2024
Technip Energies
Year
Sector
Energie
ACT assessment methodology
Generic
Performance Score
Highlights of the transition plan: Technip Energies has set itself ambitious targets. The company is currently well placed to achieve its various targets, it has reduced its scopes 1&2 (market-based) by 43% between 2021 and 2024 and its scope 3 by 11% over the same period. The company has a 5-pronged action plan to decarbonize its scopes 1 &2: increase the share of renewable energies, optimize surface areas, reduce energy consumption through efficiency, renovate buildings, train the teams responsible for its subjects in good practices. The company says that 100% of its R&D spending is dedicated to sustainable solutions, as was already the case in 2023. It had set itself the goal of achieving this by 2025. The company has a supplier engagement program that includes training, supplier carbon footprint inquiry, commitment, and a reduction target with key suppliers.
Areas of improvement identified: Decarbonization plan: The company does not have a complete GHG balance, or does not communicate it, for its reference year, 2021. It would benefit from reassessing or sharing this information, especially since its action plan and targets are built on this reference year. The company would benefit greatly from implementing an action plan on its complete GHG footprint, including quantified actions and the associated necessary investments. Commitment to the value chain: the company has not set up a customer commitment as such, it would benefit from formalizing a document and setting a target on this aspect. Evolution of the business model: Despite R&D investments 100% focused on decarbonization, the company still seems to be mainly focused on fossil fuel players. It would benefit from turning more heavily to a low-carbon business model. Finally, it would benefit from communicating the share of its low-carbon turnover.
Areas of improvement identified: Decarbonization plan: The company does not have a complete GHG balance, or does not communicate it, for its reference year, 2021. It would benefit from reassessing or sharing this information, especially since its action plan and targets are built on this reference year. The company would benefit greatly from implementing an action plan on its complete GHG footprint, including quantified actions and the associated necessary investments. Commitment to the value chain: the company has not set up a customer commitment as such, it would benefit from formalizing a document and setting a target on this aspect. Evolution of the business model: Despite R&D investments 100% focused on decarbonization, the company still seems to be mainly focused on fossil fuel players. It would benefit from turning more heavily to a low-carbon business model. Finally, it would benefit from communicating the share of its low-carbon turnover.
Narrative Score
Business model and strategy: The company does not yet have a real action plan to decarbonize its scope 3 in place, which accounts for 99% of its carbon footprint. However, it plans to acquire them as soon as possible. All recent acquisitions of companies or technologies seem to be related to the ecological transition, however it continues to win new contracts related to fossil fuels. The company does not yet account for its indirect emissions related to the use phase of its projects, which makes it difficult to know whether it would be able to decarbonize once this category is taken into account, as it is likely to drastically increase the total balance sheet.
Consistency and credibility: The company does not yet account for its emissions related to the use phase of its products. According to her, these are indirect emissions because she only provides services, and therefore it is not mandatory in the GHG Protocol. The company declares a turnover aligned with the European taxonomy equal to 0, yet it highlights low-carbon activities such as offshore wind projects. Its GHG balance and its decarbonisation target do not seem to be validated by a third party such as SBTi, and their ambition for this target is to align with a 2°C scenario.
Reputation: The company has experienced major non-climate-related scandals. On the environmental front, a recent article highlights that the company is positioning itself as an ecological player while still being "an LNG champion".
Risks: By its own admission, the company is highly dependent on fossil fuels but is showing significant signs of diversifying its activities. It is trying to decarbonise its activities by investing in new technologies, which could prove to be inefficient (carbon capture), too expensive or too difficult to produce in large quantities (green hydrogen).
Consistency and credibility: The company does not yet account for its emissions related to the use phase of its products. According to her, these are indirect emissions because she only provides services, and therefore it is not mandatory in the GHG Protocol. The company declares a turnover aligned with the European taxonomy equal to 0, yet it highlights low-carbon activities such as offshore wind projects. Its GHG balance and its decarbonisation target do not seem to be validated by a third party such as SBTi, and their ambition for this target is to align with a 2°C scenario.
Reputation: The company has experienced major non-climate-related scandals. On the environmental front, a recent article highlights that the company is positioning itself as an ecological player while still being "an LNG champion".
Risks: By its own admission, the company is highly dependent on fossil fuels but is showing significant signs of diversifying its activities. It is trying to decarbonise its activities by investing in new technologies, which could prove to be inefficient (carbon capture), too expensive or too difficult to produce in large quantities (green hydrogen).
Trend score
Overall, the company still lacks maturity in implementing climate-related actions and indicators, but it seems that it is in a good position to improve in the coming years, hence the positive trend note.
Source
ACT Eval 2
Evaluator
CITEPA
GLOBAL SCORE
Performance score (/100)
50
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 : 75%
Intangible Investment Score : 50%
Sold Product Performance Score : 37%
Management Score : 63%
Supplier Engagement Score : 63%
Client Engagement Score : 15%
Policy Engagement Score : 55%
Business Model Score : 18%
Indicator weight by module