IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03689828.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The emergence of multipolar corporate governance: the case of Danone and the French Société à Mission

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin Levillain

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Armand Hatchuel

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Jérémy Lévêque

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Blanche Segrestin

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

The search for sustainable corporate governance frameworks in the face of current social and environmental challenges has renewed the debate over the appropriate characteristics of stakeholder governance. In this paper we explore the potential contribution of an original governance body to a stakeholder governance model: the mission committee created by the French société à mission corporate form in 2019. We study the case of the recent governance crisis at Danone, the first listed société à mission, whose CEO Emmanuel Faber was dismissed shortly after the change of legal status. Based on a series of interviews with members of the mission committee and management, including Pascal Lamy and Emmanuel Faber, we show that in the Danone case, the combination of the mission and the mission committee displayed interesting characteristics. First, the mission committee ensured the persistence of the commitment of the firm towards its mission despite the governance crisis. Second, it initiated a system of "check and balance" on the decisions of the board of directors for all matters affecting the mission. Third, it suggested a renewed accountability framework to assess the firm's response to its mission. Overall, we argue that such a mission committee might be the embryo of a new kind of "multipolar" corporate governance framework, in which monitoring powers are shared amongst a wider variety of constituencies than those elected by shareholders, thus effectively changing the balance of corporate governance. It however raises new research questions to ensure the robustness of such committee faced with greenwashing and issues of conflicts of interests.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin Levillain & Armand Hatchuel & Jérémy Lévêque & Blanche Segrestin, 2022. "The emergence of multipolar corporate governance: the case of Danone and the French Société à Mission," Post-Print hal-03689828, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03689828
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-03689828v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-03689828v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreas Georg Scherer & Christian Voegtlin, 2020. "Corporate Governance for Responsible Innovation: Approaches to Corporate Governance and Their Implications for Sustainable Development," Post-Print hal-02623585, HAL.
    2. Kevin Levillain & Blanche Segrestin & Armand Hatchuel, 2019. "Profit- with-Purpose Corporations An Innovation in Corporate Law to Meet Contemporary Corporate Social Responsibility Challenges," Post-Print halshs-01845518, HAL.
    3. Steve Letza & Xiuping Sun & James Kirkbride, 2004. "Shareholding Versus Stakeholding: a critical review of corporate governance," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 242-262, July.
    4. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 32-42, January.
    5. Jan Jonker & André Nijhof, 2006. "Looking Through the Eyes of Others: assessing mutual expectations and experiences in order to shape dialogue and collaboration between business and NGOs with respect to CSR," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 456-466, September.
    6. Ruth V. Aguilera & Igor Filatotchev & Howard Gospel & Gregory Jackson, 2008. "An Organizational Approach to Comparative Corporate Governance: Costs, Contingencies, and Complementarities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 475-492, June.
    7. Kevin Levillain & Blanche Segrestin, 2019. "From primacy to purpose commitment: How emerging profit-with-purpose corporations open new corporate governance avenues," Post-Print hal-02290622, HAL.
    8. Levillain, Kevin & Segrestin, Blanche, 2019. "From primacy to purpose commitment: How emerging profit-with-purpose corporations open new corporate governance avenues," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 637-647.
    9. Michelle J. Stecker, 2016. "Awash in a Sea of Confusion: Benefit Corporations, Social Enterprise, and the Fear of “Greenwashing”," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(2), pages 373-381, April.
    10. Kurland, Nancy B., 2017. "Accountability and the public benefit corporation," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 519-528.
    11. R. Edward Freeman & Andrew C. Wicks & Bidhan Parmar, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 364-369, June.
    12. Shann Turnbull, 1997. "Stakeholder Governance: A Cybernetic and Property Rights Analysis," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 11-23, January.
    13. Edina Eberhardt-Toth, 2017. "Who should be on a board corporate social responsibility committee?," Post-Print hal-01768904, HAL.
    14. Blanche Segrestin & Armand Hatchuel & Kevin Levillain, 2020. "When the law distinguishes between the enterprise and the corporation: the case of the new French law on corporate purpose," Post-Print hal-02441287, HAL.
    15. Giorgio Mion & Cristian R. Loza Adaui, 2020. "Understanding the purpose of benefit corporations: an empirical study on the Italian case," International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-15, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pascal Daloz & Patrick Johnson & Sébastien Massart & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2020. "Shaping The Unknown With Virtual Universes-The New Fuel For Innovation," Post-Print hal-03042503, HAL.
    2. Ronald Weber Kirst & Miriam Borchardt & Maurício Nunes Macedo de Carvalho & Giancarlo Medeiros Pereira, 2021. "Best of the world or better for the world? A systematic literature review on benefit corporations and certified B corporations contribution to sustainable development," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1822-1839, November.
    3. Levillain, Kevin & Segrestin, Blanche, 2019. "From primacy to purpose commitment: How emerging profit-with-purpose corporations open new corporate governance avenues," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 637-647.
    4. Christian Voegtlin & Andreas Georg Scherer & Günter K. Stahl & Olga Hawn, 2022. "Grand Societal Challenges and Responsible Innovation," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 1-28, January.
    5. Kevin Levillain & Blanche Segrestin, 2019. "From primacy to purpose commitment: How emerging profit-with-purpose corporations open new corporate governance avenues," Post-Print hal-02290622, HAL.
    6. Martin, Graeme & Farndale, Elaine & Paauwe, Jaap & Stiles, Philip G., 2016. "Corporate governance and strategic human resource management: Four archetypes and proposals for a new approach to corporate sustainability," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 22-35.
    7. Anette Ahsen & Kevin Gauch, 2022. "Opportunities and Challenges of Purpose-Led Companies: An Empirical Study Through Expert Interviews," Corporate Reputation Review, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 25(3), pages 198-211, August.
    8. Khlif, Wafa & Clarke, Thomas & Karoui, Lotfi & Seny Kan, Konan A. & Ingley, Coral, 2019. "Governing complexity to challenge neoliberalism? Embedded firms and the prospects of understanding new realities," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 601-610.
    9. Jérémy Lévêque & Kevin Levillain & Blanche Segrestin, 2020. "A Model of the Innovative Purpose for Responsible Innovation : Towards Design-Based Governance," Post-Print hal-02489027, HAL.
    10. Serres, Coline & Hudon, Marek & Maon, François, 2022. "Social corporations under the spotlight: A governance perspective," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 37(3).
    11. Michael Carney & Eric Gedajlovic & Sujit Sur, 2011. "Corporate governance and stakeholder conflict," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 15(3), pages 483-507, August.
    12. Dorothee Feils & Manzur Rahman & Florin Şabac, 2018. "Corporate Governance Systems Diversity: A Coasian Perspective on Stakeholder Rights," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(2), pages 451-466, June.
    13. Christian Voegtlin & Andreas Georg Scherer & Günter K Stahl & Olga Hawn, 2022. "Grand Societal Challenges and Responsible Innovation," Post-Print hal-03466563, HAL.
    14. Chakraborty, Atreya & Gao, Lucia Silva & Sheikh, Shahbaz, 2019. "Managerial risk taking incentives, corporate social responsibility and firm risk," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 58-72.
    15. Camélia Radu & Nadia Smaili, 2022. "Alignment Versus Monitoring: An Examination of the Effect of the CSR Committee and CSR-Linked Executive Compensation on CSR Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 145-163, September.
    16. Yanica P. Dimitrova, 2020. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Innovation – the Meaningful Connection," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 4, pages 89-108.
    17. Kyoko Sasaki & Wendy Stubbs & Megan Farrelly, 2023. "The relationship between corporate purpose and the sustainable development goals in large Japanese companies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 2475-2489, September.
    18. Bidhan L. Parmar & Adrian Keevil & Andrew C. Wicks, 2019. "People and Profits: The Impact of Corporate Objectives on Employees’ Need Satisfaction at Work," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 13-33, January.
    19. ATM Adnan & Nisar Ahmed, 2019. "The Transformation Of The Corporate Governance Model: A Literature Review," Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, vol. 8(3), pages 7-47.
    20. Naeem Tabassum & Satwinder Singh, 2020. "Corporate Governance and Organisational Performance," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-030-48527-6, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03689828. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.