Defining impact for the transition in concrete terms

Integrating climate indicators into variable remuneration is a burning issue. Although it was removed at the last minute from negotiations on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the proposal is still very much alive in the policy debate . While the topic is becoming increasingly central to remuneration in large companies, it still appears to be a taboo within the banking sector. This requirement was already included in the European Central Bank’s supervisory guidelines as early as 2020, yet it appears to have been largely neglected by banks.

We are witnessing a withdrawal of commitments to climate action. In the US, President Donald Trump does not hide his hostility to what he calls the ‘climate hoax’. In Europe and in France, new narratives around competitiveness, strategic autonomy and security are gaining ground, reflecting a new political reality. If there is still a broad consensus on the long-term objective of climate neutrality, how to get there is increasingly challenged, generating uncertainty. The scarcity of fiscal resources impacts the willingness to embark on the green transition.

Current food production and consumption trends contribute to a range of public health, social and environmental problems. The need for a transition is no longer in doubt: we must move towards a system that produces healthy food with a low impact on ecosystems, is accessible to all, and ensures fair remuneration for producers. There’s no denying that the questions we raise here are politically and socially sensitive, as food is deeply connected to cultural, economic, environmental and health issues. Nevertheless, it is essential to develop ways to foster open discussion. IDDRI and I4CE have therefore joined forces with several other actors to provide insights for the debate.