The Paris Court of Appeal has recently made significant rulings regarding legal actions initiated by various NGOs against energy giants TotalEnergies and EDF.
Greenpeace has long been critical of TotalEnergies’ involvement in the French nuclear sector, highlighting environmental and human rights concerns.
These legal actions are grounded in the duty of care, which mandates that multinational corporations publish plans addressing potential risks their operations may pose. 
In these recent decisions, the Court of Appeal has overturned previous first-instance judgments, ruling that the NGOs’ claims are now admissible.
This paves the way for the cases to be reviewed in detail, potentially resulting in substantial changes in how these corporations handle their due diligence responsibilities.
The court has also confirmed that certain plaintiffs are permitted to participate, allowing for a thorough examination of the measures requested before the Paris judicial court.
Background and legal implications
The 2017 French duty of vigilance law mandates that companies with over 5,000 employees in France and/or 10,000 globally must create and publish a vigilance plan.
This plan should address potential human and environmental risks posed by their operations, inclusive of subsidiaries, subcontractors, and suppliers worldwide. France has become a pioneer in corporate social responsibility with this legislation.
In a notable incident, several NGOs and local authorities accused TotalEnergies of not aligning its climate strategy with the Paris Agreement.
This resulted in a legal battle where the initial court dismissed the complaint due to the lack of prior dialogue.
However, upon appeal, the NGOs’ plea was accepted, signaling a critical opportunity for scrutinizing TotalEnergies’ practices. This case underscores the importance and impact of the duty of vigilance law.
Specific Decisions and Future Prospects
Recent court rulings underscore the necessity for companies to present comprehensive due diligence plans that adhere to legal standards.
The Court of Appeal’s decision on claims against EDF’s wind farm project in Mexico highlights that such cases are now considered viable for legal action.
This contrasts with the ruling on the Suez subsidiary’s management of water in Osorno, Chile, where the court found the action inadmissible due to stringent criteria for proving breaches.
These judgments emphasize the heightened scrutiny from NGOs and local authorities, who are increasingly ready to pursue legal measures to ensure multinationals meet environmental and social obligations.
Companies might need to tighten their vigilance plans, foreseeing the possibility of such enforcement actions in the future.
It sets a clear expectation that detailed and actionable due diligence is not just a formality, but a critical component of corporate responsibility.
The upcoming discussions in the Paris judicial court are anticipated to provide further clarity on the Duty of Vigilance law’s practical application.
They could establish influential legal precedents that prescribe how companies must navigate their legal responsibilities amidst rising demands for social and environmental accountability.
The tension between legal compliance and escalating societal expectations is coming into sharper focus.
Every indication points to a growing effort to tighten vigilance standards, pushing companies to reconsider how they handle their global responsibilities.
These developments suggest a significant shift in the approach to corporate accountability, shaping a future where multinationals are held to higher standards.
Does the law also cover indirect impacts in the supply chain?
Yeah, Alexa, it does. It’s all about accountability, even for the actions of suppliers.