Inside Sanofi's approach to funding community impact through long-term commitment

We spoke with Camille Cottin, Head of Climate Strategy and Engagement at Sanofi, on the criteria that matter most when selecting a project and how they know these investments are contributing to socio-economic development, health improvement and nature preservation. Here's what she told us.

• Q: When selecting carbon projects, which criteria does Sanofi prioritise, and how does it know they're delivering?

  We follow a list of internal criteria. The fundamentals are the ones any credible carbon project has to meet: i.e. permanence, additionality, third-party verification, no double counting and no leakage. We treat those as the baseline.

  What shapes our choices beyond that is more specific to how we work. The first is synchronisation: the carbon benefits of a project will materialise on roughly the same timescale as the emissions it's addressing. Exclusivity is also important for us, as this allows us to follow the implementation more closely than if we had bought into a shared carbon credit pipeline of a project, even if we are not close to considering co-funding opportunities for the future.

  Co-benefits sit alongside the carbon case for us, and we hold them to the same standard of proof. Beyond carbon, projects need to integrate by design additional benefits to the communities affected by climate change, such as contributing to health improvement, fostering socio-economic opportunity, supporting vulnerable communities and protecting nature, whether that's biodiversity or water. We track a number of the UN Sustainable Development Goals across our portfolio, and where we can, we seek projects with double-certifications, for example against the Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) Standards.

  Finally, we keep the list of intermediaries deliberately tight, and monitor projects closely once they're underway. I'd add one more criterion, of a methodological nature: ensuring the latest methodologies will be properly applied. This is of course an ongoing challenge, as methodologies in this space have and continue to evolve very quickly.
  
  

• Q: Why were these specific projects chosen, and what were the key risks you had to work through as an investor?

  The projects are located in regions where they're genuinely needed, where communities need support to cope with the effects of climate change. As a healthcare company, there's a dual stake for us: environmental impact and economic and social impact. Access to clean water reduces water-borne disease. Reducing the amount of burnt wood and improving cooking devices reduces smoke exposure inside people's homes. Mangroves build resilience into coastal ecosystems. Agroforestry supports access to food and local economic development. This isn't limited to developing countries, either. Climate change affects developed countries too, where, for example, regenerative agriculture has the potential to deliver tangible co-benefits.

  The risks are mostly about local stability: are local structures strong enough to carry a project through, is the political context stable, and what natural constraints – like hurricanes, floods or drought – need to be planned for. We go deep on that balance between benefit and risk during selection, but there's no such thing as a risk-free investment. Regulation adds another layer: with Article 6 of the Paris Agreement now in place, local rules vary significantly from country to country and haven't settled yet, so that gets assessed too.
  
  

• Q: Given public scrutiny around carbon offsets, how do you protect Sanofi's credibility and guard against greenwashing?

  The projects are located in regions where they're genuinely needed, where communities need support to cope with the effects of climate change. As a healthcare company, there's a dual stake for us: environmental impact and economic and social impact. Access to clean water reduces water-borne disease. Reducing the amount of burnt wood and improving cooking devices reduces smoke exposure inside people's homes. Mangroves build resilience into coastal ecosystems. Agroforestry supports access to food and local economic development. This isn't limited to developing countries, either. Climate change affects developed countries too, where, for example, regenerative agriculture has the potential to deliver tangible co-benefits.

  The risks are mostly about local stability: are local structures strong enough to carry a project through, is the political context stable, and what natural constraints – like hurricanes, floods or drought – need to be planned for. We go deep on that balance between benefit and risk during selection, but there's no such thing as a risk-free investment. Regulation adds another layer: with Article 6 of the Paris Agreement now in place, local rules vary significantly from country to country and haven't settled yet, so that gets assessed too.
  
  

• Q: How did you bring Sanofi's leadership on board with multi-year commitments, despite budget constraints?

  It started in 2021 as a voluntary step, part of our wider commitment to science-based targets. Alongside our reduction targets, we wanted to mitigate the climate impact of our residual emissions from 2030 by funding projects with strong co-benefits. We began with pilot projects, backed by our executive committee, then reviewed how they went and extended the programme to what it is today.

  A few things made the case. The first is pride. Supporting projects of this scale, with lasting benefits for the communities involved, is something we're proud of, and it sits naturally with our mission as a healthcare company. The second is decarbonisation as a priority, which is what gives the strategy its credibility. The third is involving internal stakeholders early, from CSR, legal, procurement and finance to human rights, so that deployment is secured and everyone is aligned. Once the strategy is rolling out, the budget is set, and we follow up regularly on progress and keep improving.