2024
Louis Dreyfus
Year
Sector
Alimentation
ACT assessment methodology
Agriculture & Agrifood
Performance Score
Highlights of the transition plan: Louis Dreyfus Company has recently set ambitious targets, aligned with the SBTi recommendations. The Group is on track to achieve these objectives, with good progress since 2022. The group announced that it had planned the transition, with a detailed action plan and a projected trajectory. The company invests in low-carbon R&D (traceability, regenerative agriculture) but does not detail the breakdown of its investments. On the governance of environmental issues, its supervision is at the executive level. The transition plan was informed by prospective studies based on climate change scenarios. There is a detailed operational action plan on direct emissions, but it is not public. The Louis Dreyfus company is putting in place certain levers to engage its value chain. Actions with concrete results covering the entire spectrum of supplier engagement methods, but within a limited scope. For LDC, only 2 shifts of activities are relevant in the context of ACT evaluation, namely the evolution of practices and the evolution of the customer portfolio towards low-carbon customers.
Areas for improvement identified: The share of CAPEX identified as necessary for the transition is low compared to the total CAPEX invested, showing that this decarbonization is not a strategic and central desire of the company. To date, LDC has not communicated its R&D investment figures. Work on reducing food waste is central to the ACT-agri-agro evaluation approach, but no specific figures on this waste could be observed in the LDC reports. Previous integrated reports do not allow for the reconstruction of a sufficiently reliable emission history to conclude on the evolution of emissions. In addition, the Scope 3 action plan remains incomplete: it presents some commitments, but these are not based on SMART objectives. The proposed actions are limited to the current year, without long-term projections or real strategic vision. Finally, LDC does not yet seem to question the compatibility of its business model with a low-carbon economy. A strengthening of the reflections on the business model as well as a more pronounced policy of involvement with its customers would improve the overall score.
Areas for improvement identified: The share of CAPEX identified as necessary for the transition is low compared to the total CAPEX invested, showing that this decarbonization is not a strategic and central desire of the company. To date, LDC has not communicated its R&D investment figures. Work on reducing food waste is central to the ACT-agri-agro evaluation approach, but no specific figures on this waste could be observed in the LDC reports. Previous integrated reports do not allow for the reconstruction of a sufficiently reliable emission history to conclude on the evolution of emissions. In addition, the Scope 3 action plan remains incomplete: it presents some commitments, but these are not based on SMART objectives. The proposed actions are limited to the current year, without long-term projections or real strategic vision. Finally, LDC does not yet seem to question the compatibility of its business model with a low-carbon economy. A strengthening of the reflections on the business model as well as a more pronounced policy of involvement with its customers would improve the overall score.
Narrative Score
Business model and strategy: LDC's exaustive work on the topic of climate is recent. However, the evolution of the business model remains far from what would be necessary in view of the transition efforts. For the moment, what is displayed in the reports does not show that LDC's business model will be aligned with a low-carbon economy.
Consistency and credibility: Some potential inconsistencies between the reported growth in production and the claims of emission reductions, particularly on scope 3. Nevertheless, apart from this point, the company's strategy seems coherent.
Data quality: LDC's carbon footprint is well structured and audited. However, the method of accounting for emissions related to processes, use and end-of-life of products remains unclear in the publicly available data, and it seems that it may have varied from year to year, which prevents a reliable comparison.
Reputation: LDC has faced due diligence deficiencies in the past and has been able to address these issues ever since. There are new elements of due diligence in the integrated report without details of the audit efforts required.
Risks: LDC has taken into account certain risks for the construction of its adaptation strategy (in particular the remoteness of products linked to deforestation) but no systemic analysis has been carried out to analyse the risks of the transition and adaptation plan.
Consistency and credibility: Some potential inconsistencies between the reported growth in production and the claims of emission reductions, particularly on scope 3. Nevertheless, apart from this point, the company's strategy seems coherent.
Data quality: LDC's carbon footprint is well structured and audited. However, the method of accounting for emissions related to processes, use and end-of-life of products remains unclear in the publicly available data, and it seems that it may have varied from year to year, which prevents a reliable comparison.
Reputation: LDC has faced due diligence deficiencies in the past and has been able to address these issues ever since. There are new elements of due diligence in the integrated report without details of the audit efforts required.
Risks: LDC has taken into account certain risks for the construction of its adaptation strategy (in particular the remoteness of products linked to deforestation) but no systemic analysis has been carried out to analyse the risks of the transition and adaptation plan.
Trend score
The evidence shows that Louis-Dreyfus Company's climate strategy is recent but that despite everything, the priorities are well defined. The recent nature of this strategy degrades certain indicators, but the company shows a desire to evolve. Nevertheless, the signals are not sufficient to demonstrate that LDC is evolving as quickly as necessary. Therefore, the score was set to =.
Source
ACT Eval 2
Evaluator
Ekodev
GLOBAL SCORE
Performance score (/100)
37
Disclosure score (/100)
83
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 : 46%
Material Investment Score : 38%
Intangible Investment Score : 20%
Sold Product Performance Score : 30%
Management Score : 52%
Supplier Engagement Score : 58%
Client Engagement Score : 16%
Policy Engagement Score : 62%
Business Model Score : 19%
Indicator weight by module