Criticized over its carbon footprint, TotalEnergies gives up appeal in its lawsuit against Greenpeace

The oil major had sued the NGO, in 2023, for “dissemination of misleading information” to the stock markets after the publication, at the end of 2022, of a Greenpeace report carried out with an analysis firm, Factor-X.

Published


Reading time: 1 min

The headquarters of the TotalEnergies group in the La Défense business district, near Paris, in June 2023. (BENJAMIN POLGE / HANS LUCAS / AFP)

TotalEnergies is refusing to appeal the cancellation of its legal proceedings against Greenpeace after the release of a report from the NGO which accused the major of underestimating its carbon footprint, the group announced to AFP on Thursday May 2 . “TotalEnergies has decided not to appeal the decision of the pre-trial judge of the Paris judicial court of March 28, 2024 who considered that the action initiated by TotalEnergies (…) was not admissible for purely procedural reasons”writes the group.

In April 2023, the oil major had summoned the NGO for “dissemination of misleading information” on the stock markets after the publication, at the end of 2022, of a Greenpeace report carried out with an analysis firm, Factor-X. In this report, Greenpeace, on the basis of these analyses, estimated that TotalEnergies’ real greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2019 were four times greater than what the multinational announced.

The group still points to “false or misleading information”

As a listed company, “we cannot let anyone say anything (…) since that amounts to directly deceiving investors”had argued the company, which had denounced “a dubious methodology”.

The group reiterated on Thursday that “Greenpeace’s publication contained false or misleading information”. But for the group, “the continuation of legal proceedings is not justified when there have been 4 annual publications from the company on its greenhouse gas emissions”. “TotalEnergies does not wish to enter into a procedural debate even though the judge also considered that its action was not abusive.also argued the company.


source site-21