The President of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet, demanded on Friday March 22 “to start thinking” on a contribution “exceptional” large companies in the event of “superprofits” or “superdividends”. The Minister of Economy and Finance, Bruno Le Maire, indicated for his part that “Taxes will not increase” In France. It only envisages possible taxation of the wealthiest taxpayers on a European or global scale. “France has many challenges to face. It has the highest tax rate in the world in an open economy”, underlines Alexandre Saubot, the president of France Industrie, this Friday on franceinfo. France Insutrie represents 50 large private and public companies in the industrial sectors and 31 federations.
Furthermore, on Friday March 15, the member states of the European Union validated legislation on the duty of vigilance. It provides that large companies are legally responsible for violations of human and social rights and environmental damage, including for their suppliers and subsidiaries. The ball is in the court of the European Parliament which must decide on the text in mid-April. Employers are opposed to this text, this is particularly the case with France Industrie.
franceinfo: First, what is your position on the taxation of superprofits?
Alexandre Saubot: I think France has many challenges to face. It has the highest tax rate in the world, in an open economy. So, I think it should be obvious to everyone that we will not solve any of the country’s problems by increasing taxes. In addition, we have the strongest redistribution, with the strongest reduction in inequalities. So today, the country’s challenge is: how do we create more wealth? How do we mobilize our economic fabric, our employees? How is the government simplifying our environment to respond to the country’s challenges in terms of employment, public finances and decarbonization?
Companies in your sector will achieve record profits in 2023, which have just been published.
That’s very good news. The State takes 25% of what French companies earn. I believe that corporate taxes have increased significantly in recent years, so profits are already taxed. I know that in energy, there are specific provisions. I believe that the idea of the provisions is that energy companies are protected when electricity prices fall very low, to prevent the investments, particularly in renewables that they have made, from being unprofitable and to encourage people to invest. And the counterpart is that when the price rises, it restores all or part of what exceeds. And these devices, I think, work, after which conditions? I’m not the greatest expert on this technical issue.
Why are you against the European directive on the duty of vigilance?
Everyone agrees on the objectives. The question is how we want to reach them. In addition, we are talking about large companies. I remind you that it goes down to 1000. I am lucky to manage a company of 2000 people. I never saw myself as a big company.
“What this text will ask of us, for the majority of companies subject to it, is simply inapplicable.”
Alexandre Saubotfranceinfo
Tens of thousands of references, thousands of suppliers, value chains that are not limited in depth.
We can’t do it. Once again, the French text which pre-existed, which already posed a lot of problems, only dealt with companies of more than 5,000. And when you already question them, they were having difficulty. But to imagine that a company like ours, which has 500 suppliers purchasing more than 17,000 different components, the ability to audit them under reasonable conditions and with a sufficient level of security and comfort is just totally illusory. This is not how we should approach the problem.
What should we do about these issues?
We must continue to reaffirm the objectives. Companies, whenever they can, question who they are working with, which supplier. But this type of regulation must be one, seen in the light of what companies know how to do. And secondly, we cannot be the only region of the world that will put these companies at legal risk, when American or Chinese companies are not exposed to it. While sovereignty is a major issue which was reaffirmed in the Antwerp declaration and with the support of Mrs Von der Leyen.
“Taking a provision of this type, when the objective is to produce more in Europe, makes no sense.”
Alexandre Saubotfranceinfo
What are you ready to do?
We are already doing a lot of things. We choose our suppliers, we carry out a certain number of checks. But the idea that you can go to the full depth of the value chains for such small companies, it’s just not going to work.
Is it a question of competitiveness?
It’s a question of legal risk, competitiveness, capacity to do things. Once again, we may come back to environmental issues, but the best way to decarbonize the planet is to produce more in Europe. And in Europe, it is to produce as much as possible in France, since we have the most carbon-free GDP point in the world, the most carbon-free energy of all the major European countries. So, the more we do in France, the more we protect the planet. So, taking measures which, by their complexity, their applicability and their cost, discourage people from doing what needs to be done to protect the planet, that makes no sense.
Can France reindustrialize? Have you sensed a political turning point on these issues?
I think that since the middle of the previous decade, with Louis Gallois’ report, there was an awareness that if France did not stop this deindustrialization, it was going to the wall, that collectively, we were going to find ourselves with a trade balance, wealth creation and a fragile situation. And the weakening of France cannot always be financed by additional debt. So there was a change in mindset. Afterwards, as always in the industry, it takes a long time. So when we make decisions, it takes time to produce results. Over the period 2000-2015, we destroyed between 50 and 100,000 jobs per year in industry.
“Since 2017, in five years, we have created 100,000. So certainly 100,000 in five years is not huge, but compared to the previous trajectory, it is a strong inflection.”
Alexandre Saubotfranceinfo
And my concern today is that in the regulatory environment, the energy problems, the sovereignty issues, it is that this dynamic is stalling and that this trajectory, which must be continued during the fifteen next few years if we want to get there, it will be interrupted or weakened.
So what should we do to avoid this?
We must continue to support our businesses. We must continue to simplify their lives. We must continue to listen to them. When they say that a regulation is not applicable, we must listen to them. When they say that the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) poses more risks it regulates more. We have to listen to them when they say that zero net artificialization will pose a risk to the development of certain companies, in certain sites. If the priority is reindustrialization, we must align all our actions with the strategic objective, which I believe everyone shares.