A Paris court has ruled that French oil giant TotalEnergies must disclose the climate risks linked to emissions from its oil and gas products and outline plans to address them, in a high-stakes case brought by NGOs and the city of Paris. The ruling on Thursday represents a partial victory for climate change activists seeking to apply France's 2017 corporate duty of vigilance law to the climate crisis. However, the court stopped short of ordering specific measures such as limiting overseas exploration or setting binding emissions reduction targets.
Court Recognizes Climate Risks Under Duty of Vigilance Law
The case is part of a growing wave of climate litigation targeting major corporate emitters. NGOs and TotalEnergies argued at the Paris judicial court over whether environmental risks fall within France's corporate duty of vigilance law, enacted in 2017. The court stated: "Climate-related risks and impacts to which the company may contribute through its activities fall within the scope of the law on the duty of vigilance for parent companies and ordering companies."
The city of Paris hailed the ruling as "a landmark decision in the history of French climate law." Deputy mayor Alice Timsit said: "For the first time, a judge recognises that climate risks do indeed fall under the duty of vigilance owed by large corporations, and no fossil-fuel multinational can evade this responsibility." Timsit added that Paris joined the lawsuit because the city is "experiencing first-hand the impact of climate change on a densely populated, urban metropolis," as France and other European countries faced a record-breaking heatwave.
Scope 3 Emissions at the Heart of the Dispute
The claimants accused TotalEnergies of refusing to account for indirect emissions from end users, known as Scope 3 emissions, which they said amounted to 342 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2024. Company lawyers had argued during February hearings that the law did not cover global heating. But the four NGOs that brought the case said the law's reference to prevention of environmental risks encompasses local pollution and climate change.
TotalEnergies argued that the law applied only to its own operations and those of its contractors, not to customer activity. However, the court ruled that the company's vigilance plan was "incomplete" and gave TotalEnergies six months to amend it to include Scope 3 emissions. The court stated: "Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions are among the emissions resulting from the group's activities within the meaning of the law, due in particular to the inherent link between oil and gas production and the combustion of the products by users."
Court Declines to Impose Production Cuts
TotalEnergies has said it was the victim of "demonisation" by the claimants. Its lawyers argued that climate change would continue even if the company, which accounts for less than 2% of global production, shut its operations. The NGOs had sought a court order to halt new fossil fuel projects and require production cuts of 37% for oil and 25% for gas by 2030. But the court declined to impose such measures, stating the law did not allow the judge to "take the place of the company" to demand specific actions.
The company called the requested measures unreasonable and ineffective, arguing that production cuts or cancelled projects would simply shift output to competitors. In a rare move, the Paris public prosecutor also intervened in the civil proceedings, echoing TotalEnergies' stance and warning that imposing an overly broad protection obligation on companies would not be workable.
Wider Context of Climate Litigation
The case, opened in 2020, had produced interim wins for campaigners. In 2024, the Paris appeals court allowed the lawsuit to proceed but dismissed claims from several local authorities, including New York City, which had sought to join. Only the city of Paris was recognised as having standing. Other big polluters have faced court action globally. In late 2024, a Dutch appeals court overturned a ruling that had ordered Shell to deepen emissions cuts; the country's supreme court is due to issue a final ruling.
Joy Reyes, a policy fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said: "This is a significant decision, the first in France to bring a company's full climate impact within its legal duty of vigilance. The court held that climate risks are part of that duty, addressing them is a legal obligation, not voluntary good practice." Dr Noah Walker-Crawford, a research fellow at the institute, added: "This judgment is grounded in scientific consensus, treated by the court as established rather than open to dispute. Emissions warm the planet, that warming threatens human rights and that fossil fuel producers contribute to it. Central to the ruling was the inevitability of combustion. Oil and gas extracted for sale will be burned and the resulting emissions are causally tied to its extraction. The judgment reflects that the need to urgently respond to climate change is supported not only by science, but by law."
