Problems and Purpose

France Télévision (FTV) is the public service broadcaster of France, meaning it operates under the regulatory guidelines and funding constraints of the French government, thereby making it necessary for FTV to adhere to any and all environmental, climate, and carbon emissions goals and standards set by the country as a whole [6]. As a major company operating across the country, the company emits substantial greenhouse gases and is mandated to adhere to France’s Energy and Climate Act by achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 [1]. In order to meet these obligations, the company required a comprehensive decarbonisation roadmap to address all activities such as production, digital distribution, and internal operations [6]. The purpose of France Télévisions Convention for Climate and the Environment was to involve employees in a deliberative process as a means of generating concrete proposals and plans for emissions reduction, and the mitigation of environmental impacts across the company [2]. Beyond simply carbon reduction, the mission sought to address broader environmental impacts, such as biodiversity loss, and to mobilize internal public opinion on crucial ecological matters [8]. Additionally, regardless of the legal mandate of the Energy and Climate Act, the convention overall sought to reconcile FTV’s internal operational footprint with its external public service mission to mobilize public opinion and provide environmental education [6]. This dual responsibility necessitates that the broadcaster leads by example, ensuring that its decarbonisation roadmap is as transparent and robust as the climate information it disseminates to the public.

Background History and Context

Internal

As a pioneering model for corporate ecological governance, the France Télévisions Convention for Climate and the Environment was launched as the first large-scale internal deliberative process within a major French public company to co-create a concrete, employee-led decarbonisation roadmap [3]. This vanguard initiative was catalysed by the President of France Télévisions Delphine Ernotte Cunci, who announced the convention during her 2025 New Year's address [6]. Contextually, FTV's role as a public broadcaster necessitates maintaining high-quality information, diverse perspectives, and trailblazing ideas. FTVs convention was designed to move beyond traditional top-down management by harnessing collective intelligence to align the company's internal operations with the goals of the Paris Agreement, EU objective, and France's Energy and Climate Act [3]. President Delphine Ernotte Cunci emphasised that the company's roadmap should be authored by those who understand the day-to-day operations of the broadcaster, marking a shift in corporate culture, positioning employees not just as staff, but as co-designers of the company’s future ecological strategy [3].

External

Nationally, France is legally bound to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 by the 2019 Energy and Climate Act [1]. Additionally, France must also adhear to the EU’s goal of a 55% net emissions reduction, which has so far been on track as France has already achieved a 31.2% decrease in total emissions between 2005 and 2023 [1]. This national effort is bolstered by strong public concern, with 52% of French citizens identifying climate change as one of the world's most serious problems [1]. Within France, issues regarding climate and the environment already follow a history of deliberative governance processes with one other such event taking place in 2019-2020 as the Citizens' Convention on Climate [1].

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The France Télévisions Convention for Climate and the Environment was a collboartive effort betweewn FTV and Respublica—a specialised consultancy firm aimed at helping institutions, businesses, and organisations in any topics related to
citizen participation and deliberative processes in all regions of France and parts of Europe [8]. France Télévisions served as the client and primary funder of the initiative with Respublica managing the whole convention [8]. However, Respublica’s role was not merely logistical; they were responsible for the pedagogical design of the sessions, selecting participants, ensuring progression from understanding basic climate concepts to formulating complex policy, and much more [8]. Independent consultants who specialised in climate change, carbon emissions, and other related feilds were hired to provide real-time impact assessments of proposals during the convention, and provide useful information to all participants as they began the process [8]. This design ensured that the convention moved systematically from a broad understanding of climate issues to the technical drafting of nearly 150 concrete proposals [3]. The entire process was financed internally by France Télévisions, who in turn receives their funding through 86% public funding and 14% as revenue from commercial activities [8, 4].

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The France Télévisions Convention for Climate and the Environment used a highly formalised recruitment process to both ensure randomisation amongst employees, but also to ensure a properly representative amalgamation of the broader community [8]. The convention brought together a total of 81 employees, not only from the main offices, but from across all branches throughout France, including delegates from branches in French territories of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, St Pierre and Miquelon, Mayotte, Réunion, Wallis and Futuna Islands, French Polynesia, and New Caledonia [3, 5]. The selection was based on five key criteria: gender, age, management level, region, and job category [8]. Drawn from a pool of approximately 10,000 employees, the 81 participants represented a diverse cross-section of the company, including sectors such as technical support, marketing, and business management, rather than focusing solely on on-air journalism [8]. To maintain the independence of the deliberative body, the Executive Committee was explicitly excluded as they represented the deciding space that would later receive the proposals [8]. Non-permanent staff were also excluded to ensure participants had a long-term stake in the company’s implementation of the proposals [8].

Methods and Tools Used

The France Télévisions Convention for Climate and the Environment utilised a multi-layered deliberative methodology designed to transition a diverse group of employees from technical learning to the formulation of concrete corporate policy [6]. Managed by the consultancy Respublica, the process was structured as a company convention, which adapted traditional citizen assembly techniques to a professional corporate environment [8]. To ensure the 81 participants could move effectively from learning to policy formulation, Respublica implemented a multitude of tools and unique methodology. Central to this was the JENPARLE digital platform, which functioned as a central database for participants to access expert summaries and documentation provided by speakers, and functioned as a space for members to deepen discussions asynchronously [6]. An additional critical tool for grounding abstract climate data in real-world operations was a visit to the Vendargues production studios [8]. This visit allowed participants to observe "eco-production" techniques firsthand, which enabled participants to directly ground abstract carbon data in the practical realities of media content creation [8]. Lastly, a significant methodological innovation of this convention was the integration of real-time impact assessments [8]. Unlike many deliberative processes where feasibility studies occur only after the final report is submitted, France Télévisions hired independent climate consultants to provide feedback during the deliberation [8]. This innovative tool allowed participants to redesign or prioritise their solutions based on projected environmental impacts before finalising their reports, thereby streamlining the process during the implementation stage.

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The France Télévisions Convention for Climate and the Environment took place over 5 sessions representing 11 working days [6]. To accommodate the geographical breadth of the broadcaster, a "parallel process" was designed for participants from overseas territories who could not attend all five sessions in mainland France, requiring a complex re-implication of these members during the final plenary sessions in Paris [8]. The parallel process for overseas employees was a specific logistical challenge designed to integrate the unique ecological stakes of territories which greatly differ from those of France [8]. This process involved coordinating work in the territories and re-implicating these members during the final plenary sessions [8]. Additionally, some of these sessions were attended by environmental experts such as Laurence Tubiana (former co-chair of the Citizens' Convention for Climate and negotiator of the Paris Agreement) and Christophe Cassou (climatologist and co-author of the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report), who served to share their expert knowledge with participants as well as provide a technical sounding board for draft proposals [3].

Overview of sessions:

Session 1:

The first session took place in Paris and focused on bringing the working group together and helping participants understand the mission set by France Télévisions’ leadership and executive committee [8]. Members were introduced to the key climate and environmental challenges linked to the company’s activities, while also identifying the areas where they needed more information [8]. Participants were given the power to express their own needs for information, specifically requesting which or what type of experts they wanted to hear from in subsequent meetings [8].

Session 2:

The second session, held in Vendargues, gave participants the opportunity to visit a major France Télévisions production studio and learn more about its eco-production practices [8]. Building on the first session, the group deepened its understanding of the company’s environmental impact and began working collectively to identify the main sources of carbon emissions across the organisation [8].

Session 3:

The third session in Strasbourg was focused on intensive discussion-based work, with participants beginning to turn their reflections into concrete proposals [8]. The group worked on developing initial solutions and defining the main ideas that would later be refined in greater detail [8]. Interaction during this phase was highly collaborative, as participants shifted from identifying the company's sources of emissions to formulating ongoing solutions [8].

Session 4:

During the fourth session in Paris, participants refined their proposals with the support of independent climate consultants who assessed the environmental impact of the suggested measures in real time [8]. Based on this first evaluation, the group was able to rethink, prioritise, and strengthen certain proposals while also beginning to consider how they could realistically be implemented within the company [8].

Session 5:

The fifth and final session in Paris was dedicated to finalising, debating, and formally submitting the convention’s proposals [8]. Participants consolidated their work from the previous sessions and agreed on the final set of recommendations to present to France Télévisions’ leadership [8].

A pivotal moment in the deliberative phase occurred during the fourth session in Paris, which featured a "real-time impact assessment"—a process rarely seen in traditional citizen assemblies where feasibility studies usually happen after the final report is submitted [8]. For this convention, France Télévisions hired independent consultants who specialised in climate change to act as technical reviewers [3]. These experts analysed the working-progress ideas formulated in Strasbourg and delivered a first assessment of their projected greenhouse gas reduction potential and environmental impact [8]. This vital information allowed the 81 participants to move beyond mere brainstorming; based on the experts’ technical data, they were now empowered to redesign, prioritise, or even discard certain measures to ensure the final almost 150 proposals were both constructive and realistic before the final sumbission [8].

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The convention delivered its final report in October 2025, containing almost 150 concrete proposals [3]. These proposals were organised around three main axes:

Production:

Transitioning 100% of fictional TV and movie to eco-production by 2030 [2].

Prioritising lower energy-intensive methods of production [2].

Implementation of on-air signage to highlight programs that have received the Ecoprod label [2].

Daily Actions:

Banning domestic flights where train travel is under five hours [2].

Energy-efficient building upgrades [2].

Employee training on climate and environmental issues [2].

Sustainable Innovation:

Formalising low-impact broadcasting standards [2].

Systematising eco mode of the france.tv platform on tablets and smartphones [2].

While the Executive Committee has committed to implementing "almost all" proposals, the final integration of these measures into the group's formal transition plan is slated for public release in the first half of 2026, marking the definitive shift from deliberation to institutional policy [3].

Analysis and Lessons Learned

To effectively evaluate the France Télévisions (FTV) Convention for Climate and the Environment, it is necessary to employ a rigorous analytical framework that moves beyond abstract theory. Graham Smith argues that there is often a significant lack of standardised, objective evaluations within the democratic process because theorists frequently fail to engage with the ‘messy’ and difficult task of institutional design [p. 8, 7]. To address this, Smith advocates for an "ecumenical approach" that integrates diverse democratic perspectives rather than relying on a singlular model [p. 12, 7]. This framework assesses the legitimacy of an innovation based on its realisation of four democratic goods—inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgement, and transparency—and two institutional goods—efficiency and transferability [p. 12-13, 7]. These six goods function as the essential components for democratic legitimacy, allowing for a qualitative comparison of different innovations. Inclusiveness focuses on political equality, popular control examines the degree of influence participants wield, considered judgement evaluates reflective learning and collboration, and transparency ensures that proceedings are open to scrutiny by both participants and the wider public [p. 12, 7]. While Smith’s framework typically analyses public-sector models such as citizens' assemblies, the FTV initiative offers a unique case of a non-public, internal deliberative process not available to those outside its community. This model adapts traditional deliberative techniques to a professional environment, tasking 81 randomly selected employees with co-creating a roadmap for carbon neutrality by 2050 [2]. By applying Smith’s goods to this corporate setting, this analysis will determine if FTV successfully harnessed Smith’s ecumenical approach to produce technically sound and democratically robust policy recommendations.

Inclusiveness

Within Graham Smith’s ecumenical approach, the democratic good of inclusiveness is identified as the realisation of political equality through two key mechanisms, presence—who is in the room?—and voice—can they speak? [p. 12, 7]. Smith discusses the idea of random selection as a key component of ensuring inclusiveness of deliberative processes, critiquing the idea of “self-selection” as potentially marginalising or excluding particular social groups [p. 21, 7]. These perspectives on the selection of participants highlight the first mechanism of inclusiveness—presence—while the design of the process or institution is the determining factor of the “voice” of participants [p. 12, 7]. The France Télévisions Convention for Climate and the Environment acted as a democratic innovation aimed at increasing and deepening employee participation in a corporate political decision-making process [8]. The use of stratified random sampling based on five criterias—gender, age, management level, region, and job category—demonstrates a vital dedication to inclusiveness of presence by ensuring no group would be excluded [8]. This use of stratified sampling was vitally important in this setting due to the smaller sample size of a company as opposed to the massive sample populations that may be available in public deliberative processes. Additionally, inclusiveness is also achieved through the exclusion of certain individuals. The exclusion of the Executive Committee (as the deciders) and non-permanent staff allowed for internal democratic balance as it reduced hierarchical power asymmetries that may have inhibited open deliberation among participants. Throughout the process one key role of the Respublica facilitators was to ensure the engagement and mobilisation of all participants within each session [8]. Additionally, within this more unique setting of employees within a larger company, partivcipants were more engaged throughout the whole process, stating that it is essentially “part of the job to be there and to express themselves about their company” [8]. Overall, the convention’s participant selection and facilitation design demonstrate a substantial commitment to inclusiveness by combining representative presence with institutional conditions that support a wide spectrum of meaningful employee voices.

Popular control

According to Graham Smith, the next critical democratic good vital to democratic ligitimacy is the idea of popular control, or, the degree to which participants are able to directly influence, control, or guide the varying stages of the decision-making process [p. 22, 7]. Smith defines the four stages of the decision making process as problem definition, option analysis, option selection and implementation [p. 23, 7]. Without such control, democratic innovations risk becoming instruments of "co-option," where political or corporate elites utilise the guise of participation to legitimate pre-determined outcomes or to bypass contentious issues [p. 23, 7]. In the case of France Télévisions, while the overall goal of the formation of a decarbonisation roadmap was provided by President Delphine Ernotte Cunci, the participants maintained significant agency throughout the course of the process [8]. During the initial sessions, employees exercised control over any informational needs of the group, requesting specific technical data and choosing which experts would be able to provide the most relevant and impotant information based on their requirements [8]. This autonomy extended to the "option analysis" phase, where participants utilised real-time impact assessments from independent consultants to independently refine and prioritise their proposals according to projected environmental efficacy [8]. Although the Executive Committee was explicitly excluded from the deliberative "working space" to preserve participant independence, they remained the final decisive collective responsible for the formal adoption and implementation of measures [8]. However, popular control was realised through the leadership’s subsequent commitment to implement "almost all" the recommendations, ensuring that the participants’ collective intelligence would directly dictate the group's 2026 ecological transition plan [2]. Finally, the strategic positioning of participants as "ambassadors" within their own professional branches suggests an innovative extension of popular control into the "implementation" phase, as employees are empowered to facilitate the transition at the operational level [8]. While the Executive Committee retained final decision-making authority, the convention’s design ensured that employee participation extended far beyond consultation and into substantive agenda-shaping and policy development.

Considered Judgement

Graham Smith posits that the democratic legitimacy of any institutional innovation rests on its capacity to facilitate considered judgement, a state achieved when participants move beyond sheer preferences toward ‘reflective assessments’ grounded in evidence and collective reasoning [p. 24, 7]. Within the France Télévisions Convention, this democratic good was highly utilised through a structured informational strategy designed to provide as much information to participants as they deemed necessary. To ensure deliberations were anchored in scientific rigor, participants engaged with a collection of eminent experts, including Laurence Tubiana and Christophe Cassou, who provided essential context regarding the IPCC’s 6th assessment report and the legal obligations of the Paris Agreement [3]. Technical learning was additionally complemented with a site visit to the Vendargues production studios, where employees observed "eco-production" in action, effectively grounding abstract carbon data in the material realities of television broadcasting and digital media creation [8]. Furthermore, the JENPARLE digital platform addressed the ‘economy of time’ by supporting asynchronous dialogue, allowing for deep reflection and documentation review in-between the intensive face-to-face sessions [p. 19, 7, 3]. Perhaps the most significant mechanism for fostering considered judgement was the use of "real-time impact assessments" during the fourth session [8]. By providing participants with immediate independent evaluations of the environmental efficacy of their draft proposals, the design forced a critical confrontation between participant aspirations and projected environmental outcomes [8]. This professional feedback enabled the group to redesign or prioritise proposal recommendations based on informed, reflective evaluation rather than unreflective intuition. Overall, the convention fostered considered judgement by combining expert knowledge, practical experience, and iterative evaluation processes that enabled participants to develop informed and reflective collective recommendations.

Transparency

Graham Smith characterises transparency as a fundamental democratic good divided into two distinct dimensions, internal clarity for participants regarding the conditions of their involvement, and ‘publicity’ for the wider public to ensure institutional accountability [p. 25, 7]. Within the France Télévisions process, internal clarity was thoughouly maintained as participants were fully informed from the beginning of the five-session the pedagogical mission, the sequence of scheduled events, and the strategic role of the Executive Committee as the final deciding space [8]. This transparency was essential to mitigate the risk of ‘co-option,’ wherein participants may otherwise perceive their engagement as a mechanism for legitimating pre-determined outcomes as discussed by Smith [p. 25, 7]. Regarding the second dimension, FTV utilised extensive internal communication strategies to reach the approximently 10,000 non-participating employees, aiming to promote the convention’s legitimacy and facilitate the eventual implementation of the almost 150 proposals [8]. However, the publicity afforded to the external general public within the company was more constrained. While FTV issued company-wide and public press releases to announce the initiative, the comprehensive final report has been retained as an internal document throughout the deliberation phase, with only limited information on public record until the release of the final implementation strategy, set to be released within the first half of 2026 [8]. By limiting public access to the full report of proposals created during the convention, FTV has prioritised corporate confidentiality over radical transparency. This creates a potential legitimacy gap, particularly as the broadcaster is 86% public-funded, meaning that the citizens who finance the institution are largely excluded from scrutinising the detailed reasoning behind the accepted and rejected proposed ecological transition [4]. This however may be rectified through the final publisied report yet to come should FTV include a detailed outline of each proposal submitted accompanied by an explanation of the rejection or acceptance of each suggestion.

Efficiency

Graham Smith conceptualises efficiency as a pivotal institutional good that evaluates the "civic costs" and administrative burdens placed on both participants and authorities [p. 26, 7]. This feasibility constraint is particularly pertinent in corporate contexts where the "economy of time" must be balanced against the depth of deliberation required for strategic decision-making [p. 19, 7]. In the case of the France Télévisions (FTV) Convention, the civic cost to participants was substantial, requiring an 11-day commitment across five sessions held over a six-month period, with some participants even being required to travel thousands of kilometers to participate [8]. However, the FTV model addresses the dilemma of mobilisation by integrating participation into the employees' professional duties [8]. From an institutional perspective, the efficiency of the convention is measured by its capacity to produce actionable outcomes that justify its internal financing. Res publica managed the complex logistical and pedagogical demands of the process, including sessions in Paris, Strasbourg, and Vendargues, alongside a "parallel process" for overseas territories—a design choice that, while resource-intensive, was deemed necessary for representational legitimacy [8]. Furthermore, the inclusion of independent consultants for real-time impact assessments added financial cost but significantly enhanced the efficiency of the "option analysis" phase by streamlining the refinement of almost 150 proposals. Ultimately, the FTV leadership viewed the process as highly efficient, especially given that the group was legally mandated by France’s Energy and Climate Act to develop a decarbonisation roadmap, harnessing employee expertise was seen as a productive investment [8]. This illustrates that under specific conditions, the costs of democratic innovation are outweighed by the benefits of institutionalised collective intelligence.

Transferability

Graham Smith identifies transferability as a vital institutional good that determines whether a democratic innovation can operate effectively across varying scales, political systems, and types of issues [p. 13, 7]. The France Télévisions (FTV) Convention offers a compelling case for the transferability of large-scale internal deliberation within complex corporate hierarchies. One of the most significant successes identified in the process was the "parallel process" utilised to integrate employees from remote overseas territories, such as French Guiana and New Caledonia [8, 5]. This design specifically addresses the traditional challenges of geographical scale and logistical complexity, ensuring that regional perspectives are systematically re-integrated into final plenary sessions rather than being sidelined by a centralised focus [8]. Furthermore, while FTV operates as a public broadcaster with specific regulatory mandates, the model of an employee-led roadmap is presented as being increasingly relevant for any organisation navigating ecological transition. By shifting employees from passive subjects of change to co-designers and ambassadors of corporate strategy, the FTV model demonstrates that collective intelligence can be effectively harnessed to align internal operations with global or national standards such as the Paris Agreement or France's Energy and Climate Act. In all, the FTV Convention has the capacity to serve as a valuable point of inspiration for other institutional actors seeking to bridge the gap between high-level governance and operational participation.

References

[1] European Parliament. (2024). Roadmap to EU climate neutrality – Scrutiny of Member States. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/767181/EPRS_BRI(

2024)767181_EN.pdf

[2] France Télévision. (2025a). La Convention de France Télévisions pour le climat et l’environnement. France TV Pro. https://www.francetvpro.fr/contenu-de-presse/75356604

[3] France Télévision. (2025b). La Convention de France Télévisions pour le climat et l’environnement remet ses propositions. France TV Groupe. https://www.francetelevisions.fr/groupe/notre-actualite/la-convention-de-france-televisions-pour-le-climat-et-lenvironnement-remet-ses-47912

[4] France Télévision. (2025c). Qui sommes-nous? Transparence. France TV Groupe. https://www.francetelevisions.fr/groupe/qui-sommes-nous/transparence

[5] France Télévision. (2025d). Une offre d’information ancrée dans tous les territoires. France TV Groupe. https://www.francetelevisions.fr/groupe/qui-sommes-nous/depuis-les-territoires-39991

[6] Res publica. (2025). France Télévisions Convention for Climate and the Environment. Res Publica. https://en.respublica-conseil.fr/refs/france-televisions-convention

[7] Smith, G. (2009). Studying democratic innovations: An analytical framework. In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (pp. 8–29). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511609848.002

[8] Val, T. (2026, May 19). Res Publica role in France TV convention (A. Dreger, Interviewer) [Personal communication].