The world of companies changed radically during the year 1990. Their role in the national and international governorship took more importance vis-a-vis the deregulation and with the reduction in the intervention of the State in the market. The direct overseas investments became key instruments for the transfer of capital and the circulation of technology and competences. A company is regarded everywhere as the engine of growth.
This situation, however, developed and citizens requested to take an active part within companies, in fields very varied like that of social security benefit, job security, the environmental standards and the transparency of commercial transactions. What is new is that from now on, these requests influence the markets more directly, through the request of the consumers, the new attitudes and standpoint of the employees, the regulation of trade and exchanges, and the growing influence of the media, which affects the reputation of the companies and the price of the dealings.
The strategy and the policy of the companies are confronted with new dilemmas to reconcile the requirements of world competition and the social transformations. They are being compelled to implement new strategies, to promote institutions of mediation making it possible to connect the companies, and to create a political environment favorable to the development and the distribution of the benefit of the investment and growth.
Thus, today, the development of a company is a strategic topic impossible to circumvent for the companies (great groups, SMEs). The question is to know if it is just a passing fad, if the companies are pursuing development policies and building up their image, just as an operation of marketing. If it is, on the contrary, the sign of a movement which transforms, in-depth, the environment of the companies and consequently forces the strategies to evolve; the movement will end up affecting all the companies, including SMEs.
This talk will relate initially to what strategic development is, then we will see what the companies do (the majority are large companies but not all) to propose their development like one of the fundamental axes of their strategy and finally we will learn some lessons for SMEs.
"It's a development process that strives to meet present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". Indeed, value creation is the main function of the company. By engaging in sustainable development, it does not choose to forego profitability. Instead, it is decided, in fact, to engage in a process of continuous improvement in order to best respond to all its stakeholders: shareholders, financial partners, customers, employees, representatives of civil society.
SD is development that combines three poles, the three pillars of SD: The economy, because it is necessary for economic growth is the economic hub; fairness: the social pole; and protection of nature: the environmental division.
Shell gave a formulation of these three poles: 3 P: "Profit, People and Planet". Another way of looking at things is to recognize that to produce and reproduce, a company does not only invest in economic capital: machinery, infrastructure, etc.
It uses the economic capital, of course, but it also uses social capital: training and motivation of men, allowing them and making them want to work together and it also uses natural capital.
Tags: new development strategies for companies, development of companies, economic and social capital of companies
[...] Thus, the development of a business is, today, a strategic theme which is a must for companies (large companies, SMEs). The whole question is whether it is a fad that will pass, and if it the display of political development is a must for businesses with the operation of a pure image-building, a marketing operation, and nothing beyond. Instead, is it the sign of a movement that profoundly transformed the business environment and therefore the strategies to develop strength; a movement that will eventually affect all businesses, including SMEs. [...]
[...] Here we can distinguish two strategies. The strategy is simply to seize economic opportunities is in the interest of the population for SD, or the company itself. An example is the "Monoprix" in France with stores primarily located in the city center, which suffered terribly from the competition of hypermarkets that developed in the periphery of large cities. "Monoprix" realized that in the city center, the population was changing in terms of income and worldview. To meet the competition with the supermarkets, it was useless to fight on price. [...]
[...] He will define its strategy and will form an action plan. The absence of this particular strategy of DD is simply to comply with the standards, except that in these conditions, the company is doomed to run behind and eventually, it may be exposed to surprises if it did not anticipate regulatory changes. If only for the rather erratic and sometimes unpredictable regulatory changes, it would be beneficial to anticipate its needs. If one is looking for more positive reasons, we can consider three strategies: 1 - "Environmentally friendly" First there are businesses, especially SMEs, who have flatly decided to invest in this niche, for example, "Body Shop" in the U.S., A company that has built its success on selling cosmetics whose ingredients are fully traceable and produced in compliance with the environment, and the brand "Patagonia", an SME which initially also fully built its image on the traceability of its products, and the fact they are only natural. [...]
[...] The campaign was first developed on the campus of the "New York Times". Nike denied, saying, "It's not us, but the subcontractors. We are a company which adopts correct polices". Eventually they gave up. The President completely changed the defense strategy. They changed their subcontractors and set up a charter for their subcontractors, which imposed minimum standards of welfare. In January 2002, Lafarge Morocco announced the decision to close of its plant facilities in Tetouan in October 2003, as they were obsolete, in non- compliance with environmental standards and could no longer meet the market's growth prospects, despite significant progress. [...]
[...] Conclusion Finally, we will return to the original question: "Is SD a fad that will pass, or a profound change in the business environment, requiring at minimum adaptations but also providing opportunities for strategies and more innovative action?" The answer, as may be understood, is the second. Environmental requirements can only grow in the medium term. In times of crisis, the government lifts its foot a little, because it does not rock the boat, but soon it will become a little better. We inevitably rebound, and environmental requirements increase. This will result in regulations becoming more stringent. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
