sustainable value chains - invest in france...selection of this topic for the choose france summit...

Copyright © 2020 by Boston Consulting Group. All rights reserved.

SUSTAINABLE VALUE CHAINSA report by BCG for Choose France 2020

International Business Summit20.01.2020 Versailles


For Further Contact

If you would like to discuss this report, please contact one of the authors.

Emmanuel NazarenkoManaging Director and Senior [email protected]

Michel FredeauManaging Director and Senior [email protected]

Adrien PortafaixAssociate Director, Total Societal Impact & [email protected]

Damian [email protected]

Press contactClaire Lebret - [email protected]

© Boston Consulting Group 2020. All rights reserved. 01/20

For information or permission to reprint, please contact BCG at [email protected]. To find the latest BCG content and register to receive e-alerts on this topic or others, please visit bcg.com.


Sustainability is becoming a priority for business leaders

Value chain competitivity has historically been polarized along three main dimensions: cost, quality and speed. Each company has to define priorities and trade-offs based on their own value proposition to clients, as well as industry dynamics.

However, an unprecedented shift toward sustainability questions these fundamentals and drives an overhaul of existing status quos and how companies’ make core decisions. In a recent study by BCG in the UK, individuals reported climate change as a top 3 priority whereas 4 years ago this topic ranked #8. We observe similar trends unfolding at different speeds across geographies, with Western Europe ahead of the curve. Furthermore, the selection of this topic for the Choose France summit demonstrates its strategic value at the highest levels of decision making across both companies and governments.

Global value chains need to be reconsidered and environmental criteria factored in

Looking at the entire product lifecycle, most value chains have become more complex, relying on an international flows of goods across a network of suppliers, distributors, logistics and waste management companies spread across the globe. With the steep decline in logistics costs, the relocation of parts of value chains has unlocked significant competitive advantage, notably from a cost standpoint. For example, China captured a significant share of activities in industries such as textiles, manufacturing and waste management – providing a favorable business context, including through lower labor cost structure.

However, these transport- and energy- intensive product flows were designed without entirely factoring in environmental externalities. They now intensify pressure on our ecosystem: carbon emissions, natural resources extraction and waste management. Atmospheric CO2 levels have reached all-time highs, surpassing the symbolic 400ppm threshold in 2018, with dire consequences on weather and sea levels in particular. Low recycling rate (14% in 2016) and increased waste generation (3.4Bn tons of waste by 2050, +70% from 2016 levels) will further strain natural resources even more.

Transition requires joint collaboration by all stakeholders

Facing this unprecedented obstacle, consumers, governments, investors and companies have to collaborate to define what tomorrow’s value chains should look like, factoring sustainability into the cost-quality-speed equation. Our surveys show that citizens consider that efforts for transition to sustainability must be shared efforts between individuals, corporations, investors and governments.

While the long-term benefit of sustainability becomes increasingly evident, it remains unclear (1) which actor will be willing to compromise on the short-term and (2) on what dimension. Indeed, with current technologies, reducing environmental impact may result in trade-off on other dimensions:• Higher costs in many cases (for instance,

recycled materials have higher price vs. raw equivalent)

• Slower value chain, reducing delivery lead time by transitioning from air to sea freight for example –

• Perceived quality – e.g. switching packaging from plastic to cardboard for perishable goods.

Executive summary

Sustainable Value Chains, Choose France Summit 2020 | 3


We already observe stakeholders taking a number of actions. Growing numbers of regulators are instituting carbon control mechanisms, which encompassed ~20% of worldwide emissions in 2018, 5 times what it was 5 years ago. An increasing share of companies are reporting carbon footprints, setting up internal carbon price. Despite these measures, current efforts are far from the 2°C scenario target. Only 20% of companies are reporting actual progress against their carbon targets.

Sustainability is a new pillar of company competitivity

Beyond the immediate challenge, sustainability represents a potential competitive edge for companies and a differentiation axis. To this extent, we observe two simultaneous trends in consumer purchasing behavior. First, despite outstanding growth of environmental factors in purchasing criteria (+62% vs. 2014), average consumers are still mainly driven by price and perceived quality (stable vs. 2014) but willing to compromise on brand and ease of purchase (those criteria down by -17% and -14% respectively). Second, an environmentally-conscious segment is emerging with willingness to pay a higher premium for such products.

Future winners will be those who seize this opportunity, beating the corporate inertia that plagues most organizations. Hence, the ability to leverage more agile, smaller companies and start-ups will help conquer this eco-friendly segment. In particular, promoting clearer branding, product transparency and educating consumers with better community management have been strong drivers of their growth.

This transition requires reconsidering the end-

to-end value by mobilizing all actors from the supplier upstream to recycling specialists downstream. For instance, automotive manufacturers' direct CO2 emissions (scope 1 & 2) only represent a mere 3% of the entire carbon footprint of the industry.

Governments are a key enabler of this transformation

Tepid results of the last COP25 have demonstrated that international cooperation on the topic is one of the strongest levers of actions but extremely complex to put in place. However, governments still have significant actions that can be activated at the country level.

To enable companies for the transition, governments have to provide a stable business context including legal framework that provides transparency for consumers (e.g. labels), incentives and requirements, and sustainable infrastructure (energy, waste and recyclability).

France attractive for companies to develop sustainable products

In this new competitive paradigm, France is an extremely attractive country. Combining low-cost/low-carbon energy, France provides a favorable ecosystem for companies looking to reduce their CO2 footprint.

With leaders in waste management, energy efficiency and world-class CSR companies, France demonstrate formidable leadership on sustainability topics

Lastly, France has set an ambitious legal framework further favoring development of sustainable products from a carbon footprint aspect and regarding circular economy.



Auteur, disclaimer

01Sustainability is disrupting the status quo


Citizens' priorities shift to lower CO2

footprint and increased circular economy

Climate change unevenly considered across geographies

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

+80%

-40%

-20%

0%

+20%

+40%

-60%

+60%

+100%Climate change

National deficit

Crime

Immigration

Unemployment

Company tax avoidance

Wealth inequality

Quality of life in old age

Lack of opportunities to progress in life

People whose needs

are not met by society

Terrorism

Pensions

Degradation of

natural resources

The NHS

Envi

ron

men

tal

imp

act

Use

r

frie

nd

ly

Perc

eive

d

qu

alit

y

25%

Oth

ers

Pric

e &

Pro

mo

tio

ns

Easi

er t

o

pu

rch

ase

Bra

nd

Co

mp

any

po

licy

on

su

stai

nab

ility

24%

19% 18%16%

14%15%

13%11% 11%

5%8%

3% 4%6% 7%

20192014

Germany UK Japan USA India China Turkey

Developed economies Developing economies

1 Inequality The NHS Inequality Healthcare Unemployment Healthcare Unemployment

2 Climate Change Crime Social Programs Crime Corruption Inflation Inflation

3 Immigration Climate Change Taxes Immigration Crime Unemployment Immigration

4 Crime Immigration Moral Decline Moral Decline Terrorism Environment Terrorism

5 Moral Decline Terrorism Climate Change Corruption Social Inequality Moral Decline Education

6 Environment Unemployment Crime Terrorism Education Social Programs Crime

7 Extremism Social inequality Unemployment Extremism Climate Change Education Social Inequality

8 Healthcare Wealth Inequality Healthcare Climate Change Environment Climate Change Corruption

Source : IPSOS, Global Advisor, BCG TSI Consumer Survey UK 2019, BCG analysis

Change v

s.2014

% of all answers

+3% -2% -17% -14% +3% +62% +41% +7%

Top purchasing criteria 2014 vs. 2019(number of respondents selecting criteria as a top 3 priority)

Climate change issues jumping in importance for citizens

Within the last five years, sustainability topics have taken a more prominent place in the public's mind.

A recent study led by BCG in the UK shows climate change ranks third in 2019 when 5 years ago, it was #8.

When purchasing goods, price & quality remain primary criteria…

… but consumers willing to compromise on convenience and brand for increased sustainability

This pattern is also reflected in consumers behaviors where environmental concerns have grown the strongest of all the purchasing criteria.While price and perceived quality remains fairly stable, in first and second position respectively; brand and ease of purchase have declined in favor of sustainability elements.

Although similar change is seen across the globe, it largely varies across geographies: developed economies, Europe in particular, are experiencing the fastest transition.


Top priority in 2019 relative to their evolution in 5-year


Current value chains are increasingly complex and geographically widespread

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

100

60

150

20

40

120

80

0

50

100

200

87%

Air freight rate index (1960 = 100)

Air freight volume (billion ton-km)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

10

8

0

4

2

6-62%

Sea freight rate index (1960 = 100)

World seaborn trade (billion tons)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

0

5,000

4,000

1,000

3,000

2,000

-33%

US truck freight rate index (1960 = 100)

US truck freight volume (billion ton-km)

Dramatic decline in logistics costs has enabled simpler international trade…

… opening access to market with lower manufacturing cost structure

93

118100 104 100

118 116103

117106 102

87 86 88

121109 104 103

87 8297

114 10997

120

89 91 98

119 114101

93103

89

Chin

a

Japan

US

South

Kore

a

Aust

ria

Neth

erl

ands

Italy

Fra

nce

Belg

ium

Sw

eden

UK

Indonesi

a

Canada

Russ

ia

Czech

Republic

Mexic

o

Germ

any

Bra

zil

Sw

itzerl

and

Aust

ralia

Spain

Thailand

Ukra

ine

Pola

nd

Norw

ay

Turk

ey

Irela

nd

Hungary

Denm

ark

Fin

land

Slo

vakia

Rom

ania

Port

ugal

India

BCG manufacturing cost index 2018 (US =100)

Largest SmallestTotal export value

Source : OECD, World Bank, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, IATA, Hummels 2008, Thomson Reuters, BCG analysis

Higher cost structure than the USLower cost structure than the US

Globalization, driven by a dramatic decrease in logistics and communication costs, has enabled firms to optimize their value chain across the globe, based on countries' cost competitive advantage.

In this context, most value chains have become highly complex, relying on the international flows of goods across a network of suppliers, distributors logistics and waste management companies spread across the globe.

Relocating parts of value chains has unlocked significant competitive advantage for companies, notably from a

cost standpoint. Firms moved manufacturing activities and labor-intensive processes towards Asia, particularly China, where they could benefit from lower manufacturing costs.

Take for example the iPhone supply chain, with its global footprint from raw materials to waste flows. This supply chain is spread all over the world, with most assembly sites in China and production of most components in Asia. Products are then transported to main consumption countries (Europe and North America). Finally, e-waste mostly flows back to Asia, Africa and Latin America.



Note: flows are not exhaustive; waste flows based on estimates of e-waste across the globe, no official reportingSource : World Bank Data, company website, BCG analysis

Pro

ducti

on s

ite o

f com

ponents

Concepti

on s

ite

Main

flo

ws

of

com

ponents

Raw

mate

rials

Ass

em

bly

sit

e

Share

of

Apple

's s

ubcontr

acto

rs

in 2

015

0,1

39

18

44

Main

recycling s

ite

Main

flo

ws

of

dis

trib

uti

on

Main

flo

ws

of

wast

e

Sil

ver,

bauxit

e

Nic

kel

Tin

Tin

Com

ponents

Scre

ens,

cam

era

, R

AM

,

com

ponents

Tungst

en,

alu

min

um

, ir

on,

rare

eart

h

Case

Tanta

lum

,

cass

iteri

te

Cobalt

Gold

Lit

hiu

m,

copper

Sapphir

e

scre

ens

Pro

cess

ors

Pro

cess

ors

Lens,

pro

cess

ors

Com

ponents

Illu

stra

tio

n o

f iP

ho

ne

mai

n s

up

ply

ch

ain

flo

ws

–es

tim

ated

glo

bal

fo

otp

rin

t fr

om

raw

mat

eria

ls t

o w

aste

flo

ws


iPh

on

e co

mp

on

ents

tra

vel c

um

ula

ted

~8

00

00

0km

acr

oss

th

e gl

ob

eSi

mila

r to

man

y el

ectr

on

ic d

evic

es,

the

valu

e ch

ain

is e

xtre

mel

y co

mp

lex,

so

urc

ing

bes

t m

ater

ials

an

d s

ub

-co

mp

on

ents

acr

oss

th

e gl

ob

e. M

any

stu

die

s es

tim

ate

the

dis

tan

ce t

rave

lled

by

raw

mat

eria

ls a

nd

co

mp

on

ents

in

th

e iP

ho

ne

sup

ply

ch

ain

to

be

aro

un

d 8

00

00

0km

. Yet

, th

is f

igu

re d

oes

no

t in

clu

de

flo

ws

of

e-w

aste

th

at a

re s

till

no

t w

ell

do

cum

ente

d.

They

usu

ally

sta

rts

in m

ain

co

nsu

mp

tio

n m

arke

ts (

No

rth

Am

eric

a, E

uro

pe)

an

d t

rave

l to

co

un

trie

s w

ith

lo

ose

r re

gula

tio

n o

n t

hes

e ty

pe

of

was

te s

uch

as

Ind

ia,

or

som

e La

tin

Am

eric

a o

r A

fric

an c

ou

ntr

ies.


Achieving 2°C scenario requires reconsidering entire value chains

14% 13%28%

36%

15%1% 2%

12%

13%

42%

49%

98% 97%85% 84%

60%51% 53%

36%

Oil & GasConsumer

goods

1% 1% 2%1%

Automotive Construction

materials

Steel

producer

ITChemicals

5%

Financial

services

214,5 179,1 0,4428 63 140 26,2 2,5

Scope 1 (from operations owned / controlled)

Scope 2 (from production of energy purchased)

Scope 3 (other indirect emissions in value chain)

2050 GHGemissions in 2°C scenarioGt CO2

South AfricaGermanyBrazilRussiaIndiaUSAChina

Gt

CO

2

Already ~70% of gap to 2°C scenario achievable with proven technologies

13.3 5.6 7.3 2.2 1.2 0.5 0.5

% achievable with proven technologies

74% 74% 74% 76% 67% 78%92%

Source : IEA, CDP Climate Change Information Request, BCG analysis

COP 21 in Paris defined a global trajectory to reach 2°C scenario by 2050, aligning on CO2e targets. Within this scope, companies have a considerable role to play as they represent about two thirds of current emissions.

Achieving 2°C scenario translates into an 80% reduction of the current footprint by 2060. A recent BCG study shows that ~70% of targets set for 2°C scenario are achievable with existing proven technologies.

Yet, such efforts require that each industry engages with all actors along the entire value chain to assess best options in terms of product design, supply chain, manufacturing processes, product use and end-of-life.

Example of scope 1, 2 & 3 emissions from companies in selected sectors



Limited natural resources and growing waste generation call for circularity

250,000

350,000

300,000

150,000

0

50,000

200,000

100,000

May-1

6

Aug-1

7

Export of plastic waste for recycling from the EU to receiving countries (in tons)

Mar-

18

Oct-

17

Feb-1

5

Jan-1

5

Mar-

15

Apr-

15

May-1

5

Feb-1

6

Jul-

15

Jun-1

5

Aug-1

5

Dec-1

6

Oct-

16

Sep-1

5

Oct-

15

Nov-1

5

Dec-1

5

Jan-1

6

Feb-1

7

Jul-

16

Mar-

16

Apr-

16

Jun-1

6

Aug-1

6

Nov-1

6

Sep-1

6

Jul-

17

Mar-

17

Apr-

17

May-1

7

Jun-1

7

Jan-1

7

Nov-1

7

Feb-1

8

Dec-1

7

Jan-1

8

Apr-

18

Sep-1

7

Hong Kong

China India

Taiwan

Thailand

Indonesia Turkey

Vietnam

Malaysia

Other

Limited circularity in existing product lifecycle is putting more and more stress on both ends of the value chain• Raw materials, especially rare earths, are becoming a

challenge as rate of extraction is expected to double by 2050

• Waste generation has been steadily increasing across all regions, ranging from 0.5 to almost 2.2kg per capita per day

• Additionally, recycled materials also produce less CO2

emissions than crude materials – 30-50% lower for plastic bottles for instance

With low recycling rate – estimated around 14% in 2016 – most of the generated waste is being dumped in landfills or open air spaces.

This considerable volume of materials has also created significant trade flows across countries. In the case of plastics, Asia has been the primary destination over the last decades.

However, this raises the question of long-term sustainability of this model that has also been largely undermined since China established a ban on households plastic waste in 2017.

From a consumer perspective, companies are increasingly expected to manage the end-of-life of their product. This requires rethinking products from the very beginning of design (materials, use and/or re-use, etc.)

Source : World Bank "What a Waste 2.0" report, BCG & WBCSD “The New Big Circle: Achieving Growth and business model innovation through circular economy implementation” report, Eurostat

Only 14% of 2016 waste worldwide gets recycled

Landfill

Open dump

Recycling 14%

Composting

Incineration

6%

11%

37%

33%

Enforcement of

China plastic ban

2 Bn tons



Auteur, disclaimer

02A complex transition, already under way


Companies, regulators and investors gradually take steps to act

20% of GHG worldwide emissions are regulated by ETS or carbon pricing

Governments are implementing measures to systemically control carbon footprint. In 2005, the EU set-up the ETS system, followed by Japan in 2012 and China in 2020.

China is piloting its ETS in its main cities (Shenzhen, Shanghai, Beijing, Fujian, etc.)

10%8%74%

70%

9%

15%

6%

10%

71%

65%

13%

Construction

& Infrastructure

14%

8%

10%

72%

10%

14%

Industrial goods

74% 9% 8%

51%

6%

34%

Agrifood & Forestry

10%15%

13%

Finance

9%

18%

12%

12%9%

8%

61%13%

Consumer & Retail18%

41%

18%

8%

Energy

66%Tech, Media

& High-Tech

14%63% 13%

Transport

Light manufacturing

10%

Services

8%

Health

123 174 18715

376

150

607517

Publicly disclosing price

Not disclosing

Europe

Asia

44% 42%

5% 23%

2014 2017

North America

29% 22%

More companies report internal carbon pricing. Still, less than 20% have clear reduction targets

Companies have become increasingly transparent about carbon footprint over the last decade. Still, a large share of major companies (41% to 74% depending on sector) do not disclose their emissions.

Leading companies on the topic have started to set-up internal carbon pricing: defining a set price per ton of CO2 that is factored into their decision processes. The Carbon Disclosing Project (CDP) has seen more companies publicly disclose this internal metric in recent years.

In this direction, we see players taking more drastic measures such as Kering who has defined an environmental P&L. This accounting method prices all environmental impacts the firm may have in the world (incl. water, soil utilization). The company aims at optimizing its 'eP&L' every year

Companies reporting internal carbon price

No / partial disclosure Emissions reductionDisclosure Targets

2015 2016

43%

21%

22%

41%

24%

22%

Source : World Bank data, CDP data, BCG analysis

0%

10%

20%

30%

20202010

Share of global GHG emissions

covered by public instruments (%)

2004 2005 2015

0.3%3.7% 4.4%

12.0%

20.1%

Company reporting on carbon footprint



81

Defining right CO2 price across the globe is a complex endeavor

121

97

68

57

49

31 3026

2322

22 19 18 1716

15 14 127 6 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 3 2

Swit

zerl

and

Can

ada

Swed

en

Bri

tish

Co

l.

No

rway

Fin

lan

d

Icel

and

Fran

ce EU

Po

lan

d

Den

mar

kA

lber

taIr

elan

dU

K

Jap

an

Shen

zhen

Slo

ven

iaC

alif

orn

ia

Bei

jing

Spai

nN

ew Z

eala

nd

Port

uga

l

Swit

zerl

and

Ch

on

gqin

g

Arg

enti

na

Toky

oSh

angh

aiC

olo

mb

ia

Sin

gap

ore

Gu

angd

on

gM

exic

o

32

0

Carbon Tax

ETS

CO2 pricing is a simple mechanism but complex to align at global scale

With increasing pressure on sustainability, carbon initiatives – either carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes (ETS) – have been increasingly implemented across the world. However, they often translate to lower price competitiveness for companies. Adjusting CO2 price is a fine balance between maintaining attractiveness for companies' investments and ensuring long-term environmental targets are achieved. Today, observed CO2

prices range from a few dollars to over $100 per ton –both in nation carbon tax and in corporations' internal carbon pricing systems.

Global public & private cooperation is mandatory

Greenhouse gas emissions are by definition a global issue that exceed border considerations. Achieving substantial impact requires governmental coordination but recent COP discussions have proven this to be a difficult challenge. In the meantime, companies can proactively activate several sustainability levers across their industry.

Cost of most carbon capture technologies surpasses 60$/ton

As part of the 2°C scenario, carbon capture is required to absorb back CO2 from the atmosphere. Several technologies are being investigated but many have proven expensive to implement. While cost is expected to decline with scale, current cost is above what most players use as a base scenario.

Source : World Bank Carbon Pricing Dashboard, CDP data, Companies Integrated Reports, Global CCS Institute (November 2017), BCG analysis

Country/ city price in carbon initiativeUSD/tCO2e

20 30

100

60

20

80

40

40

Santander

Car

bo

n P

rice

(USD

/tC

O2e

)

DSM

Eletrobras

CO2 Emissions (Mt)

Inditex

Cargill

Danone

Unilever Solvay

Total

ENEL

Suez

BNP

Kering

Novartis

Saint Gobain

Air Liquide

Anglo American

National Grid UK Eni SpAStatoil

Company internal carbon price and their emissions

Revenues

in Bn$100

20

21

23

Natural Gas

Processing

Biomass-

to-ethanol

Fertiliser

Supercritical PC

Oxyfuel

160

Iron & Steel

Cement

Natural Gas

Combined Cycle

IGCC

27

27

121

121

119

Cost of main carbon capture and use technologiesUSD/tCO2


33

14881

104

80

67

63

60

194


Increased costs are the first barrier to altering consumer behaviors

70% of consumers willing

to pay a 5% premium

10% of consumers willing

to pay a 25% premiumvs.

Cost of change is #1 barrier to altering behaviors

Note: WTP survey of 1000 global consumers on sustainability products; Sustainable products include organic ingredients, responsibly sourced, responsibly packaged, certified fair tradeSource : IRI, Nielsen, SPINS, BCG TSI Consumer Survey UK 2019, Global Sustainable Investment Review 2018

Lack of

information

about

companies

Not enough

alternative

options

11%

Cost

associated

with change

12%

Don’t fully

understand

what is

required

Inconvenience No change

necessary;

enough is

being done

Challenges

with

accessing

alternative

options

18%

13%

11%10%

3%

New sustainability-conscious consumer segments are emerging

Recent surveys show that consumer behaviors regarding sustainability are evolving at an unprecedented pace. While cost of sustainable products is still listed as the main hurdle, we see more consumers willing to pay a premium: 70% of consumers are willing to pay a 5% premium, this number drops to 10% for a 25% premium.

This new price elasticity reflects the emergence of a consumer segment willing to pay a significant premium for sustainable products. This is all the more relevant for companies since consumers list the lack of alternative options as the second barrier to changing their purchasing habits.

Most agile companies able to tackle this growing segment

Companies have already started to invest in this segment and we see number of more agile, small companies and start-ups, developing new products with a clear sustainable claim. Larger corporations usually struggle to transition to more sustainable practices due to corporate inertia and legacy supply chains.

Consumer education is critical

In this rapidly-moving context, most consumers want to act but lack visibility on what is required. Companies and regulators have a critical role to play in putting into place a clear framework to help citizens make informed decisions about their consumption.



Auteur, disclaimer

03France offers competitive advantage for sustainable investments


France attractive for companies to develop sustainable products

1. Sustainability Economic Development Assessment, scale 0-100 Source : Europe observatory, Business France CSR Hub Data, World Bank Data, IEA, BCG analysis

France offers highly- competitive, clean energy

Energy consumption in manufacturing processes is the main source of emissions. To this extent, France's current electricity production mix offers high-quality energy supply that iss low-carbon and cost competitive. On average, France generates half the emissions that the US or China does for the same amount of energy generated. Moving forward, the growing share of renewables will further strengthen France's position.

In 2017, cumulative savings achieved since 2005 reached ~ 1% of final energy consumption of countries with energy efficiency obligation schemes (EEOS). France accounts for the biggest savings worldwide (24 TWh), exceeding country targets by 2.5x.

15.00

3.0

35.00

2.0

0.00

1.0 1.5

20.00

2.5 3.5 4.0

5.00

10.00

25.00

30.00

Indonesia

Energy carbon intensity (tCO2e / Mtoe)

Pric

e o

f el

ectr

icit

y (U

S ce

nts

/ k

Wh

)

France

Germany

USA

UKChina

India

Brazil

TurkeyVietnam

Mexico

Country electricity cost competitiveness relative to carbon efficiency

France is already most attractive EU country for R&D investments

France is well-positioned in terms of innovation. In 2018, France ranked first in number of foreign investment decisions made in R&D across Europe.

Furthermore, enterprise creation is buoyant in France. In 2017, the enterprise startup rate across the entire French economy was 10%, ranking 3rd behind the UK (14%) and Poland (12%), Germany ranked 9th

with 7%.

France also experienced the highest net growth in terms of active enterprises with +200 000 net creations. This 5.4% growth far exceeds the UK, Poland (below 3%) and the 0.9% EU-28 average.

17%

15%

25%

8%

1%

7%

10%

1%

3%

1%

1%

26%

13%

11%

5%

4%

4%

4%

2%

2%

2%

2%

Spain

Poland

France

Germany

UK

Ireland

Sweden

Netherlands

Italy

Belgium

Finland

Austria

2%

Headquarters

R&D

Multinational firm investment decisions(% of all investment in Europe, 2018)



France offers a strong ecosystem of sustainability leaders

1. Sustainability Economic Development Assessment, scale 0-100 2. ESG: environmental social and governance score between 0-100 based on CSR Hub data Source : CSR Hub Data, World Bank Data, IEA, BCG analysis

French economy relies on an ecosystem of CSR leaders

A recent BCG study ('La Vague responsable: un nouveau défi des entreprises françaises') shows that European companies, and French ones in particular, are global leaders along ESGdimensions (environmental, social and governance). Indeed, 83% of large French corporations are in the first quintile of global companies, far ahead of the Euro zone (61% on average) and the Nordics (64%). This leading position results notably from a long-term governmental effort to help companies improve on ESG dimensions.

Interestingly, this ESG performance has a high correlation with country well-being measured through its SEDA1 score (published by BCG since 2012). This score combines many criteria such as health, education, equality, environment, economy, employment, etc.

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62

Russia

Corporate ESG performance2

Greece

Country well-being

SEDA score1

Argentina

Mexico

Italia

Belgium

France

China

FinlandCanada

BrazilIndonesia

South Africa

India

South KoreaUS Japan

Australia Ireland

Turkey

UK

Sweden

Germany Netherlands

Austria

Denmark Norway

Spain

Europe

5%

16%

29%26% 27% 26%

20%12%

20%

17% 23% 23%29%

19%

83%

64%

54%51% 50%

45%

61%

France ItalyNordics Germany Benelux UK Euro Zone

1st quintile 2nd quintile 3rd to 5th quintile


Country well being relative to the ESG performance of its companies

Share of companies of a region in each quintile of CSR performance


France's regulatory framework will help maintain this competitiveness

France's draft bill on circularity pushes for clear performance indicators for companies

Parliament is establishing targets on five critical indicators – e waste volume reduction, reparability, recycling of plastic, production of recycled materials and re-use of waste. The bill will impact the business models of firms in France : - Prohibiting the disposal of unsold new products- Implementing a reparability index to limit planned obsolescence- Applying Extended Producer Responsibility to new sectors (e.g. toys)

Through this legal framework, France actively differentiates itself on waste management and eco-design, particularly by providing visibility on the CO2

competitiveness of products.

France's regulatory framework prioritizes energy efficiency and CO2 competitiveness

The National Low Carbon Strategy sets goals to transition to a low-carbon economy and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. It prioritizes energy efficiency and CO2 competitiveness with :- Control of carbon content of imported products (e.g. carbon tax at EU

borders to support competitiveness against “carbon leakage”)- Use of carbon footprint calculation tools to provide stakeholders with

adequate information- Development of low-carbon energy (e.g. hydrogen, electric vehicle

charging infrastructure, biofuels)- Investments in carbon capture and storage / re-use technologies

France will offer a favorable environment for firms to implement green and low-cost value chains

With the "Productive Pact 2025", France creates a favorable environment for green and low-cost values chains:- Creation of 124 "industrial territories", to encourage innovative clusters

(e.g. simplification of administrative procedures);- More than €1.3Bn investments in talent and innovation.

Sector-specific projects are promoted, particularly in circularity and climate change: plastic recycling, carbon-free rail transport through hydrogen and electricity or carbon-free and renewable hydrogen.



Sustainability

Environment

Climate

change

Circular

economy

Recycling

Carbon

reduction

Fair trade

Waste

management

Eco-design

Energy

Food

France

Carbon

capture

Water

sustainable value chains - invest in france...selection of this topic for the choose france summit...

Documents