2024
TotalEnergies
Year
Sector
Energie
ACT assessment methodology
Oil & Gas
Performance Score
TotalEnergies has set emission reduction targets for 2025 and 2030, but these are insufficiently ambitious, based on a limited scope, and are expressed in net emissions by authorizing the use of carbon credits. Material investments remain mostly incompatible with climate objectives, and only 25% of 2024 CAPEX supports the development of low-carbon technologies according to the criteria of the European Green Taxonomy. On the other hand, 68% of the R&D budget is dedicated to these technologies.
Governance is mobilized, with a share of remuneration indexed to climate criteria, although incentives for the growth of hydrocarbons persist. The transition plan should be more structured and extended beyond 2030. TotalEnergies has structured a supplier strategy, but it lacks amibition and could include decarbonization commitments. The company is actively developing business models related to low-carbon energies, but also plans to keep a very large share of fossil fuel activities.
While the majority of public discourse is in favour of climate policies, several contradictions have been identified by external analyses. TotalEnergies would also be more credible if it promoted fossil gas and low-carbon energies in a differentiated manner, noting that fossil gas and electricity generated from fossil gas remain high-emitting energies. Finally, the Group could strengthen the role of energy efficiency and other levers for reducing energy demand in the company's strategy.
Governance is mobilized, with a share of remuneration indexed to climate criteria, although incentives for the growth of hydrocarbons persist. The transition plan should be more structured and extended beyond 2030. TotalEnergies has structured a supplier strategy, but it lacks amibition and could include decarbonization commitments. The company is actively developing business models related to low-carbon energies, but also plans to keep a very large share of fossil fuel activities.
While the majority of public discourse is in favour of climate policies, several contradictions have been identified by external analyses. TotalEnergies would also be more credible if it promoted fossil gas and low-carbon energies in a differentiated manner, noting that fossil gas and electricity generated from fossil gas remain high-emitting energies. Finally, the Group could strengthen the role of energy efficiency and other levers for reducing energy demand in the company's strategy.
Narrative Score
Business model and strategy: TotalEnergies has initiated a partial strategic repositioning towards low-carbon activities, by reallocating part of its investments to electricity and low-carbon fuels, while continuing to increase hydrocarbon production until at least 2030.
Coherence and credibility: There are inconsistencies in this positioning, particularly between the visions of 2030 (increase in hydrocarbons) and 2050 (rapid transition) and the compatibility of new hydrocarbon extraction projects with the Paris Agreement. Natural gas, although having a high carbon footprint, is put forward as a transition energy without guarantees against the risks of technological lock-in.
Data quality: Emissions data have significant methodological shortcomings, in particular a very likely strong underestimation for methane and skewed interannual comparisons, which limits the credibility of reduction trajectories, especially since the use of carbon credits is allowed to meet certain reduction targets.
Reputation: Many disputes, scandals or controversies (degradation of biodiversity, pollution, human rights violations, underestimation of emissions, etc.) can call into question the credibility of the commitments and the transition strategy. Regular or even systematic reaction to reputational incidents, but the responses generally appear superficial or insufficient.
Risks: Although significant investments in R&D are being made to develop low-carbon technologies, the dependence on fossil fuels for even long-term profits calls into question the coherence of the climate strategy. Several risks are likely to block the proper implementation of the decarbonization strategy: the technical and economic feasibility of the large-scale deployment of CO2 capture and storage, tensions or constraints in the supply of sustainable biomass, and the development of low-carbon technologies that are not adapted to demand (biofuels, electrofuels, etc.).
Coherence and credibility: There are inconsistencies in this positioning, particularly between the visions of 2030 (increase in hydrocarbons) and 2050 (rapid transition) and the compatibility of new hydrocarbon extraction projects with the Paris Agreement. Natural gas, although having a high carbon footprint, is put forward as a transition energy without guarantees against the risks of technological lock-in.
Data quality: Emissions data have significant methodological shortcomings, in particular a very likely strong underestimation for methane and skewed interannual comparisons, which limits the credibility of reduction trajectories, especially since the use of carbon credits is allowed to meet certain reduction targets.
Reputation: Many disputes, scandals or controversies (degradation of biodiversity, pollution, human rights violations, underestimation of emissions, etc.) can call into question the credibility of the commitments and the transition strategy. Regular or even systematic reaction to reputational incidents, but the responses generally appear superficial or insufficient.
Risks: Although significant investments in R&D are being made to develop low-carbon technologies, the dependence on fossil fuels for even long-term profits calls into question the coherence of the climate strategy. Several risks are likely to block the proper implementation of the decarbonization strategy: the technical and economic feasibility of the large-scale deployment of CO2 capture and storage, tensions or constraints in the supply of sustainable biomass, and the development of low-carbon technologies that are not adapted to demand (biofuels, electrofuels, etc.).
Trend score
TotalEnergies has a strong maturity in the strategic management of the low-carbon transition, and benefits from significant opportunities for the development and scale-up of low-carbon products. Specific and relevant decarbonisation levers are being put in place, and a significant reallocation of investments to the electricity and low-carbon molecule segments has begun.
In addition, the production and sale of hydrocarbons are planned upwards and encouraged by elements of executive compensation. Natural gas is strongly promoted and assumed as a transition energy without the implementation of safeguards. Finally, the emission reduction targets are not very promising (except for fossil methane) due to the possible and planned use of carbon credits from 2030.
Thus, the overall trend seems to be towards a stagnation of the score for the next few years, unless major events lead to a structural decline in global demand for hydrocarbons and to call into question the objectives of increasing hydrocarbon production.
In addition, the production and sale of hydrocarbons are planned upwards and encouraged by elements of executive compensation. Natural gas is strongly promoted and assumed as a transition energy without the implementation of safeguards. Finally, the emission reduction targets are not very promising (except for fossil methane) due to the possible and planned use of carbon credits from 2030.
Thus, the overall trend seems to be towards a stagnation of the score for the next few years, unless major events lead to a structural decline in global demand for hydrocarbons and to call into question the objectives of increasing hydrocarbon production.
Source
ACT Eval 2
Evaluator
CITEPA
GLOBAL SCORE
Performance score (/100)
35
Disclosure score (/100)
86
ℹ️
Narrative Score (A > E)
D
Trend Score (- = +)
=
Scores by module
#1 : best score in the sample
N/A% = module not applicable to the sectoral methodology
Target Score : 19%
Material Investment Score : 2%
Intangible Investment Score : 42%
Sold Product Performance Score : 34%
Management Score : 71%
Supplier Engagement Score : 58%
Client Engagement Score : 35%
Policy Engagement Score : 23%
Business Model Score : 66%
Indicator weight by module