Associate researcher at the Poitiers Institute of Business Administration and doctor in geography, Anaïs Voy-Gillis is a specialist in industrial issues. Author, with Olivier Lluansi, of Towards the industrial renaissance (Editions Marie B, 2020), she has recently been in charge of strategy within the French chemical group Humens, producer of sodium carbonate and bicarbonate.
How do you judge French reindustrialization?
Shy. For several years, reindustrialization has been in a positive dynamic, but it is still much too early to say whether it has been won or not. It is a phenomenon that takes time and its success or failure depends on the criteria used: should we only take into account the number of factory creations and closures? The number of jobs created? The share of industry in gross domestic product? Maintaining and strengthening the existing industrial fabric?
Or its purpose? Reindustrialize, yes, but for what purpose?
Industrial models must evolve under the effect of environmental constraints. We must therefore question the reindustrialization that we want. What products do we want to produce? Which ones do we want to import or repatriate, in what volumes, etc.? ? We must question ourselves more generally about the social model we want to build.
Is that the case ?
No, for the moment, the debates are very technical at the level of industrialists and elected officials, but not at the level of citizens and society as a whole. These questions were, for example, very little addressed during the presidential and legislative campaigns in 2022. The belief is still too strong that we will get by with a few marginal adjustments and by decarbonizing the industry. But decarbonization does not solve everything. Once you have decarbonized, there are still many questions to resolve, such as access to resources and raw materials.
Is the low carbon strategy synonymous with degrowth?
Without necessarily using this term, let’s say that decarbonization does not go hand in hand with the race for volumes. For it to be real, we must also think about growth in terms of something other than economic growth through volumes alone. This requires rethinking the organization of work, the distribution of value, etc.
Does the expression “green industry” make sense?
I don’t like this expression very much, because human activity will always, like it or not, have an environmental impact. A 100% neutral human or industrial activity does not exist and will not exist. Talking about green industry as green growth makes little sense. What matters is how do we reduce our environmental impact as much as possible, especially with regard to so-called “heavy” industries?
You have 35% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.