Good evening everyone and welcome to this brand-new format on BFM Business. I'm with Denis Ferrand, CEO of RCO. Good evening.
Good evening. Well, thank you Denis for taking the initiative with this unprecedented format. Six students, two CEOs from the C40 who will engage in dialogue, because that's really the goal — to build bridges.
Exactly. RCO is the Institute for Economic Analysis for companies, but it's also a player in economic policy debate. And indeed, we're going to talk about bridges — perhaps they'll be walkways — but in any case, these are two worlds we want to bring together: the world of business leaders and the world of those shaping their understanding of economics through their studies. We've gathered a panel of six students who will exchange with two leaders of major companies. Joining us tonight is Patrick Pouyanné, CEO of TotalEnergies, a French multi-energy giant present in 120 countries. Facing you, Benoît Bazin, CEO of Saint-Gobain, global leader in sustainable construction. You have around you — because we're on a set, sitting in a circle together — six students who spent a good part of the afternoon rehearsing their questions. They're a bit nervous, but perhaps you are too. They're going to challenge you. You'll also have the right to ask them any questions you'd like. Let me begin my round of introductions. Starting on the left with Sopia. Good evening, Sopia. You're a master's student in economic and international studies at Paris 8. You love photography, you love hiking. You've just returned from a solo trip to Japan. Did it go well?
It went very well, thank you very much, Lore. Indeed, photography and travel are my passions that fuel my curiosity. Next to you is Martin. Good evening, Martin.
You're a student at Polytechnique, you play football and tennis, you love cinema, you have a music group, and I learned, Patrick, this might interest you — at Polytechnique they also do go-karting. He manages the karting association at Polytechnique. Shows how varied the education is there.
Yes, we revived the karting association. So we're having fun and there's an event — we're hosting a new race on May 8th. You're invited if you'd like to come, with pleasure.
Next to you, Patrick Pouyanné, is Sidonie. Sidonie, you're a preparatory student at Angers. You're a fan of Oscar Wilde, you love reading, and you're really into maths — you never stop until you've finished a math exercise.
That's right. It's true that mathematics reveal my determination to finish something once I've started it.
Girls who love maths — we definitely need plenty of them. You have a great future ahead. Next to you is Hugo, a master's student in development economics at Université Grenoble Alpes. You enjoy philosophy, travel, trout fishing, and also the trumpet, which you've played for over 12 years. 12 years?
More than 12 years. Yes, thank you very much. Good evening. Yes, simple things — music, nature, a fishing rod, happiness.
Next to you is Mariola. Mariola, you're a journalism student in Toulouse. You love football, and you describe yourself as bold, tenacious, and a risk-taker.
Yes, indeed. And sometimes that can create great opportunities.
So you sent an email directly to Patrick Pouyanné.
Yes, it's true I wrote to you, Mr. Pouyanné, back in January, for the chance.
I read my emails and I actually do something with them — I forwarded it saying 'Good idea, she wants to interview me, invite her to the panel.' So it works to write to CEOs. Though I'm not telling all the students in France to write to me!
He's interested in talent and young talent. Next to you, Benoît Bazin, is Oscar. Oscar is at ENS and has already worked with the Council of Economic Analysis on public debt — a field of the future.
Absolutely, and I think that will spare me from unemployment.
You're quite right. So there are our six students and our two CEOs. Are you ready? We're going to talk about supply-side policy because that's today's theme. It needs to be defended, this supply-side policy, because it's partly under attack today.
Yes, indeed. We're living through a moment that's quite disorienting because we seem to face a discord of times. We only talk about sovereignty — the word sovereignty is now on everyone's lips, whether it's for energy, defense, food, or digital. And at the same time, there's a prosecution against supply-side economics, claiming it hasn't delivered expected results. Whereas in reality, sovereignty and supply-side policy are two sides of the same coin. We need production and investment responses to reclaim sovereignty over the spaces that are at the heart of today's concerns.
Sovereignty will be our first theme.
Absolutely. That will be our first theme, with particular emphasis on energy sovereignty, which is the most immediately questioned, but also defense challenges and sovereignty through innovation. We have a whole set of themes to build on, all pointing back to the economy's capacity to deliver production.
Sovereignty, innovation, value-sharing — those are our three themes. Let me remind you of the rules: you can interrupt each other, you can answer a question not directly aimed at you. In short, we're free in our dialogue at RCO. Let's get started.
We begin this sovereignty section, this first topic, with Mariola. Mariola starts with a first question about hydrocarbons. I believe it's for Patrick Pouyanné.
Yes, hello Mr. Pouyanné. You often say that continuing to invest in hydrocarbons is because there's strong demand. But at the same time, there's a younger generation that wants less hydrocarbon and is very sensitive to climate issues. How does TotalEnergies plan to prepare for the ecological transition that will inevitably take place within the next 30 to 40 years?
It's not about how we're going to prepare — we've actually implemented a fairly innovative strategy since 2020. We're the only oil manager to develop this. In fact, we became TotalEnergies. It's not just greenwashing — it's because we decided that yes, we must continue producing the energy you need. And frankly, you're all quite happy right now that I produce petroleum and that I'm one of the world's largest oil companies, supplying you with gasoline, diesel, jet fuel — which will be scarce in a few days. I've never had so many questions about my core business from public authorities. But that's the reality of today's demand. At the same time, we decided to allocate 25 to 30 percent of our investments to electricity and renewable energy. The analysis we made was a demand analysis: an energy transition is underway, and the key word in every scenario, whatever it may be, is the growth of electricity. The electrification of our societies is inevitable. That's the key word the government is using right now, just as they did in 1973 during the oil crisis with nuclear power in France — electricity. So we decided TotalEnergies would continue producing oil and gas because those are today's energies that we need. Fossil fuels represent 80 percent of the global energy mix. It was 83 percent when I joined the company — not much has changed. But we need much more electricity, which is an incredible field. We're becoming one of the world's largest electricity producers. We'll be among the top 10 global electricity producers by 2030. Today, 10 percent of what we produce is already electrons — more than oil and gas. Ten percent. We started in 2020; in five years we've committed 25 billion. That's enormous investment. Energy will come from electricity, either from gas-to-power or from renewables — onshore and offshore wind. We have a portfolio of nearly 35 gigawatts of electricity. We're not doing this for the benefit of the company alone — we're doing it at scale. It's a reality, but it's also a reality that responds to our clients' demands. And our clients, they're in transition, but for now they travel, they heat their homes, they live with fossil fuels. I can't simply tell them I don't have any more. In fact, today, I'd get seriously shaken if I said I didn't have any more — they'd say 'What are you doing?' So we're in this balance, and the word 'transition' is complex, and that's what we need to convince you of. In any case, the company is fully committed. Even when we produce oil and gas, we reduce our emissions. We really do. We're building a liquefied natural gas plant — the famous LNG — where we cut emissions by a tenth by electrifying all processes. So there's a real commitment. I know the young tell us it's not going fast enough. Yes, but society doesn't move faster either. And the real energy debate is that we need a transition that's sustainable — that's clear — but also one where energy is reliable. Today, if I tell you I have no more energy, you won't be happy. And you can't be satisfied with intermittent electricity. It needs to be affordable. That's the question I would pose. What I observe in the public debate, even in our wealthy Western countries, is that as soon as energy becomes too expensive, there's an outcry. Why? Because it's an essential good for your daily life, for your purchasing power. I won't even mention what happens in emerging countries. So we're seeking this balance. It's not simple. In any case, we became TotalEnergies because we decided we would be a world-class electricity company, and we're moving in that direction. It takes time, but I find the company is advancing with giant strides, and I'm very proud to bring it along this path.
Do you have a date, a moment when your investments in renewable energy will surpass...
I don't have a date today. It will probably be my successor who does that. I know I'll bring the company to 2030 — I may leave before, or stay longer, I don't know. But by 2030, there will be 20 percent electricity, and we know how to do it. By investing 25 percent of our energy spend. But I also know I must continue investing in oil and gas. There's a somewhat strange natural phenomenon: if I don't invest in oil, oil fields decline naturally each year. So we're like the Shadoks — we struggle to maintain production for you. The current crisis will be an accelerator, no doubt, for domestic energy, renewable energy, nuclear energy, and so on. After this oil shock, France in 1973 said we're relaunching a nuclear program. We'll see a similar response, probably through renewables. All the better for us — we're in that segment and we're ready to take it on in every country.
Just before we move to Sopia's question — Benoît Bazin, when Patrick Pouyanné talks about electrifying clients, he's talking about you. When he speaks of inevitable electrification, what does that look like at your company?
By the way, I sell a lot to Benoît — he's a good client.
We have electricity purchase agreements, for example in Texas, for solar farms you've developed. It's very important in our decarbonization trajectory because we've committed to being carbon neutral by 2050, to be exemplary on our own footprint as the world leader in sustainable construction. To complement what Patrick Pouyanné said, we can bring significant energy sobriety to buildings. In France, we don't realize it enough, but nearly 45 percent of energy is spent on private and public buildings. And it's not rocket science to reduce that by 20, 30, or 40 percent. So one source of energy, one source of decarbonization, is the energy we save in buildings. We need to bring this to our clients while being exemplary in our own processes. We've reduced our CO2 emissions by 35 percent. It's a whole range of projects — changing materials and changing energy sources. For us, that means switching from gas to electricity. For example, we built the first two factories in the world — all competitors combined — for plasterboard powered by electricity, in Norway and Canada. Why Norway and Canada? Because we have hydroelectricity with 30-year contracts at very low cost. We have a tremendous asset in France: nuclear power. Nuclear electricity must be abundant, available, at a reasonable cost, and above all with visibility. When we build a factory, for example in glass — we rebuild them every 20 years — the factory where we created the world's first zero-carbon glass has been in France for 150 years. So when we set up a factory in France or elsewhere, we must know what the energy will be for 20, 30, 50 years. We need visibility and stability in electricity costs. For example, in Europe, we'll electrify factories in Spain before France because electricity is abundant and cheaper in Spain than in France. So yes, the trajectory is entirely possible. There's both the cost of investment and, above all, the operating cost. I can't build an electric factory that's 20 to 30 percent more expensive than competitors using gas on the other side of the Pyrenees. So the cost of electricity is absolutely critical in determining how quickly we can decarbonize energy-intensive industrial processes like glass or plasterboard manufacturing.
Yes, indeed. Energy cost is also a factor of differentiation and competitiveness that's extremely important, with quite remarkable differentials. France and Europe have relatively similar prices. The US has a slight advantage. France has an advantage today at 55 euros per megawatt-hour on the wholesale market. Germany is at 80 to 90. We have a 25-euro advantage, which comes not only from nuclear but also from renewables. People complain that we invested in excess capacity — nuclear plus renewables — but that's precisely why, during the current crisis, there's no impact on electricity prices in France. We fundamentally have an abundance of production capacity, and that's a very strong message I want to convey. If you want to control energy prices, you need to invest in surplus capacity, because otherwise every time there's a crisis, you get hit. France, on electricity, despite all the debates I hear — we invest too much in renewables — no, no, no, it's very good to have all that, because this ensemble makes us much more resilient to the crisis we're experiencing. So we have an advantage in France. I know the story about Spain, but you'll see Spain is a bit lagging behind.
We were children in 1973, you weren't there. Energy sobriety is a major issue, and I think we need to be careful. For example, the reflex when energy prices rise is to protect consumers and dilute the price signal, rather than saying energy is more expensive so we need to economize.
Well, consumers protect themselves — when it's too expensive, they consume less.
They all come to TotalEnergies stations because we're the cheapest. That's the problem I have.
Question from Sopia. Good evening, Mr. Bazin. You head a group whose activity is particularly energy-intensive. In a Europe where energy costs are significantly higher than in the United States, where you're also established — nonetheless, Saint-Gobain remains rooted in Europe. How do you justify this choice to remain anchored in Europe? And in the context of France's re-industrialization, what would you say to those considering leaving?
That's a broad question. There are several things. First, there's the weight of history. Saint-Gobain was created over 360 years ago. We were French by birth, European by vocation, and global by aspiration — if I may simplify. That's changing quite fast now, because fundamentally, when making investment choices in an international company, you allocate capital where there's growth and profitability. Saint-Gobain in the last decade — 2010 to 2020 — had 60 percent of its results in Western Europe. We haven't reduced results there, but today it's under half because we've more than doubled results in North America and Asia, where we went to seek growth. When we invest in Europe, we look at energy cost. Is it competitive? It's two to three times more expensive than elsewhere. Our response is twofold: either focus on products that don't travel and therefore aren't in international competition with Chinese companies delivering to the Middle East or Africa — we wouldn't be competitive — or focus on high innovation, where we have a differentiation factor of 3, 5, or 10 years ahead. So those are the two elements of response. But the dynamic is relatively unfavorable to Europe because there hasn't been economic growth here, unlike what we see in India. If I take volume figures for construction materials, we're driven by population — there are 1.4 to 1.5 billion Indians. There's no demographic growth in France, and apart from Spain receiving immigrants, there's no demographic growth in Europe. The demographic factor is very, very important, and we've placed 80 percent of our growth investments outside Europe. What do I say about France's attractiveness? There's still electricity, as Patrick reminded us, which is more attractive than in other European countries. Then you need a competitive framework that's stable over time — labor costs, tax policy, which I'm sure we'll come back to, and education. I'm delighted that young women continue learning mathematics because we need engineers. We need workers, technicians, engineers. So labor costs, taxation, education, infrastructure in terms of roads, ports, and energy — those are the four pillars of the framework that make investment attractive in France. I have to note that there was a supply-side policy a few years ago that put industry back at the center of the game in France, even before the Ukraine war and sovereignty issues. However, in the last two to three years, we've been hitting companies. We stopped reducing charges, we reintroduced taxation on large companies. Negative signals have been sent over the past two to three years to large companies who every day ask themselves 'Should I invest in India? Should I go to Australia?' — we made a big public acquisition offer in Australia — 'Should I go to Canada where there's growth?' So we must be very careful about the negative signals sent regarding supply-side policy, where we reversed charge reductions and taxation. I think today the issue isn't about rebuilding large manufacturing facilities — we should stop dreaming — jobs are lost. When we talk about industry in France, we're talking about the industry of intelligence — digital, artificial intelligence, deep innovation. And that's where the factors Benoît mentions are essential. When hiring engineers, what matters is the cost of labor. Why do we have the research tax credit? Simply to compensate for the fact that charges on salaries are too high. So my simple proposal is: relaunch supply-side policy by lowering charges and reducing research tax credits, because we need to keep you. I'll tell you that when we see our young engineers — we produce many in France and of very high quality, they're envied worldwide — one day I went to Silicon Valley saying we wanted to build a Digital Factory, and the head of a major tech company told me: 'Why come to California? You have all the talent in France — create your digital factory in Paris.' Which I did. But the difference was labor cost. That's why I decided, and we have the talent, and we see them leaving. Why? Because in the United States they have access to cheaper capital to develop their businesses. That's a frustration. So the question of capital, and then labor — work must be more rewarding in this country, and I'm prepared to come back to that. For me it's at the heart of the debate.
Just to clarify, Denis — on the cost of labor, Patrick Pouyanné says there's too much aid on one side because it compensates for labor costs that are too high. Is that our issue in France?
Exactly, with the difficulty that if you look at average labor costs, with the supply-side policy that was implemented, the gap that had become unfavorable to France compared to other Europeans was reduced in a direction favorable to French economic competitiveness. But that's based on an average observation. On the other hand, what we see very clearly is that these charge-reduction policies were concentrated rather on lower-qualification levels because the objective was really about quantity of jobs — reintegrating people excluded from employment. And we have strong financing of charge cuts through levies that are very high at the top of the salary distribution. So ultimately, we end up in a situation where we compensate charges with devices that... yes, we reduced the gap, we even reversed it with Germany, since we compare ourselves a lot to Germany.
The issue for us is — I now have teams in Portugal, and a Portuguese engineer, I can tell you, is just as well trained as a French engineer, and costs half as much. We need to look at the reality. For a European company like ours — I'm not talking about going to Mexico or India, I'm talking about Europe — there are still competitiveness gaps, and that's what we need to be aware of and find solutions for. And don't tell me I'm questioning the French social system. No, I'm prepared to make proposals on that too, but we need to look at reality. We have a competitiveness gap that in my view is much more significant than energy, because on energy we're rather well placed. The debate is rather on labor and possibly on the cost of capital. Those are the two important issues for the economy. On the social plan, what Denis Ferrand said is very accurate. What's been created, which is dramatic for the country, is a low-wage trap. You're all already well educated or on your way, but 60 percent of French salaries are between 1 and 1.6 times the minimum wage, with zero social progression. No social mobility, no democratic balance. Meritocracy and social mobility are absolutely essential to our society's balance, and unfortunately, the charge reductions focused on that area. Not enough on value-added and innovation, which is truly the future of the country. So invest in R&D, invest in innovation. For example, we doubled the size of our research center in Aubervilliers. We invest 400 million in R&D worldwide, two-thirds in France. I invested 50 million in a building — not a very productive asset — and they took away 17 percent of our research tax credit. It's not a big deal, we did it anyway. But you see the signals being sent, even as we want more innovation, more value-added for engineers and researchers in France.
No, no, because otherwise people listening will think we can just eliminate it completely. The French are great patriots who will still — especially since we made the decision once it was made. If I had known beforehand — that's true, because it was a question that had been pending for 15 years. I finally made the decision in 2021, but if I'd known they'd take away 17 percent of the research tax credit, I would probably have made a different decision. So we must be very careful about pushing value-added and innovation while not creating a low-wage trap, because then you compensate with social spending and it becomes a vicious cycle.
Denis, after that, Hugo's question.
On innovation, just one striking number from the recent 'Investments for the Future' report: France appears only three times among the top five countries for the 64 most important future technologies. So there's a risk of falling behind on innovation that's extremely significant. For example, Iran appears six times in that ranking. So we're less often in the top five — we do appear in drones in particular, but we're less often in innovation factors and sectors. That's an alert point that will probably point to a different structure of levies based on qualifications.
Hugo, we had planned to discuss competitiveness with China, but Benoît Bazin already answered in part on how he positions himself against the Chinese. Perhaps nuclear instead.
Perhaps nuclear. Yes. You've already mentioned that France has an advantage in electricity production — not only sovereignty over that production but also the advantage of it being decarbonized. Doesn't the European electricity market, however, partly erode the advantage of French electricity production?
No — no. Listen, economically that's completely false. France is the big winner of the European electricity market because we're over-producers. We are over-producers. There was unfortunately one year where we were short — 2022 — where Russian gas and nuclear that wasn't working converged. But today, who wins? Which country benefits most from the market? It's France, because we export. And thanks to these export revenues, we'll be able to build new nuclear plants. So honestly — and by the way, I just negotiated with my EDF colleague and managed to sign a contract, maybe 12 years, at a price that's totally fine for me to continue manufacturing in France. So we can find solutions. In the debate, people mix up a lot the final consumer price with the industrial price, and it's a real political choice. In Germany, they made a very clear choice: electricity consumers subsidize businesses. But it's a choice for France, and it must be made by politicians. Don't ask EDF to mix everything in a vast equalization. There are contracts with industrial companies — I just signed one, and I'm very satisfied. So I think the European electricity market works. Honestly, you're economics students — the first lesson in economics is that price equals marginal cost. That's what I learned. And it works. And if you start distorting that principle, it won't work because you'll discourage investment. The issue in Europe is encouraging investment in energy. So we shouldn't start ordering everything around. I trust the debate exists in France and most major European countries. It doesn't exist much elsewhere, I can tell you. So we need to trust market economics, and then we can ask questions about things like hydroelectricity, which is fully amortized — should fully amortized assets that are national goods benefit from a marginal price? That's a good question. But let's not generalize the hydroelectricity case to the need to build more capacity. If we don't build gas plants in Europe, we'll face serious problems. Countries like Germany know that. So we need — it's an investment incentive. The market works, it functions. It didn't function when there was a hysteresis like in 2022, but apart from the 2022 episode, who's complaining about the electricity market right now?
Perhaps the question, Hugo — your name is Hugo, right? — was more about interconnectivity between countries to make the European electricity market more fluid. Was that closer to your question?
It was related to marginal cost. Indeed...
I see that question. It's the tenants of the current system who say everything needs to be torn down. In France, there's a dream of manipulating the market. Trust the market — it's better than trusting regulating states.
Also Hugo, it's also the question of using French nuclear power in Europe. Shouldn't we push others to go more toward nuclear?
That's a matter of perspective, but perhaps the French advantage of having electricity production that the country is sovereign over and which is decarbonized — perhaps that model could be promoted more as an example.
I agree. We're the fifth most decarbonized country in the world, and we accepted the same marginal decarbonization obligations as everyone else. That's where we have a collective problem. There's a battle in Brussels to get French nuclear accepted — a battle partly won, since the European Commission acknowledged Germany's strategic error in abandoning nuclear. Germany itself is acknowledging it — the German energy minister acknowledged it. So there's a belated awareness, and unfortunately France's stop-and-go on nuclear cost us 10 or 15 years. I'm speaking to a young student — you're young — Europe is our future. What's the problem with France doing nuclear and exporting it to Europe while Germany does wind, because they have more wind resources than us, accept it better than us, and we'll benefit from their wind electricity? I think at some point we need to get past the national debate. The future of Europe and supply-side policy — we're in the same boat, and if we don't understand that and want to fight with 27 fragmented economies rather than moving toward a single market including in energy, we won't provide answers. The answer is we need to be collectively intelligent. Let's allocate capital where it's best used. In France we have nuclear — let's keep maintaining it. In Germany they don't want it, but they have wind. Let them build lots of wind farms and we'll access them. In Spain they have lots of solar. The problem is there should be more interconnection between Spanish solar and France. The ones who don't want it aren't the Spanish — it's the French, because we want to protect French nuclear. So at some point the question for all of us is: can we get past our national egos to build a union that's stronger and more competitive?
compétition? On a besoin d'interconnexion énergétique pour faire l'Europe.
Oui, on a besoin d'interconnexion énergétique. On a besoin de toute façon, d'une manière générale, de tout un ensemble d'investissement et de projection de l'investissement. Et avec cette question, est-ce que ces investissements s'envisagent sur une échelle continentale, sur une échelle qui est strictement nationale? Et dans ce cas, au niveau national, qu'est-ce qui peut freiner les investissements? C'est quand même tout cet ensemble de thèmes de politique de l'offre.
Exercice inversé. Bon, Bazin, est-ce que vous avez une question pour nos étudiants?
Moi, j'ai une question et qui est en même temps une remarque. Vous avez évoqué les investissements dans les industries du futur. Moi, je fais très très attention au fait qu'il y a un continuum industriel. On a plus que 10% du PIB en France qui est industriel. Alors, est-ce qu'il faut tout mettre sur la pharmacie, tout mettre sur l'IA? Par exemple, nous, on fait des matériaux un peu traditionnels du vitrage.
Sauf que à la fin, ça fait le cockpit du Rafale si on parle de souveraineté. Donc si on sait plus faire du vitrage, on saura pas faire du verre décarboné, du verre solaire qui permettent de diviser par de la consommation énergétique des bâtiments et on saura pas faire l'Airbus. Donc faisons attention, laissons le marché choisir les bonnes technologies, les bonnes innovations, les bonnes industries gagnantes.
Le marché est pas l'État si je comprends.
La question pour vous peut-être étudiants, c'est: est-ce qu'il y a des secteurs dans lesquels industriels vous iriez travailler, d'autres pas? Comment vous voyez l'Europe sur justement le monde industriel de demain? C'est quoi l'industrie en Europe demain?
Qui veut répondre à cette question-là? Ingénieur de l'École Polytechnique par exemple. C'est pour Martin cette question.
Tu as deux anciens. Alors bah moi je pense personnellement mais c'est tout à fait personnel que l'IA va dicter un peu l'économie du futur et la structure du marché du travail. Et donc je pense que notre rôle, enfin en tout cas mon rôle en tant que jeune ingénieur, c'est aussi de participer à cette nouvelle révolution qui va apparaître. C'est pour ça même si je suis pas encore sûr de mon avenir professionnel, je m'oriente a priori sur l'étude de l'IA et être ingénieur dans ce domaine-là parce que je pense que c'est le domaine du futur, mais c'est mon avis personnel.
Et alors les mathématiques ça va, si une den...
Martin, je suis tellement d'accord. Je pense que l'IA va venir vraiment bouleverser les métiers de demain, par exemple dans les mathématiques ou encore la finance qui est un domaine qui m'intéresse particulièrement. Et donc c'est vrai que je pense que aujourd'hui, si la France peut vraiment investir et nous aussi de notre côté en tant que jeune, on peut se former finalement aux tenants et aux aboutissants de l'IA, ça ne pourra être que de la plus-value pour notre futur en fait.
Patrick Pouyanné, ils veulent bosser dans l'IA.
Et ça me paraît essentiel parce que dire une difficulté, c'est que moi j'ai pas trop le temps de me former à tout ça et c'est un vrai sujet je dois vous dire auquel on fait face parce que du coup le management de nos entreprises doit, et en fait ce sont nos plus jeunes qui eux sont complètement dans ce monde digital, qui le vivent beaucoup plus et qui poussent l'entreprise. Et en fait sur tout ce qui est digital etc., on a donné le pouvoir à des jeunes managers parce qu'en fait et qui doivent challenger les plus âgés qui ont tendance à dire 'ouais bon tout ça c'est sympa mais nos méthodes fonctionnent bien.' Donc il y a une vraie révolution comme on l'a vécu.
Alors on l'a vécu notre génération, ça s'appelait internet. Je sais pas comment je faisais il y a 35 ans quand j'étais directeur de cabine. J'avais pas internet, je sais pas comment je travaillais. J'y arrivais quand même au passage, on y arrivait avec des faxes, des papiers etc. Maintenant, on peut faire des choses. Donc pour moi, l'IA, il faut pas avoir peur. C'est un gigantesque outil, un superbe outil de démultiplication de l'être humain. En fait, on va faire beaucoup plus de choses et vous, il est essentiel.
Alors, pour le coup, il faut essayer. Il est essentiel que tout ça vous en compreniez les sous-jacents. Qu'est-ce que ça veut dire? Comment on peut l'utiliser? Présenté, ça me paraît pour votre génération c'est majeur, mais enfin il faut aussi venir dans la transition énergétique hein si vous voulez répondre à la question parce que si vous allez tous faire de l'IA, puis peut-être faire de la construction durable aussi hein, pas tous faire de l'IA parce que à la fin l'économie elle est quand même avec du physique, il y a pas que des softwares qui se baladent dans l'air, aussi des produits.
Venez chez nous, on a 1100 usines avec évidemment 3000 capteurs et surtout beaucoup d'IA sur la recherche de matériaux. En fait la vérité, on a beaucoup d'IA sur la recherche de matériaux par exemple les nouvelles formulations, l'économie circulaire comment on fait du recyclage de tout un tas de matériaux qu'on imaginait même pas il y a quelques années. L'IA nous aide énormément dans la recherche sur matériaux. Donc ça vaut aussi y compris pour l'industrie des matériaux de demain ou d'aujourd'hui.
Mais au passage sur l'IA, quand on a construit notre digital factory à Paris où il y a 300 personnes, on m'avait dit 'Tu vas avoir du mal à recruter des jeunes ingénieurs parce qu'ils vont rêver d'aller chez les Amazon, les hyperscalers etc. Tu auras du mal.' Et en fait, on a réussi à recruter. On a des gens de très bon niveau parce qu'en fait, nous, on leur propose des projets, des sujets qui sont compliqués. Je peux vous dire optimiser les flux. Par exemple, le gouvernement dit 'Comment vous pouvez produire plus de diesel dans votre raffinerie qui est un outil hard puisqu'on risque de manquer de diesel.' Et ben je peux vous dire que je suis prêt, il y a de l'IA là-dedans et il y a de quoi mettre des ingénieurs pour réfléchir.
C'est une question qui a l'air simple. Donc on pose des questions, des challenges compliqués aux jeunes et du coup ils viennent et ils sont attirés dans l'entreprise, dans notre digital factory.
Ça c'est pour recruter le jeune là qui est à côté de moi. Non non mais écoutez il faut que j'en profite ce soir quand même hein.
Je vous laisse m'envoyer le contrat et je réfléchirai à la proposition.
Attendez, on finit l'émission quand même. On va passer à la partie innovation, investissement et gouvernance.
Denis Ferrand, il y a un nouveau mot qui est arrivé dans le vocabulaire, c'est la permacrise. On est tout le temps en crise, on enchaîne depuis le Covid. Sauf qu'il faut quand même penser à investir dans le temps long et là dans la tête des dirigeants parfois il y a une petite dicotomie.
Oui, c'est vrai, c'est une autre forme de discordance des temps là encore entre ces crises permanentes qui viennent percuter les choix d'investissement et puis le fait que les entreprises, on l'a dit, elles ont besoin de visibilité, elles ont besoin de stabilité dans leur environnement. Il n'y a rien de pire d'ailleurs que quand un acteur qui devrait être l'acteur du réducteur de l'incertitude qui est l'État a des politiques qui peuvent être extrêmement versatiles.
Donc le temps long c'est le temps de l'entreprise et pour autant il y a toujours des choix qui vont se faire à court terme. Il y a des choix d'adaptation. On vient de parler de l'intelligence artificielle et ce qui est tout à fait frappant sur la période actuelle, c'est combien le type d'investissement est en train de se transformer. La dynamique de l'investissement quand on regarde sur l'ensemble des entreprises en France, c'est de l'investissement en numérique. C'est ça qui actuellement est le principal driver de l'investissement des entreprises. Donc il y a un horizon qui est celui de la stratégie et il y a celui de la tactique avec des adaptations en permanence à effectuer de la part des entreprises.
