Climate litigation is evolving and increasingly courts are being asked to determine the adequacy of corporate disclosures relating to climate risks and steps proposed to manage these risks. While the TotalEnergies case was brought under France's corporate duty of vigilance regime before the Paris Court, its implications extend far beyond French borders.
The judgment confirms a growing willingness by courts to scrutinise how companies identify, assess and mitigate climate-related risks across their operations and value chains. It also offers an indication of the direction of travel for climate-related litigation and corporate governance, such as the increasing likelihood that due diligence obligations will be used as a vehicle by claimants to challenge corporate climate strategies.
Background
The French corporate duty of vigilance law (Law No. 2017-399) enacted in 2017 (the "Vigilance Law"), requires large French companies to publish vigilance plans setting out the due diligence measures they will take to identify and prevent environmental, health and safety and human rights harms arising from their activities, their subsidiaries' activities, and activities of their suppliers and sub-contractors. In-scope companies are typically expected to identify and assess potential risks, implement measures to prevent harms associated with these risks and evaluate the effectiveness of these measures.
The case, brought by four NGOs and the City of Paris against TotalEnergies, a global oil and gas major headquartered in France, centred on allegations that TotalEnergies' vigilance plan failed adequately to address the climate risks arising from its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, particularly its Scope 3 emissions (which for energy companies represents the vast majority of their emissions) generated through customers' use of its fossil fuel products. The Plaintiffs argued that compliance with the Vigilance Law required greater disclosure of climate-related risks and mitigation measures, including steps to reduce emissions. They sought injunctions requiring TotalEnergies to publish a revised vigilance plan and implement measures aimed at achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.
TotalEnergies advanced three main arguments. First, climate change is a global phenomenon with multiple causes and factors and therefore climate risks should be addressed by regulatory frameworks such as the EU's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive ("CSDDD"). Second, its Scope 3 emissions are beyond its control as they are generated by its subsidiaries' customers' combustion of fossil fuels. Third, its vigilance plan is sufficient, and the Court should not prescribe specific measures that TotalEnergies should take.
The French Public Prosecutor's Office intervened in the proceedings and made submissions that the duty under the Vigilance Law should not extend to climate change.
The Court's approach to climate change and Scope 3 emissions
The most significant aspect of the judgment is the Court's treatment of climate change risks and Scope 3 emissions as matters that fall squarely within the scope of corporate due diligence obligations. It held that the concept of the "environment" should be interpreted broadly and includes climate change arising from GHG emissions. As a result, companies subject to the Vigilance Law must consider climate-related risks within their vigilance plans. The Court considered this consistent with both the OECD Guidelines and the CSDDD.
Importantly, the Court also held that Scope 3 emissions arising from the activities of TotalEnergies' subsidiaries form part of the adverse impacts associated with the group's operations and therefore need to be assessed and addressed within the vigilance plan. In reaching this conclusion, the Court observed that fossil fuels are extracted for the purpose of being sold and consumed and drew support from the UK Supreme Court's decision in Finch v Surrey Council, which recognised the close causal connection between fossil fuel extraction, combustion and resulting GHG emissions.
The Court concluded the vigilance plan was incomplete and accordingly it ordered TotalEnergies to submit a revised vigilance plan quantifying its Scope 3 emissions and identifying the measures it will take to mitigate the emissions and associated risks.
However, it was only a partial victory since the Court declined to go as far as the Plaintiffs had requested. It held that whilst the Vigilance Law requires companies to take "appropriate measures", it does not empower the Court to direct a company to adopt specific climate strategies, reduce production or pursue particular emissions targets. The Court therefore stopped short of mandating that TotalEnergies make substantive operational changes.
Next steps
TotalEnergies must publish a revised vigilance plan within six months, containing a new climate risk assessment covering Scope 3 emissions and the measures it proposes to mitigate the associated risks. A further hearing is scheduled for 21 January 2027, at which the Court will consider whether the revised plan adequately addresses the identified risks.
Meanwhile, TotalEnergies announced on 27 July 2026 its intention to appeal the judgment to the Paris Court of Appeal. It is expected to argue that: (i) climate change is primarily a matter for policymakers and state governments rather than corporations; (ii) the purpose of the Vigilance Law is to encourage responsible corporate behaviour rather than mandate climate outcomes; and (iii) companies should not be expected to control, or be held accountable for, climate impacts resulting from the use of their products by end users.
The judgment is provisionally enforceable, meaning that TotalEnergies must comply with the Court's order notwithstanding any appeal.
Implications for businesses
The decision represents a significant development in climate-related litigation. The Plaintiffs established that corporate duties under the Vigilance Law extend to mitigating climate change risks, and TotalEnergies must now address climate risks and Scope 3 emissions within its vigilance plan. The Court drew an important distinction between requiring companies to identify and address those risks and ordering substantive changes to corporate climate strategy. While TotalEnergies was ordered to revise its vigilance plan, the Court declined to mandate specific emissions reductions, production cuts or operational changes.
The implications of this decision are wide-reaching. Companies subject to the Vigilance Law, and those operating within the supply chains and value chains of in-scope organisations, are likely to face increased scrutiny of the adequacy of their climate-related risk assessments, mitigation measures and governance processes. More broadly, the judgment illustrates how domestic due diligence regimes can be used to challenge the management of climate risks associated with global business activities.
The decision is especially noteworthy in the context of the continuing implementation of the CSDDD across EU Member States. Although legal frameworks differ, regulators, investors, NGOs and claimants are increasingly focusing on how organisations identify, assess and manage climate-related risks throughout their operations and value chains.
Another notable feature of the judgment is the Court's reliance on international climate jurisprudence, including Finch v Surrey County Council and Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland. The decision demonstrates the increasing convergence of climate litigation across jurisdictions and highlights the extent to which courts are drawing on developments in other countries when considering novel climate-related claims.
For UK companies, the judgment provides a useful indication of the direction of travel. Although the UK does not have an equivalent vigilance regime, courts and regulators are showing an increasing willingness to examine climate-related disclosures, governance arrangements and risk management processes. Businesses should therefore ensure that climate risks, including material Scope 3 exposures where relevant, are appropriately assessed, documented, monitored and reviewed.
From a D&O and governance perspective, the decision reinforces the importance of board oversight and evidencing decision-making. As climate-related obligations continue to evolve, directors can expect closer scrutiny of how climate risks are identified, escalated, debated and monitored at board level. Clear governance structures, robust documentation and demonstrable consideration of climate-related risks will be increasingly important in mitigating litigation and regulatory exposure, particularly for those operating in high-carbon sectors.
