How did shareholders react to your decision to sell US assets to stay in I ran and Burma?
This has been widely misunderstood outside the company, because we did not sell our US assets to keep those in Iran or Burma. We disposed of our downstream US assets in the late 1990s as they did not have a critical size.
Completely independent of that, we invested in a project in Iran about 10 years ago. The media made a link between the two but that link was entirely unfounded.
In fact, we have a very large base in the US, particularly in the petrochemicals industry. We have a lot of employees and a sizeable base of capital employed in the US still today.
What was the reaction after you announced earlier this year that you would be selling your shares in Sanofi-Aventis?
We have always stated that Sanofi was not a core holding. We started selling sanofi shares back in 2000 and the only thing we restated recently was that sanofi-aventis was non-core and that over the course of time we would gradually dispose of our stake.
Were shareholders involved in voting for this decision?
It is something that was made known previously and we reconfirmed this recently for the sake of being accurate and precise.
Total has been under recent attack for generating high profits. How do you deal with criticism like this?
I think we need to clarify that public reactions, especially from the press, do not always reflect the magnitude of our business. Large oil and gas companies invest a lot, so the level of net income is proportionate to the level of investments. We have to explain this again and again to make individuals and politicians comfortable with the size of our company, and so with the size of its revenues. Over time it finally starts to sink in.
As total has quite a few minority shareholders, does this mean no one bothers to vote on issues at your AGMs?
This year we had close to 50 percent of our shareholders voting at the AGM, which is quite large for an oil company. We try to ensure there is a consensual approach.
And how do you do that?
We try to engage in a dialogue as much as we can with our large shareholders. We do this in order to explain the resolutions proposed at the AGM. We’re doing this more and more.
Is it generally the larger shareholders that vote?
We try to do it with as many shareholders as we can. Obviously we’re listening and discussing with all the shareholders that contact us, but it’s difficult to engage with every single shareholder.
What kind of contact do you have with your retail holders?
We organize several meetings across France, Belgium and Switzerland to introduce the company to retail shareholders. We hold events all through the year and we’re as active with our retail shareholders as we are with our institutional shareholders. Everybody’s equal. In the US we participate in the Money Show exhibitions, which give individual ADR holders an opportunity to get information about Total.
Remuneration is a big issue at the moment and it has been rumored that shareholders are disgruntled about how much total’s senior management is paid. is that true?
This has not been a problem at Total because the remuneration of our executives is very reasonable – especially compared with standards elsewhere in the market.
What about the accusations made about Christophe de Margerie, when he was detained in Iran on corruption charges only weeks after he took over as total’s CEO? Was it a challenging task for you to keep shareholders updated?
When there’s no materiality it’s simple to keep people informed. Our shareholders were informed on a daily basis and they reacted very well.
Going forward, how do you see the changing role of your IR department?
My challenge is to maintain the same direction, at the expense of being boring.
Which direction is that?
Applying the same management style to my team and the same relationship with investors and analysts, based on simplicity, solidarity and transparency.
