StakeS-holder Management and Crisis Resilience A case study in a public transportation company

International audienceStakeholder perspectives on crisis management provide a useful descriptive framework for analyzing crises and making crisis narratives. However, their "actionability" for crisis management, i.e. possibility to use stakeholder management models into operational crisis management processes, remains an under-investigated question. The purpose of this article is to discuss the operational value of stakeholder frameworks for crisis management. Drawing on a qualitative case study of a successful crisis management process in a public transportation company, we investigate the activities set up by the crisis cell to manage internal and external stakeholders during the crisis. In our case, successful stakeholder management relied on: 1) good diagnosis capabilities for the design of an appropriate corporate positioning; 2) an ability to manage coherently a set of emerging and heterogeneous issues involving stakeSholders ; 3) the capacity to set up a tightly coupled form of organization, involving both crisis cell members and various "anchorage points", i.e. specific actors involved in the project before the crisis, who were already in contact with key stakeholders as part of their day-to-day activities. We then discuss the practical and theoretical implications of this analysis and the potential value stakeholder perspectives for crisis management

Que peut nous apprendre le courant de la Corporate Social Responsiveness sur les démarches de développement durable des entreprises contemporaines

Working paper serie RMT (WPS 10-10) , 34 pLa recherche gestionnaire dans le champ „Business & Society‟ souffre de sa faible prise en compte des enjeux organisationnels et managériaux associés aux démarches d‟entreprises en matière de responsabilité sociale et de développement durable. C‟est précisément ce constat qui, dans le courant des années 1970, a été le point de départ d‟un programme de recherche sur la Corporate Social Responsiveness au sein de la Harvard Business School aux Etats-Unis. Le contenu de ce programme ayant largement été oublié et/ou caricaturé, cet article propose d‟en redécouvrir la genèse, le contenu et sa portée, et formule des hypothèses sur sa disparition. Il reste pertinent pour l‟appréhension des pratiques contemporaines en matières de RSE et de DD

PHENIX A Circular Economy Business Model Case

The aim of the R2π project is to find and analyze sustainable business models for circular economy in a variety of industrial sectors. Then, it aims to develop propositions that will support such business models. This report develops the case of Phenix, a French company in the food sector, illustrative of a successful circular business model. Phenix was created in 2014 by two entrepreneurs, Jean Moreau and Baptiste Corval and went through a steady growth, now having 18 regional offices in France and 3 international ones in Copenhagen, Lisbon and Madrid. The company’s global mission is to “unleash the potential of waste”. With an initial focus on food-waste, Phenix has set up a digital platform that works as an intermediary connecting waste “suppliers” (mainly retailers) and waste receivers (mostly charities). Through this service, Phenix prevents food close to expiration date from being wasted, and turns such waste into food donations. Beyond its matchmaking platform, Phenix also provides partners with a secured supply chain. Phenix achieves ‘triple bottom line’ value creation, by helping retailers to reduce the cost of food waste (economic benefit), enabling charities to get free access to food donations (social benefit), and helping society to reduce the overall amount of food waste produced in our economic system (environmental & circular economy benefit). It is, therefore, an example of a “mission-driven platform”, built on a hybrid model that combines business, social and environmental value creation. Presently, Phenix works with more than a thousand supermarket clients, has 100 full-time employees and helps to distribute over 40 000 meals per day. Phenix business model is circular by design. The organization offers a service to secure the recovery of unsold food products. Doing so, it organizes a circular sourcing for charities and helps retailers managing their products end-of-life. Because Phenix acts as a service provider, it does not generate waste but rather helps other organizations reduce their own. As a multisided platform, Phenix has developed a distinct pricing scheme to address each side of the platform. Phenix revenue model is based on monetizing the supply-side of the platform, through a fixed commission on the waste-management gains achieved by distributors using the platform. On the other side of the platform (demand side), Phenix organizes free access to food for social charities, thus achieving a social benefit and facilitating the growth of the platform. The French legal framework offered a favorable context for the development of a profitable business model for Phenix. As part of this regulatory framework, an existing tax incentive introduced in 1981 under the “Coluche law” providing for a 60% tax deduction for food retailers and producers who donate foodstuffs instead of generating waste. Through its secured supply chain, Phenix organizes traceability, secures savings for retailers and can charge a commission on the total savings on waste management, making the business model viable. As a fast growing and profitable start-up, the company is currently exploring different opportunities for geographical diversification in other European and non-European countries. The company is also currently engaged in processes of horizontal diversification to expand its services to new types of waste, and explores how to improve its current offer through digital solutions. While the company strategic position appears quite robust, few points of attention need to be considered: the business model remains dependent on favorable regulations, it remains labor intensive and new market acquisitions require large investments. Yet, new technology such as big data or IoT can radically improve the model’s cost-efficiency. Lobbying skills and network effects can protect the regulatory framework and diversification strategy to other resources (non-food wastes) and new skills (consulting) can strengthen the business model. Beyond the strategic analysis of the company, this case study has significant implications for public regulators. It first highlights the central role of public regulation in the innovation process. And it illustrates the hypothesis of Porter and Van der Linde, according to which properly crafted environmental regulations not only help to reduce environmental externalities, but they can also lead to profits for innovative companies (Porter & Linde, 1995). Overall our results points toward a mix between a regulatory framework and private dynamics of innovation to create successful circular business model. On the innovation side, the case shows how mission-driven platforms can reconfigure stakeholder relations in a given business ecosystem and improve operational efficiency of these relations in order to decrease waste and increase re-useThis project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 73037

Standards and innovation in emerging fields: Pushing breakthrough innovation or enrolling actors? An analysis of eco-district standards in France and Denmark

International audienceStandards and norms are central objects for institutional studies. However, their role in innovation and the creation of novelty remain unclear, in particular in new / emerging fields. Accordingly, this paper investigates the relationship between standard setting and innovation, in the context of emerging organizational fields. We consider standardization in emerging fields as a socio-technical process, which must simultaneously promote a certain degree of innovation and enroll actors in order to succeed. We apply this perspective to compare standardization processes in the field of eco-districts, both in France and Denmark. Our analysis reveals different tensions, tradeoffs and priorities, among standards, between enrolment priorities, and the need to push forward technical innovation. We discuss how the two issues of constraints and enrollment can be articulated and combined

How to Create Value(s) in the Sharing Economy: Business Models, Scalability, and Sustainability

By organizing peer-to-peer exchanges and promoting access over ownership, the sharing economy is transforming a great variety of sectors. Enjoying fast growth, the sharing economy is an umbrella term encompassing heterogeneous initiatives that create different types of economic, environmental, or social value. This heterogeneity triggers tensions and intense disputes about the perimeter of the field. Do Airbnb and Uber belong to the sharing economy? How do we consider practices such as gifting, renting, and swapping that existed before the sharing economy boom? To sort out this complexity, we have adopted a pragmatic and grounded approach examining 27 initiatives that claim to be part of, or are perceived as emblematic of the sharing economy. We develop a typology of sharing economy business models revealing four configurations: shared infrastructure providers, commoners, mission-driven platforms, and matchmakers. Each configuration exhibits specific value-creation logics, scalability issues, sustainability impacts, and potential controversies. Our results provide guidance for sharing entrepreneurs, for established businesses that want to embrace the principles of the sharing economy, and for public actors wishing to regulate or support the field

INNOVATION IN SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION: ECO-CITIES AND SOCIAL HOUSING IN FRANCE AND DENMARK

International audienceThe construction sector is often characterized as a reactive sector, as lagging behind other sectors of the economy, notably industry, when it comes to innovation; as mechanically responding to external (client) needs and implementing innovations that originate elsewhere (Winch 1998, Harty 2008). The sector is often presented as un-dynamic and un-innovative and as precluding novel design practices and tools, an orientation that seems to flow from its rigid routines, professional boundaries, division of labor, national legislation, established performance measures, and fixed ideas about best practices. Accordingly, building projects in the construction sector tend to reflect objectives and institutionalized practices other than those related to innovation and sustainability

Les modèles de pilotage du développement durable : du contrôle externe à la conception innovante

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) or sustainable development (SD) have long been considered as individual ethics issues or public policy problems. By contrast, they are currently becoming a specific field for managerial action. However, many uncertainties remain regarding the durability of this movement, its potential and the most appropriate ways to maage such dynamics. This thesis focuses on the current waves of transformations in the field of sustainability and corporate social responsibility management. Starting from an historical analysis of academic and practical perspectives on corporate social responsibility, we identify several limitations of dominant paradigms devoted to the study of business and society interactions. We then propose a renewed research program, centred on sustainability management models. We define a management model as a combination af three elements: 1) a model of peformance, 2) a set of management objects, and 3) a set of organizational routines.The analysis unfolds at two levels. Firstly, we investigate the potential of a managerial model centered on external control through an in depth analysis of the institutionalization process of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Secondly, sustainablitily management models are considered from a more internal perspective, under an organizational angle. After unveiling and analyzing the marginalization process of a sustainablility management initiative within a large company, we propose a renewed approach to corporate social responsibility / sustainability management.This approach, centered on innovative design, is founded both theoretically and empirically in several corporate practices. From a theoretical point of view, this work enables to discuss different theories in the field of corporate social responsibility and sustainability, as well as different theoretical frameworks used in strategy and organizational theory.Longtemps considérées comme des questions d'éthique individuelle et de politiques publiques, la responsabilité sociale de l'entreprise (RSE) et le développement durable (DD) se présentent désormais comme des objets d'expertise et d'intervention managériale. Toutefois, de nombreuses incertitudes subsistent quant à la pérennité de ces dynamiques, leur portée et les modalités de leur pilotage.Cette thèse vise à analyser les rationalisations gestionnaires en cours dans le domaine du développement durable et de la responsabilité sociale de l'entreprise. A partir d'une analyse historique des travaux académiques et des pratiques d'entreprises, nous identifions plusieurs difficultés des perspectives dominantes mobilisées pour l'étude des interactions entreprises / société. Nous proposons alors un objet d'étude nouveau, centré sur l'émergence de modèles de pilotage du développement durable. Nous définissons un modèle de pilotage comme une combinaison de trois éléments : 1) un modèle de performance, 2) un ensemble d'objets d'action et 3) un ensemble de dispositifs.L'analyse se déploie ensuite à deux niveaux. Dans un premier temps, nous étudions l'émergence du développement durable comme contrôle externe, en particulier à travers l'analyse détaillée du processus d'institutionnalisation de la Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Dans un deuxième temps, la question des modèles de pilotage est envisagée à un niveau interne et sous un angle organisationnel. Après avoir présenté et analysé une expérience d'entreprise ayant abouti à la marginalisation de la démarche de développement durable, nous soulignons les enjeux et les fondements d'une approche renouvelée, où le développement durable est envisagé sous l'angle de la conception innovante.D'un point de vue théorique, ce travail permet de re-discuter différentes théories du champ de la responsabilité sociale des entreprises, ainsi que différents cadres mobilisés en stratégie et en théorie des organisations

Stakeholder vs stockholder ?

Dans un contexte de domination des actionnaires comme principaux interlocuteurs des dirigeants, et de quête de renouvellement des théories de la firme et de sa gouvernance (Lan, Heracleous, 2010 ; Segrestin, Hatchuel, 2012), la stakeholder theory (ou Théorie des Parties Prenantes – TPP ci-après) constitue a priori un candidat naturel à la refondation (Post, Preston, Sauter-Sachs, 2003). Du point de vue des pratiques, elle permettrait de donner un nouveau souffle aux autres parties prenantes q..

Entrepreneuriat institutionnel et apprentissages collectifs. Le cas de la Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)

International audienceLe concept d'entrepreneuriat institutionnel vise à expliquer l'émergence de nouvelles institutions ou de nouveaux champs organisationnels. Cependant, les travaux étudiant les stratégies et l'activité des entrepreneurs institutionnels tendent à négliger le rôle des dynamiques de savoir, de même que celui des dispositifs concrets qui sous-tendent et supportent le développement de nouveaux cadres de l'action collective. Dans cette perspective, cet article propose une analyse qualitative du processus d'institutionnalisation des pratiques de reporting environnemental et social. Ce processus d'institutionnalisation est analysé à travers la construction d'un dispositif de gestion concret, la Global Reporting Iniative (GRI). Notre analyse nous amène à formuler deux propositions. Premièrement, lorsqu'il se déploie dans les champs organisationnels émergents, où les connaissances sont lacunaires, l'entrepreneuriat institutionnel prend des formes plus distribuées, plus coopératives et plus génératives que ne le suggèrent les approches traditionnelles. Deuxièmement, cette phase d'entrepreneuriat n'est qu'une étape dans un processus d'institutionnalisation plus long. Ainsi, nous soulignons l'existence d'une seconde étape "organisationnelle" qui joue un rôle déterminant dans le processus d'institutionnalisation. Dans cette seconde phase, le dispositif s'autonomise et peut s'écarter significativement de la logique du projet initialement portée par les entrepreneurs institutionnels