1. What is the current legal landscape for ESG in your jurisdiction?

From the perspective of a General Counsel, it is important to start with a simple clarification: ESG is not a single body of law. In France, ESG is better understood as a set of legal norms, enforcement practices and litigation strategies that converge towards environmental, social and governance issues, even when those issues are regulated under ordinary consumer law, environmental law, product safety law or criminal law.

At European Union level, ESG has developed primarily through reporting and due‑diligence instruments, such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D). These texts were designed to impose structured sustainability reporting and supply‑chain vigilance obligations on large companies. In 2025, EU institutions recognised that the cumulative burden on companies had become substantial and adopted a “Stop‑the‑Clock” approach, delaying the application of certain reporting and due‑diligence obligations and proposing to limit their scope to the largest actors.

For a General Counsel, however, the critical point is that these EU‑level delays do not mean that ESG risk has decreased in France. On the contrary, France has continued to apply and expand ESG‑related obligations through national laws that are already enforceable today and actively enforced by regulators and courts.

In practical terms, a French authority or court does not ask whether a company is formally “in scope” of the CSRD when assessing ESG‑related misconduct. Instead, it asks very concrete questions such as:

• Has the company made environmental or sustainability claims that could mislead consumers?
• Has a product been placed on the market that contains substances the law now treats as unacceptable?
• Has sufficient information been provided to consumers about the durability, repairability or environmental impact of a product?
• Did the company know, or should it have known, that a given environmental or health risk existed?

Because many ESG obligations are embedded in ordinary legal regimes (consumer protection, product safety, environmental protection), they are immediately enforceable without waiting for future reporting deadlines.

A very concrete example is greenwashing, which in France falls under the scope of the criminal offence of misleading commercial practices. A clothing manufacturer advertising a jacket as “eco‑friendly” or “carbon neutral” without precise, verifiable substantiation could be exposed today to criminal fines, orders to withdraw the claim, mandatory corrective advertising, and reputational damage. No ESG report is required for liability to arise. The case is treated as a classic consumer protection violation, even though it is conceptually “ESG”.

Another example is product sustainability information. France now requires certain products to display a sustainability index indicating durability and repairability. If a distributor fails to display the index correctly online, this can trigger administrative enforcement or criminal sanctions. Again, this is ESG in substance, but consumer law in form.

Finally, chemicals regulation, and particularly the French national ban on PFAS (so‑called “forever chemicals”), illustrates how ESG has become a central legal risk. From January 2026, placing certain PFAS‑containing products on the French market will be prohibited. This is not a reporting obligation; it is a direct market access rule. A company selling waterproof textiles that contain PFAS could be exposed to sanctions, product withdrawals and potential civil claims for environmental or health damage.

The legal landscape in France is therefore characterised by a key feature that every General Counsel should understand: ESG risk materialises through enforcement and litigation long before it materialises through reporting.

2. What three essential pieces of advice would you give to clients involved in ESG matters?

The first essential piece of advice is to approach ESG with an ex‑post litigation mindset, not an ex‑ante compliance mindset. Most companies initially treat ESG as a planning exercise: future reports, future targets, long‑term strategies. In practice, ESG disputes arise retrospectively, often several years after the relevant conduct.

A typical example is an advertising campaign launched in 2022 highlighting a company’s climate commitments. In 2026, an NGO challenges that campaign as misleading, arguing that investments in certain technologies contradict the company’s public narrative. At that point, the legal team must reconstruct why the claim was worded in a certain way, what data was available at the time, which internal validations were carried out, and how risks were assessed.

Companies often struggle not because they acted irresponsibly, but because they cannot retrace their reasoning. Internal emails have disappeared, ESG assumptions were informal, and sustainability claims were validated by marketing teams without legal involvement. The result is a weak defensive position.

The practical response is to document ESG decision‑making as if it might one day be examined by a prosecutor or judge. This does not mean freezing communication, but ensuring there is a traceable rationale behind ESG statements, product choices or environmental commitments.

The second essential piece of advice is to understand that French enforcement focuses on effects, not intentions. Many General Counsels assume that demonstrating good faith or long‑term sustainability ambition will mitigate liability. In France, this is often not the case.

Consider a company that believes it is acting responsibly by gradually transitioning away from environmentally harmful materials. If, during that transition, it continues to market products as “environmentally responsible” without explaining the limitations or transition stages, regulators will focus on the effect of the message on consumers, not on the company’s internal intent or roadmap.

In litigation, this is critical. Courts will ask whether a reasonable consumer was misled, not whether the company intended to mislead. As a result, ESG communications should be drafted as defensively as financial disclosures, with clear qualifiers, precise scope and alignment between internal data and external messaging.

The third essential piece of advice is to integrate ESG into product liability and environmental risk management, rather than treating it as a separate compliance topic.

A General Counsel familiar with product liability understands concepts such as defect, foreseeability, duty of care and safer alternatives. ESG norms increasingly influence how these concepts are interpreted. When regulators ban or restrict a substance, that ban is often later used by claimants to argue that the risk was foreseeable earlier and that the company should have acted sooner.

For example, when PFAS are banned for certain uses, plaintiffs may argue that a company selling PFAS‑containing products before the ban failed to take reasonable precautions, particularly if NGOs or public authorities had already raised concerns. Even if the product complied with the law at the time, ESG‑driven expectations can influence how judges assess behaviour.

The practical implication is that ESG developments must be fed into early warning systems already familiar to product liability teams: regulatory monitoring, substitution assessments, supplier audits and risk‑benefit analyses.

3. What are the greatest threats and opportunities in ESG law in the next 12 months?

The biggest threat in the short term is the transitional phase we are currently in. Transitional phases create uncertainty not because rules are unclear, but because expectations are ahead of enforcement patterns. Regulators know where the law is going and start enforcing accordingly, even before companies have fully adapted.

A concrete example is chemicals regulation. Even before the full PFAS ban takes effect, authorities may inspect companies to assess whether they have mapped PFAS uses, engaged suppliers and planned alternatives. A company that appears passive may become a priority enforcement target, even if it is technically compliant at that moment.

Another threat is the use of ESG arguments by private plaintiffs and NGOs. ESG litigation is increasingly strategic. Plaintiffs combine legal arguments (misleading practices, environmental damage) with reputational pressure. Even weak claims can generate significant defence costs and operational disruption.

For instance, a consumer association may initiate proceedings challenging the environmental claims of a large brand, knowing that even a partial judicial victory or interim measure (such as suspension of advertising) can be commercially damaging. These cases often aim less at damages and more at changing behaviour through litigation pressure.

At the same time, there are clear opportunities. Companies that anticipate ESG enforcement can shape the narrative. Demonstrating early engagement, internal controls and corrective measures can significantly affect how regulators exercise discretion. In France, enforcement bodies often differentiate between companies that proactively adapt and those that appear reactive or dismissive.

In court, well‑structured ESG governance can also support arguments that the company acted diligently given the state of knowledge at the relevant time. Judges increasingly consider whether a company monitored regulatory developments, followed expert guidance and adjusted practices progressively. This can influence liability, sanctions and remedies.

4. How do you ensure high client satisfaction levels are maintained by your practice?

From a litigation‑oriented ESG perspective, client satisfaction depends on clarity, anticipation and realism. General Counsels do not expect ESG advisers to eliminate risk; they expect them to identify where risk is likely to crystallise and how it can be managed.

High satisfaction is achieved when ESG advice is framed in terms that resonate with existing legal risk frameworks: enforcement exposure, burden of proof, reputational impact and internal resource mobilisation. Explaining ESG through familiar legal concepts helps decision‑makers integrate it into broader corporate strategy.

Another key factor is alignment between advisory work and dispute resolution. ESG recommendations that look attractive in policy documents but collapse under judicial scrutiny ultimately create frustration. Satisfaction increases when companies feel that ESG choices are defensible in real‑world disputes, not just theoretically compliant.

Finally, ESG matters often involve multiple internal stakeholders (legal, compliance, sustainability, marketing, R&D). Helping General Counsel orchestrate these functions and avoid contradictory positions is a major value driver.

Having concrete tools that General Counsels can use is also key. We have a very detailed checklist that we share with our clients. The main points can be summarized as follows, knowing that each point needs to be developed further depending on the industry the company acts in:

1. Identify the real exposure early: Clarify whether the issue concerns environmental marketing claims, product composition (including chemicals), sustainability information, or public ESG commitments. Identify who is raising the issue (authority, NGO, competitor, media) and under which legal regime. What appears informal at the outset may later form the basis of criminal or civil proceedings.
2. Secure documents and data immediately: Preserve all relevant material, including ESG reports, marketing claims, technical files, supplier information, internal presentations and emails. ESG cases often turn on inconsistencies between documents created at different times. Loss or fragmentation of evidence significantly weakens a defence.
3. Map public statements over time: Compile all environmental and sustainability statements made over recent years and review them chronologically. Regulators and courts frequently compare past and present wording to argue that earlier claims were overstated or misleading.
4. Test substantiation, not intention: Assess whether each environmental claim was supported by proportionate, verifiable and contemporaneous evidence at the time it was made. In French law, good intentions or long‑term sustainability strategies do not mitigate liability if the claim’s effect on consumers was misleading.
5. Focus on products, not policies: Check compliance at product level: labelling, sustainability or repairability indices, chemical content and consumer information. ESG enforcement in France is increasingly product‑specific, allowing authorities to target individual items rather than abstract corporate strategies.
6. Anticipate chemicals‑related scrutiny: For regulated substances (such as PFAS), document when risks were identified, whether alternatives were analysed, and how transitional decisions were justified. In later litigation, claimants often argue that companies “knew or should have known” the risk before formal bans applied.
7. Align ESG reporting, marketing and operations: Ensure consistency between sustainability reports, advertising, technical documentation and contractual representations. Discrepancies are a recurrent trigger for ESG investigations and litigation.
8. Manage regulator interactions carefully: Centralise communications, provide accurate and limited responses, and avoid speculation or forward‑looking admissions. Inconsistent or informal exchanges often resurface later as adverse evidence.
9. Prepare for follow‑on litigation: Administrative sanctions frequently lead to civil claims or group actions. Assume that enforcement decisions, inspections or public reprimands will be reused verbatim by claimants.
10. Keep governance visible and documented: Ensure that ESG risks are discussed at senior management or board level and that oversight is recorded. Governance can support a defence if it shows structured risk management—but weak or informal oversight may have the opposite effect.

5. What technological advancements are reshaping ESG law and how can clients benefit from them?

Technology has become a central factor in ESG enforcement and defence. Regulators increasingly rely on digital tools to identify potential infringements, particularly in relation to online environmental claims. Algorithms can scan websites, social media and e‑commerce platforms for problematic language at scale, dramatically increasing detection rates.

For companies, technology can also be a powerful defensive tool. ESG data platforms, traceability systems and digital product passports allow companies to demonstrate where information comes from, when it was validated and how it was updated. In litigation, this can be decisive.

However, technology also creates risk if not properly governed. Inconsistent datasets, unvalidated indicators or automated disclosures can be used against the company. For example, if different versions of ESG data circulate internally and externally, plaintiffs may argue that the company lacked control or transparency.

The key for General Counsel is therefore not to delegate ESG technology entirely to technical teams, but to ensure legal oversight of ESG data governance. When legal functions define validation thresholds, disclosure rules and document retention principles, technology becomes a shield rather than a liability.