A hot summer for climate due diligence

As Europe swelters through another record-breaking heatwave, the Paris Judicial Court on 25 June 2026 delivered one of the most significant climate due diligence judgments to date. Its decision in Notre Affaire à Tous and others v TotalEnergies confirmed that climate change is covered by the French Duty of Vigilance Act, that vigilance plans must address Scope 3 emissions, and that climate due diligence is firmly embedded in the European corporate governance landscape.

Background and legal framework

France’s Duty of Vigilance Act requires very large parent companies to establish and effectively implement a vigilance plan addressing serious risks to human rights, health and safety, and the environment arising from its own activities, those of their controlled subsidiaries, and certain business partners.

TotalEnergies, as the parent of a global energy group, published its first vigilance plan in March 2018, followed by a revised plan in March 2019.

A coalition of NGOs and local authorities subsequently engaged with the company, arguing that its successive vigilance plans did not adequately address climate-related risks and, in particular, did not cover the greenhouse gas emissions generated through the use of its oil and gas products (“Scope 3 emissions”), which they considered central to TotalEnergies’s contribution to climate change.

As the coalition was unable to reach an agreement with TotalEnergies, the claimants commenced proceedings before the Nanterre Judicial Court in January 2020 and later transferred to the Paris Judicial Court. The claimants sought orders requiring TotalEnergies to publish a new vigilance plan and adopt measures to mitigate climate-related risks by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. They also sought preventive measures under Article 1252 Civil Code, which empowers Courts to order reasonable measures to prevent or end ecological damage.

By the time of the February 2026 hearing, TotalEnergies had published six vigilance plans. The Court based its assessment on the most recent plan, for the 2024 financial year.

The Paris Judicial Court’s key findings

The judgment addresses four principal questions that are likely to shape future climate due diligence litigation.

1.  Does the French Duty of Vigilance Act apply to climate change? 

A central question was whether “the environment” under the French Duty of Vigilance Act includes climate change.

The Court answered with striking clarity: the term "environment" must be interpreted in its broadest sense, meaning that climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions is an integral part of the environment and squarely within the scope of the Act.

In doing so the Court relied on the legislative history of the Act – which was itself inspired by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct. It also drew on the Paris Agreement, the scientific consensus reflected in the IPCC’s (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) work and recent jurisprudence, including the European Court of Human Rights’ KlimaSeniorinnen judgment and the International Court of Justice’s 2025 advisory opinion.

Against that background, the Court held that the Act is intended to address serious risks to human rights, health, safety, and the environment in a comprehensive manner. Climate change, it concluded, forms an integral part of those environmental risks and, given its close connection with the protection of human rights, must be taken into account in corporate vigilance plans.

2.  Do Scope 3 emissions fall within the French Duty of Vigilance Act?

Having established that climate-related risks fall within the French Duty of Vigilance Act, the Court turned to the practical implications of that conclusion. The principal issue was whether Scope 3 emissions “result from” the activities of TotalEnergies and its controlled subsidiaries within the meaning of the Act.

Drawing on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS E1) and recent climate litigation – including the UK Supreme Court’s Finch judgment, the Hague Court of Appeal’s Shell decision, and the ECtHR’s Greenpeace Nordic judgment – the Court rejected TotalEnergies’ argument that Scope 3 emissions are simply emissions generated by customers falling outside the scope of its statutory duty of vigilance.

Instead, it held that those emissions arise directly from TotalEnergies’ business model. They are the inevitable consequence of producing and selling fossil fuels and can be influenced through the company’s investment decisions and the composition of its energy portfolio.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that Scope 3 emissions “form part of the adverse impacts resulting from the group’s own activities” and therefore constitute risks that must be identified and addressed in the company’s vigilance plan. This is the judgment’s central legal conclusion: downstream emissions fall squarely within the scope of the French Duty of Vigilance Act.

3.  How does the judgment reconcile the French Duty of Vigilance Act with the CSRD and the CSDDD?

Another important issue was TotalEnergies’ submission that climate change should be dealt with through the EU sustainability reporting regime under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) rather than through the French Duty of Vigilance Act.

The Court rejected that argument. It distinguished sustainability reporting from substantive due diligence, holding that reporting greenhouse gas emissions does not replace a company's obligation to identify and address climate-related risks through its vigilance plan. The two regimes are complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

The Court relied extensively on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Although the Directive was not directly applicable to the dispute, it demonstrated that climate change falls within the concept of “environment” for due diligence purposes. The Court observed that the CSDDD – largely inspired by the French Duty of Vigilance Act itself – reinforces a risk-based approach to environmental due diligence by expressly encompassing the identification of climate-related risks, and confirms the central role of companies in the transition to a sustainable economy.

The Court also addressed the European Commission’s proposed “Omnibus” legislative reform process, a package aimed at simplifying the EU sustainability framework, including the CSRD and CSDDD.As the Court explains, this proposed reform seeks to raise the applicability thresholds for both directives and to reduce the intensity of corporate due diligence obligations, particularly at the stages of identifying and assessing adverse impacts. It also envisages the removal of the harmonised EU-wide obligation to adopt and implement a climate transition plan under the CSDDD, as well as the replacement of the EU-level civil liability regime with national liability rules. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that the core structure of the due diligence regime remains intact, including its risk-based approach to environmental and climate impacts. Accordingly, and notwithstanding the current legislative debate, climate due diligence remains embedded within the European corporate governance framework.

What is the Court’s role in reviewing corporate vigilance plans?

Having established the scope of the French Duty of Vigilance Act, the Court assessed TotalEnergies’ latest vigilance plan.

It found that the plan contained no risk identification, mitigation or monitoring measures relating to Scope 3 emissions and was therefore incomplete. TotalEnergies was ordered to revise its vigilance plan within 6 months by incorporating Scope 3 emissions into its risk mapping and related vigilance measures.

However, the Court declined to grant the broader relief sought by the claimants, including quantified emissions reduction targets, restriction on new fossil fuel projects and alignment with specific IPCC and International Energy Agency (IEA) pathways. In declining to do so, it drew a distinction between judicial oversight and corporate management. The French Duty of Vigilance requires courts to ensure that vigilance plans are complete and contain reasonable, concrete and coherent measures, but it does not empower them to prescribe the content of those measures or dictate corporate climate strategy. Nor, the Court held, can the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C objective – intergovernmental in nature – be translated directly into judicially imposed corporate emissions trajectories.

Commentary

The judgment is of significant importance. It confirms that climate change falls within the scope of the French Duty of Vigilance Act, that Scope 3 emissions may constitute risks arising from a company’s own activities where there is a sufficient causal link, and that companies must therefore address those emissions in their vigilance plans.

Beyond that, the judgment has broader European significance. By distinguishing sustainability reporting under the CSRD from substantive due diligence, and by relying on the CSDDD despite the ongoing Omnibus reforms, the Court indicates that climate due diligence remains a cornerstone of the evolving European corporate governance framework.

Finally, the Court stayed the claim under Article 1252 of the Civil Code concerning ecological damage, holding that it could not meaningfully assess the adequacy of any preventive measures until TotalEnergies had first revised its vigilance plan in accordance with the judgment. The next stage of the proceedings may therefore prove just as significant as this one. À suivre…

With thanks to Paralegal Maksim Mirutenko for his contributions to this piece.