Interview with Christophe Terrien, Head of Climate Issues at ArianeGroup

After nearly 30 years in the space industry, Christophe Terrien took on the challenge of addressing climate issues in 2020. In an interview, he shares his insights on the growing importance of climate issues within ArianeGroup, particularly with regard to addressing adaptation challenges.

How can we legitimize and structure climate action? How can we address the operational complexity of adaptation? How can we overcome the financial and time-related obstacles we face?

You are currently in charge of adaptation issues at ArianeGroup. How did the issue of adaptation come to the forefront within the company?

On a personal level, I first addressed the issue of climate change about five years ago. I came across Jean-Marc Jancovici’s lectures at the École des Mines, and I became personally involved. But I quickly realized the challenge this posed in the corporate world: how could I advance this issue in the professional world in general and in my industry in particular?

In 2021, with the support of my supervisors, I was able to participate in the “Climate and Business” training program^[1] offered by the Carbone 4 Academy. It was a real eye-opener. Until then, my approach to the subject had been limited to decarbonization issues. This comprehensive training on climate change in the business world opened my eyes to the challenges posed by exposure to climate hazards and physical risks affecting our economic value chains. Coming from the field of industrial risk, I immediately saw adaptation as a relevant way to introduce the topic of “climate” into companies: Risk management is, by definition, an integral part of a company’s mindset, regardless of the form that risk takes (industrial, financial, cost, logistical, or supplier-related). And so, introducing the topic of climate change through the concept of “risk” means speaking to the company in a language it understands.

The topic of “mitigation” / “decarbonization” is often viewed as a CSR communication issue and, as a result, is (unfortunately) frequently treated as a secondary concern that does not rank among companies’ top priorities, with a few exceptions. Approaching the issue through the lens of climate risk—whether it involves transition or adaptation—allows us to shift the focus away from it being purely a moral or societal issue and toward it being an additional variable that companies need to manage.

Based on this training and internal discussions with my supervisors, I transitioned from a position as an Industrial Risk Expert to that of Environmental Performance Manager, with the goal of developing a comprehensive strategy addressing climate change issues—including mitigation, adaptation, and fostering a culture of sustainability across the company’s entities.

In practical terms, how did you go about getting this rather pivotal decision accepted internally?

From the outset, our strategy has been to raise awareness of “climate change” by highlighting the issue through situations and events—even seemingly trivial ones—that the company experienced or faced: inquiries from organizations or young employees about our climate change initiatives, customer requests, financial institutions, upcoming regulatory requirements, production losses or delays caused by climate-related events, energy costs (and supply), and so on…

The wisdom of this approach was proven right in 2022, when an extremely destructive hailstorm struck one of our sites, causing major disruptions to the value chain of one of our main products. Admittedly, at the time, climate change was not directly attributed as the cause of the hailstorm, but this type of event revealed a particular vulnerability of some of our facilities to climate-related hazards.

Since then, we have structured our approach using a climate events log that allows us to document all the consequences and early warning signs observed at our sites. For each weather event (storm, heat spike or heat wave, drought, heavy rain, etc.)—each site creates an entry in the log and identifies the observed consequences: power outages, damage, production stoppages… or nothing at all, for that matter! The goal is to make the issue tangible for our teams. These records allow us to assess the impacts (and how they’ve evolved) on our operations over the course of a year.

All of this helped demonstrate that climate change needed to be treated as a subject in its own right, to be integrated into all of the company’s processes. That the word “climate” was not a “dirty word” associated with environmental virtues, but rather a management parameter—just like costs or deadlines—regardless of the business unit: HR, purchasing, production, logistics, legal, communications… And finally, that this issue is a two-headed hydra: adaptation and mitigation.

Beyond your understanding of the challenges associated with adapting to climate-related risks, what factors have helped integrate this issue into the company?

Listening to stakeholders in the ecosystem is also important and helps put the need for our organizations to evolve into perspective.

When a client includes new requirements related to climate change in a set of specifications, it becomes an issue. Some clients—particularly government clients—have, for example, begun to include “adaptation” in their requirements, and that helps us.

Changes in the regulatory framework also serve as a catalyst for change. The implementation of double materiality assessments under the European Sustainability Directive and the publication of the associated “Climate” standard require the integration of adaptation management. In France, the communication and preparation process for the National Climate Adaptation Plan (PNACC), “France at 4°C,” has also helped shed light on these issues.

All of these examples are opportunities not only for communication but also for reflection, so that we can anticipate them rather than simply endure them.

The emergence of this issue was therefore the result of a structured awareness-raising effort, which you, incidentally, identify as an integral part of your job.

Raising awareness is essential, particularly among the executive committee at first. The most important thing is to have a mandate from the highest level of management. Today, we have that: there is a willingness to listen and an expectation of results; our Climate Policy has been approved by our CEO with clear resources and objectives, which allows us to implement them across the company’s various units. But getting employees at the sites on board is also important: it generates ideas and avoids a top-down, directive approach.

The dynamics of communication vary: On an individual level, it’s a societal issue, and people need to find meaning in their work; they’re generally eager to engage whenever we discuss the topic. We host webinars to present our carbon footprint report, and we have no trouble filling the virtual room. We’re generally well-received—and even challenged. But when it comes to the company’s strategic decisions, the climate issue can sometimes be seen as yet another requirement in an already crowded field of constraints.

But often, after a while, the question of cost arises: where can we find the money to fund changes that are sometimes structural? And sometimes the solution is to talk about the cost of inaction?

When it comes to funding, we take a step-by-step approach. First, we identify the issues before coming up with solutions, and then we develop those solutions over time, rather than trying to implement everything at once. We let the issue develop naturally within the system.

I would like to remind you that talking about climate means talking about “risks”; therefore, the investment we agree to make in adaptation must be evaluated in light of the future costs we would face if we did nothing—and this investment is often less than the cost of failing to adapt or adapting poorly. Unfortunately, the cost of inaction remains difficult to assess and incorporate into the process; few tools are available, and we likely haven’t found the right slogans to sell the idea either. A word to the wise!

I think it’s more important to explain that it’s not necessary to handle everything right away—and that sometimes it’s actually urgent to wait. The key is to have a roadmap. I recently heard someone say, “That’s going to be expensive.” You don’t have to do everything, but we’re talking about risks to the company—and therefore a key factor in business management. In any case, conducting an assessment and a vulnerability analysis helps you understand the stakes and provides factual, quantifiable data to support the concept of physical risk. That’s the first building block: framing the problem by taking a snapshot of your vulnerability.

Furthermore, understanding the challenges and creating this roadmap can help you potentially take advantage of opportunities: my property is getting older, and in 5 years I’ll have to replace the roof and insulation… so it’s okay to wait. It’s not about “adapting 100% today”; it’s about building my schedule while taking into account what needs to be prioritized, postponed, and monitored over time.

What would you recommend to make effective progress on adaptation issues? What pitfalls should be avoided?

The first rule is to start at the beginning: “do your research.” There is now a wealth of literature on the subject, ranging from highly technical to very accessible, so you can find the approach that works best for you.

Next, conduct an assessment of the company’s vulnerability to climate-related risks—without considering adaptation strategies or solutions—simply to establish a baseline understanding of the challenges the company faces, in order to inform future discussions.

When it comes to pitfalls, the first one to avoid is the approach to vulnerability analysis methodology: OCARA has provided us with the necessary framework for the process, allowing us to develop relevant reports rather than relying on gut feelings or perceptions. However, we must not treat the tool as the answer to the issue itself. A tool is just a tool—it’s there to support us and structure our findings—but we must make it our own.

So, at ArianeGroup, I first underwent training on OCARA to assess its suitability for our operations and our evaluation needs; then we conducted a full-scale pilot on a small scale with a few volunteers.  Based on this, we were able to adapt the methodology—including its format, terminology, and metrics—to fit our value chain. Next, with the help of Carbone 4, we trained about ten people so we could roll out the initiative across all our sites. Finally, before any OCARA session, we work with the site lead to prepare a customized version of the OCARA framework (a physical mapping of processes) tailored to the site’s specific needs. That way, when we start the session with the participants, we’re talking about something concrete that they can visualize—each process relates to something they’re familiar with. And that’s how we manage to achieve meaningful results.

Another challenge is the difficulty of envisioning the world of tomorrow—5, 10, 20, or 30 years from now. The climate data sector is booming, but data is just data—it may not be representative of what is expected or may be difficult to use, and in some cases, it may involve significant biases and uncertainties regarding certain risks. How can we make decisions based on information that does not fully capture the underlying physical reality or that is sometimes subject to a high level of uncertainty? Today, I’d rather talk about the need to construct “climate narratives” tailored to our challenges and perception needs—narratives that are certainly based in part on data, but not exclusively so, and above all, carefully selected and expressed in a way that is relevant to our needs.

Given the high level of uncertainty surrounding the hail hazard and the vulnerability of certain assets to this hazard, we have decided, for example, that this hazard is a relevant one to address in terms of adaptation for the sites in question, regardless of any probabilistic assessment or specific data on exposure.

Another example: ensuring that the data accurately reflects the expected level of risk: What critical temperature should I consider for my staff or my buildings? Is it necessarily the same? Which ones are relevant to my risk framework?

How has Carbone 4’s adaptation division helped you in your adaptation efforts?

First, a methodological framework using OCARA.

Next, feedback: during the initial testing phase of OCARA, we were able to provide feedback on the tool’s relevance and structure, and our feedback was taken into account.

I also appreciate the approach, which remains rigorous yet grounded in the realities of the economic system. You don’t offer theoretical answers; you have a realistic understanding of the business and know how to address practical needs while adhering to methodological principles.

Finally, the Carbone 4 Adaptation Club provides us with a framework for reflection and discussion with other manufacturers, allowing us to compare approaches and share our successes and challenges. It’s a real plus!

Any final thoughts?

We must be guided by one primary goal: to make the word “climate” part of the company’s vocabulary. It must not—or should no longer be—perceived as an environmentalist fad or a mere peripheral communication issue, but rather as a full-fledged corporate management parameter that is integrated into the company’s culture and processes.

Learn more about Ocara