Search

Le concept de competence constitue, depuis de nombreuses annees, un cadre theorique et pratique incontournable tant en strategie qu’en gestion des ressources humaines. Il a suscite des debats academiques importants car la competence, qualite evaluee en situation singuliere, a contribue a refonder les standards du salariat utilises pour evaluer la performance de toutes les categories de personnel. Pourtant, la competence est le marqueur d’une capacite individuelle consideree en situation. Autant dire qu’en tant que norme, elle vise a correspondre a l’idee que l’on se fait de l’entrepreneur ou aux representations d’experiences entrepreneuriales.Cet article vise a interroger la conception premiere de la competence, celle liee aux ressources distinctives et rares d’un individu en situation de performance ; nous souhaitons ainsi articuler la dimension strategique (strategie basee sur les ressources) a une dimension plus specifique aux ressources humaines (classification par les competences), et ainsi revisiter les distinctions auxquelles on recourt entre savoirs, savoir-faire et savoir-etre lorsque l’entrepreneur cree son affaire. En ce sens, l’objectif de ce travail exploratoire est, premierement, d’apprehender le concept de competence rapporte a l’entrepreneur et a l’entrepreneuriat.Deuxiemement, nous proposons une approche critique de l’utilisation du concept de competence dans la litterature en entrepreneuriat depuis les annees 1990 et par rapport a laquelle nous positionnons notre approche.Troisiemement, nous mettons en evidence l’interet d’une identification des competences de l’entrepreneur des l’amorce du projet individuel. Nous justifions ainsi notre focalisation particuliere sur la phase d’incubation comme terrain de recherche. En 2007, huit incubateurs techniques et generalistes, francais et belges, ont ete interroges. Nous restituons dans cet article l’analyse et les conclusions de cette observation.

Because it articulates the existence of economic activities and agents in both society and the market, stakeholder theory is generally associated with a value-led approach to management, or, in other words, with business ethics. It is considered to have made a major contribution to corporate social responsibility. However, less interest has been taken in its contribution to social and political philosophy. This chapter examines how stakeholder theorists question contemporary political philosophy by focusing on its unresolved issues. In effect, questions such as the social contract, equality, and social justice are inherent to stakeholder theory. Consequently, the theory is applied beyond the sphere of its original management environment to question philosophical categories, while at the same time acknowledging the differences between one field and another. For stakeholder theory, the firm is the center; for political and social philosophy, the construction of public life, of the common good, of the art of living together has no center, and if one does in fact exist, it has nothing to do with economic life. This section examines the borders established between political, social and moral philosophy, on the one hand, and management science on the other; in it, an attempt is made to highlight the concept of “porosity” (Bonnafous-Boucher 2006).

With its normative underpinnings, stakeholder theory can be thought of as a philosophy of corporate or business ethics. Indeed, if we go back to its Scandinavian origins, to Rhenman and others in the 1960s, we find that the concept of the stakeholder has been subject to a constellation of normative and ethical questions. During this period, the idea developed that the notion of the stakeholder should be used to democratize business ethics, as the foundation stone of a more just and responsible corporate world. In the same way, the interest in corporate social responsibility mirrored the vision of the German unions of 1970–1980, with stakeholders participating in the management of the firm. Basically, business ethics has always been linked to the philosophy of stakeholder theory.

The term stakeholder (“partie prenante” in French) is used in different ways by specialists and members of the public. For the wider public, it is a generic term, equivalent to “citizen,” to anyone taking part in public life. For specialists, it refers to people who are not shareholders. In fact, “partie prenante” is an imperfect translation of the English stakeholder, literally the “holder” of a “stake.” Less literally, stakeholder means he, or she, who has a stake in something. More broadly, it means someone who participates or “takes part” in something (“prendre partie,” hence “partie prenante”). In English, the term stakeholder is a neologism which plays on the term stockholder (designating those who share the profits, including the shareholders). The term indicates that parties other than stockholders can have a say and that their stakes and interests in the activities of the firm should be recognized (Freeman and Reed 1983). It defines individuals and groups of individuals indispensible to the survival of the firm and who are either consulted or participate directly in decision-making processes or arbitrage. But from which point of view is the question of survival to be considered: from that of the firm or that of the stakeholder? It is for this reason that some Francophone authors prefer the term “partie interessee” (“interested party”) (Benseddik 2006) or “ayant droit” (“rights holder”) (Mercier 2006). Perhaps not surprisingly, for the Swedish administrative research school of the 1960s, represented by Rhenman and Stymne (1965), the notion of the stakeholder is seen as reciprocal relationship in which a stakeholder is a group which depends on the firm in order to achieve its own objectives and on which the firm depends for its survival.

There have been so many studies on organization between the 1980s and 2010, borrowing from so many different sources, that it would be vain to attempt to demonstrate how stakeholder theory has attempted to appropriate or influence any given model. Nevertheless, 30 years were needed to jettison the evolutionist notion of the “one best way” in organization studies, a notion that can be traced from Max Weber to Henry Mintzberg. Stakeholder theory has contributed to this process of deconstruction. In effect, systemic approaches (other than Gestalt theory and theories related to Michel Crozier’s “concrete action system”) have cast the organization, and particularly the corporation, as an ensemble of independent parties articulated with a single objective in mind. Thus, the vast majority of studies produced in the field of organization studies have promoted an essentialist view of an entity focused on its own mode of functioning, describing a structure centered on determinants (Mintzberg 1979, 1983; Mintzberg et al. 1998). In this regard, the objectifiable and finite character of the organization suggests “a coordinating entity with identifiable frontiers functioning in a sustainable manner while at the same time attempting to achieve one or more objectives shared by the participants” (Robbins 1987). But structure is not appropriate to a fluid (and fundamentally plastic) conception of the organization based on stakeholders. Far from being a fortress founded on structural determinants, the organization is porous. And stakeholder theory dispenses with the biological and engineering foundations of systemic analysis, reconstructing the approach on properly managerial and political bases. With stakeholder theory, the study of organizations turns its attention to the notions of interest, the negotiation of issues, and the management of more or less stable relations both within and outside the organization. In this sense, the organization is a kind of “collectivity sharing one or more common interests and engaging in shared activities.” It is thus “a coalition of groups with variable interests which elaborates objectives by means of negotiation” (Scott 1987).

Strategy consists in making choices and taking decisions involving an organization while being aware of the interactions between the corporation, its environment, and its existing or potential resources. Linked to corporate policy, it is an activity which requires reflection and action. As practice, it “gradually constructs ensembles of opportunities and imagines trajectories of development in a rapidly changing and partially unpredictable environment” (Desreumeaux et al. 2009). As reflection, it “renders the world comprehensible, simplifying it with a view to facilitating action” (Desreumeaux et al. 2009). As such, it is praxeological reflection because it seeks efficacy and efficiency (yields and the relationship between assets and results) (Martinet et al. 1990). From the outset, stakeholder theory has cast itself as a practical and useful theory associated with strategy, as is demonstrated by both the oldest and most recent publications on the subject, those of Freeman and his co-authors: Stakeholder Theory, written by Phillipps and Freeman (2010); Stakeholder Theory: A State of the Art, coordinated by Freeman et al. (2010); The Handbook of Strategic Management, edited by Hitt et al. (2001); Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (1984); “Manager les parties prenantes” (1982); and Manager pour les parties prenantes: survie, reputation et succes (2007). To this list can be added the recent book by Wicks, Freeman and Werhane: Business Ethics: A Managerial Approach (2009). For the advocates of the theory, the managerial or strategic management approach encompasses planning, systems theory, corporate social responsibility, and organization theory.

Focuses on what can be referred to as the “fundamental philosophical issues of corporate governance”. Outlines the interdependence of various kinds of governance. Demonstrates that corporate governance is part of a bundle of governances and that, in this respect, it occupies a leading place to the degree that its principles are becoming consolidated. Then discusses in a more detailed manner what is meant by the term “dominant functionalism”. Then deals with the question of the equilibrium between sovereignty and legitimacy from the point of view of corporate governance. In effect, rules of governance (considered as the designation of a sovereign power) are searching for a legitimizing instance originating outside the framework of those rules. Finally, covers the proprietarialist origins of stakeholder theory, origins which correspond to a moderate liberal tradition.

International audience; La longévité des entreprises familiales interpelle les chercheurs. Les contributions regroupées dans ce dossier permettent d’en éclairer les sources. L’accent est mis sur le rôle de la dynamique de la famille dans la longévité de l’entreprise familiale, sans négliger pour autant les multiples ingrédients qui peuvent y contribuer au sein de l’entreprise. Enfin, l’accent est mis sur l’importance des choix méthodologiques pour saisir les déterminants de la pérennité des entreprises.

As of 2010, six of the ten most innovative companies in the world were American, two were Japanese and one was Korean. None were European. Three years before, in 2007, the situation in the Old World had been hardly any brighter; according to the European Innovation Scoreboard, the innovation index stood at 0.73 in Sweden, 0.59 in Germany and 0.47 in France. In the same year, the World Intellectual Property Organization listed the number of patents lodged by country. Sweden’s 1,287, Germany’s 17,739 and France’s 12,112 were dwarfed by the USA’s 157,283 and Japan’s 164,954. It seems undeniable that many Western countries are still a long way behind and that closing the innovation gap remains a kind of quest for the Holy Grail in terms of competitiveness and employment. However, on closer inspection, the keys to Paradise are more like a safety device both for national economies and for the men and women who implement innovations on a day-to-day level.

Associating the concept of civil society with stakeholder theory has become a common practice. The point of view put forward here attribute paternity of the stakeholder theory essentially to Freeman as a strategic framework for business studies and practices (1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 2001, 2004), as a strong framework for political and moral philosophy (1988, 1994, 1998), as an inescapable framework for business ethics (2000). In order to take into account the advancement bringing by Freeman, the intention of this article is to demonstrate the degree to which stakeholder theory can be considered as a theory of civil society, which in turn is a theory of business. The argument will be based on the following points: Stakeholder theory occupies an intermediate position between strategic management and political philosophy in that it presents a new form of sovereignty, the sovereignty of big business; Stakeholder theory is a strategic theory; whether it legitimises, relativises or neutralises the sovereignty of the firm, it conceptualises and situates it in relation to other models; Stakeholder theory can be understood as a theory of civil society for the 21st century but it cannot be a substitute for a civil society theory devised in the 19th century; Stakeholder theory can thus be considered as affording a strategic perspective that, although somewhat unfamiliar, serves as the foundation of business ethics.

La theorie des parties prenantes est essentielle pour ceux engages, pratiquement ou conceptuel-lement dans les transformations du capitalisme et du liberalisme. Meconnue, la theorie des parties prenantes n'est pas une theorie marginale : elle decrit tous les emboitements possibles entre sphere publique et sphere privee, elle deconstruit la dualite entre ce qui appartiendrait au monde economique et des entreprises et ce qui releverait du monde politique et du bien public, elle concerne tous ceux (individus ou groupes) qui ne sont pas des actionnaires et qui pourtant subis-sent ou influencent l'activite des organisations. De ce fait, on a pu traiter la theorie des parties prenantes comme etant une nouvelle theorie de la societe civile. Les auteurs de cet ouvrage presentent les differentes approches theoriques de la theorie des parties prenantes car on connait mal cette theorie pourtant elaboree depuis les annees 60 par ER Freeman. On connait mal aussi les ramifications qu'elle a donne lieu tant en matiere de responsa-bilite sociale qu'en sociologie politique et en philosophie politique. Son utilite est incontestable car elle revele les choix explicites et implicites des agents economiques, et des individus notam-ment quand ils recherchent des indicateurs pertinents (et non pas seulement performants) pour les guider. Cette mise en perspective explore egalement des champs d'application plus larges dans diffe-rents domaines, des domaines les plus techniques au plus prospectifs: gestion strategique, droit du travail et des societes, sciences politiques, philosophie politique et morale. Ainsi les auteurs mettent-ils en discussion l'importance et les incidences de la theorie des parties prenantes en ma-tiere de gouvernance d'entreprise, de gouvernance nationale et territoriale, et de gouvernance eu-ropeenne.

Cet article est consécutif à une étude visant à évaluer les coûts et les retombées des théâtres lyriques français pour leurs principaux bailleurs de fonds : les municipalités. Au-delà de l'objet initial de l'étude, les chercheurs ont été amenés à s'interroger sur les perspectives d'avenir des théâtres lyriques. Nous présentons ici quatre questions qui nous semblent particulièrement importantes s'agissant du devenir des Opéras en France : l'évolution des subventions et des sources alternatives de financement ; la rénovation du statut juridique ; la régionalisation lyrique ; et enfin, l'amélioration du système d'information et de pilotage. Ces quatre questions paraissent en effet conditionner dans une large mesure l'avenir des théâtres lyriques. De la manière dont ces dossiers seront articulés dépendra la forme que revêtiront les Opéras aux XXIe siècle.

Presenter les developpements recents en gouvernement d'entreprise en s'ouvrant sur les differentes discipline pour marquer leur complementarite dans le traitement de la problematique.

L’innovation par la participation des salaries apporte un atout concurrentiel aux entreprises. L’innovation participative s’intensifie lorsqu’elle s’integre a une organisation dotee d’une orientation entrepreneuriale. Elle favorise alors le developpement d’une innovation hybride composee d’innovations de rupture et d’innovations incrementales.

Since Powell's work in 1966, it has generally been accepted that interfirm links between large drug companies and biotechnology SMEs have a positive impact on the RD while members of the second type base their approach on a clear division of labour between SMEs and large companies and are relatively favourable to normative constraints.

Un ouvrage rendant compte de l'importance des parties prenantes et tentant de la faire reconnaitre comme un modele a la fois concret et prospectif de la democratie en entreprise, permettant de poser les elements d'un contrat social au sein d'un capitalisme mondial patrimonial salarie.

La théorie des parties prenantes est l'enjeu de nombreux débats. Elle sert aussi souvent de référence aussi bien à des discours et des actes liés aux politiques de responsabilité sociale des entreprises, qu'à de nombreux travaux tant en « sciences de gestion » (cf. les innombrables articles publiés sur la question) qu'en analyse politique (cf. les discours des dirigeants politiques). Au regard de la multiplicité des références qui ont lieu à son sujet, on pourrait même parler de véritable Tour de Babel conceptuelle. La référence à la notion de partie prenante jouerait alors le jeu de l'« objet frontière », c'est-à-dire de référence à un objet qui peut circuler à l'intérieur de plusieurs communautés en conservant le même nom sans pour autant recouvrir les mêmes réalités. Il en va ainsi au moins de sa référence en sciences des organisations tout comme en sciences politiques. Elle permettrait ainsi de satisfaire aux besoins informationnels de différentes communautés de pensée en étant utilisée de manière à la fois robuste et plastique tant à l'intérieur qu'à l'extérieur de ces communautés, tenant aussi bien à la fois du concret et de l'abstrait. Le recours à la notion de partie prenante pourrait alors être considéré comme une forme d'opportunisme sémantique.

Talking about an ‘Anglo-American' model of CSR is akin to saying that one should aver that: 1° this is an organizational model, the issue of Corporate Social Responsibility being both a structuring question pertaining to the nature and circumstances that firm must contend with, and also a sign of their starting to shift their management focus from tasks to people. 2° at the very least it can be viewed as a culturalist interpretation, raising questions about comparative benchmarks (are we dealing with a ‘European' model here?) and about a form of censorship, seeing as the term ‘Anglo-American' (N. Trans. – a translation of the adjective ‘anglo-saxon' in the original French text) in fact highlights the American side.; Parler de modèle “ américain ” de la RSE, c'est donc indiquer que l'on doive penser : 1° qu'il s'agisse d'un modèle organisationnel, la question de la responsabilité sociale de l'entreprise étant à la fois une question structurante relative à la nature et aux circonstances auxquelles se trouvent confrontées les entreprises mais aussi le signe du passage de la focalisation de leur management sur les tâches à la focalisation sur les personnes. 2° qu'il puisse a minima entrer dans un cadre d'interprétation culturaliste et ce qui pose donc la question du référentiel comparatif, celui d'un modèle “ européen ” ici.

This chapter fits into a double framework. First of all, it participates in the collective project of this book, which is to take into account and to comment upon the American foundations of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and of stakeholder theory (SHT). The intention is also to demonstrate the potential existence of a European school of thought on this subject. Secondly, this work fits into the framework of the works of the Chair DSO (Developpement des Systemes d’Organisation (CNAM, Paris, France)) on models of organization and of management (or government) for businesses. At the heart of this chair this text participates in the establishment of a research programme that aims at showing the value of political philosophy in the analysis of the institutions of contemporary capitalism (for example the company, industries, and so on).