Paris Court Orders TotalEnergies to Address Scope 3 Climate Risks in Landmark Duty-of-Vigilance Ruling

French energy giant TotalEnergies must identify and disclose measures to address the climate risks resulting from Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions — those released when customers use its oil and gas products — according to a ruling handed down by the Paris Judicial Court on 26 June 2026. The order gives the company six months to update its legally mandated vigilance plan to integrate those considerations, which the court will review when proceedings resume early next year.

The case traces back to 2020, when a coalition of NGOs including Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa and France Nature Environnement, joined by the City of Paris, brought suit under France's "duty of vigilance" law. Adopted in 2017, that law requires large companies to maintain a vigilance plan to assess and prevent the impacts of their activities on the environment and human rights. The claimants argued that TotalEnergies' plan was incomplete because it failed to adequately account for the climate harms flowing from the combustion of its fossil fuel products, which represent nearly 90% of the company's total greenhouse gas footprint.

This story links to three UN Sustainable Development Goals. SDG 13 (Climate Action) is central, as the ruling forces a major oil company to confront the emissions caused by the use of its products. SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) reflects the role of the courts in holding corporations accountable. And SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) speaks to the downstream, Scope 3 emissions the case puts under scrutiny.

In its judgment, the court agreed on the central point. It ruled that the climate-related risks to which the company contributes fall within the scope of the vigilance law, and that TotalEnergies must map the adverse climate impacts caused by emissions from its activities. Crucially, the court found that those emissions include Scope 3, citing the "inherent link between oil and gas production and the combustion of the products by end users." Without that category, it concluded, the company's plan is incomplete, and it ordered TotalEnergies to add Scope 3 to its risk mapping along with corresponding measures within six months.

The ruling was, however, only a partial victory for the campaigners. The court declined to set specific emissions or production reduction targets, refused to require the company to halt new fossil fuel exploration, and rejected demands to align its output with a 1.5°C pathway — all remedies the claimants had sought. It noted that the vigilance law is not intended to make companies liable for climate risks arising from "all human activity since the Industrial Revolution," and that it does not authorise judges to set targets on a company's behalf. Instead, the law permits judicial review of whether a company has incorporated appropriate measures matched to the risks it has identified.

The coalition behind the suit welcomed the decision, framing it against the backdrop of an extreme heatwave gripping Europe. "Fighting climate change is also fighting for a livable future," the group said, adding that multinationals, and oil and gas companies in particular, "must do their part to protect our loved ones, the regions we cherish, and those most vulnerable to the effects of climate change."

TotalEnergies, for its part, said it takes note of the court's request to include customers' emissions in its vigilance plan and will supplement the document, drawing in particular on its CSRD sustainability report and on actions to help customers cut emissions through electricity and biofuels. The company also noted "with satisfaction" that the court had not upheld the claims seeking to block new oil and gas projects or to force production cuts. For the wider energy sector, the message is nonetheless significant: in Europe, the legal duty to manage climate risk now reaches beyond a company's own operations and into the emissions its products generate once sold.