The court found the climate-related risks and impacts (Scope 3 emissions) from the company\u2019s clients fall within the scope of the French Duty of Vigilance law. These types of emissions often account for the majority of an oil and gas company\u2019s total GHG emissions. <\/p>\n
\u201cAdverse\u201d climate impacts caused by GHG emissions released as a result of the oil major\u2019s activities should have been identified in its risk mapping as part of its vigilance plan, it said. Companies in scope of the French law are required to publish a vigilance plan each year.<\/p>\n
The court described TotalEnergies\u2019 existing plan as \u201cincomplete\u201d. It gave the company six months to publish a new plan that includes a new climate risk assessment and appropriate measures to mitigate risks to nature and the environment.<\/p>\n
The French court stopped short of requiring the oil major to halt the development of new oil and gas projects or to reduce its oil and gas production.<\/p>\n
The court will revisit the case in January 2027 to check that the appropriate measures have been incorporated into TotalEnergies\u2019 plan.<\/p>\n
Heavy emitters can be held responsible<\/p>\n
Center for International Environmental Law senior attorney S\u00e9bastien Duyck said the ruling is evidence that big polluters have a \u201cduty\u201d to cut emissions and contribute to preventing climate harms to communities and ecosystems. <\/p>\n
\u201cCompanies will need to stop treating climate commitments as optional and redirect their vast profits towards the fast and fair energy transition away from fossil fuels,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
ClientEarth lawyer Johnny White said the ruling adds to a \u201cgrowing body\u201d of decisions showing that companies in the heaviest-emitting sectors can be held responsible for their \u201cclimate harms\u201d.<\/p>\n
Companies will need to stop treating climate commitments as optional and redirect their vast profits towards the fast and fair energy transition away from fossil fuels<\/p>\n
He said other businesses should \u201ctake note\u201d and that litigation risks are \u201creal and growing\u201d. Long-term decarbonisation strategies \u201cshould prevail\u201d over short-term delay tactics, he added<\/p>\n
The climate case was brought<\/a> against the oil major in 2020 by environmental non-profits Notre Affaire \u00e0 Tous, Sherpa, Zea, France Nature Environnement, together with the City of Paris. In addition to asking TotalEnergies to account for its Scope 3 emissions risks, they had also called for the company to be forced to take measures to reduce its emissions \u201cdrastically\u201d.<\/p>\n In a statement<\/a>, TotalEnergies said it will update its vigilance plan \u201caccordingly\u201d and draw on its Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive report, in which it describes the actions implemented to support its customers in reducing their emissions, \u201cnotably through the development of electricity and biofuels production and sales activities\u201d.<\/p>\n In its 2026 Sustainability and Climate Progress Report<\/a>, the company said it was unable to adopt a 1.5C-aligned transition plan in line with EU reporting standards, and consequently could not set net zero targets under the CSRD.<\/p>\n Changes in its customers\u2019 emissions also depend on their own investment and consumption choices, the company added. <\/p>\n Further climate litigation <\/p>\n This is not the first time TotalEnergies has found itself in court. In 2025, the company lost a landmark greenwashing case after a French court found it had misled consumers over claims made in advertising materials. In May, the oil major was faced with a complaint<\/a> from environmental law non-profit ClientEarth and two French environmental groups over greenwashing risks towards investors.<\/p>\n In the Netherlands, non-governmental organisations have been in a long-running battle with Shell over its GHG emissions. They want the company to stop drilling for new oil and gas. In 2024, a court ruled that the oil major must reduce its carbon dioxide emissions, but did not specify at what percentage.<\/p>\n The organisations argue that Shell should be required to reduce its emissions by 45 per cent compared with 2019. A decision on this is expected next year.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/france\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/a93d876e-0d80-4891-9ad8-b2de40e2d151.jpg\")
<\/p>\n