2024
Elior
Year
Sector
Alimentation
ACT assessment methodology
Agriculture & Agrifood
Performance Score
Strengths of the climate strategy: Elior sets ambitious targets, including FLAG emissions. The decrease in its scope 1 and 2 emissions shows a favorable trend towards decarbonization. AFOLU emissions appear to be declining, suggesting a favourable trend. The projected AFOLU emissions are aligned with the reference benchmark, ensuring consistency with sectoral decarbonization trajectories. Elior invests in innovation and R&D by developing new low-carbon recipes through its laboratories in France and Italy. The company is distinguished by a good level of management and a good quality public engagement policy. Goal setting is also well positioned. Stronger supplier and customer engagement, as well as greater investment in transforming the business model and products sold, would improve the overall score.
Areas for improvement: Elior could break down its objectives by scope in order to ensure more precise and targeted monitoring of emission reduction efforts and raise its scope 1 and 2 objectives, since they have already been achieved in 2023-2024 (well before the 2030 deadline). The company could develop capex investments dedicated to the transition depending on its levers implemented. Elior could define specific targets for FLAG emissions to go beyond the application of the global objective alone and strengthen the strategy to reduce emissions related to agriculture and food. In terms of governance, Elior could revise the transition plan to include a more comprehensive financial vision, going beyond the short term and integrating detailed economic analyses of the costs and benefits of the low-carbon transition. The customer engagement policy could be further refined by diversifying the levers of action beyond information sharing, by developing financial incentives, formal collaborations on low-carbon innovation and marketing strategies based on the architecture of choice.
Areas for improvement: Elior could break down its objectives by scope in order to ensure more precise and targeted monitoring of emission reduction efforts and raise its scope 1 and 2 objectives, since they have already been achieved in 2023-2024 (well before the 2030 deadline). The company could develop capex investments dedicated to the transition depending on its levers implemented. Elior could define specific targets for FLAG emissions to go beyond the application of the global objective alone and strengthen the strategy to reduce emissions related to agriculture and food. In terms of governance, Elior could revise the transition plan to include a more comprehensive financial vision, going beyond the short term and integrating detailed economic analyses of the costs and benefits of the low-carbon transition. The customer engagement policy could be further refined by diversifying the levers of action beyond information sharing, by developing financial incentives, formal collaborations on low-carbon innovation and marketing strategies based on the architecture of choice.
Narrative Score
Business model and strategy: Elior has initiated actions in favor of the low-carbon transition, in particular through its Love Your Earth 2030 program and the reduction of food impacts. However, the lack of detailed sector targets and taxonomy-aligned CAPEX investments limits the structural transformation of the business model.
Consistency and credibility: The target of reducing emissions by 25% by 2030 is credible. However, the lack of a detailed plan on reducing emissions from food procurement and the limited coverage of climate commitments across the group hinder the full recognition of the credibility of the transition plan.
Data quality: Elior's carbon footprint is well structured and audited, and the company regularly updates its emission factors. However, FLAG issues have only been published since 2023/2024.
Reputation: No major environmental controversies involving Elior have been identified, and the company does not face accusations of climate inaction.
Risks: The main risks are related to the low demand for low-carbon meals and the constraints of the food sector. Despite these challenges, Elior has implemented structured actions to reduce its emissions, although the transformation of eating habits remains a challenge.
Consistency and credibility: The target of reducing emissions by 25% by 2030 is credible. However, the lack of a detailed plan on reducing emissions from food procurement and the limited coverage of climate commitments across the group hinder the full recognition of the credibility of the transition plan.
Data quality: Elior's carbon footprint is well structured and audited, and the company regularly updates its emission factors. However, FLAG issues have only been published since 2023/2024.
Reputation: No major environmental controversies involving Elior have been identified, and the company does not face accusations of climate inaction.
Risks: The main risks are related to the low demand for low-carbon meals and the constraints of the food sector. Despite these challenges, Elior has implemented structured actions to reduce its emissions, although the transformation of eating habits remains a challenge.
Trend score
Elior is implementing concrete and credible actions to reduce its emissions, but its business model is still dependent on carbon-intensive activities. The transition is mainly based on the adaptation of the offer, rather than on a thorough restructuring. A negative score would not be justified because the company is not regressing and continues to adopt more sustainable practices. Nor is it a positive score, because there is a lack of a structural transformation that would guarantee a strong alignment with a low-carbon economy. The maintenance of a score of "=" thus reflects an ongoing transition, without deterioration or radical improvement.
Source
ACT Eval 2
Evaluator
Ekodev
GLOBAL SCORE
Performance score (/100)
55
Disclosure score (/100)
97
ℹ️
Narrative Score (A > E)
C
Trend Score (- = +)
=
Scores by module
#1 : best score in the sample
N/A% = module not applicable to the sectoral methodology
Target Score : 53%
Material Investment Score : 38%
Intangible Investment Score : 50%
Sold Product Performance Score : 57%
Management Score : 58%
Supplier Engagement Score : 65%
Client Engagement Score : 51%
Policy Engagement Score : 50%
Business Model Score : 59%
Indicator weight by module