French court orders TotalEnergies to include customer emissions in climate vigilance plan

A Paris court on Thursday ordered French energy giant TotalEnergies to revise its climate vigilance plan within six months by incorporating greenhouse gas emissions generated by customers' use of its oil and gas products, marking a landmark ruling in one of France's biggest climate cases.

The Paris Judicial Court found that the company's vigilance plan was incomplete because it failed to account for so-called "Scope 3" emissions, indirect emissions produced when customers burn fossil fuels sold by the company, the French daily newspaper Liberation reported.

The court ordered TotalEnergies to update its risk assessment and include measures addressing those emissions, but stopped short of imposing specific emissions reduction targets or ordering the company to halt new hydrocarbon projects.

The case, first brought in 2020 by environmental groups Sherpa, France Nature Environnement, ZEA and Notre Affaire a Tous, and later joined by the City of Paris, is the first major climate lawsuit against a company under France's 2017 duty of vigilance law.

The law requires large companies to identify and prevent serious risks related to human rights, workers' health and safety, and environmental harm throughout their operations and supply chains.

The plaintiffs argued that compliance with the Paris climate agreement required TotalEnergies to align its activities with a pathway limiting global warming to 1.5C, including by ending new fossil fuel projects and reducing oil and gas production.

TotalEnergies rejected those arguments, saying decisions on the pace of the energy transition fall within the responsibility of governments rather than private companies. The company also maintained that emissions resulting from customers' use of its products fall outside its decision-making authority.

The court disagreed, ruling that Scope 3 emissions are intrinsically linked to the group's oil and gas activities and therefore must be considered in its vigilance plan.

The case will remain under judicial supervision, with the court set to review the company's revised vigilance plan after the six-month deadline.