Transport & Environnement (T&E) has just published the latest figures for the business travel-related emissions of 25 major French companies, showing an average reduction of 18% between 2019 and 2024. Do you think they are good performers?
Denise Auclair - When we look at the number of A or B rated companies in our Travel Smart ranking, France is one of the leading countries, even though Switzerland and the Netherlands have the highest number of companies with the best scores. But there is a real movement in France. Six of the major companies studied have managed to maintain their emissions at less than half of what they were in 2019. And not the least, with big names such as Atos, Sopra Steria, Société Générale, Air Liquide, Capgemini and Dassault Systèmes. And others who are just behind, not far off the -50% mark, such as Orange, Amundi, Kering and L'Oréal.
How do you explain these good overall results?
D. A. - Of these 25 companies, nine have given themselves specific targets for reducing emissions linked to business travelThis will result in an average reduction of -41% between 2019 and 2024. Setting targets is the way to move in the right direction. By setting targets and making them public, you are setting a benchmark and showing that you are going to continue your efforts. Efforts that involve, on the one hand, increasing train use and, on the other, reducing long-distance travel.
What good practices have you identified in this area?
D. A. - For example, in its universal 2024 registration document, Amundi explains that it has implemented a authorisation required a member of senior management for trips abroad. This type of initiative is very interesting, and shows a willingness to assess which trips are necessary and which can be replaced by a video conference, or grouped together for less frequent trips. Another good practice is that I have had the opportunity to speak to managers at L'Oréal, which has put in place a proactive policy for increase the proportion of journeys made by train in France, and increasingly in Europe, advocating its use for journeys of less than four hours. We have identified 37 companies that are at the forefront of the transition from air to rail transport. And of this leading group, which L'Oréal has joined, around ten are French. That's a significant number, almost a third.
Does the fact that the French rail network is efficient and allows TGV travel explain why French companies are such good performers?
D. A. - It's true that the rail network in France works very well. Conversely, I hear German companies want to take the train more, but Deutsche Bahn is facing reliability challenges. That's why, to influence these choices, Transport & Environnement recently sent a letter to the German government, co-signed by these companies, asking for more reliable services. Companies are expected to reduce their emissions and make greater use of rail, but they also need to be able to offer the services that will enable them to do so.
Paris-Berlin, Paris-Barcelona, Paris-Milan, or even Paris-Nice: are these routes becoming conducive to rail travel?
D. A. - Yes, in my opinion. The train is becoming increasingly competitive for these durations. A recent survey showed that the train was preferred up to 5 hours travel timecompared with 3 or 4 hours previously. If we continue to see this improvement in train services, with a competitive and comfortable service, it will encourage this development. Passengers are open to it, and the train is seen as a mode of transport in which to remain productive, offering time for reflection. It's a positive trend, particularly strong in France.
For companies located in countries where rail networks are not as convenient, giving priority to rail is undoubtedly less easy. What can they do?
D. A. - For these companies, the first step will be to use other means of reducing emissions, such as analysing the usefulness of travel or reorganising journeys. HoweverThe example of an American company like Salesforce is an interesting one.. The use of the train in the United States is not obvious, except in certain regions. Salesforce's policy is to favour train travel in these regions, but especially internationally, to do business in Europe or Asia. Another example is IKEA, which is based in Sweden, but also in the Netherlands: while travelling by train between Sweden and the Netherlands is not an option, this company implements a travel policy based on the train wherever possible, starting with France and Spain.
However, not all business trips, particularly intercontinental ones, can be made by train. What are your recommendations?
D. A. - That's the main lesson of our campaign. Working internationally is part of life for any large company. They have to reduce air travel-related emissions, but at the same time, it's not just a constraint. The tools are evolving, offering opportunities to be a pioneer in reorganising the way we work. Videoconferencing can easily replace a meeting. A drone or virtual reality goggles can be used to visit factories. Constantly improving, being as up-to-date as possible, using the latest tools at their disposal: this too is part of corporate life. In our view, this is a really exciting time, because there are things to invent.
One final question. Let's assume that aviation successfully completes its emissions reduction trajectory, around the FAS, the new generation of aircraft. Taking a flight in 2050 would represent far fewer emissions than today, whereas building train lines is also a source of emissions. Could air travel remain a mode of transport for the future?
D. A. - At T&E, we firmly believe this. That's why we're working both on reducing business travel in the short term - because it accounts for an average of 25% of emissions from the aviation sector - and on developing zero-emission aviation, new technologies, sustainable fuels and hydrogen. There are different timetables up to 2050. And, until 2030, reducing the most emission-intensive journeys is the key lever. At the moment, a great deal of work is being done on new technologies in the air transport sector, but there is still a long way to go. we still don't know exactly when we'll be able to rely on itWe are also working on the development of alternative fuels and hydrogen, for which the horizon has been set. recently rejected by Airbus. Investment in rail infrastructure is a necessary and intelligent investment. Whatever happens, we're going to have to use the train more. Because there are limits to technology, and questions about the availability of energy sources for air transport given the needs in other sectors. We're not sure we'll be able to do everything we'd like to do by 2050.
