Lawsuit Against TotalÉnergies: A Trial of Carbon Neutrality Lacking Transparency

One year after the Grande Synthe case, in which the government was found liable for climate inaction^[1], three NGOs—Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and Notre Affaire à tous—are suing TotalEnergies in court for deceptive business practices. The three groups accuse the oil giant ofmislead consumers by positioning itself as a “major player in the energy transition.” Pointing out an incompatibility between its strategic directions and the requirement for a“ a real and absolute reduction in its total greenhouse gas emissions "^[2], they are based on several documented findings supported by statistics:

1. the commitments made by TotalEnergies are limited solely to its direct emissions andovershadow those resulting from the use of its products (that is, the combustion of commercially available petroleum products and natural gas), which nevertheless account for the bulk of its total carbon footprint. Thinking this way would be like saying—to give another example—that an automaker can achieve carbon neutrality without worrying about reducing the fuel consumption of its vehicles.
2. Investments made to support the environmental transition are considered insufficient, as the company plans to increase its hydrocarbon production by 2030.

A Communication on “Neutrality” Lacking Transparency

The case of TotalEnergies is not isolated – the recent study by the Carbon Market Watch (Belgium) and the New Climate Institute (Germany) demonstrated this brilliantly^[3] – and highlights the lack of clear rules governing corporate communication on this issue. The term “neutral,” which is supposed to help identify exemplary organizations, actually masks very uneven levels of investment (and often woefully inadequate). The systemic nature of the issue, as we can see, is too often overlooked; companies too often content themselves with displaying accounting “neutrality” within an arbitrarily narrow scope, rather than asking themselves what their role should be in a world that has achieved net-zero emissions, and what actions they should take to support this collective transformation.

The goal pursued by the Net Zero Initiative is to restore the full meaning of the concept of carbon neutrality by working to establish a clear framework for assessing the credibility of claims: this assessment requires a comprehensive measure indirect emissions (thus taking into account the oft-discussed Scope 3, which is still too often overlooked), a commitment commensurate with the challenges, both in terms of reducing emissions and investing in carbon sequestration and green initiatives, and a compliance with established objectives. Complementary to the work carried out by other organizations such as ADEME^[4] or the SBTi^[5], this contribution helps promote greater transparency on this issue.

"Climate justice": the greenwashing, a losing bet

But while, in substance, the charge brought against TotalEnergies While this is (sadly) commonplace, it is the interest generated by the actions of these three organizations that should give us pause: in the age of social media and transparency, corporate communication on environmental issues is now the subject ofa new sense of vigilance. The highest administrative court ruled against the government for failing to meet its climate commitments^[6] He thus reiterated a simple truth: communication cannot be limited to empty rhetoric that has no connection to reality. Corporate strategy must better incorporate this requirement—not only out of moral necessity, but also because communication about carbon neutrality is increasingly being exposed for what it is, thanks to the vigilance of volunteer organizations and public scrutiny on social media. Legal action, combined with growing media pressure, is shining a spotlight on companies that are being called to account in the public eye, at the risk of tarnishing their image. Take a chance on greenwashing now exposes it to a risk that is far too costly to be viable.