2024
Viridien
Year
Sector
Services numériques
ACT assessment methodology
Generic
Performance Score
Target of -50% of scope 1 and 2 emissions in 2030 compared to 2019 in a market-based approach, but no target for scope 3. Misuse and mixed use of market-based and location-based approaches in reporting Scope 2 emissions. Slight downward trend on scopes 1 and 2, with recalculation of scope 2 emissions in 2024 using a location-based approach, but upward trend on scope 3, both upstream and downstream. A 30% share of CAPEX associated with decarbonisation under the EU's green taxonomy, but an undisclosed breakdown of R&D spending. A good number of examples of actions by 2030 covering all emission items, but overall not very detailed and poorly quantified. No really defined long-term action, apart from a few objectives for 2050.
Oversight by the Board's Sustainability Committee, composed of four directors, but no particular expertise or experience in the field of low-carbon transition. Very poor double materiality analysis regarding decarbonization and climate change mitigation, with confusion between mitigation and adaptation to climate change, no risks considered in connection with the low-carbon transition and no clear information about the use of a transition scenario.
Two important steps to improve the environmental performance of existing business models, which cover the majority of emissions: improving energy use efficiency and implementing energy efficiency best practices for computing infrastructures and data centers, and carrying out simplified life cycle analyses and implementing eco-design actions across all life cycle segments. No product that can be considered low-carbon with insurance. About 90% of the turnover associated with the oil and gas sector for exploration and production and no divestment planned, but multiple new business models of rather modest size but growing and favorable to the low-carbon transition.
Oversight by the Board's Sustainability Committee, composed of four directors, but no particular expertise or experience in the field of low-carbon transition. Very poor double materiality analysis regarding decarbonization and climate change mitigation, with confusion between mitigation and adaptation to climate change, no risks considered in connection with the low-carbon transition and no clear information about the use of a transition scenario.
Two important steps to improve the environmental performance of existing business models, which cover the majority of emissions: improving energy use efficiency and implementing energy efficiency best practices for computing infrastructures and data centers, and carrying out simplified life cycle analyses and implementing eco-design actions across all life cycle segments. No product that can be considered low-carbon with insurance. About 90% of the turnover associated with the oil and gas sector for exploration and production and no divestment planned, but multiple new business models of rather modest size but growing and favorable to the low-carbon transition.
Narrative Score
Initiation of a major strategic repositioning towards market segments that are favourable or compatible with the low-carbon transition: geothermal energy, geological storage of CO2, infrastructure monitoring, satellite solutions, high-performance computing for the environment, etc. However, this is a purely opportunistic posture, with no desire to disengage from its activities related to oil and gas exploration and production.
Significant decarbonization actions implemented or planned, in particular with regard to the energy efficiency of computing and storage infrastructures and the eco-design of acquisition and monitoring equipment, but slow progress and structuring of the decarbonization process at the strategic management level: still no target for reducing scope 3 emissions, very incomplete materiality analysis regarding the risks related to the transition low-carbon, lack of an internal carbon pricing mechanism to reorient decisions, numerous confusions observed on key concepts (location-based and market-based approaches, difference between mitigation and adaptation to climate change, locked emissions linked to products sold, etc.).
The issue of electricity consumption in computing infrastructures and data centres is addressed solely from the perspective of energy efficiency of infrastructure and low-carbon electricity supply in the sense of the associated market instruments. Despite a growth in the size of its computing infrastructures and the desire to use more generative artificial intelligence algorithms, no reflection has been undertaken on the sobriety of use or on the energy efficiency of the algorithms and omission of the risks related to the increase in consumption of computer equipment and electricity as well as those related to the competitive effects for access to low-carbon electricity.
Significant decarbonization actions implemented or planned, in particular with regard to the energy efficiency of computing and storage infrastructures and the eco-design of acquisition and monitoring equipment, but slow progress and structuring of the decarbonization process at the strategic management level: still no target for reducing scope 3 emissions, very incomplete materiality analysis regarding the risks related to the transition low-carbon, lack of an internal carbon pricing mechanism to reorient decisions, numerous confusions observed on key concepts (location-based and market-based approaches, difference between mitigation and adaptation to climate change, locked emissions linked to products sold, etc.).
The issue of electricity consumption in computing infrastructures and data centres is addressed solely from the perspective of energy efficiency of infrastructure and low-carbon electricity supply in the sense of the associated market instruments. Despite a growth in the size of its computing infrastructures and the desire to use more generative artificial intelligence algorithms, no reflection has been undertaken on the sobriety of use or on the energy efficiency of the algorithms and omission of the risks related to the increase in consumption of computer equipment and electricity as well as those related to the competitive effects for access to low-carbon electricity.
Trend score
Risk of increased emissions related to computing infrastructures and data centers, in line with growing and uncontrolled needs in computing and storage and the use of energy-efficient algorithms, but the possibility of a significant reduction in the majority of the company's emissions, which relate to the life cycle of acquisition and monitoring equipment, thanks to the eco-design approach that has been initiated. Potentially significant effect on the overall of other actions currently being implemented or planned.
Significant reduction in dependence on the oil and gas sector is expected, thanks to the relatively large and rapid diversification in favour of market segments that are favourable or compatible with the low-carbon transition. There is no particularly positive overall trend in the past evolution of emissions: slight improvement in scope 1 and 2 emissions, but deterioration in scope 3 emissions. Gains in energy efficiency appear to be proven, but the internal or external factors are uncertain for the majority of emissions.
Few indicators likely to deteriorate, given the low level of performance currently achieved. Assumption that the eco-design approach will soon lead to high-impact actions that will reduce scope 3 emissions. Numerous relatively easy margins for manoeuvre allowing a rapid and significant improvement in the performance score, in particular by strengthening the strategic management of decarbonisation: training of directors in the challenges of decarbonisation, carrying out a real analysis of transition risks based on the use of transition scenarios, introduction of internal carbon pricing, setting targets for reducing scope 3 emissions, etc.
Significant reduction in dependence on the oil and gas sector is expected, thanks to the relatively large and rapid diversification in favour of market segments that are favourable or compatible with the low-carbon transition. There is no particularly positive overall trend in the past evolution of emissions: slight improvement in scope 1 and 2 emissions, but deterioration in scope 3 emissions. Gains in energy efficiency appear to be proven, but the internal or external factors are uncertain for the majority of emissions.
Few indicators likely to deteriorate, given the low level of performance currently achieved. Assumption that the eco-design approach will soon lead to high-impact actions that will reduce scope 3 emissions. Numerous relatively easy margins for manoeuvre allowing a rapid and significant improvement in the performance score, in particular by strengthening the strategic management of decarbonisation: training of directors in the challenges of decarbonisation, carrying out a real analysis of transition risks based on the use of transition scenarios, introduction of internal carbon pricing, setting targets for reducing scope 3 emissions, etc.
Source
ACT Eval 2
Evaluator
CITEPA
GLOBAL SCORE
Performance score (/100)
22
Disclosure score (/100)
73
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 : 5%
Material Investment Score : 21%
Intangible Investment Score : 0%
Sold Product Performance Score : 30%
Management Score : 46%
Supplier Engagement Score : 46%
Client Engagement Score : 0%
Policy Engagement Score : 23%
Business Model Score : 25%
Indicator weight by module