Asset Management | Compliance & ESG – Environmental claims and communications: lessons from the TotalEnergies and HSBC cases

The recent Paris Judicial Court ruling in the TotalEnergies case, combined with a 2022 UK Advertising Standards Authority decision against HSBC, provides useful guidance for Norwegian asset managers on handling environmental claims and communications. Both cases illustrate how factually accurate environmental communications can cross the line into misleading commercial practices. Simultaneously, the EU and Norway are strengthening consumer protection against misleading environmental claims. Important lessons can be learned from the TotalEnergies and HSBC cases that should inform how Norwegian asset managers and their portfolio companies approach environmental claims and communications going forward.

Background

For Norwegian asset managers, several regulatory frameworks require that statements and communications are fair, clear, and not misleading, and that disclosures are accurate and complete and cover all material information. These include sectoral legislation (such as the AIFMD) and the SFDR. Additionally, general laws such as the Marketing Control Act and the Contracts Act establish further obligations and legal bases on which to challenge misleading communications. For portfolio companies, the latter two are also highly relevant.

The TotalEnergies case – 2025

TotalEnergies is a French multi-energy company that produces and markets energies, including oil and biofuels, natural gas and green gases, renewables and electricity. The Paris Judicial Court’s October 2025 judgment in the case brought by Greenpeace France, Les Amis de la Terre France, and Notre Affaire à Tous against TotalEnergies provides guidance on the nuances of permissible environmental communications. Whilst most of the claims against TotalEnergies were dismissed, the court ordered the company to remove three paragraphs from its website that stated the company’s ambition to contribute to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 together with society and to be a major player in the energy transition whilst continuing to meet the energy needs of populations.

The court found these communications misleading because they omitted material information. TotalEnergies had its own carbon neutrality scenario making its carbon neutrality ambition compatible with the company’s continued investments in oil and gas. The court determined that when companies use “carbon neutrality” in commercial communications without qualification, consumers will understand this to mean alignment with the Paris Agreement’s planetary-scale objectives, not a company-specific approach permitting continued fossil fuel investments. The court also rejected that “ambition” differs from “commitment”: from a consumer perspective, these terms carry the same weight when used in commercial communications promoting environmental performance.

Whilst the TotalEnergies case was decided under French consumer protection laws, those laws transpose EU Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices, which has been incorporated into Norwegian law through the Marketing Control Act. The case is therefore relevant to Norwegian companies.

The HSBC case – 2022

A case from October 2022 also provides an example of how factually correct information can be misleading. The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned two HSBC advertisements that promoted the bank’s climate initiatives, including commitments to provide up to $1 trillion in financing for net zero transitions and tree-planting initiatives. The ASA found that whilst the statements were factually accurate, and like the TotalEnergies case, the adverts omitted material information about HSBC’s simultaneous financing of businesses contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions (65.3 million tonnes of CO₂ annually from oil and gas clients). The regulator ruled that customers would not expect a bank making unqualified environmental claims to be simultaneously involved in financing significant carbon emissions.

Key lessons for Norwegian asset managers

Whilst the legal framework in Norway differs from that of France and the UK, the principles are similar. There are key lessons to be extracted from the HSBC and the TotalEnergies cases that Norwegian asset managers should take note of:

Differentiate between communication types: Distinguish between informational communications and reporting on the one hand, and marketing materials presented when the recipient is making investment or purchasing decisions on the other. The latter requires heightened scrutiny.
“Ambition” does not provide protection: Aspirational language may carry the same weight as commitments in commercial contexts, particularly in communications aimed at consumers or non-professionals. Forward-looking environmental statements in retail-facing materials should be substantiated and contextualised.
Include material context: Factually accurate positive claims may become misleading when material negative information is omitted. Environmental claims should include balanced disclosure of activities that may conflict with or nuance the messaging.
Substantiate future performance claims: Environmental claims concerning future performance should be supported by clear and objective commitments with measurable targets, deadlines, resource allocation, and independent verification.
Exercise caution with terms that may have prescribed meanings: The Paris court found that when used in commercial communications without qualification, “carbon neutrality” may be understood as alignment with Paris Agreement planetary-scale objectives. Norwegian asset managers should specify and articulate the methodology, scope, and limitations when using such terms. This may also apply to terms such as “net zero” or “Paris-aligned”.
Assess portfolio company communications: Asset managers should apply the same scrutiny to portfolio company communications, particularly in consumer-facing sectors, and evaluate whether environmental claims are made in commercial or informational contexts and whether there are material omissions about conflicting activities.

BAHR comments

Environmental claims regulation and enforcement are intensifying across European jurisdictions. The EU has strengthened consumer protection through Directive (EU) 2024/825 of 28 February 2024, empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and better information. The amended directive must be implemented in Norway by 27 March 2026.

Whilst the enforcement orders against TotalEnergies and HSBC were limited in severity, they represent negative publicity and may tie up internal and external resources. In our experience, Norwegian asset managers are cautious with environmental claims. However, the HSBC and TotalEnergies cases demonstrate that caution alone is insufficient. Both cases involved genuine climate initiatives; the issue was the omission of material information, not fabrication.

Norwegian market participants should note the Paris court’s findings, regarding environmental terminology. The interpretation of “carbon neutrality” as inherently meaning Paris Agreement alignment may affect net zero terminology usage. Additionally, Norwegian asset managers and their portfolio companies should note the court’s rejection of the distinction between “ambition” and “commitment” from the consumer perspective, recognising that aspirational language may not provide protection when making environmental claims in commercial contexts.

Whilst the cases focused on consumer communications, institutional investor communications warrant similar attention. Although professional investors are held to a higher standard of assessment, material omissions in communications promoting investments can still constitute misleading practices under sectoral legislation, SFDR and general marketing law principles. Asset managers should ensure that their environmental claims and communications – and those of their portfolio companies – do not give ground for challenge from displeased investors or dissatisfied consumers or customers.