TotalEnergies and the duty of vigilance: An analysis of the June 25, 2026 ruling
On June 25, the 34th Chamber of the Paris Judicial Court (tribunal judiciaire de Paris) issued a highly anticipated ruling on the duty of vigilance and climate risks. In this ruling, the court has ordered TotalEnergies SE to complete its vigilance plan within six months, incorporating Scope 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into its value chain analysis.
In the coming months, this ruling will undoubtedly be the subject of numerous scholarly analyses aimed at determining its actual scope. This is a landmark decision. Pending a more in-depth analysis, several points are worth highlighting right away: the facts of the case, the judge’s reasoning, and the potential impact of this decision on European litigation regarding vigilance.
A first decision on the merits
As a reminder, litigation concerning the French duty of vigilance is a recent development, arising from the adoption in 2017 of the French law on the duty of vigilance of parent companies and contracting companies (Loi nº 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre). This law provides, among other things, that companies subject to it must establish and effectively implement a vigilance plan (codified in Article L. 225-102-4, now L. 225-102-1 of the Commercial Code).
This vigilance plan must be published annually and outline reasonable vigilance measures designed to identify and prevent serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as harm to people’s health and safety and to the environment, resulting from the company’s activities.
This means that companies subject to this law may be held liable if the published vigilance plan is deemed insufficient to prevent human rights and environmental abuses related to their operations.
In recent years, several lawsuits have been filed on the ground of the duty of vigilance against French companies such as EDF, Yves Rocher and BNP Paribas. However, the plaintiffs encountered major procedural obstacles, usually linked with the admissibility of the claims or the court’s jurisdiction. Besides, judges had, up to that point, shown some reluctance to rule on the merits of the case, believing that the requirements of the law remained unclear.
Nevertheless, an initial ruling by the Paris Court of Appeals, handed down on June 17, 2025, which found the La Poste Group liable for failing to fulfill its duty of vigilance, provided new clarity. In this ruling, the judge outlines the compliance criteria for risk mapping. He also examines the scope of the obligation for stakeholders to consult with one another when establishing warning mechanisms and systems for receiving reports.
The Decision of 25 June 2026, for its part, will represent a real leap forward. On the one hand, the ruling confirms companies’ responsibility in relation to climate risks. On the other hand, it establishes the role of the judge and the scope of their judicial review powers, in particular their power to rule on the credibility and comprehensiveness of risk management plans. By going beyond the purely procedural aspects that had until now characterized litigation—as illustrated by the EDF case (Paris Judicial Court, 30 November 2021, and Paris Court of Appeal, 18 June 2024)—this ruling finally gives substance to the duty of vigilance and serves as a significant precedent for identifying the new litigation risks facing businesses in Europe.
The facts and grounds of the appeal
TotalEnergies is one of the world’s largest companies dedicated to energy production and supply. Formerly known as Total, it has its head office in France but operates in more than 120 countries and employs nearly 103,000 employees. These operations contribute to an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere, which in turn contribute to global warming: the company estimated its Scope 3 GHG emissions for 2026 at 342 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent.
Since 2018, a broad coalition of civil society organizations and local authorities has criticized TotalEnergies for failing to play its fair share in the fight against global warming. According to the coalition, the mitigation pathways outlined in the first two vigilance plans, published in 2017 and 2018, are not aligned with the objectives of the Paris Agreement, as they fail to take into account the risks associated with indirect GHG emissions—that is, emissions falling within Scope 3. The coalition argues that these vigilance plans would in no way prevent serious human rights and environmental abuses and would therefore fail to meet the requirements of the Law on the Duty of Vigilance.
In January 2020, a smaller coalition of organizations—this time comprising Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, Zéa, France Nature Environnement and the City of Paris—brought a claim against TotalEnergies on the dual grounds of breach of the duty of vigilance and ecological damage. It is within the context of these proceedings that the decision of 25 June 2026 by the Paris Judicial Court, requiring the company to finalize its compliance plan within six months, comes into play.
The two-fold perspective of this decision
Several aspects of the decision of 25 June 2026 are worth highlighting.
The consideration of scientific evidence and of the interdependence of environmental and social impacts
In order to analyze climate imperatives both globally and in detail, the court took into account various sources, including binding legal instruments applicable to France in this area, some international soft-law standards, and the findings of specialized organizations such as those of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Without being exhaustive, the judge’s analysis demonstrates an unprecedented effort to assess the current state of scientific discourse on GHGs. The participation of two IPCC scientists at the hearing of the closing arguments is a significant development in this regard, as it brings climate science into the French judicial system.
One of the points of disagreement between the parties focused on the concept of the environment as defined by law, and whether or not this includes climate risks. The judge then drew on various sources, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines on “reasonable due diligence”, as well as the preparatory work and parliamentary debates that preceded the adoption of the law, and concluded that the legislature’s intention was indeed to interpret the concept of the environment in its broadest sense, which “includes climate change caused by the release of GHG emissions into the atmosphere, an essential component of the environment, which is part of the adverse environmental impacts recognized in the international and European commitments to which France is a party” (§ 138). Additionally, the judge pointed out the consensus that climate-related risks constitute a “serious, present and future threat to the enjoyment of human rights, according to the shared view of scientists and international jurisdictions” (§ 139).
The judge also considered the company’s value chain as a whole. He noted that TotalEnergies has the means at its disposal to exert direct influence over its end customers and to encourage them to reduce their own emissions. This capacity to exert influence—which manifests itself specifically through investment practises and the composition of its energy portfolio (§ 181)—justifies considering Scope 3 GHG emissions as forming an integral part of the adverse impacts resulting from the group’s own activities. Based on this reasoning, the judge confirms that Scope 3 emissions constitute risks that TotalEnergies must identify in its own vigilance plan in order to comply with the law (sections 182 and 183).
Among all the texts cited, it is also worth mentioning the reference to the Advisory Opinion of 23 July 2025 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on States’ obligations regarding climate change. The court noted that, under customary international law, the obligations of States include, according to the ICJ, “the duty to prevent any significant damage to the environment (…) and to use all means at their disposal to ensure that activities carried out under their jurisdiction or control do not cause significant damage to the climate system and other aspects of the environment (§ 448)” (§ 100). In light of this opinion, it therefore appears essential for the French jurisdictions to regulate the practices of TotalEnergies, a company incorporated under French law and a major global emitter of greenhouse gases.
The court also takes into account the recent European directives—the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD)—as well as the amendments introduced by the 2025 “Omnibus Directive”. Although the court confirms that the requirement for European companies to adopt and implement a climate transition plan has indeed been removed from the new version of the EU CSDDD Directive, it states that this removal has no bearing on the scope of the French duty of vigilance. Indeed, Member States retain the option of setting higher standards in their national law (§ 91). This clarification is important, as the revision of the European directives carried out in 2025 had been a source of uncertainty regarding the future of the French duty of vigilance.
The judge’s leadership over the international conversations was undoubtedly made possible by a significant judicial innovation: the creation of a chamber specializing in cases relating to the duty of care. By conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Paris Court of Justice, the judiciary avoids the fragmentation of litigation, promotes the development of a body of consistent rulings, and enables judges to build up genuine expertise in matters relating to corporate vigilance and climate science.
The confirmation of the key role played by stakeholders in improving climate practises
The decision of June 25 follows sustained efforts by a coalition of various stakeholders. Four environmental and human rights organizations, together with fourteen local communities, have joined forces to ensure greater accountability on the part of the oil company. Between 2018 and 2020, this coalition of stakeholders initially pursued an out-of-court approach, based on dialogue, in order to secure a strengthening of TotalEnergies’s climate commitments. It was only later that, having concluded that the company’s failure to comply was ongoing, the coalition sought the court’s intervention.
Stakeholder participation can be pivotal in improving business practices; it is in fact enshrined in the 2017 law itself. The legislator has specified that the vigilance plan “is intended to be drawn up in collaboration with the company’s stakeholders, where applicable, as part of multi-stakeholder initiatives within supply chains or at a regional level” (Article L. 225-102-1 of the Commercial Code). The 2026 decision is therefore in line with the La Poste case law, in which the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that the obligation to consult, as provided for by law, must be distinguished from a mere obligation to provide information or to consult on a predefined project: it entails the transmission of information, as well as an exchange of views and proposals on the drafting of the mechanism to be established, prior to its development.
A decision with reverberations in Canada
The limits of the duty of vigilance
Certain aspects of the French duty of vigilance may constitute constraints that could undermine the effective improvement of climate-related practices. This is because the judge’s powers do not allow him to order that a company be required to follow a specific GHG mitigation pathway. The judge cannot impose specific measures to ensure that the company’s strategy is aligned with the Paris Agreement. On the basis of the duty of vigilance, the judge may essentially assess whether, in his or her view, the content of a vigilance plan adequately maps out the risks and proposes appropriate measures—that is, measures that are “concrete, coherent and proportionate” (§ 218). It is actually up to the company itself to devise its strategy, as this falls within the scope of its freedom to manage its own affairs.
It should be noted that there are other legal bases for holding companies incorporated under French law more clearly liable. With regard to climate-related damage caused, the concept of ecological harm (Article 1252 of the French Civil Code) may be invoked. Incidentally, the judge will have to rule on this point during the next stage of the proceedings against TotalEnergies in January 2027. Additionally, the company was found liable in 2025 on the basis of its communications strategy (Paris Civil Court, 23 October 2025). The Paris District Court had ruled that the claims made in its media campaign, which asserted that the company would achieve carbon neutrality by 2025, constituted prohibited greenwashing practices. This means that legal action for breach of the duty of vigilance is one of the various tools that can now be used to step up the fight against climate change in France.
Impact on other jurisdictions
This ruling could serve as an enlightening precedent for other countries. On this matter, a legal action was brought in Belgium in March 2026 by a farmer and agricultural engineer, together with several non-governmental organizations, against TotalEnergies. They believe that the French oil and gas giant, Belgium’s leading distributor of petroleum products, is responsible for climate perturbation and its consequences for agriculture. This legal action highlights the interdependence of the impacts on the climate and on biodiversity. The Belgian judge has decided to await the French ruling in June before ruling on the merits of the case.
The future of conversations in Canada
On the Canadian front, the duty of vigilance has been a topic of discussion among practitioners and researchers for the past few years. Although the European directives (CSRD and CSDDD) revised in 2025 are not, at this stage, giving rise to new legal proceedings in Canada, they will nonetheless have an impact on globalized value chains and will require greater transparency from some Canadian companies. For that matter, some Canadian companies are affected by the European directives and have already had to adapt to comply with them.
It should also be pointed out that the assessment of corporate sustainability in Canada continues to be approached primarily from a financial perspective—through disclosure processes, non-financial reporting, environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria, and the development of new taxonomies. There appears to be some reluctance towards the idea of introducing new sustainability requirements that would be binding on companies, their management or their boards of directors.
It will therefore be of interest to local stakeholders involved in corporate vigilance to learn from the European implementation and to contribute to the development of an innovative Canadian body of “climate law” that is genuinely effective in reducing GHG emissions in the country. Bill S-211, which introduced corporate vigilance into Canadian law, was only a first step; further steps still need to be taken to address climate and sustainability issues. The European Union, which drew inspiration from France when adopting its directive, is using the duty of vigilance as an additional legislative tool to support businesses’ transition towards a sustainable economy, mainly to reduce the existential threats and costs associated with climate change. Canada should follow this path, particularly as recent press articles show that its position is becoming increasingly untenable.