On the one hand, although European obligations in this area are becoming less stringent, the duty of vigilance continues to have an impact through an ever-increasing number of cases before French courts, which continue to rigorously apply national standards.
On the other hand, environmental criminal law is being strengthened both in terms of its standards and its enforcement mechanisms, as evidenced by the opening for signature of the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law and the proliferation, at the national level, of judicial agreements in the public interest (conventions judiciaires d’intérêt public, “CJIP”) in environmental matters.
The duty of vigilance is dead – long live the duty of vigilance!
After several months of debate over the costs and administrative burdens associated with corporate social and environmental responsibility in Europe, the Omnibus I Directive was finally adopted by the Council of the European Union on 24 February 2026 and subsequently published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 26 February 2026. Through this directive, the European Union is not abandoning its sustainability framework, but it is significantly reducing its scope.
A reduced European sustainability framework, but the duty of vigilance remains
The first directive affected by the changes introduced by the Omnibus I Directive is the CSRD, which requires companies to disclose sustainability-related information. The main change lies in the increase of the application thresholds: from now on, only companies with more than 1,000 employees and net turnover exceeding €450 million will be subject to these obligations. In practice, this change is likely to exclude a large number of companies initially covered by the directive, as listed SMEs are now also outside its scope. These new provisions must be transposed into national law by mid-March 2027 at the latest.
The scope of the CS3D Directive is also restricted by the Omnibus I Directive. From now on, the European duty of vigilance applies only to companies with more than 5,000 employees and global turnover exceeding €1.5 billion. In addition, several requirements have been loosened: the European Commission’s review of the directive will now take place every five years; the requirement to adopt a climate transition plan aligned with the Paris Agreement has been removed; and the cap on penalties has been lowered from 5% to 3% of global turnover. These amendments must be transposed into national law by July 2028 at the latest.
Omnibus I thus represents a clear shift away from the initial ambition of European sustainability legislation, without, however, eliminating the duty of vigilance. On the one hand, companies that remain within the scope of EU legislation are still subject to substantial obligations. On the other hand, these requirements will continue to cascade, through contractual chain effects, to business partners and suppliers. Furthermore, for French companies, the law of 27 March 2017 on the duty of vigilance remains applicable until the new European framework has been transposed and will therefore continue to fuel an already rapidly growing body of litigation.
Finally, companies now excluded from the European scope cannot be considered entirely free from constraints, as the expectations of clients, investors, business partners and French courts will continue to make the duty of vigilance a central issue in compliance and risk management.
For more information: Directive – 2019/2161 – EN – omnibus directive
EU Due Diligence Navigator for Partner Countries
At the same time, the European Union is seeking to support the practical implementation of this new framework. On 16 March 2026, the European Commission launched the EU Due Diligence Navigator for Partner Countries, an online service designed to help stakeholders in the EU’s partner countries understand the requirements of the CS3D Directive and prepare for their implementation ahead of its transposition, which must take place no later than July 2028. The tool centralizes guidance on the directive and the duty of vigilance, along with risk assessment and reporting tools, capacity-building resources – particularly in the areas of training and technical assistance – as well as an overview of more than 300 funding and support initiatives available at the European, bilateral, and multilateral levels.
Even as narrowed by the Omnibus I Directive, the duty of vigilance framework will continue to have effects beyond the companies directly subject to it. Suppliers, business partners, professional organizations, and public authorities in third countries will, in practice, need to familiarize themselves with these requirements, as large European companies will remain compelled to identify and document risks throughout their supply chains.
For more information: EU Due Diligence Navigator
Alongside this trend toward streamlining, French courts are giving increasingly concrete effect to the law of 27 March 2017, regarding the duty of vigilance. This duty is no longer limited to a mere compliance requirement or an annual reporting exercise, but is gradually establishing itself as a genuine basis for liability.
Yves Rocher: Parent company held liable for events occurring abroad
Following an initial phase of litigation focused on the formal compliance of vigilance plans, courts are now turning to the assessment of their actual effectiveness and the consequences of any shortcomings. In this regard, the ruling against Laboratoires Yves Rocher, handed down on 12 March 2026 by the 34th Civil Chamber of the Paris Judicial Court, underscores the very tangible litigation risk associated with the duty of vigilance under French law.
The case originated in the dismissal of employees at a Turkish factory operated by Kosan Kozmetik Sanayi (KKS), a subsidiary of Laboratoire de Biologie Végétale Yves Rocher, the parent company of the Yves Rocher Group, in a context of social tensions. In April 2020, NGOs and a Turkish trade union active at the factory sent a formal notice to the parent company, requesting compliance with its legal duty of vigilance obligations and compensation for the harm suffered by the dismissed employees. The parent company responded a few months later by publishing the vigilance plans it had adopted since 2017. The NGOs, the union, and former employees then brought proceedings before the Paris Judicial Court, seeking both injunctive relief relating to the vigilance plan and compensation on the basis of the law of 27 March 2017. During the proceedings, however, the claimants withdrew their claims specifically grounded in the duty of vigilance.
The Paris Judicial Court nevertheless held Laboratoire de Biologie Végétale Yves Rocher liable for breaching its obligations under the duty of vigilance.
By affirming the mandatory nature of the duty of vigilance, including with respect to damage occurring abroad, the court confirmed that the 2017 law is not limited to regulating activities carried out in France, but also seeks to hold French parent companies accountable for risks arising within their international value chains. The Court accordingly ruled out the application of Turkish law. Furthermore, through a rigorous assessment of the content of the vigilance plan, it criticized the parent company for excluding its foreign subsidiaries from its risk mapping and for failing to adequately identify risks of serious violations of workers’ rights, in particular freedom of association.
The vigilance plan thus no longer appears as a mere compliance tool or a vehicle for non-financial reporting, but rather as a genuine preventive instrument, the shortcomings of which may give rise to the civil liability of the parent company.
The climate lawsuit against TotalEnergies
This pattern of litigation is also evident in the climate lawsuit brought against TotalEnergies. After being declared admissible by the Paris Court of Appeal on 18 June 2024, the action – initiated by several NGOs and the City of Paris – was heard on the merits by the Paris Judicial Court in February 2026. The claimants asked the court to order TotalEnergies to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions – particularly by scaling down its hydrocarbon production – in order to align its strategy with the Paris Agreement’s objective of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.
The implications of the case extend far beyond the specific situation of TotalEnergies, as it raises the question of whether climate change-related risks can be characterised as serious environmental harm within the meaning of the law of 27 March 2017 on the duty of vigilance. TotalEnergies contends that climate change is a global phenomenon and therefore cannot be attributed to the vigilance plan of a single company. The public prosecutor adopts a similar line of reasoning, arguing that the scope of the duty of vigilance should not be extended to encompass climate change.
In its decision of 25 June 2026, however, the 34th Civil Chamber of the Paris Judicial Court ordered TotalEnergies to revise its vigilance plan within six months, requiring it to include indirect greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the use of its products, as well as the measures designed to address them. The court also stayed proceedings in respect of the remaining claims pending such revision and adjourned the case to a further hearing scheduled for 27 January 2027.
This decision marks an important first step in the recognition by French courts that corporate climate strategies fall within the scope of the duty of vigilance. It thus contributes in a tangible way to the emergence of climate litigation grounded in this legal framework.
Environmental criminal law seeking to expand its scope
The Counsil of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law
Alongside the duty of vigilance, environmental criminal law continues to gain momentum. This trend is no longer confined to the national or European levels, but has now taken on an international dimension, reflecting the reality that environmental harm often extends beyond the borders of a single State.
Against this backdrop, the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law was opened for signature on 3 December 2025. Signed by the Republic of Moldova, Portugal, and the European Union, it seeks to establish the foundations for a more coherent criminal justice response to serious environmental offences.
This instrument reflects a significant shift: certain forms of conduct can no longer be addressed solely through administrative sanctions or compensation mechanisms, but now call for a fully-fledged criminal response. To this end, the Convention provides for the creation of several criminal offences, one of the most notable of which enables the prosecution of intentional acts causing environmental damage of a severity comparable to ecocide. The text goes further by establishing the criminal liability of legal entities, defining the applicable penalties and measures, and taking into account the frequently transnational nature of these offences, particularly where they are committed as part of structured cross-border criminal networks.
The practical impact of this treaty, which is contingent upon ratification by at least ten States, is expected to confirm a broader trend: environmental crime is increasingly regarded as a central concern for prosecution, sanctioning, and international cooperation.
For more information: New Council of Europe convention
Environmental CJIPs are becoming an established part of the French law enforcement landscape
The environmental CJIPs concluded in recent months demonstrate that this mechanism is now fully integrated into prosecutorial practice. It is no longer limited to addressing high-profile cases of industrial pollution, but has become a tool for delivering a criminal response to a wide range of situations, from marine pollution to harm affecting protected species, as well as industrial discharges and failures in wastewater treatment systems.
In the autumn of 2025, the Marseille Public Prosecutor’s Office entered into several CJIPs in environmental matters with companies operating vessels, in connection with offences relating in particular to the use of fuels that did not comply with sulphur content standards, as well as the use of open-loop exhaust gas cleaning systems leading to the discharge of wash water while vessels were at anchor. The amounts of the public interest fines – €180,000 for Melvin Navigation Enterprise, €165,000 for Ignazio Messina, and €120,000 for KLC SM Co. – illustrate the sustained criminal scrutiny applied to pollution linked to maritime transport.
Environmental CJIPs are also increasingly used in relation to more localized infringements affecting natural habitats or protected species. The cases involving the Marsillargues ASA, the Plaine Escapade association, and the Basque Country Urban Community concern construction works carried out without authorization or in breach of applicable regulations. In these instances, the criminal response is not limited to the payment of a public interest fine, but is coupled with concrete obligations relating to restoration, replanting, environmental rehabilitation, or ecological monitoring.
The environmental CJIP has also been applied in more technical cases, as illustrated by the Sodexo and Naphthachimie matters. The pollution of the Noxe river, linked to a malfunction at a wastewater treatment plant, resulted in a public interest fine of €25,000 and compensation for the municipality. Similarly, the accidental pollution caused by pyrolysis oil, for which Naphthachimie was held responsible, led to a fine of €1.2 million, together with ecological remediation measures, including, in particular, the implementation of a bioremediation pilot project.
