Category: Academic Analysis

Source: The Conversation – France – By Bernard Laurent, Professeur, EM Lyon Business School

On May 24, 2015, Pope Francis signed his encyclical Laudato Si’ – “Praise be to you” in medieval Italian. This letter to Roman Catholic bishops was no half measure: it took many Catholics by surprise with its uncompromising conclusions and call for an in-depth transformation of our lifestyles. In France, it managed to bring together both conservative currents – such as the Courant pour une écologie humaine (Movement for a Human Ecology), created in 2013 – and more open-minded Catholic intellectuals such as Gaël Giraud, a Jesuit and author of Produire plus, polluer moins : l’impossible découplage ? (Produce more, Pollute Less: the Impossible Decoupling?).

The Pope was taking a cue from his predecessors. Benedict XVI, John Paul II and Paul VI had also expressed concern about the dramatic effects of an abusive exploitation of nature on humanity:

“Man is suddenly becoming aware that by an ill-considered exploitation of nature he risks destroying it and becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation.”

What does Pope Francis’s encyclical teach us? And how does it reflect the Catholic Church’s vision, and his own?

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

The “green” pope

In the text, Pope Francis describes a situation in which the environment is deteriorating rapidly:

“There is […] pollution that affects everyone, caused by transport, industrial fumes, substances which contribute to the acidification of soil and water, fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and agrotoxins in general.” (§-20)

Laudato Si’ was published by the Vatican on June 18, 2015, a few months prior to the Paris climate conference. For the “green” pope, the aim was to raise public awareness around the challenges of global warming by creating a relational approach that included God, human beings and the Earth. It was the first time an encyclical had been devoted wholly to ecology.

In it, the Pope voiced his concern about the effects of global warming:

“Warming has effects on the carbon cycle. It creates a vicious circle which aggravates the situation even more, affecting the availability of essential resources like drinking water, energy and agricultural production in warmer regions, and leading to the extinction of part of the planet’s biodiversity.” (§-24)

Criticizing a “technocratic paradigm”

Since Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, the various social encyclicals have consistently rejected the liberal idea of a society solely regulated by the smooth functioning of the market. The French sociologist of religion Émile Poulat summed up the Church’s position perfectly in 1977 in his book Église contre bourgeoisie. Introduction au devenir du catholicisme actuel, in which he writes that the Church “never agreed to abandon the running of the world to the blind laws of economics.”

In 2015, Pope Francis rejected technical solutions that would not truly be useful, as well as the belief in the redeeming virtues of a self-regulating market. He accused “the technocratic paradigm” of dominating humankind by subordinating the economic and political spheres to its logic (§-101). His comments are reminiscent of the unjustly forgotten French Protestant philosopher Jacques Ellul and his idea of a limitless “self-propulsion” of technology, which has become the alpha and omega of our societies.

The pope’s charge against the supposed virtues of the market was spectacular. Among others, he criticized the following:

• overconsumption in developed countries:

“Since the market tends to promote extreme consumerism in an effort to sell its products, people can easily get caught up in a whirlwind of needless buying and spending.” (§-203);

• the glorification of profit and a self-regulating market:

“Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems.” (§-109);

• the hypertrophy of speculative finance:

“Politics must not be subject to the economy, nor should the economy be subject to the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of technocracy.” (§-189);

• the unequal distribution of wealth in the world:

“In fact, the deterioration of the environment and of society affects the most vulnerable people on the planet: […] the gravest effects of all attacks on the environment are suffered by the poorest.” (§-48);

• the unequal levels of development between countries, leading Francis to speak of an “ecological debt” owed by rich countries to the least developed ones (§-51).

Social justice and shrinking growth

In Francis’s words, the goals of saving the planet and social justice go hand in hand. His approach is in keeping with the work of the [economist Louis-Joseph Lebret, a Dominican, who in 1941 founded the association Économie et humanisme. Father Lebret wanted to put the economy back at the service of humankind, and work with the least economically advanced countries by championing an approach based on the virtues of local communities and regional planning.

Pope Francis, for his part, is calling for a radical break with the consumerist lifestyles of rich countries, while focusing on the development of the poorest nations (§-93). In Laudato Si’, he also wrote that developed countries’ responses seemed insufficient because of the economic interests at stake (§-54).

This brings us back to the principle of the universal destination of goods – the organizing principle of property defended by the Catholic Church’s social doctrine, which demands that goods be distributed in such a way as to enable every human being to live in dignity.

In addition to encouraging the necessary technical adjustments and sober individual practices, Pope Francis is urging citizens in developed countries not to be content with half measures deemed largely insufficient. Instead, he is calling for people to make lifestyle changes in line with the logic of slowing growth. The aim is to enable developing countries to emerge from poverty, while sparing the environment.

“Given the insatiable and irresponsible growth produced over many decades, we need also to think of containing growth by setting some reasonable limits and even retracing our steps before it is too late. […] That is why the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth.” (§ -193).

Nearly 10 years on, Laudato Si’ resonates fully with our concerns. In the United States, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who both identify as Catholic, would be well advised to read it anew.

Bernard Laurent is a member of the CFTC and of the IRES Scientific Council

– ref. Pope Francis and Laudato Si’: an ecological turning point for the Catholic Church – https://theconversation.com/pope-francis-and-laudato-si-an-ecological-turning-point-for-the-catholic-church-253977

Source: The Conversation – France – By Matteo Winkler, Professeur associé en droit et fiscalité, HEC Paris Business School

Recent months have seen a dramatic shift in US policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). These changes carry deep economic consequences. President Donald Trump’s executive orders aim to ban DEI initiatives in federal agencies and contractors, and private companies have felt pressure to weaken or drop their DEI programmes. Trump has framed what was once a corporate safeguard against discrimination as “illegal and immoral”, marking a stark reversal in legal and business norms. Federal judges have blocked some of Trump’s orders, or elements of them, and some legal processes are ongoing.

Transgender rights have become a lightning rod in this shifting landscape. The barrage of federal directives seeks to challenge – or outright eliminate – protections in areas ranging from health care to education to the military. Beyond the immediate harm to trans individuals, these policies pose threats to multinational companies that have long defended inclusive workplace values. Their leaders must now navigate a cultural minefield where staying silent risks public backlash, while openly supporting trans employees can invite legal and political complications. The business repercussions of this moral issue could affect everything from brand reputation to talent retention.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

The economic imperative of DEI initiatives

There is a growing ensemble of research suggesting that DEI policies are not just nice-to-have but a corporate imperative. This year, the World Economic Forum reported that organizations that include DEI in their core business strategies improve performance, innovation and employee satisfaction. These findings are in line with other studies, which have consistently demonstrated that inclusive workplaces not only attract top talent but perform better financially and have higher returns on assets and net income.

With regard to people identifying as LGBTI+, a 2024 report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development highlighted that inclusive policies enable LGBTI+ individuals to achieve their full employment and productivity potential, benefiting both their well-being and society at large. Moreover, according to Open for Business, a think tank whose mission is making a case for LGBTQ+ inclusion in private and public settings, companies with “larger LGBTQ+ workforce benefit from diverse perspectives but also foster environments where innovation and productivity thrive”. It has also been found that human rights violations against LGBTI+ people diminish economic output at the micro level, suggesting that inclusive societies are more likely to experience robust economic growth.

À lire aussi :
Business schools are facing challenges to their diversity commitments. They must reinforce them to train leaders effectively

Research has also shown that trans-inclusive business practices have long been associated with innovation, employee satisfaction and market competitiveness. Companies that provide gender-neutral bathroom access, introduce the inclusive use of pronouns and support employees’ gender transitions have been proven to foster relational authenticity in the workplace.

Discrimination and exclusion, by contrast, not only harm individuals but also impede economic growth by limiting the available talent pool and reducing overall productivity. In September 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reported that “laws and policies designed to restrict or prevent access or supports for transgender and nonbinary people” endanger LGBTQ+ individuals and their allies, leading to increased fear, lack of safety and a rise in anti-LGBTQ+ violence. More generally, these laws and policies can also deter businesses from investing in regions perceived as discriminatory. Also in September, the Movement Advancement Project identified that the lack of legal protection against discrimination contributes to economic instability for LGBTQ+ families, which can lead to wage gaps, job insecurity and reduced access to benefits, ultimately contributing to reduced consumer spending and lower economic participation.

Language targeting trans rights and visibility

Despite the benefits of DEI initiatives, the current US administration has sought to enact several policies aimed at dismantling them, resulting in organizations, both public and private, to suspend funding for DEI and outreach programmes. In Trump’s executive orders, anything – policy, programme or initiative – related to or benefitting trans people in access to healthcare, academic research, scientific inquiry, school policies, personal safety, participation in sports, and military service is now rejected as “gender ideology extremism”.

Targeting sports, education and the military is functional to an ideological battle aimed at erasing spaces where trans people are most vulnerable. These spaces are also formative arenas in shaping national identity and the public perception of DEI initiatives. When they become politicized, they can also affect how businesses frame their values, manage risks and engage with their different stakeholders.

À lire aussi :
Anti-DEI guidance from Trump administration misinterprets the law and guts educators’ free speech rights

The anti-trans executive orders begin by redefining the term “sex” for interpretations of federal law. According to the text of “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to Federal Government”, a person is either male or female, which is determined by their reproductive cells at conception – a definition in which biology takes precedence over individual rights and legal protections. “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” weaponizes this “biological truth” by threatening to cut off federal funds to schools that allow trans athletes to participate in them. “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” equates being transgender with medical or physical incapacity despite no evidence suggesting that trans service members negatively impact military readiness. “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” seeks to prevent schools from teaching about gender identity, which would strip trans youth of critical support systems. And “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” describes gender-affirming healthcare as “destructive”.

The ripple effects of this anti-trans rhetoric extend into the private sector, compelling businesses to reevaluate their DEI strategies in fear of backlash or scrutiny. Even before the last US presidential election, companies such as Ford, Harley-Davidson and Lowe’s withdrew their participation in the Corporate Equality Index, a national benchmarking tool on corporate policies and practices related to LGBTQ+ workplace equality. In the wake of Trump’s anti-DEI and anti-trans orders, organizers of various Pride events in the US and Canada learned that some corporations, including longtime sponsors, had decided not to fund them. And according to the New York Times, some companies erased language and terms related to DEI from annual reports filed this year, including Dow Chemical, whose reference to LGBTQ+ employee resource groups disappeared from its public documents.

Navigating between inclusive values and anti-DEI pressure

Three patterns seem to be emerging on how companies are navigating the tension between values that are inclusive of LGBTI+ people and the growing pressure to scrub DEI commitments within the US context. For the moment, these patterns do not reflect formalized strategies but adaptive responses to an environment that has grown in complexity in a very short time. Some corporate actions reflect deliberate strategy aimed at protecting global consistency, while others appear more reactive, shaped by local market pressures.

The first pattern involves establishing a sort of internal firewall between US and international operations. Banco Santander provides a clear example of this approach. Thus far, it has maintained global DEI commitments such as tying executive bonuses to increased gender equality in leadership. This group stated that such targets would not be applied to countries where governmental policies target DEI. In this pattern, DEI programmes are maintained abroad but are dismantled in the US to minimize political exposure in the latter.

The second approach, observed at accounting firm Deloitte, is a cultural split between US operations and those overseas: while entities under the same global brand may still share data, practices, or strategic frameworks internally, they now adopt publicly distinct positions on DEI. Deloitte UK has remained vocal on its DEI commitments, highlighting the cultural and political fault lines that multinationals must now navigate.

The third approach is a retraction of DEI altogether. Target offers a striking example. In 2023, under increased political and consumer pressure, the company rolled back some of its LGBTQ+ inclusion efforts by reducing the number of Pride-related items for sale. In 2025, four days after Trump’s inauguration, Target announced it would “end its three-year DEI goals”, cease reporting to the Corporate Equality Index and “end a program focused on carrying more products from Black- or minority-owned businesses”, as reported by CNBC. The moves resulted in considerable public criticism, and more notably, coincided with a marked drop in foot traffic – “nearly 5 million fewer visits” over a four-week period – revealing reputational and financial risks associated with the abandoning of DEI policies. By contrast, bulk retailer Costco, which said three days after the inauguration that its shareholders voted against a proposal seen as unfriendly to the company’s DEI programmes, “saw nearly 7.7 million more visits” during that same stretch.

À lire aussi :
A boycott campaign fuels tension between Black shoppers and Black-owned brands – evoking the long struggle for ‘consumer citizenship’

In light of the evidence, it is clear that undermining DEI initiatives poses substantial risks – not just to human dignity, but to economic competitiveness. Businesses and policymakers must recognize that DEI is not merely a social or ethical imperative but a core strategy for growth and innovation. By fostering environments where all individuals can thrive, we unlock the full potential of our workforce and ensure sustainable economic growth.

Conversely, discriminatory policies contribute to social instability, brain drain and economic stagnation. In the United States, the rollback of DEI initiatives and the marginalization of transgender individuals threaten to erode the nation’s ability to uphold human rights and maintain business competitiveness. History demonstrates that exclusionary policies ultimately harm societies rather than strengthen them. The question remains whether the US can afford to sacrifice social stability and economic growth in pursuit of ideological battles. The evidence suggests that it cannot.

Matteo Winkler is a member of the Open for Business Academic Committee. He has received funding from the HEC Foundation.

Marcelle Laliberté is a member of Women in Aerospace Europe and HEC We&Men, and a contributor to the UN`s High Advisory Board on Governing AI for Humanity.

– ref. Threatening diversity, threatening growth: the business effects of Trump’s anti-DEI and anti-trans agendas – https://theconversation.com/threatening-diversity-threatening-growth-the-business-effects-of-trumps-anti-dei-and-anti-trans-agendas-255040

Source: The Conversation – France – By Maxime Massey, Docteur en Sciences de Gestion & Innovation – Chercheur affilié à la Chaire Improbable, ESCP Business School

The 2024 arrest and subsequent release of activist Paul Watson, the founder of the NGO Sea Shepherd that fights to protect ocean biodiversity, highlighted a division between two opposing camps. There are those who want to stay true to the NGO’s DNA by continuing to practice strong activism against poaching states, and those who believe there is too much at stake in remaining confrontational and advocate instead for more measured actions to institutionalize the NGO. This opposition reflects the dilemma faced by many “pirate organizations,” a concept introduced by scholars Rudolph Durand and Jean-Philippe Vergne.

What are pirate organizations?

Pirate organizations are defined by three key characteristics.

• They develop innovative activities by exploiting legal loopholes;

• they defend a “public cause” to support neglected communities, who in turn support them;

• by introducing innovations that address specific social needs, they disrupt monopolies and contribute to transforming economic and social systems.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

However, to do these things effectively, pirate organizations must become legitimate. An organization is considered legitimate when its various audiences (customers, media, the state, etc.) perceive its actions as desirable according to prevailing values, norms and laws. Legitimacy is built through a process known as legitimation. For pirate organizations, this is particularly challenging, as they are often viewed as both illegal and illegitimate by the state and established industry players. These actors apply pressure to hinder legitimation. So how do pirate organizations build their legitimacy? We examined this question through the emblematic case of Heetch.

A case study of a pirate organization

Heetch is a French urban transport start-up launched in 2013 when its founders observed that “young people in Paris and its suburbs struggle to travel at night due to a lack of suitable options.” They decided to create a ride-hailing platform connecting private drivers with passengers.

This business model, based on the principles of the “sharing economy,” encroached on the monopoly of taxis and the regulated sector of professional chauffeur-driven vehicles (VTCs). Despite challenges, Heetch gradually built its legitimacy through three distinct phases, responding to pressures in different ways.

Stage 1: ‘clandestine pragmatism’ (2013-2015)

When Heetch launched in 2013, a conflict was brewing in the urban transport sector. On one side, there were new applications for VTC services (such as Uber) and for private driver platforms (such as UberPop and Heetch); on the other, there were traditional taxis and their booking departments (such as G7). The latter, along with government authorities, began exerting pressure to shut down the apps, with Uber receiving most of the media attention.

During this phase, Heetch adopted a strategy of “clandestine pragmatism.” The start-up avoided direct confrontations and stayed “under the radar” of the media. This approach is similar to “bootlegging” – concealing an innovative activity during its early stages. Heetch built a pragmatic legitimacy among its immediate audience using informal techniques such as word-of-mouth. However, its legitimacy remained limited, because it operated outside media scrutiny and without state approval.

Stage 2: ‘subversive activism’ (2015-2017)

In June 2015, taxi drivers organized massive protests against the “unfair competition” posed by new ride-hailing apps. The Paris police issued a ban on UberPop-like applications, including Heetch’s.

While Uber shut down UberPop, Heetch exploited a legal loophole – its name was not explicitly mentioned in the ban – and continued operations. In response, the state cracked down on Heetch: around 100 drivers were placed in police custody and the founders were summoned to court, facing charges of “illegal facilitation of contact” with drivers, “complicity in unlawful taxi operations” and “misleading commercial practices.”

Heetch reacted by engaging in “subversive activism.” The founders spoke out in the media to defend their service, emphasizing its public utility, particularly for young suburban residents needing nighttime mobility. The start-up generated buzz by releasing a satirical video featuring altered images of political figures in their youth. Heetch leveraged its pragmatic legitimacy, already established within its community, to gain media legitimacy among a broader audience of people, including journalists and policymakers. The organization gained public recognition, but also faced increasing legal battles.

Stage 3: ‘tempered radicalism’ (2017-present)

In March 2017, a court ruled against Heetch, deeming its operations illegal. Heetch temporarily suspended its service but relaunched two weeks later with a new business model employing professional drivers. Two months later, Heetch attempted to reintroduce private drivers, but, after facing additional legal action, it abandoned this approach after six months to focus exclusively on legal transportation services.

During this phase, Heetch practised “tempered radicalism.” The company integrated into the system while continuing its “fight” in a more moderate manner, avoiding direct confrontation with the state and industry players. It adopted three key strategies:

• compliance – respecting the law;

• compromise – balancing its transportation service with its public mission;

• manipulation – lobbying to influence regulations.

Through this approach, Heetch secured regulatory legitimacy while strengthening its existing pragmatic and media legitimacy. The company was recognized by the French government and included in the French Tech 120 and Next 40 programmes for the country’s most promising start-ups. It also became the first ride-hailing platform to attain “mission-driven company” status.

Is ‘piracy’ a growth accelerator?

Ultimately, our study highlights the value of piracy as a strategy for kickstarting the growth of an organization that serves a public cause. By embracing this approach, a pirate organization can drive systemic change to address social or environmental challenges.

That said, piracy carries an inherent risk: at some point, it will likely face a legitimacy crisis triggered by resistance from monopolies or public authorities. The recent struggles of Paul Watson serve as testament. As he aptly puts it: “You can’t change the world without making waves.”

Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.

– ref. ‘Piracy’ to legitimacy: how companies like French ride-hailing platform Heetch can make their mark – https://theconversation.com/piracy-to-legitimacy-how-companies-like-french-ride-hailing-platform-heetch-can-make-their-mark-253079

Source: The Conversation – France – By Audrey Rouyre, Enseignante-chercheuse en Management Stratégique, Montpellier Business School, Montpellier Business School

Although air transport contributes a small proportion to global greenhouse gas emissions (approximately 3.5%), the expected growth in traffic compels the industry to minimize its environmental footprint. The European Commission aims to have carbon neutrality in 2050. To help reach this goal, the industry needs to change its practices.

However, making a greener aircraft is no small feat. No single company possesses all the required resources and expertise. There is a need to bring minds together to accomplish this task. Aircraft manufacturing competitors are best positioned to accomplish it.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

Coopetition: a paradoxical relationship that can work

Cooperating with competitors is commonly referred to as coopetition. The concept is well recognized in strategic management and has been extensively studied since its popularization in the early 2000s by Swedish researchers Maria Bengtsson and Soren Kock.

Coopetition can bring greater benefits than pure cooperation or competition. Competitors hold complementary and compatible resources that facilitate knowledge sharing and cooperation. However, cooperating with rivals is not a natural instinct. In fact, it introduces greater risks, because firms that are fierce market competitors could be tempted to behave opportunistically. While cooperating to create a common pie, they are also competing for the biggest share of it.

Benefits and risks

While coopetition can yield greater benefits, such as faster innovation, than strategies focused solely on competition, it also introduces greater risks, especially when multiple competitors are involved. By increasing the number of competitors, firms may have access to more resources. However, there is also a higher risk of the pursuit of self-interest, with guile. With more companies involved, competitors may be tempted and find it easier to conceal attempts to acquire more than an agreed share of knowledge and resources.

So, what is the secret to successful collaboration with rivals? That is what we are trying to find out. Our study focuses on how companies can successfully manage multilateral coopetition on a large scale by examining the case of CleanAviation, an initiative consisting of eleven competitors including industry players like Airbus, Safran and Dassault, as well as the European Commission. Our study involved 34 semi-structured interviews with project managers and directors and a review of archival documents to understand how the competitors managed their cooperation.

CleanAviation: a case of multilateral coopetition

Since 2008, CleanAviation (originally CleanSky) has been at the forefront of developing innovations aimed at reducing environmental impacts. Its players are brought together in a governing board, which includes representatives of the founding members. They make decisions on the strategic management of CleanAviation by, for example, deciding on technological development priorities and how to achieve them.

The collaboration among the 11 manufacturers in the initiative allows for access to a broad array of resources, enhancing innovation. With over 100 key technologies and 30 prototypes developed, CleanAviation has made significant contributions to creating environmentally friendly European aircraft. One example is Airbus and Saab’s effort to develop the Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft, an advanced plane with wings that are designed to adapt to varying flight conditions, thus optimizing performance. The effort aims at reducing fuel consumption and emissions in future aircraft.

However, in our study, these companies reported difficulties in knowledge sharing that at times slowed the technology development process and created tensions. For example, while collaboration through knowledge sharing was necessary to ensure technological compatibility, due to uncertainty about how to collaborate safely, companies restricted their interactions and limited knowledge sharing by protecting important information.

Managing multilateral coopetition

Our analysis suggests that balancing these benefits and risks requires specific management approaches. We identified two critical levels: the governing board level and the operational level.

CleanAviation’s governing board strategizes about the management of the intiative. It drafted a joint technology roadmap to outline necessary technological advancements and implementation strategies. At this level, shared governance between the European Commission and the competitors, managed through rotating leadership, helps prevent power concentration and reduces tensions. Decisions within the board are made by consensus.

On the operational level, managing coopetition involves separating activities to compartmentalize daily knowledge sharing, ensuring each party’s contributions and benefits are protected. In our study, we found that even though the separation of activities was essential, connection and interaction through knowledge sharing was also needed. To help this effort, individuals called liaisons officers acted at the interfaces to push competing companies to cooperate. They helped manage the coopetitive paradox by acting as knowledge arbitrators between competitors when discrepancies occur.

Finally, our results also confirm the indispensability of implementing both contractual and relational governance mechanisms to deal with coopetition. Contractual governance refers to the use of contracts, documents and other reporting or knowledge-sharing guidelines; relational governance refers to social interaction among companies through the liaisons officers.

Large-scale projects with several competitors can help fight climate change

Thanks to these management approaches, the manufacturers have reported several successful green innovations. For example, the Open Rotor programme, created by Safran in partnership with Airbus and other companies, has developed a new aircraft engine that reduces fuel consumption and CO₂ emissions by 20%, representing a significant cost reduction and environmental benefit.

As cooperation among competitors becomes more common, especially in tackling significant challenges like climate change, managing it will be crucial. The results of our study can apply to settings beyond the aircraft industry. The Covid-19 crisis has highlighted the need for firms to adopt more environmentally sustainable business practices, but achieving sustainability is a complex challenge that no company can tackle alone. That’s why companies need to join forces to find collective solutions.

The European Academy of Management (EURAM) is a learned society founded in 2001. With over 2,000 members from 60 countries in Europe and beyond, EURAM aims at advancing the academic discipline of management in Europe.

Audrey Rouyre est membre de la Chaire Pégase.

Anne-Sophie Fernandez et Olga Bruyaka ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur poste universitaire.

– ref. Is air travel about to get greener? Our study shows how ‘coopetition’ is helping aircraft companies tackle sustainability – https://theconversation.com/is-air-travel-about-to-get-greener-our-study-shows-how-coopetition-is-helping-aircraft-companies-tackle-sustainability-256632

Source: The Conversation – France – By Justine Loizeau, Postdoctoral research fellow in sustainability and organization, Aalto University

Half of the world’s forests were destroyed during the 20th century, with three regions mainly affected: South America, West Africa and Southeast Asia. The situation has worsened to the point that, in 2023, the European Parliament voted to ban the import of chocolate, coffee, palm oil and rubber linked to deforestation.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

A long-standing dependence on raw materials

These products are at the heart of our economies and consumption habits. The case of rubber is particularly emblematic. Without this material, there would be no tyres and, thus, no cars, bicycles, sealing joints or submarine communication cables. Industrial rubber production depends on extracting latex, a natural substance that rubber trees such as hevea produce. Under pressure from corporations and states, Brussels last October announced a one-year postponement of its law regulating rubber imports.

This dependence on the rubber industry is not new. Rubber was central to the second industrial revolution, especially with the rise of automobiles and new management methods. While this history often centres on factories, citing contributions from figures such as Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford and industrial giants like Michelin, its colonial roots are less well known.

Indeed, rubber – like the other resources mentioned above – has been and continues to be primarily produced in former colonial territories. In many cases, rubber trees are not native to the regions where they have been cultivated. Rubber seeds from South America, where latex was already extracted by picking, were transported by colonists to empires for the development of plantations. In particular, the French colonial empire, spanning Africa and Southeast Asia, saw a significant expansion of hevea plantations at the expense of primary forests. Monocultures of rubber trees replaced thousands of hectares.

Ford in the Amazon, Michelin in present-day Vietnam

This management model was favoured because it allowed for lower extraction costs from the coloniser’s perspective. For example, in 1928, Henry Ford negotiated an agreement with the Brazilian government granting him a 10,000 km² concession of forest land to establish Fordlandia, a settlement designed to produce the rubber needed for his factories. However, this industrial utopia in the Amazon failed due to resistance from Indigenous people and a fungal disease that ruined the plantations.

Following the same model, Michelin invested in plantations in present-day Vietnam as early as 1917. The plantation model and new management methods reduced the cost of rubber production and accelerated its global distribution. These management practices spread across the British, Dutch and French empires, becoming dominant in Southeast Asia in the early 20th century at the expense of primary forests.

À lire aussi :
Allowing forests to regrow and regenerate is a great way to restore habitat

The ‘Taylorization’ of work and nature

Rubber plantations resulted from applying Taylorism not only to workers – especially colonised workers – but also to nature. Both people and trees were subjected to a so-called “scientific” organisation of labour. In our article, L’arbre qui gâche la forêt The Tree That Spoils the Forest, published in the Revue française de gestion (French Journal of Management) in 2024, we analysed historical archives, including a variety of newspapers from 1900 to 1950, covering national, local, colonial and thematic (scientific, cultural, etc.) perspectives. We show that this organisational model is based on an accounting undervaluation of indigenous people’s labour and of nature. This undervaluation is embodied in the metric of the cost price (i.e. the total cost of production and distribution) and in the shared concern to see it lowered. “Ultimately, it’s the cost price that must determine the fate of rubber,” stated the newspaper L’Information financière, économique et politique on February 1, 1914.

In the eyes of some, Asians who were labelled as “coolies” and Brazilian “seringueiros” comprised a low-cost labour pool, with no mention of their working conditions and despite very high mortality rates. “Coolie” is a derogatory colonial term that refers to agricultural labourers of Asian heritage, while “seringueiros” refers to workers in South American rubber plantations.

“By the way, in the Far East, there are reservoirs of labour (Java Island, English Indies), which supply plantations with workers who, while not the most robust, provide regular work at a very advantageous cost price.” (L’Information financière, économique et politique, November 11, 1922)

Concerning trees, only the plantation costs were considered, silencing the human and ecological costs of primary forest destruction.

“In the first year, some 237 francs will have to be spent on the clearing itself; then the planting, with staking […] and weeding, will represent an expense of 356 francs. […] For the following years, all that remains to be done is to consider the maintenance costs, cleaning, pruning, care, supply of stakes, replacement, etc. This will result in an expenditure of 1,250 francs for the first five years.” (L’Information financière, économique et politique, January 31, 1912)

The ‘Cheapization’ of life

The focus on cost price leads to standardisation of management practices by aligning with what is cheapest, at the expense of ever more intense exploitation of human and non-human workers. In other words, these assumptions about the construction of accounting metrics and the circulation of these metrics play a role in the “cheapization” of human and non-human labour. We borrow the concept of “cheapization” from the environmental historian Jason W. Moore. In his view, the development of capitalism is marked by a “cheapization of Nature”, which includes, within the circuits of capitalist production and consumption, humans and non-humans whose work does not initially have a market value. Living beings are thus transformed into a commodity or factor of production: “animals, soils, forests and all kinds of extra-human nature” are being put to work.

À lire aussi :
What actually makes avocados bad for the environment?

Why does this colonial past matter?

These ways of managing people and nature continue to this day. Many industries still rely on the extraction of natural resources at low cost and in large quantities in the countries of the global south. Rubber is not the only resource whose exploitation dates to the Industrial Revolution: palm oil, sugar, coffee and cocoa have also had, and still have, an impact on the forests of the global south and are based on the work of local people. The exploitation of these resources is also often the fruit of colonial history. In 1911, the Frenchman Henri Fauconnier brought the first palm oil seeds, a plant originally from Africa, to Malaysia. More than a century later, the country remains a leading palm oil producer, a resource largely responsible for the deforestation of primary forests.

Beyond the case of rubber alone, we question the link between the pursuit of profit in formerly colonised territories, the destruction of the environment and the exploitation of local populations on two levels. Not only are primary forests destroyed to feed short-term profits, but habituation to this mode of environmental management is a historical construct. We must remember this when looking at news from countries with colonial pasts. Whether we’re talking about preserving the Amazon rainforest, poisoning soil and human bodies with chlordecone in the Antilles, or building a pipeline in Uganda, we need to take a step back. What are the historical responsibilities? What are the links between creating economic activities here and exploiting ecosystems and local populations there? What role do management theories and tools play in realising or reproducing these exploitative situations?

At a time when the ecological and social emergency is constantly invoked to call for the transformation of management practices and business models, the rubber example invites us to consider the colonial matrix of managerial practices and the Western historical responsibilities that led to this same emergency. And suppose we have to turn to other forms of management tomorrow: who may legitimately decide how to bring about this change? Are former colonisers best placed to define the way forward? Knowledge of colonial history should encourage us to recognise the value of the knowledge and practices of those who were and remain the first to be affected.

The COCOLE project is supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR), which funds project-based research in France. The ANR’s mission is to support and promote the development of fundamental and applied research in all disciplines, and to strengthen dialogue between science and society. To find out more, visit the ANR website.

Antoine Fabre has received funding from the French National Research Agency
via the programme “Counting in a colonial situation. French Africa (1830-1962)” (ANR-21-CE41-0012, 2021-2026).

Pierre Labardin is a professor at La Rochelle University. He has received funding from the French National Research Agency via the programme “Counting in a colonial situation. French Africa (1830-1962)” (ANR-21-CE41-0012, 2021-2026).

Clément Boyer et Justine Loizeau ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur poste universitaire.

– ref. How ongoing deforestation is rooted in colonialism and its management practices – https://theconversation.com/how-ongoing-deforestation-is-rooted-in-colonialism-and-its-management-practices-257578