Rights, some of which pointed to the link between States’ fulfilment of their climate change obligations and their obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights.

First and foremost, the Court had to determine which environmental risks are covered by the 2017 law. French legislation uses the broad term environnement, while the article requiring the adoption of climate transition plans was removed from the EU directives in the course of amendments. Taking into account the legislative history of the law and existing international guidance (the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights),⁸ the Court concluded that the term environnement includes the climate system as a component of the natural environment.⁹ Climate-related risks are therefore a mandatory component of corporate vigilance plans. Here the Court was as clear and strict as possible: it used the verb of obligation (devoir), expressly indicating that taking climate risks into account is an obligation, not a recommendation.

To determine which categories of greenhouse gas emissions must be accounted for and reflected in a vigilance plan, the Court used as its benchmark the existence of a causal link between oil and gas production activities and the emissions resulting from the consumption of the products of those activities.¹⁰ Relying on judgments in already well-known and widely-cited climate cases (for example, Finch v Surrey County Council and Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway), the Paris Judicial Court concluded that the greenhouse gas emissions arising from the consumption of energy products produced by TotalEnergies are closely connected to its own activities.¹¹ The logic here is simple (and is borrowed as a quotation from the Finch judgment): without the extraction of oil or gas, there would be no emissions from burning them, and the impact on the climate does not depend on who burns them, where or when. The Court found that TotalEnergies can easily quantify its Scope 3 emissions (and establish a close causal link between them and its own activities), all the more so since such accounting helps to better visualise the climate impact of its energy production and to adapt its corporate sustainability strategy to the prevailing temperature scenario.

Ultimately, due to the absence of Scope 3 emissions accounting, TotalEnergies’ plan was found to be incomplete and, in that respect, non-compliant with the Duty of Vigilance Law and Article L. 225-102-1 of the Commercial Code.

Conclusions and Implications

Accounting for greenhouse gas emissions and taking measures to reduce impact on climate system¹² are now no longer a part of advertisement or strategy to induce sales via adopting customer-focused approach, but an obligation established by law. Moreover, companies must take into account the impact not only of their own activities but also of their counterparties in the value chain of the product they produce (subcontractors and suppliers with which they have established commercial relationships, in connection with those relationships).

This decision is the first in French case-law to clearly establish that the 2017 Duty of Vigilance Law applies to climate risks and to climate change action in general. At the same time, the decision leaves some ambiguity as to the clarification of companies’ liability for breaching the 2017 law and for inadequate due diligence. The Court ordered TotalEnergies to update its vigilance plan but did not require the company to take specific actions. Herein lies the key limitation: the law does give the courts substantial powers to assess corporate plans, but it leaves companies discretion in determining and implementing measures to prevent violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to prevent harm to the environment, including the climate system. The law does not allow the courts to set a specific corporate emissions reduction trajectory or a guaranteed climate outcome on their own.

The Court’s findings on the link between the obligation to implement a vigilance plan under the 2017 law and the civil-law obligation to prevent environmental harm, together with its procedural decision at this stage, effectively imply a two-stage review. First, vigilance plans are subject to judicial review with the possibility of their being amended; then, the progress and results of their implementation may be reviewed, with the possibility of civil liability for insufficient action.¹³

The second stage may come for TotalEnergies as well: a pre-trial hearing to prepare the remaining claims for consideration has been scheduled for 21 January 2027.