Long marginalized in economic theory, the company became during the 1970s, a subject of analysis and academic and university reflection in its own right, because it represents alongside the market, the pivotal organization of economic activity. .
It is recognized today as the most important agent of economic and technical progress, and has proved to have a crucial role in fostering growth and development.
As a result, the company can be considered as one of the major institutions of modern capitalism, even its central institution. Besides, did François Perroux not define capitalism as “an economy of companies? “.
However, neoclassical economic theory had reduced the firm to a “black box”, because its main concern was the study of the market, and the mechanism of determining the equilibrium price according to the supply and demand of goods. and product services.
In this context, the company was considered as a simple manufacturing workshop, combining the factors of production to achieve a quantity of outputs directly sold on the market.
Thus, the traditional conception gives the company a role of wealth production. In this approach, the only imperative of the company is to optimize the productive combination by varying the factors of production, while respecting the law, but without worrying about the social and environmental consequences of its actions.
However, this theory left many questions unanswered, and did not address the understanding of the firm within the framework of the delimitation of its structure, its organization, its internal functioning and its interaction with its environment.
This situation will justify the questioning of this vision of the firm, and the development of alternative conceptions of the company.
Indeed, the business environment is more and more complex, marked by economic crises, today health crises, financial scandals tarnishing the reputation of companies, recurring environmental problems and the weakening of the social fabric.
Their economic activity is the source of enormous progress in technology and science. However, in creating more wealth, companies have worn out and still use multiple socially irresponsible practices, as they are encouraged to seek profitability at any cost.
Indeed, their operation, their consumption, the life cycle of the products they manufacture, the services they offer, the working conditions they offer their employees have significant social, environmental and economic repercussions.
Faced with this dilemma, a growing number of executives believe that the objective of the company is no longer just to make a profit, but that it has a responsibility residing in the control of the consequences of its activities.
The company must therefore not only be concerned with its profitability and growth, but also with its social and environmental impacts. The questioning on the role of the company is then raised.
Moreover, the question of his responsibility emerged at the end of the 19th century through debates on its role and the nature of its obligations, to formalize at the beginning of the 20th century, as the model of the large company with dispersed shareholding and the figure of the non-owner salaried manager became widespread.
Obviously, the birth of the modern firm will result in a new conception of the responsibility of owners, managers and the firm towards society, and the establishment of new systems of corporate governance.
Also, the declaration of the Nobel laureate of economics Milton Friedman in 1970, “The only social responsibility of the company is to increase its profits”, challenging the thesis according to which the company has a “social conscience” will be well and well questioned.
In this context, companies have to adapt and evolve if they aim for their sustainability.
Shared by academic, political, social or ecological circles, the essential question is indeed that of the responsibility of the company, since the partnership vision of the firm is spreading in management sciences, and in managerial circles advocating an integration of business partners in decision-making, contrary to the restrictive view proposed by the neoclassicals.
Indeed, stakeholder theory will determine the evolving framework of the role of the company by resizing its environment, to include in the strategic analysis of the company, all the people or groups that are likely to affect or to be affected by the progress of its strategy.
Henceforth, managers and directors will tend to think of their activity as the management of multiple relationships with internal and external groups, with sometimes converging interests but often in conflict.
The company is thus less and less considered as an independent organization pursuing strictly private goals, but more and more as an actor which, by acting within a community, produces externalities and must assume the responsibility for them. vis-à-vis its stakeholders.
In this context, our time, disrupted by the Covid 19 crisis, would it be more than marked by the reality of a new business development model that is part of a global dynamic of sustainable development, concerned with reconciling economic development and ecological and social concerns?
By Dr JIHANE BAKKALI, Teacher-researcher, University Abdelmalek Essaadi
–
